My Take On Freezonery

[Escalus]

I've tried to come to some honest understanding of the Freezone and asked what I felt were relevant questions without evaluating for myself until all the answers were in, or were as in as they are ever going to be.

As of this moment in time I'm convinced freezoners are well-intentioned people, the bulk of whom are perfectly aware of, and are in serious contention against, the abuses of the criminal organization currently masquerading as a "church". For that understanding and position I tip my hat. It needs to be recognized.

I am also unequivocally opposed to their practices if only for the reason that the structure of the modality is badly flawed and terribly open-ended. Because of that, even though I feel they have a right to carry on with consent between participants in whatever direction they choose to take off toward, I can't help but think that they need a great big warning label somewhere.

Hear me out...

Nobody in the conversation seemed to have any problem with this conclusion about the engram...


An engram is a hypothetical storage of things that cause irrational behavior, though what mechanism places these things into functionality is not known outside of a Dianetic point of reference. When things remind you of things stored in these hypothetical units you may or may not act irrationally.

A hypothetical that can't be explained outside of the use of a Dianetic construct... is not a good enough explanation without the freezone having someone certain that they are engaged in a hypothetical model of something. Auditing between people who understand this is not an issue. But if the freezone engages public without letting them know this I really think they should be shut down as misrepresenting what is happening here.

I'm not a person who is overly fond of regulation myself. I'm as Old Right as you can get on this board, I believe. But there are correct uses and applications for regulation in situations like this, especially since there are cases noted by all concerned that have seemed to led to adverse reactions in subjects throughout the history of this "technology."

But it doesn't stop there.

If the term "Clear" is something that references a state that implies continual release from the bad effects of engrams then you are attempting to achieve a theoretical state of being based on addressing a hypothetical entity.

I'm sorry, but that's patently ridiculous. Again - people who understand what this is about and accept it should be able to go about their business and that's that. But for the not fully aware this can be both confusing and dangerous. This is why, in a way, there's a label that must be placed on an e-meter. It is neither standard science or reviewable in any laboratory, and becomes suspect if only because the explanations of it can become so circular and esoteric.

When applying methods to people's psyche - whether they work or not - it would help to know what we're trying for. As faulty as psychoanalysis can be sometimes we at least have a methodology that can explain itself. Right or wrong not being the issue implied.

And because...

Not one person or one piece of the FZ is the same as any other person or piece. Interaction with each person or piece will give you a different result there is nothing to pin down anyway, when all is said and done. Each person can, basically, decide for themselves what actually works for them or not. So there isn't any "there" there in the first place. It's the ultimate extension of the epistemological backflip "what's true is what's true for you".

And the issue of "whole track" and/or space opera or whatever anyone wants to call it, is something that seems even more nebulous and unfathomable.

I've seen people who identify themselves, for convenience, as freezoners (generically) disagree over a myriad number of things. The history seems to be one of fracture and division followed by further fracture and division. Someone even suggested that there isn't "disconnection" in freezonery so much as there is a kind of "my way or the highway." And, actually, as a citizen and consumer in the marketplace, that gives me a kind of security. Because as long as that's the traits exhibited by this movement there's not much about them to worry about.

So please refer all and any of my future comments re: freezone to the basic understanding of it as explained here.

If nothing else this endeavor has made me realize that there's no need to get worked up over the freezone at all. You really are addressing something you can't explain with methods you're not totally sure of. And I say harmless so long as you let the unaware know that it's a model, not a certainty.

[Cat's Squirrel]

As I see it (and I'm not speaking for myself here as I don't think I am Clear), all the state means is that the person is able to confront the contents of his or her mind. That is, they've blown enough charge in session and confronted enough incidents to feel confident that whatever comes up, in life or in session, they won't need to run away from it and therefore won't get into a games condition with their mind.

It's an important state that forms a good foundation for whatever one does after that, in life or in the world of therapy and spiritual exploration.

[Escalus]

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn123/blaganon/quack.jpg
FREEZONE

something undefined is happening for reasons we can't be sure of

You Can Trust Us!

[Oneflewover]

Hey Escalus?

Has it ever dawned on you how much attention YOU still have stuck on Scientology?

Why can't you just walk away and "have a life" like you seem to think others should be able to do?

Why do you so arrogantly feel others need answer the question YOU have, and if the slough it off as not relevent to THEM, then they are avoiding YOUR issues.

Get a life, man.

Everybody has their own exit strategy. Some take longer than others. Your insistence that everyone needs to take the exit path YOU have assigned them, is really no different than the CoS insistence that everyone must follow THEIR bridge to total whatever. Both obscenely presumptuous, in my NSHO.

You need auditing man. I can recommend a good Freezoner in your area.

[Zinjifar]

Some people are trying to 'recover' from Scientology.
Some people are trying to *STOP* the Scientology Movement

Oppose it; disband it; 'destroy' it; refute its claims and tenets.

Some do both.

Zinj

[Oneflewover]

Some people are trying to 'recover' from Scientology.
Some people are trying to *STOP* the Scientology Movement

Oppose it; disband it; 'destroy' it; refute its claims and tenets.

Some do both.

Zinj

Yes. Do you have any opinions as to where a strong urge to "stop" something comes from?

I don't think it just spontaneously springs up out of nothing. Maybe it's the reaction to an engram? A reaction to some personal emotional injury?

If it just came out of some benevolent wish to help others avoid getting into some situation which could cause injury to them, then I can think of lots of things it would make much more sense to become an activist against.

So the reason for selecting SCN as a target tells me it's personal.

(Not referring to your input here, Zinj. I think you're hilarious)

[Escalus]

Hey Escalus?

Has it ever dawned on you how much attention YOU still have stuck on Scientology?

Why can't you just walk away and "have a life" like you seem to think others should be able to do?

Why do you so arrogantly feel others need answer the question YOU have, and if the slough it off as not relevent to THEM, then they are avoiding YOUR issues.

Get a life, man.

Everybody has their own exit strategy. Some take longer than others. Your insistence that everyone needs to take the exit path YOU have assigned them, is really no different than the CoS insistence that everyone must follow THEIR bridge to total whatever. Both obscenely presumptuous, in my NSHO.

You need auditing man. I can recommend a good Freezoner in your area.

Hey Oneflewover?

Has it ever dawned on you that every last thing that happens in life isn't related to Scientology?

I've walked away from Scientology a long time ago. Seems to me the only people "stuck" on it are the ones who can't admit it's completely fucked up. Ever ask yourself why people are hanging on to it like it's gold? Ever ask yourself why some folks get all their buttons pushed so easily on it? How much "flunking" goes on around here by folks who get bullbaited on their little treasure and can't let it go?

Why do freezoners so arrogantly feel that just because someone questions their fantasies they either have no foundation in spirituality, are still in need of auditing because there's something wrong with THEM, and don't feel they have to answer any questions about their unsubstantiated and overblown "science of the mind".

You need a pike up your ass to wake you up, man. I don't have anywhere to send you, so I'll be happy to oblige.

[Escalus]

Some people are trying to 'recover' from Scientology.
Some people are trying to *STOP* the Scientology Movement

Oppose it; disband it; 'destroy' it; refute its claims and tenets.

Some do both.

Zinj

Some people are "led" to save newly minted escapees with the idea that they can still have their scientology and that that's a good thing for them.

Other people are "led" to inform newly minted escapees with the idea that they can get free of it all and that the freezone is just another color of the same bullshit.

In the minds of the freezoners anyone who opposes them has a problem that runs deeper than just rational opposition. There's something wrong with "them" for not seeing the benefits of their stuff.

In my mind folks coming out need to know there is still controversy over the beliefs and they should look at a lot of things. To a freezoner that means I am still at effect of my abberations.

No difference from the cult's answer at all.

[Good twin]

Some people are trying to 'recover' from Scientology.
Some people are trying to *STOP* the Scientology Movement

Oppose it; disband it; 'destroy' it; refute its claims and tenets.

Some do both.

Zinj

And some of us just like to occasionally hang out with people who know we aren't "making it all up". :yes:

[Oneflewover]

Hey Oneflewover?


I've walked away from Scientology a long time ago.



What's that smell. (sniff sniff). Oh. I know what that is. It's bullshit.

Walked away my ass. How many hours per day do you spend plotting Scientology's demise?

How does your spiritless monkey brain define walked away? :D

[Escalus]

What's that smell. (sniff sniff). Oh. I know what that is. It's bullshit.

Walked away my ass. How many hours per day do you spend plotting Scientology's demise?

How does your spiritless monkey brain define walked away? :D

How come questions about it work you up so much? Ever address the reasonable points made in the OP? Or did I hit some buttons? I know how the game works. What things did you do to people while you were in we almost found out about?

[Oneflewover]

How come questions about it work you up so much? Ever address the reasonable points made in the OP? Or did I hit some buttons? I know how the game works. What things did you do to people while you were in we almost found out about?


Worked up? Na. I'm chuckling away here. :yes:

Enjoying watching you assign to others, what is yours to address. Like the MWH's you are dramatizing.

[Escalus]

Worked up? Na. I'm chuckling away here. :yes:

Enjoying watching you assign to others, what is yours to address. Like the MWH's you are dramatizing.

I myself am having a lot of fun sitting here watching you try to pull off a pretty pathetic handling on a critic, myself. Your 8C is way out of practice. Attack tech still fully in place inside the bot though, eh? :yes:

[Veda]

The Free Zone marching song:

http://galac-patra.narod.ru/index.html

Oneflewover's PR hat fell off when he was struggling frantically to get his knee high silver boots on.

Oops.

[Escalus]

To anyone recently "out" trying to decide whether or not the freezone is for you... dig;

We're looking at exactly how a scientologist "deals" with debate and criticism. The questions I have about freezonery now only exist because I have problems. I question because there are issues I need to deal with. I have "withholds" that have been missed. There are the effects of "engrams" pushing on and forming my behavior.

Oneflewover, for whatever reason, lost his head and went right for the old line "handling" of someone who dares to ask questions. Yet "I" am the one who is arrogant, and "I" am the one who has deeper problems.

The truth of the matter, as you can well see for yourself without further help from anyone, is that the reason this tactic is used is to disengage from the real points at hand. This is meant to distract you from the argument. It is done to make this thread useless to rational discourse. The fact that Oneflewover is sort of thrashing about now looking for ways to get me to explode or forget the point notwithstanding; it should now be obvious that there is no real difference between the freezone and the church itself.

The mindset is fixed, the tactics are the same.

I hope, if you have gotten this far through the shell game that attempted to derail this effort, you see now once and for all - with your own eyes - what I have been talking about.

Please consider getting out of the mind trap 100% when you leave. There's more to life than trying to justify your past mistakes.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

To anyone recently "out" trying to decide whether or not the freezone is for you... dig;

We're looking at exactly how a scientologist "deals" with debate and criticism. The questions I have about freezonery now only exist because I have problems. I question because there are issues I need to deal with. I have "withholds" that have been missed. There are the effects of "engrams" pushing on and forming my behavior.

Oneflewover, for whatever reason, lost his head and went right for the old line "handling" of someone who dares to ask questions. Yet "I" am the one who is arrogant, and "I" am the one who has deeper problems.

The truth of the matter, as you can well see for yourself without further help from anyone, is that the reason this tactic is used is to disengage from the real points at hand. This is meant to distract you from the argument. It is done to make this thread useless to rational discourse. The fact that Oneflewover is sort of thrashing about now looking for ways to get me to explode or forget the point notwithstanding; it should now be obvious that there is no real difference between the freezone and the church itself.

The mindset is fixed, the tactics are the same.

I hope, if you have gotten this far through the shell game that attempted to derail this effort, you see now once and for all - with your own eyes - what I have been talking about.

Please consider getting out of the mind trap 100% when you leave. There's more to life than trying to justify your past mistakes.

I am the Anabaptist Jacques...and I approve this message.:thumbsup:

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Zinjifar]

Yes. Do you have any opinions as to where a strong urge to "stop" something comes from?


The development of a 'social conscience' helps. No 'engrams' required.

And, no, I think that 'you become what you oppose' is also rubbish :)

Zinj

[Boldgirl]

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn123/blaganon/quack.jpg
FREEZONE

something undefined is happening for reasons we can't be sure of

You Can Trust Us!

YOU QUACK ME UP ESCALUS.

And, on a more serious note, you articulated what I just couldn't and I love your post.

I guess the part I still haven't let go of and may never-is thinking that FZ should be auditing anyone as unlicensed unregulated uneducated (in the field of the mind) people.

And, based on my own experience, I do feel auditing was dangerous and damaging to me...even still I could cry when i think about my auditing experiences...lots of it BTW.

BUT since no one can stop them right now, why fuss too much. I just don't want anyone else to get hurt like I did, and the beghe's of the world.

Thanks for your awesome mix of humor,intelligence, experience, and straight talk--you are a bright light on the board for me all the time so I just luv ya.

[Boldgirl]

Hey Escalus?

Has it ever dawned on you how much attention YOU still have stuck on Scientology?

Why can't you just walk away and "have a life" like you seem to think others should be able to do?

Why do you so arrogantly feel others need answer the question YOU have, and if the slough it off as not relevent to THEM, then they are avoiding YOUR issues.

Get a life, man.

Everybody has their own exit strategy. Some take longer than others. Your insistence that everyone needs to take the exit path YOU have assigned them, is really no different than the CoS insistence that everyone must follow THEIR bridge to total whatever. Both obscenely presumptuous, in my NSHO.

You need auditing man. I can recommend a good Freezoner in your area.


You are the one still stuck ....if you are a supporter of the FZ. That is the most obvious point of all. Quack.

[Boldgirl]

Yes. Do you have any opinions as to where a strong urge to "stop" something comes from?

I don't think it just spontaneously springs up out of nothing. Maybe it's the reaction to an engram? A reaction to some personal emotional injury?

If it just came out of some benevolent wish to help others avoid getting into some situation which could cause injury to them, then I can think of lots of things it would make much more sense to become an activist against.

So the reason for selecting SCN as a target tells me it's personal.

(Not referring to your input here, Zinj. I think you're hilarious)


Still using scientology to explain things, eh?

Never fear, underdog is here .

[Boldgirl]

In the minds of the freezoners anyone who opposes them has a problem that runs deeper than just rational opposition. There's something wrong with "them" for not seeing the benefits of their stuff.

In my mind folks coming out need to know there is still controversy over the beliefs and they should look at a lot of things. To a freezoner that means I am still at effect of my abberations.

No difference from the cult's answer at all.

Exactly....

freezoner = scientologist....and they will deny it till they drop.

when will that be exactly?

[Pixie]

Exactly....

freezoner = scientologist....and they will deny it till they drop.



I agree, I've said this all along, how can this possibly be denied? :confused2: The freezerzone IS scientology, they use all the 'tech'.. blah blah blah.. there is no separation between them, they are the SAME THING! :duh:

[Cat's Squirrel]

I agree, I've said this all along, how can this possibly be denied? :confused2: The freezerzone IS scientology, they use all the 'tech'.. blah blah blah.. there is no separation between them, they are the SAME THING! :duh:

Obviously there's common ground, but that doesn't mean that the freezone is the same as the CofS where the Tech is concerned. Not at all. Freezoners are free to experiment with the Tech, to try to improve some things and chuck out others when and where they feel it's appropriate; the CofS isn't (at least not without express permission from Miscavige and co.)

Case in point; Ralph Hilton's getting his Comm Course students to hold the corners of the room they were sitting in when practicing their TRs. I've been told by a Churchie I communicated this to that it's squirrel tech and wouldn't be permitted in the CofS, yet Ralph claims to get good results doing it and he's probably right.

[Boldgirl]

Freezoners are free to experiment with the Tech, to try to improve some things and chuck out others when and where they feel it's appropriate;



(CS)"Freezoners are free to experiment with the tech..."

= Freezoners are free to experiment in unsuspecting minds, see who goes nuts, who gets depressed, how long the temprary gains really are, and how much false data a person can really handle.

(CS)"...to try to improve some things and chuck out others when and where they feel it's appropriate."

= Freezoners, formerly trained in economics , landscaping, or any other non traditional mind training....can improve the mind control process like with more repetition simultaneously with disney videos to maximize the 'wow' factor of the session.....or whatever else they can think of based on theor extensive training.

I agree.

[Voltaire's Child]

I think that we all have our personal creed, ideology, etc, whether that be materialism, Scn, or what have you. That's just how it is and it's not something people should freak out about. History is full of examples of people who did worry about the beliefs of others and, in each case, what happened from there wasn't pretty.

[Voltaire's Child]

(CS)"Freezoners are free to experiment with the tech..."

= Freezoners are free to experiment in unsuspecting minds, see who goes nuts, who gets depressed, how long the temprary gains really are, and how much false data a person can really handle.

(CS)"...to try to improve some things and chuck out others when and where they feel it's appropriate."

= Freezoners, formerly trained in economics , landscaping, or any other non traditional mind training....can improve the mind control process like with more repetition simultaneously with disney videos to maximize the 'wow' factor of the session.....or whatever else they can think of based on theor extensive training.

I agree.

Fortunately, in a free society, we don't have thought police who can make ideologies or creeds forbidden.

If it comes to experimenting with people's minds, for a good example, you need look no further than your local Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or Hindu church. Also, much of psychology and psychiatry are experimental. None of those doctors can ever guarantee that they'll cure depression, or any other mental illness. In fact, they will tell you every time that they really don't know how the proposed treatments will affect the person. Yet I don't see anyone inveighing against those. Seems a bit inconsistent and I'm being kind when I phrase it that way.

So unless the idea is that we should all be in little cages, well, life's a crap shoot, life's flexible, not everything works or doesn't work, and we have freedom of choice on these matters. I suggest that readers of this thread get used to it.

[Boldgirl]

I think that we all have our personal creed, ideology, etc, whether that be materialism, Scn, or what have you. That's just how it is and it's not something people should freak out about. History is full of examples of people who did worry about the beliefs of others and, in each case, what happened from there wasn't pretty.

Belief and mental abuse are two TOTALLY different things fluffy.

Believing in xenu is one thing-and I couldn't care less. Programming people is quite a different matter, a point you always refuse to confront.

[Voltaire's Child]

I agree, I've said this all along, how can this possibly be denied? :confused2: The freezerzone IS scientology, they use all the 'tech'.. blah blah blah.. there is no separation between them, they are the SAME THING! :duh:

Depends. There are tech purists in the FZ and practitioners who aren't tech purists.

Policies about freeloader debts, staff contracts, familial disconnection, high prices, OSA, RPF- all those are not implemented in the FZ.

Personally I think that matters a lot since those are the things that critics of CofS discuss and picket about the most.

[Voltaire's Child]

Exactly....

freezoner = scientologist....and they will deny it till they drop.

when will that be exactly?

No, they won't. Freezoners call themselves Scientologists. So, really, where's your proof that "they will deny it til they drop"?

[Boldgirl]

Fortunately, in a free society, we don't have thought police who can make ideologies or creeds forbidden.

If it comes to experimenting with people's minds, for a good example, you need look no further than your local Christian, Jewish, Moslem, or Hindu church. Also, much of psychology and psychiatry are experimental. None of those doctors can ever guarantee that they'll cure depression, or any other mental illness. In fact, they will tell you every time that they really don't know how the proposed treatments will affect the person. Yet I don't see anyone inveighing against those. Seems a bit inconsistent and I'm being kind when I phrase it that way.

So unless the idea is that we should all be in little cages, well, life's a crap shoot, life's flexible, not everything works or doesn't work, and we have freedom of choice on these matters. I suggest that readers of this thread get used to it.

1. Thought police and programming people's minds are 2 ends of the severity spectrum. One is 'how to behave' while in the cult, and 'actual programming/processing' is much worse and much more damaging.

2. Perhaps we dont hear from clients of psychologists and doctors because 'significant numbers of people' havent been conned and damaged by them...at worst perhaps no help which I doubt is true--I know many who have been helped by licensed people. But here we do seem to have plenty of people hurt by scientology --so much so that there are many boards, many complaints, and many public lives ruined.

A licensed person who hurts people ....well they go to jail and are told to never practice that field again. A scn that hurts people---no punishment---just allowed to keep on damaging.

[Boldgirl]

No, they won't. Freezoners call themselves Scientologists. So, really, where's your proof that "they will deny it til they drop"?

I will have to review threads--I dont recall a FZ calling themselves a scientologist. If so I stand corrected on that point.

[Voltaire's Child]

You are the one still stuck ....if you are a supporter of the FZ. That is the most obvious point of all. Quack.


I can prove that this statement is illogical very easily just by looking at history.

Mainstream churches, Judaism, Christianity, etc, are still around. I don't see you commenting negatively about those. They have, in their scriptures, some stuff that could put policies about RPF and Freeloader Debts and OSA to shame. I mentioned that the other day and the person said they aren't doing those things anymore. So now I can take from that statement that if the toxic practices in scripture which still are in scripture aren't being followed anymore, then nobody has a problem if people still have the beliefs and the churches, etc.

Well, that's exactly what's going on in the FZ.

You say that the FZers are still stuck on its belief system/ideology, yet you don't say that about Christians or Jews who are adherents of two major religions with extremely bloody pasts. Aren't they stuck? They've got some really nasty stuff in their scriptures. So what happened? A squirrel group of Jews, later called Christians, emerged. That group has never been recognized by the Jews as having the word of "god". What else happened? Both groups kept the Old Testament as scriptures and yet moved forward from slaughtering and selling Midianite virgins into slavery yet they didn't remove that from their Torahs and Bibles. Now, how long have people been hanging on and being stuck to the idea that JHVH is your/their/everybody's god? A mighty long time.

Boldgirl, people have spiritual and religious and self help beliefs because they find something therein that works for them. It's not a matter of hanging on or being stuck. To begrudge that to them would really not be a good thing.

[Mojo]

History is full of examples of people who did worry about the beliefs of others and, in each case, what happened from there wasn't pretty.

At the heart of scientology 'applied religious philosophy' is a political mantra Fluffy.

Take over the world.

Take over mental health, take over education, take over criminal justice.

You genuinely (I believe) believe our concerns about scientology's world-wide political ambitions are ill-founded. Thus your comments. But your ability to separate yourself from scientologys stated goals, while steadfastly calling yourself a scientologist, is akin to a spiritual deformity called blindness.

I do not question your goodness. Nor your integrity. Nor your decency. Nor your sincerity. It is your mind that has been seemingly corrupted by Mr. L. Ron Hubbard and his breakthrough 'religion' of 'I' that alarms me. So to speak.

Let me give you an example of what I called 'scrambled-think'.

Articulate clearly, if you can Fluffy, the distinction between Dianetics and Scientology. Take your time. Go to source. Be clear about it. Imagine you are speaking to a group of children whose lives depend on what you say.

Or, taking a page from Hubbards theory of skillful communication, ignore me.

I'm guessing the 'or' is gonna win.

Mojo

[Voltaire's Child]

I will have to review threads--I dont recall a FZ calling themselves a scientologist. If so I stand corrected on that point.


Many do. They call themselves FreeZone Scientologists. In fact, one of the things I've most gotten flak for on forums is for my calling myself a Scientologist. (albeit "heretical" and "indie".) It's where my sigline comes from.

Here's a URL- says Freezone Scientology

http://www.fzaoint.net/links.html


Here's another one for a different group in the FZ, also says Scientology

http://scientologistsfreezone.com/

Wikipedia also calls it Freezone Scientology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Zone_(Scientology)

[Voltaire's Child]

1. Thought police and programming people's minds are 2 ends of the severity spectrum. One is 'how to behave' while in the cult, and 'actual programming/processing' is much worse and much more damaging.

2. Perhaps we dont hear from clients of psychologists and doctors because 'significant numbers of people' havent been conned and damaged by them...at worst perhaps no help which I doubt is true--I know many who have been helped by licensed people. But here we do seem to have plenty of people hurt by scientology --so much so that there are many boards, many complaints, and many public lives ruined.

A licensed person who hurts people ....well they go to jail and are told to never practice that field again. A scn that hurts people---no punishment---just allowed to keep on damaging.


I'm a Scn'ist and I'm mostly pro Scientology and, point of fact, I can tell you that there are plenty of posts and articles by former patients who DO let people hear about what happened to them. So how anyone can say "we don't hear from them",I really don't know.

I also want to say that we lived it, in my family. They just about fucked my relative for good with ECT and in the same phone conversation, right after admitting that they shouldn't have prescribed that for her, when she asked "what do I do now" they said "have some more". I was present for that. I was present for the doctor's claim that she'd have temporary memory loss and I was present for the fact that her memory was impaired the rest of her life. I saw many patients in the psychiatric ward when I came to visit her who weren't doing so hot. There are forums about this stuff and there are articles about this stuff. Again, I'm not anti psychiatry or psychology. I think they do achieve some things and I'll all for anyone doing it who wants to. But from where I sit, and I do have a lot of experience and have done research on this, it's as much - if not more- of a crapshoot with psychology or psychiatry as it ever was with Scn and they have had many suicides of people under psychiatric care at the time of their deaths. And, no, my relatives doctor did not go to jail. They do not go to jail for fucking up patients. It's not illegal. They only go to jail if they rape somebody or diddle the medicare or insurance billings or something that's flat out illegal. It's not illegal to administer ECT and then have it fuck everything up. It's not illegal to prescribe meds that sometimes work and sometimes don't. Families of patients who suicide or do badly after care may have the option of suing for malpractice, which is civil and does not culminate with time in jail, and half the time that wouldn't even fly.

As to the other, anyone who inveighs against people practicing religious or self help or cosmic far out wowie zowie stuff on their own is trying to control what people think and do in their off time, or is implying that they might like to do so. Your posts strongly imply that people should not have the choice to do this stuff on their own in their lives. To me, that's thought police stuff.

[Boldgirl]

I can prove that this statement is illogical very easily just by looking at history.

Mainstream churches, Judaism, Christianity, etc, are still around. I don't see you commenting negatively about those. They have, in their scriptures, some stuff that could put policies about RPF and Freeloader Debts and OSA to shame. I mentioned that the other day and the person said they aren't doing those things anymore. So now I can take from that statement that if the toxic practices in scripture which still are in scripture aren't being followed anymore, then nobody has a problem if people still have the beliefs and the churches, etc.

Well, that's exactly what's going on in the FZ.

You say that the FZers are still stuck on its belief system/ideology, yet you don't say that about Christians or Jews who are adherents of two major religions with extremely bloody pasts. Aren't they stuck? They've got some really nasty stuff in their scriptures. So what happened? A squirrel group of Jews, later called Christians, emerged. That group has never been recognized by the Jews as having the word of "god". What else happened? Both groups kept the Old Testament as scriptures and yet moved forward from slaughtering and selling Midianite virgins into slavery yet they didn't remove that from their Torahs and Bibles. Now, how long have people been hanging on and being stuck to the idea that JHVH is your/their/everybody's god? A mighty long time.

Boldgirl, people have spiritual and religious and self help beliefs because they find something therein that works for them. It's not a matter of hanging on or being stuck. To begrudge that to them would really not be a good thing.

Fluffy
You sound so so much like a typical scientologist. OMG. :omg:

You say "I can prove that this statement is illogical very easily just by looking at history." "Mainstream churches, Judaism, Christianity, etc, are still around. I don't see you commenting negatively about those."
(heard statements like this from the scios at pickets over and over--put attention OFF Scn and onto other religions and other problems in society, attention OFF scn being the operative strategy here)

You say "You say that the FZers are still stuck on its belief system/ideology, yet you don't say that about Christians or Jews who are adherents of two major religions with extremely bloody pasts."

We arent on a world religion message board fluffy-we are EX SCN's....if you want to hear people bash other religions go find a board that does it!
Stop the robotic defense circuit of a scientologist---confront the evil it is for goodness sake!

PS: I dont follow any of those religions as I do agree they have their own issues and none of them reflect my spirituality.

[Voltaire's Child]

Fluffy
You sound so so much like a typical scientologist. OMG. :omg:

Of course I sound like a Scn'ist. I am one. Typical? Obviously not.


You say "I can prove that this statement is illogical very easily just by looking at history." "Mainstream churches, Judaism, Christianity, etc, are still around. I don't see you commenting negatively about those."
(heard statements like this from the scios at pickets over and over--put attention OFF Scn and onto other religions and other problems in society, attention OFF scn being the operative strategy here)


I'll betcha they never said what I went on to say after that paragraph.


You say [/B]"You say that the FZers are still stuck on its belief system/ideology, yet you don't say that about Christians or Jews who are adherents of two major religions with extremely bloody pasts."

We arent on a world religion message board fluffy-we are EX SCN's....if you want to hear people bash other religions go find a board that does it!
Stop the robotic defense circuit of a scientologist---confront the evil it is for goodness sake!

I'm not doing anything robotic. It's natural for Scn'ists to like Scn.

And, actually, when someone posts that some things are ok for people to believe or not believe, then, yes, that does enter in certain other things for comparison.


PS: I dont follow any of those religions as I do agree they have their own issues and none of them reflect my spirituality.[/QUOTE]

Good, then. You don't have to follow Scn, either.

People have the right to believe or not believe, spiritually practice or not practice whatever they choose.

[Boldgirl]

At the heart of scientology 'applied religious philosophy' is a political mantra Fluffy.

I do not question your goodness. Nor your integrity. Nor your decency. Nor your sincerity. It is your mind that has been seemingly corrupted by Mr. L. Ron Hubbard and his breakthrough 'religion' of 'I' that alarms me. So to speak.

Mojo

Ditto. I would help Fluffy in a heartbeat if she ever wanted out-her heart is sweet.

[Boldgirl]

I give up Fluff.....you have been majorly fluffed and there is no way you are ready or wanting to be un-fluffed.

Best wishes however. Truly.

[Voltaire's Child]

Ditto. I would help Fluffy in a heartbeat if she ever wanted out-her heart is sweet.

Why would anyone think I need help? I'm a happily married businesswoman, with house of my own, lots of friends (many of whom aren't and never were in Scn), a cool job and a fairly active social life even not counting cyberspace socializing. :D

I appreciate the nice comment but the only thing I need help with at this time are a rather large laundry list of to do projects for my house and yard. I may get them all done by rainy season, but I doubt it.

[Voltaire's Child]

I give up Fluff.....you have been majorly fluffed and there is no way you are ready or wanting to be un-fluffed.

Best wishes however. Truly.

Well, when you want to do some googling on ex psychiatric patients speaking out about their experiences, and the fact that doctors do not wind up in jail when things go wrong (not that they always do. I know people who were helped by psychologists and psychiatrists.) and want to address the idea you've put forth that people shouldn't have freedom of choice re certain religions and self help methods yet others which are just as experimental are ok, let me know.

You've already stated that you stand corrected re FZers calling themselves Scn'ists.

It just seems to me that you haven't done enough research. Your comments about psychiatrists going to jail and "not hearing" from people who had those experiences (with psychiatry) are indicative of that.

[Voltaire's Child]

I'm a Scn'ist and I'm mostly pro Scientology and, point of fact, I can tell you that there are plenty of posts and articles by former patients who DO let people hear about what happened to them. So how anyone can say "we don't hear from them",I really don't know.

I also want to say that we lived it, in my family. They just about fucked my relative for good with ECT and in the same phone conversation, right after admitting that they shouldn't have prescribed that for her, when she asked "what do I do now" they said "have some more". I was present for that. I was present for the doctor's claim that she'd have temporary memory loss and I was present for the fact that her memory was impaired the rest of her life. I saw many patients in the psychiatric ward when I came to visit her who weren't doing so hot. There are forums about this stuff and there are articles about this stuff. Again, I'm not anti psychiatry or psychology. I think they do achieve some things and I'll all for anyone doing it who wants to. But from where I sit, and I do have a lot of experience and have done research on this, it's as much - if not more- of a crapshoot with psychology or psychiatry as it ever was with Scn and they have had many suicides of people under psychiatric care at the time of their deaths. And, no, my relatives doctor did not go to jail. They do not go to jail for fucking up patients. It's not illegal. They only go to jail if they rape somebody or diddle the medicare or insurance billings or something that's flat out illegal. It's not illegal to administer ECT and then have it fuck everything up. It's not illegal to prescribe meds that sometimes work and sometimes don't. Families of patients who suicide or do badly after care may have the option of suing for malpractice, which is civil and does not culminate with time in jail, and half the time that wouldn't even fly.



**bump content about psychiatry**

[Mojo]

Why would anyone think I need help? .

You would. You joined scientology didn't you?

That's the point Fluff. That's the whole friggin point.

Now you think you are all fixed up. Per Ron. But you are not all fixed up. Quite frankly you are all balled up. And before scientology you knew it, but after scientology you don't.

Think about that (a rhetorical thought).

You display characteristics of being human that only scientologists seemingly can display. And notwithstanding self-admiration, they are not attractive my friend. They are not attractive.

Of course Ron solved that spiritual dilema didn't he? Lol.

Think stable datum (KSW) Lol.

Mojo

[Boldgirl]

want to address the idea you've put forth that people shouldn't have freedom of choice re certain religions and self help methods yet others which are just as experimental are ok, let me know.

You've already stated that you stand corrected re FZers calling themselves Scn'ists.

It just seems to me that you haven't done enough research. Your comments about psychiatrists going to jail and "not hearing" from people who had those experiences (with psychiatry) are indicative of that.

This is fiction fluffyand another lame scn attempt to not confront, spin the truth, and take attention off self--right from the book-I give you that-you know your scientology!!

Back on other threads in the past, I spoke of the FACT that scn , and FZ'es and other alternative wacko so called therapists.....all of whom do NOT practice informed consent. If this one point was practiced by scn, many would never sit down once in an auditing room.

People who go to md's, psychs (all licensed practitioners) etc ALL have to sign informed consents where the patients are told of the possible side effects and dangers....then they mke that decision to move forward or not---THIS INCLUDED MEDS.

PS: Informed consent exists to protect the public from uneducated unlicensed ill intentioned people. There is a reason that non licensed people do not practice informed consent-they do not want accountability for their actions. They do not stand so strong on their expertise that they would stake their career on what they practice.

So in conclusion-if a person goes to take 'purple nurple magic mind bending' services but has signed and read the possible dangers and side effects (all of them)--and they still want to do it---hey go for it!

nice try though.

[FinallyMe]

I'm feeling opinionated today, so I'd like to share too.

First, it is my opinion that what Fluffy believes in is completely bogus and would not work for me, and I'm sure would not work for many others.

It is also my opinion that most Christian church beliefs are completely bogus, and would not work for me.

It is also my opinion that Wicca beliefs are completely bogus and would not work for me.


Etc., etc. etc. with any other practice and belief. However, I have only seen Fluffy actually answering non-Scn's questions thoughtfully and thoroughly, with specific examples. I have read many posts where Fluffy has brought things to my attention that I had been ignoring or never knew. And most importantly, I have NEVER seen Fluffy try to push her beliefs onto the rest of us. She simply sets them out for our consideration. I find it VERY helpful in my own search and healing to see viewpoints other than the ones I already see -- either my own beliefs get bolstered, or new questions about it are raised, or some old questions are answered. VERY boring to see post after post after post of exactly the same opinion.

I wish we could all say that, likewise, none of us have tried to push our beliefs onto Fluffy. If what she's doing works for her -- like Idenics works for some, like Yoga works for some, like Catholicism works for some, etc. etc. etc. - leave them alone. Yes, there are some here who persist in trying to convince us of something by using reasoning that we no longer subscribe to, but that simply shows their complete inability/refusal to see another viewpoint and their ignorance.

Sometimes you just gotta say, okay for you.

[Boldgirl]

I'm feeling opinionated today, so I'd like to share too.

First, it is my opinion that what Fluffy believes in is completely bogus and would not work for me, and I'm sure would not work for many others.

It is also my opinion that most Christian church beliefs are completely bogus, and would not work for me.

It is also my opinion that Wicca beliefs are completely bogus and would not work for me.


Etc., etc. etc. with any other practice and belief. However, I have only seen Fluffy actually answering non-Scn's questions thoughtfully and thoroughly, with specific examples. I have read many posts where Fluffy has brought things to my attention that I had been ignoring or never knew. And most importantly, I have NEVER seen Fluffy try to push her beliefs onto the rest of us. She simply sets them out for our consideration. I find it VERY helpful in my own search and healing to see viewpoints other than the ones I already see -- either my own beliefs get bolstered, or new questions about it are raised, or some old questions are answered. VERY boring to see post after post after post of exactly the same opinion.

I wish we could all say that, likewise, none of us have tried to push our beliefs onto Fluffy. If what she's doing works for her -- like Idenics works for some, like Yoga works for some, like Catholicism works for some, etc. etc. etc. - leave them alone. Yes, there are some here who persist in trying to convince us of something by using reasoning that we no longer subscribe to, but that simply shows their complete inability/refusal to see another viewpoint and their ignorance.

Sometimes you just gotta say, okay for you.

Believe it or not I agree with you. But I also feel the added strong opinion that people should have all the info before they leap WHEN they are seeking help from a prctice that could damage them. It is on that premise that I deviate hard from fluffy--she thinks that scn practices are a 'belief' and I know they are not just that. They have practices which kill people and she still thinks that is a belief.

[FinallyMe]

Yea, I didn't think of that aspect, and I agree. This "belief system" thing is not easy because so many practices/belief systems/religions have the potential to actually harm, and none of them comes with a warning label. Well, FDA approved drugs do, but......

[Boldgirl]

Yea, I didn't think of that aspect, and I agree. This "belief system" thing is not easy because so many practices/belief systems/religions have the potential to actually harm, and none of them comes with a warning label. Well, FDA approved drugs do, but......

True.. and at least the part of ANY church 'counseling' should be held to the same standard for all practitioners.

So since scn wants to continue to call auditing 'spiritual counseling' then they should be thrown into the bin with the rest of the public protection requirements which includes proper training and testing and licensure.....that can be taken away when it is shown that what they do harms people. (not accidents and isolated issues--but a pattern of harm)...hey that sounds like scn!

[thetanic]

Of course I sound like a Scn'ist. I am one. Typical? Obviously not.

Nope, not typical.

If there weren't SP declares of people who had declared they'd left the CofS (and done NOTHING ELSE), I'd probably say I was an ex-Scn.

However, with friends in and caring that I keep in contact with them, that avenue isn't open to me. For that reason alone, I'm a Scientologist, though one that's "offlines indefinitely."

[Alan]

Evolution of knowledge!

Once you start learning something - most people keep evolving to their level of expected attainment.

Of course most people never push past mediocrity - so that is as far as they go.

There has been a pattern for thousands of years covering most subjects and skills of apprenticing, interning, journeymanning, craftmanship, master craftsmanship and finally mastery.

This subject is following this path.

It will evolve ever higher - like most subjects 10,000s of people will fall by the wayside - but it will continue go forth.

Sure there will be lots of dead ends - but the genie is out of the bottle - it is all over the internet - too many people are working towards becoming better and more enlightened people.

Alan

[Good twin]

Nope, not typical.

If there weren't SP declares of people who had declared they'd left the CofS (and done NOTHING ELSE), I'd probably say I was an ex-Scn.

However, with friends in and caring that I keep in contact with them, that avenue isn't open to me. For that reason alone, I'm a Scientologist, though one that's "offlines indefinitely."

You're an ex you're just not "out". :yes:

[Terril park]

Exactly....

freezoner = scientologist....and they will deny it till they drop.

when will that be exactly?

A Freezoner by definition is a scientologist. Why would they deny it?

Some independents, ie those who follow Idenics sometimes seem to deny
connections to scientology but why would that be a problem for anyone?
Also I guess you didn't mean such. Or am I wrong?

[Smitty]

To anyone recently "out" trying to decide whether or not the freezone is for you... dig;

We're looking at exactly how a scientologist "deals" with debate and criticism. The questions I have about freezonery now only exist because I have problems. I question because there are issues I need to deal with. I have "withholds" that have been missed. There are the effects of "engrams" pushing on and forming my behavior.

Oneflewover, for whatever reason, lost his head and went right for the old line "handling" of someone who dares to ask questions. Yet "I" am the one who is arrogant, and "I" am the one who has deeper problems.

The truth of the matter, as you can well see for yourself without further help from anyone, is that the reason this tactic is used is to disengage from the real points at hand. This is meant to distract you from the argument. It is done to make this thread useless to rational discourse. The fact that Oneflewover is sort of thrashing about now looking for ways to get me to explode or forget the point notwithstanding; it should now be obvious that there is no real difference between the freezone and the church itself.

The mindset is fixed, the tactics are the same.

I hope, if you have gotten this far through the shell game that attempted to derail this effort, you see now once and for all - with your own eyes - what I have been talking about.

Please consider getting out of the mind trap 100% when you leave. There's more to life than trying to justify your past mistakes.

Yes. Good Insight.
Smitty

[Smitty]

Some independents, ie those who follow Idenics sometimes seem to deny
connections to scientology but why would that be a problem for anyone?
Also I guess you didn't mean such. Or am I wrong?

You are back at it again, Terril Park, with your fabrications. Anyone who has read Idenics: An Alternative to Therapy (http://www.idenics.com) or read the articles and listened to the audio recordings on the Idenics website would know that Idenics has no connections to scientology. The philosophy and practice are very different. Did you start lying like this after receiving scientology services?
It's time for the Terril Park Freezone Scientology Lie Factory to shut down.
Smitty

[Mojo]

You are back at it again, Terril Park, with your fabrications. Anyone who has read Idenics: An Alternative to Therapy (http://www.idenics.com) or read the articles and listened to the audio recordings on the Idenics website would know that Idenics has no connections to scientology. The philosophy and practice are very different. Did you start lying like this after receiving scientology services?
It's time for the Terril Park Freezone Scientology Lie Factory to shut down.
Smitty

Come on Smitty. Terril's not lying. He's practicing the Scientology theory of presenting 'acceptable' truths in order to recruit otherwise doomed souls into the Scientology Theory of Eternal Salvation. You know, the whole bridge to total freedom thing. Lol.

Note how Terril does not call scientology/dianetic auditing 'abreaction therapy'? But idenics is a form of scientology? Lol. If being mis-guided is evil, Terril is evil, but if it's just being mis-guided, Terril is simply mis-guided.

Idenics is growing. Scientology is not. A touch of extrapolation brings peace.

Lol.

Mojo

[Boldgirl]

A Freezoner by definition is a scientologist. Why would they deny it?



Well , because to me, a scientologist furthers the aims and goals of scientology, in every sense. So I feel that when a FZ or scn here on esmb says they disagree with the management of the church etc etc--but like the tech --or some of the tech--and are still using it on others, then they are furthering the aims of scientology.

So I dont buy the 'escape clause' that FZ or scientologits on this board love to point out---they try to 'qualify' to what degree a scn they are-like it is OK to any degree.

You either are or you are not. And if you are a scn, then you support the church and you are helping them. You are continually creating it and trying to with others.

So when I said they try to deny they are scientologists, I do mean they try to deny that they are the kind of scientologists that support the management of the church.....when in reality they are the only kind of scientologist....full fledge 1000%.

That is what I mean.

[Terril park]

You are back at it again, Terril Park, with your fabrications. Anyone who has read Idenics: An Alternative to Therapy (http://www.idenics.com) or read the articles and listened to the audio recordings on the Idenics website would know that Idenics has no connections to scientology. The philosophy and practice are very different. Did you start lying like this after receiving scientology services?
It's time for the Terril Park Freezone Scientology Lie Factory to shut down.
Smitty

This is stupid ad hominem bullshit. I have no problem with those interested in Idenics. You are calling me a liar.

I happily admit that LRH had as his major inspiration Magick, via Crowley.

You wish to deny that John Galusha was a top reseach auditor for scientology from 1954, and with Mike Goldstein went to Flag with their wonderful book 1 course in I believe the seventies?

To deny the connection is like an ostrich putting its head in the sand.

Thats you.

Why the fuck should you attack me and call me a liar? You discredit the subject of Idenics!

Note: I was not attacking Idenics.

[Div6]

<snip>
You need a pike up your ass to wake you up, man. I don't have anywhere to send you, so I'll be happy to oblige.

Ah, this is how Escalus proposes to "handle" people he doesn't understand or agree with.

I'll pass, thanks.

Further, I will utilize the protections this society affords me to ensure the only thing you stick up someone's ass is your p**is, and only with their consent.

So please take your little "hate machine" elsewhere. You obviously never understood scientology, so it is certainly beyond your mental capacity to comprehend derivatives.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Folks,

I sense things are getting a little too nasty. Let's everyone count to ten, or calm down a bit, or do TR 0, or whatever it is that will calm things down.
Can we agree to take ten?
Watch the Olympics or something.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Boldgirl]

You obviously never understood scientology, so it is certainly beyond your mental capacity to comprehend derivatives.

I know you wrote this to escalus, but since I love escalus and what he stands for, I am chiming in ---

IMO:
Understanding scientology is having the ability to really 'think with it from an outside view in it's application to all aspects of life' without using it to calculate and explain life and peopole.

It is because of escalus's ability to do this, be outside of it---that he does have excellent critical thinking skills when it comes to scn.

Defenders of scn are still in it and connected to the umbilicus -it is like still being in the matrix to some extent. When you are really disconnected from the umbilicus-everything snaps into clear view---and what is seen is that it hurts society, people, families, the very core of society. It can be a destroyer of worlds...thankfully it won't be allowed to prosper any longer.

I was 'out' but not disconnected from the umbilicus. Then that changed by researching and reading and learning the truth told by many who have had much of their lives in the SO etc and are suffering the consequences even still..

Sorry to ramble some --I am tired--goodnight.

[Div6]

I know you wrote this to escalus, but since I love escalus and what he stands for, I am chiming in ---

IMO:
Understanding scientology is having the ability to really 'think with it from an outside view in it's application to all aspects of life' without using it to calculate and explain life and peopole.

It is because of escalus's ability to do this, be outside of it---that he does have excellent critical thinking skills when it comes to scn.

Defenders of scn are still in it and connected to the umbilicus -it is like still being in the matrix to some extent. When you are really disconnected from the umbilicus-everything snaps into clear view---and what is seen is that it hurts society, people, families, the very core of society. It can be a destroyer of worlds...thankfully it won't be allowed to prosper any longer.

I was 'out' but not disconnected from the umbilicus. Then that changed by researching and reading and learning the truth told by many who have had much of their lives in the SO etc and are suffering the consequences even still..

Sorry to ramble some --I am tired--goodnight.

I have seen no evidence that he has the slightest comprehension of Scientology at all. What he does is build up straw men, call that Scientology, or Freezonery, and then tear those down.

Straw men are yet another category of "logical fallacies".

I am NOT defending the "church" with all of its out ethics faggotry.
But I have gotten GOOD results applying "tech". And I have seen other people do the same. and teach others to do the same.

All I have seen Escalus do with his "comm skills" is invalidate, and seek to nullify others. That is "toxic" behavior in most peoples books.

And that is MY opinion.

Your mileage may vary.

[Escalus]

Ah, this is how Escalus proposes to "handle" people he doesn't understand or agree with.

I'll pass, thanks.

Further, I will utilize the protections this society affords me to ensure the only thing you stick up someone's ass is your p**is, and only with their consent.

So please take your little "hate machine" elsewhere. You obviously never understood scientology, so it is certainly beyond your mental capacity to comprehend derivatives.

Div if you look at the post it responded to you will see I mimicked the language shot at me. Your selective observations have - I think - finally betrayed the fact that the last thing you are is an EX-scientologist. The cult's still got you by the short ones, and now you're lashing out. But here's my point;

Once again,

To the people thinking of coming out of the cult and considering whether or not to go into the freezone, I would only ask you to look at this comment and reconsider what it is you are getting into. The entire purpose of this post (above) is to establish the idea that the only reason I have a problem with scientology is that I just don't understand it. This is an echo of the tactics used throughout this thread. This poster suggests that if I didn't have misunderstood words, another poster suggests if I didn't have my own personal problems, I would happily agree to their philosophy and approach to the condition of man.

There's no addressing the opening statements, and in fact the points of the original post are now long gone from anyone's memory. It is now about me. That is the problem with scientology; it has no room for debate. If you don't like it - YOU must have a problem somewhere.

This is the only way scientologists can deal with criticism. It's what will ruin the "church" and what will - thankfully - keep the scientologists who have run out of money (i.e., freezoners) a small and insignificant fringe group.

Think about your life very clearly. Is this what you want?



Is this the crew you want to hook up with when you are considering what to do with your life? Think again. In the real world debates are open and on topic.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

I have seen no evidence that he has the slightest comprehension of Scientology at all. What he does is build up straw men, call that Scientology, or Freezonery, and then tear those down.

Straw men are yet another category of "logical fallacies".

I am NOT defending the "church" with all of its out ethics faggotry.
But I have gotten GOOD results applying "tech". And I have seen other people do the same. and teach others to do the same.

All I have seen Escalus do with his "comm skills" is invalidate, and seek to nullify others. That is "toxic" behavior in most peoples books.

And that is MY opinion.

Your mileage may vary.

Div 6,

I had a friend commit suicide after some auditing. He was not under any Church pressure. The auditing simply intoverted him and he killed himself. I have another friend who followed LRHs advice regarding cures and died of cancer. No Church pressure was involved. The philosophy you are defending kills. You aren't willing to take responsibility for that and you blame the Church. If I understand you correctly, you believe that since you had wins from the tech, it doesn't concern or matter to you that it drives people insane or leads them to an early death. You had your wins, but the Church is the bad guys. Well that is a cowardly, cowardly, viewpoint. The tech kills. Yes some people get wins. But it kills others.
Goddamn it, I had to help with a twelve year old girl who told me that thetans were hanging around her trying to kill her. She was on auditing lines. She was not under heavy ethics pressure. It was the Tech applied to her that drove this girl crazy. You should have seen the mother.
The tech is bullshit, it is dangerous, and you are criminal for promoting it. I am higher trained than you will ever be. So don't dodge this.
Be honest. Just say you don't care who gets hurt as long as you get your wins. I would have more respect for you if you did that than hide behind the excuse that it is the Church. Did it ever occur to you that the people who do the bad things in the name of the Church have had auditing and training too?
Of course not.
I would like to be nice about this, but in the name of justice and in the name of those who have suffered I can't play nice any more.
You make me sick.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Escalus]

And relative to taking my "hate machine" elsewhere... mmmmno I think not. It's doing good humming away right here. :)

[Escalus]

A Freezoner by definition is a scientologist. Why would they deny it?


This is correct. A freezoner is a scientologist. Not an "ex"-scientologist. Thank you Terril. Well said.

[Div6]

Div 6,

I had a friend commit suicide after some auditing. He was not under any Church pressure. The auditing simply intoverted him and he killed himself. I have another friend who followed LRHs advice regarding cures and died of cancer. No Church pressure was involved. The philosophy you are defending kills. You aren't willing to take responsibility for that and you blame the Church. If I understand you correctly, you believe that since you had wins from the tech, it doesn't concern or matter to you that it drives people insane or leads them to an early death. You had your wins, but the Church is the bad guys. Well that is a cowardly, cowardly, viewpoint. The tech kills. Yes some people get wins. But it kills others.
Goddamn it, I had to help with a twelve year old girl who told me that thetans were hanging around her trying to kill her. She was on auditing lines. She was not under heavy ethics pressure. It was the Tech applied to her that drove this girl crazy. You should have seen the mother.
The tech is bullshit, it is dangerous, and you are criminal for promoting it. I am higher trained than you will ever be. So don't dodge this.
Be honest. Just say you don't care who gets hurt as long as you get your wins. I would have more respect for you if you did that than hide behind the excuse that it is the Church. Did it ever occur to you that the people who do the bad things in the name of the Church have had auditing and training too?
Of course not.
I would like to be nice about this, but in the name of justice and in the name of those who have suffered I can't play nice any more.
You make me sick.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Dude....

There is some major hurt there. Perhaps you should talk about it. I have never seen "the tech" "kill" anyone. I have never seen a gun kill anyone either....but I have seen people kill others with guns.


Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that I don't care what happens to people as long as I "get my wins". That is yet another example of building a strawman and tearing it down. I am as much an inhabitant of this mudball as you are. I have had to yank people off lines due to the gross inval and eval they were getting from "the mecca of technical perfection." I have seen EO's spin Solo Nots completions into psychotic breaks. My reward for trying to "hammer out of existence incorrect application" was an SP declare.

You raise some serious issues. I do not know the details (obviously) but would suggest that perhaps they should be addressed and\or worked through with some one you are comfortable with. Certainly, the story should be told, if for no other reason than to illustrate your thesis that "the tech is bad and kills." I for one would might learn something.

[Good twin]

Dude....

There is some major hurt there. Perhaps you should talk about it. I have never seen "the tech" "kill" anyone. I have never seen a gun kill anyone either....but I have seen people kill others with guns.


Please do not put words in my mouth. I never said that I don't care what happens to people as long as I "get my wins". That is yet another example of building a strawman and tearing it down. I am as much an inhabitant of this mudball as you are. I have had to yank people off lines due to the gross inval and eval they were getting from "the mecca of technical perfection." I have seen EO's spin Solo Nots completions into psychotic breaks. My reward for trying to "hammer out of existence incorrect application" was an SP declare.

You raise some serious issues. I do not know the details (obviously) but would suggest that perhaps they should be addressed and\or worked through with some one you are comfortable with. Certainly, the story should be told, if for no other reason than to illustrate your thesis that "the tech is bad and kills." I for one would might learn something.

Div 6,
I've seen it too. Having faith in the tech of Scientology. Applying Scientology and trusting the tech to solve life's problems, difficulties, upsets and concerns. I've seen it result in destruction more times then I care to admit to tell the truth. It's the dirty little secret, swept under the rug. If you stay in Scientology long enough you WILL be damaged. I truly believe that, based on my own observation. It took over thirty years of experience for me to put the pieces together. It's not just the church, it's not management. The technology is flawed. Grossly flawed. It is dangerous. IMO

[Div6]

Div 6,
I've seen it too. Having faith in the tech of Scientology. Applying Scientology and trusting the tech to solve life's problems, difficulties, upsets and concerns. I've seen it result in destruction more times then I care to admit to tell the truth. It's the dirty little secret, swept under the rug. If you stay in Scientology long enough you WILL be damaged. I truly believe that, based on my own observation. It took over thirty years of experience for me to put the pieces together. It's not just the church, it's not management. The technology is flawed. Grossly flawed. It is dangerous. IMO

Interesting GT. From you observation is it a certain piece of "the tech", a certain area of "the Bridge", or something else? I would be interested in hearing your take on this.

Back in the days of medieval heresies, people would wish others "a good end".....meaning a meaningful life, and not dying violently at the hands of others....which raises a valid question: Has ANY Scientologist come to a "good end"?

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Interesting GT. From you observation is it a certain piece of "the tech", a certain area of "the Bridge", or something else? I would be interested in hearing your take on this.

Back in the days of medieval heresies, people would wish others "a good end".....meaning a meaningful life, and not dying violently at the hands of others....which raises a valid question: Has ANY Scientologist come to a "good end"?

Div 6,

You are demonstrating the warp reasoning that comes from Scientology. I repeat what I had posted on another thread. Specifically you are doing number 1 here:

The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges.
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions.
3) The tendency when they can’t persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point which the other person may agree with, and try to persuade others they are right by showing their agreement on the point they have switched to.
Watch the arguments made on ESBM by Freezoners and Scientologists and see if you can find examples of what I am talking about.
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you can’t take the Scientology out of the person.

You can spin, you can deny, you can misdirect all you want. The little girl, by the way, was being audited in the field. Not a an org or Flag. You are dishonest and cowardly for trying to praise the good of the tech while saying that the destructive things are not from the tech, but because of the people that use it. Horseshit. How uncaring and insensitive can you be to the suffereing? I don't want to put words into your mouth, so I won't say that you really care.
You were in D.C. right? You never saw any bad results from the tech? Are you saying all these bad things were done by the Church, and bad people.
You use reductionist reasoning to make apples look like oranges when you want to, or make apples different than apples when you want to.
You'r own reasoning shows how inherently warp Scientology and the tech is.
If the Church hadn't kicked you out, would you have left?
You make me sick.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Div6]

Div 6,

You are demonstrating the warp reasoning that comes from Scientology. I repeat what I had posted on another thread. Specifically you are doing number 1 here:

The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges.
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions.
3) The tendency when they can’t persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point which the other person may agree with, and try to persuade others they are right by showing their agreement on the point they have switched to.
Watch the arguments made on ESBM by Freezoners and Scientologists and see if you can find examples of what I am talking about.
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you can’t take the Scientology out of the person.

You can spin, you can deny, you can misdirect all you want. The little girl, by the way, was being audited in the field. Not a an org or Flag. You are dishonest and cowardly for trying to praise the good of the tech while saying that the destructive things are not from the tech, but because of the people that use it. Horseshit. How uncaring and insensitive can you be to the suffereing? I don't want to put words into your mouth, so I won't say that you really care.
You were in D.C. right? You never saw any bad results from the tech? Are you saying all these bad things were done by the Church, and bad people.
You use reductionist reasoning to make apples look like oranges when you want to, or make apples different than apples when you want to.
You'r own reasoning shows how inherently warp Scientology and the tech is.
If the Church hadn't kicked you out, would you have left?
You make me sick.

The Anabaptist Jacques


Interesting straw man argument you got there. Its a bit of a broken record though, and fraying a bit at the edges, but it certainly insulates you from having to look, or entertain any ideas outside your little box.

When you want to talk specifics let me know.

[Oneflewover]

Once again,

To the people thinking of coming out of the cult and considering whether or not to go into the freezone, I would only ask you to look at this comment and reconsider what it is you are getting into. The entire purpose of this post (above) is to establish the idea that the only reason I have a problem with scientology is that I just don't understand it. This is an echo of the tactics used throughout this thread. This poster suggests that if I didn't have misunderstood words, another poster suggests if I didn't have my own personal problems, I would happily agree to their philosophy and approach to the condition of man.

There's no addressing the opening statements, and in fact the points of the original post are now long gone from anyone's memory. It is now about me. That is the problem with scientology; it has no room for debate. If you don't like it - YOU must have a problem somewhere.

This is the only way scientologists can deal with criticism. It's what will ruin the "church" and what will - thankfully - keep the scientologists who have run out of money (i.e., freezoners) a small and insignificant fringe group.

Think about your life very clearly. Is this what you want?



Is this the crew you want to hook up with when you are considering what to do with your life? Think again. In the real world debates are open and on topic.


You're living in a cartoon, if you think your diatribes are going to do anything but rush those newly/nearly out of the church straight to the Freezone.

They'll be thinking about getting auditing, or training, for cheap or free, without the IAS, regging, events, command intentions, donating for buildings, disconnection, fair game, RPF, sec checking, false ethics conditions assignments, rice and beans, 80 hour weeks, over priced meters and materials, billion year contracts.....

Oh yeah. They'll run straight for the Freezone, especially after running into you. chuckle head.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Dude....

I have never seen a gun kill anyone either....but I have seen people kill others with guns.



The intent for the creation of a gun, and the design of a gun, is to kill someone. No one buys a guy so that the gun won't kill someone. Poor, typical, Scientology reasoning.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Oneflewover]

The intent for the creation of a gun, and the design of a gun, is to kill someone. No one buys a guy so that the gun won't kill someone. Poor, typical, Scientology reasoning.

The Anabaptist Jacques

That's just stupid. I own target pistols, and hunting rifles, neither of which was designed to kill anyone. pretty bad when poor, typical Scientology reasoning is up from your brand.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Interesting straw man argument you got there. Its a bit of a broken record though, and fraying a bit at the edges, but it certainly insulates you from having to look, or entertain any ideas outside your little box.

When you want to talk specifics let me know.

There is no straw man fallacy here. There are many deaths, deranged people, and ruined lives connect with the Tech. If you close your eyes, and keep repeating "straw man fallacy...straw man fallacy..." maybe it will all go away.
The specifics that demonstrate the faulty reasoning is in your posts. Is there anyone else out there that can see it? I'd be interested in knowing. Would you?

The Anabaptist Jacques

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

That's just stupid. I own target pistols, and hunting rifles, neither of which was designed to kill anyone. pretty bad when poor, typical Scientology reasoning is up from your brand.

Guns are designed to kill. Sure you can find some paint guns and caulking guns, etc that weren't made to kill anyone. But, guns by their nature and design, were built to kill. If you are trying to persuade me that if someone shot with a rifle won't die because the rifle was only design to push a bullet real fast, that is exactly the reasoning demonstrated here:

The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges.
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions.
3) The tendency when they can’t persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point which the other person may agree with, and try to persuade others they are right by showing their agreement on the point they have switched to.
Watch the arguments made on ESBM by Freezoners and Scientologists and see if you can find examples of what I am talking about.
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you can’t take the Scientology out of the person.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Oneflewover]

There is no straw man fallacy here. There are many deaths, deranged people, and ruined lives connect with the Tech. If you close your eyes, and keep repeating "straw man fallacy...straw man fallacy..." maybe it will all go away.
The specifics that demonstrate the faulty reasoning is in your posts. Is there anyone else out there that can see it? I'd be interested in knowing. Would you?

The Anabaptist Jacques

It's probably more a matter of focus, and sampling size. You could also point out the number of deaths due to lightening strikes, and warn people not to go outside, but it would also look ridiculous.

[Oneflewover]

Guns are designed to kill. Sure you can find some paint guns and caulking guns, etc that weren't made to kill anyone. But, guns by their nature and design, were built to kill. If you are trying to persuade me that if someone shot with a rifle won't die because the rifle was only design to push a bullet real fast, that is exactly the reasoning demonstrated here:

The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges.
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions.
3) The tendency when they can’t persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point which the other person may agree with, and try to persuade others they are right by showing their agreement on the point they have switched to.
Watch the arguments made on ESBM by Freezoners and Scientologists and see if you can find examples of what I am talking about.
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you can’t take the Scientology out of the person.

The Anabaptist Jacques


Well now. Methinks you should maybe look over your own list again, because you didn't say designed to kill. You said designed to kill SOMEONE.

are you a closet Scientologist?

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

It's probably more a matter of focus, and sampling size. You could also point out the number of deaths due to lightening strikes, and warn people not to go outside, but it would also look ridiculous.

By reductionist logic you are comparing bad results from Scientology Tech as the same thing as a lighting strike. That would be

The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges.
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions.
3) The tendency when they can’t persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point which the other person may agree with, and try to persuade others they are right by showing their agreement on the point they have switched to.
Watch the arguments made on ESBM by Freezoners and Scientologists and see if you can find examples of what I am talking about.
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you can’t take the Scientology out of the person.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Well now. Methinks you should maybe look over your own list again, because you didn't say designed to kill. You said designed to kill SOMEONE.

are you a closet Scientologist?

Aha! I made an error. That must mean that the Technology has never hurt anyone. You really aren't trying to use that as an argument, are you? Somehow the discussion has become about guns because we were using guns as an example. So now we are misdirected to guns and errors in my use of pronouns. Which one of the following fits this?

The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges.
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions.
3) The tendency when they can’t persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point which the other person may agree with, and try to persuade others they are right by showing their agreement on the point they have switched to.
Watch the arguments made on ESBM by Freezoners and Scientologists and see if you can find examples of what I am talking about.
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you can’t take the Scientology out of the person.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Oneflewover]

By reductionist logic you are comparing bad results from Scientology Tech as the same thing as a lighting strike.
The Anabaptist Jacques

Uh, no. you used the argument "There is no straw man fallacy here. There are many deaths, deranged people, and ruined lives connect with the Tech."

You're hyping up that there are MANY deaths from tech use. I'm saying it's probably on the order of deaths by lightening strikes. In other words, so rare, as to not be statistically significant. I'd bet that percentage wise, you're much more likely to die in surgery than is session too, yet are you harping and whining away about the dangers of surgery?

No. Because you have a personal bias against the tech. Waa waa waa.

[Div6]

If you repeat it enough times, it must be true?


And what exactly do you mean by "reduction reasoning"? I can't find a definition of it.....

[Oneflewover]

Aha! I made an error. That must mean that the Technology has never hurt anyone. You really aren't trying to use that as an argument, are you? Somehow the discussion has become about guns because we were using guns as an example. So now we are misdirected to guns and errors in my use of pronouns. Which one of the following fits this?

The mental distortions are manifest by the following:
1) The tendency to almost exclusively use reduction reasoning and logically false comparisons to most things. By reduction reasoning I mean breaking things down to the tiniest part in order that they can then compare apples to oranges.
2)The tendency to only categorize and use similes in their discussions.
3) The tendency when they can’t persuade another to deftly change the point being discussed to another point which the other person may agree with, and try to persuade others they are right by showing their agreement on the point they have switched to.
Watch the arguments made on ESBM by Freezoners and Scientologists and see if you can find examples of what I am talking about.
This deterioration in reasoning I mentioned above seems to be present with the Freezoners as well as Scientologists. You can take the person out of Scientology, but if the person is in the Freezone, you can’t take the Scientology out of the person.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Ah. So you have minor errors, where as Scientologists have had their ability to reason destroyed. What's that smell?

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

If you repeat it enough times, it must be true?


And what exactly do you mean by "reduction reasoning"? I can't find a definition of it.....

I repeat it every time I see an example of it. By reduction reasoning is to reduce things to their tinest element and thereby neutralize differences. You can then reconstruct anything to be the equivalent or opposite of any other thing.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Ah. So you have minor errors, where as Scientologists have had their ability to reason destroyed. What's that smell?

That's a nice distortion of what I said. I believe Div 6 would call that a straw man fallacy, which is probably correct. But all this is a misdirection from the fact that the tech hurts people, and that some people, (with or without guns, or straw men, or repeating choruses, or misused pronouns, or whatever you want to misdirect things to) deny this and try to put the blame on the Church. Few ever consider the fact that the destructiveness of some of those in the Church may come from the fact that the tech had been used on them.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Good night!

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Div6]

I repeat it every time I see an example of it. By reduction reasoning is to reduce things to their tinest element and thereby neutralize differences. You can then reconstruct anything to be the equivalent or opposite of any other thing.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Is that an invented definition? I can't find any external references to it in that context.


Merely asserting something as true does not make it so. From my viewpoint it seems to be some kind of defense mechanism that attemts to prevent analysis of the primary assertion through mis-direction of attention. I'm not saying that is what it is, I am just saying that is what it appears to be....but I'm willing to learn.

And I don't follow how reducing things to their tiniest elements (a good trick if you can do it, but even the physicists are having issues with that one) "neutralizes" them. Scientific Reductionism is pretty well defined and used in various ways.....http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scientific_reductionism

[Div6]

That's a nice distortion of what I said. I believe Div 6 would call that a straw man fallacy, which is probably correct. But all this is a misdirection from the fact that the tech hurts people, and that some people, (with or without guns, or straw men, or repeating choruses, or misused pronouns, or whatever you want to misdirect things to) deny this and try to put the blame on the Church. Few ever consider the fact that the destructiveness of some of those in the Church may come from the fact that the tech had been used on them.

The Anabaptist Jacques


The above in bold is, I take it, your primary assertion.

OK. Please give specific examples of how the tech hurts people. Please start by stating which tech specifically (ie: O/W, two-way comm, listing and nulling, running serfacs, enforcing wrong items, crush sell, hard sell, conditions, ethics, etc..) and how that tech is harmful.

I am asking you to expand your assertion...not reduce it.


Then we can discuss if it is true in all cases, some cases, or no cases.

[Veda]

Glitch

[Veda]

IMO, regarding the enlightenment-coated mind-trap of Scientology:

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=84382&postcount=33

Good thread but, please, you Scientologists really should try to be not quite so excitable. It doesn't help your cause when you "lose it."

Here's a suggestion: Wear a chin-strap on your PR Hat so it doesn't slip off when you're putting on your Loyal Officer knee-high boots.

http://scientologistsfreezone.com

For those curious, there is another section on ESMB (that's outside the Scientology reality-bubble):

http://forum.exscn.net/forumdisplay.php?f=34

The Sole Source Myth:

http://forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=510

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Div 6,
This is what I mean by reduction reasoning. I made the statement that the tech hurts people and is damaging. You replied with:

The above in bold is, I take it, your primary assertion.

OK. Please give specific examples of how the tech hurts people. Please start by stating which tech specifically (ie: O/W, two-way comm, listing and nulling, running serfacs, enforcing wrong items, crush sell, hard sell, conditions, ethics, etc..) and how that tech is harmful.
I am asking you to expand your assertion...not reduce it.
Then we can discuss if it is true in all cases, some cases, or no cases.

Let’s say I said that and automobile struck and killed a man. And let’s say someone replies “That’s illogical. Which part of the car specifically killed the guy. The carburetor? The steering wheel? The Fender? How can you say that one piece of a car can kill someone.”
Do you see what I mean? But reducing thing to parts one can invalidate that there is a system and the sum of the parts can have an entirely different result than each part taken separately. The Tech is not a fixed object. It is a series of actions which have an accumulated effect. It is a system. That auditing only drives some people to suicide or only a few children crazy is bad enough, especially when there is no way of knowing from the start who will commit suicide or which children will go crazy.
The defenders of the tech will say it is other factors and not the tech that was applied to the person that did the damage. But if this is true then you cannot make the claim that it was the tech that gave any benefits. Because if you do you are thereby basing your argument on the premise that only the good things come from the tech. And this would be arguing in a circle, or begging the question. You would be saying that the proof that your premise is true is that your premise is true. This is much like saying we know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so and therefore it must be true because the Bible is the word of God.
I am making the claim that the tech is destructive because of the damage I see it does. I am making the claim that Scientology Tech warps reasoning because I see the warped reasoning that Scientologists use when defend the Tech or in other areas too. Also because of the inherent illogic in the writings of Hubbard which many insist are true.
I realize that there are those who claim big wins from the tech. But I say that these results, while subjective and sometimes euphoric, and sometimes changing a person attitudes and emotions and mental paradigms, have a net deteriorating effect on individuals. My evidence for that is what I observe about an ever growing number of Scientologists living lives of desperation, when if the tech worked, things should be just the opposite.
The best analogy I can give which sums up what I mean about people gaining wins but actually losing at life can be found in Plutarch. It is the conversation between Croesus and Solon. It is too long to go into here, but I advise that you read it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Mike Goldstein]

This is stupid ad hominem bullshit. I have no problem with those interested in Idenics. You are calling me a liar.

I happily admit that LRH had as his major inspiration Magick, via Crowley.

You wish to deny that John Galusha was a top reseach auditor for scientology from 1954, and with Mike Goldstein went to Flag with their wonderful book 1 course in I believe the seventies?

To deny the connection is like an ostrich putting its head in the sand.

Thats you.

Why the fuck should you attack me and call me a liar? You discredit the subject of Idenics!

Note: I was not attacking Idenics.

You are, of course correct about John Galusha and my connection with Scientology. We both worked closely with LRH; John as LRH’s right hand technical person and researcher in the 1950s and I worked with Hubbard on the Apollo in the early 1970s. We were both good Scientologists working at the top echelon of the Scientology movement in different decades. We worked together with Diana Hubbard to create the “Book One” movement that occurred in the CoS field in the early 1980s. After leaving the CoS, we continued for two years to practice a standard application of the technology that you are now practicing.
I have never denied nor do I regret my past involvement with LRH or Scientology. However, in the mid-1980s, we recognized the limitations of that technology and began a specific line of research and development that, in 1987, culminated in breakthroughs that would herald a new subject – Idenics. Different from most of the other subjects that were originated by people coming from a Scientology background, Idenics was not just a rehash of Scientology technology; the “same old” with alterations, additions or rewordings. In trying to come up with a “next step” from where Hubbard had left off we actually came up with an “undercut” to his entire bridge of services. Out of our past knowledge and experience a new subject was born; a subject with a philosophy and approach 180 degrees from that of Scientology.
The above information is discussed in detail in a series of articles titled "Life After the CoS" that I wrote about five years ago for people who have been involved with Scientology. One can read this series on the ESMB Web site, exscn.net, under the heading, “Alternatives” in the category, “Independent Field.”
Mike Goldstein

[Oneflewover]

Div 6,
This is what I mean by reduction reasoning. I made the statement that the tech hurts people and is damaging.


Let’s say I said that and automobile struck and killed a man. And let’s say someone replies “That’s illogical. Which part of the car specifically killed the guy. The carburetor? The steering wheel? The Fender? How can you say that one piece of a car can kill someone.”
Do you see what I mean? But reducing thing to parts one can invalidate that there is a system and the sum of the parts can have an entirely different result than each part taken separately. The Tech is not a fixed object. It is a series of actions which have an accumulated effect. It is a system. That auditing only drives some people to suicide or only a few children crazy is bad enough, especially when there is no way of knowing from the start who will commit suicide or which children will go crazy.
The defenders of the tech will say it is other factors and not the tech that was applied to the person that did the damage. But if this is true then you cannot make the claim that it was the tech that gave any benefits. Because if you do you are thereby basing your argument on the premise that only the good things come from the tech. And this would be arguing in a circle, or begging the question. You would be saying that the proof that your premise is true is that your premise is true. This is much like saying we know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so and therefore it must be true because the Bible is the word of God.
I am making the claim that the tech is destructive because of the damage I see it does. I am making the claim that Scientology Tech warps reasoning because I see the warped reasoning that Scientologists use when defend the Tech or in other areas too. Also because of the inherent illogic in the writings of Hubbard which many insist are true.
I realize that there are those who claim big wins from the tech. But I say that these results, while subjective and sometimes euphoric, and sometimes changing a person attitudes and emotions and mental paradigms, have a net deteriorating effect on individuals. My evidence for that is what I observe about an ever growing number of Scientologists living lives of desperation, when if the tech worked, things should be just the opposite.
The best analogy I can give which sums up what I mean about people gaining wins but actually losing at life can be found in Plutarch. It is the conversation between Croesus and Solon. It is too long to go into here, but I advise that you read it.

The Anabaptist Jacques

So in other words, you are saying that the entirety of your thrust is based on a personal prejudice. Now I understand. Every single point you make above has another equally plausible explanation, but you've decided ahead of time that your take on it is correct, and use nonsensical logical ruses to support your contentions, while assigning the exact same illogics you credit to Scientologists.

Point by point:

"Let’s say I said that and automobile struck and killed a man. And let’s say someone replies “That’s illogical. Which part of the car specifically killed the guy. The carburetor? The steering wheel? The Fender? How can you say that one piece of a car can kill someone.”
Do you see what I mean?"

No. That example makes no sense.

"But reducing thing to parts one can invalidate that there is a system and the sum of the parts can have an entirely different result than each part taken separately."

fine. unless there are in fact just parts, and you are hallucinating a system where none exists. Someone points out the disparate parts, and you parade your meaningless list of nonsense again.

"The Tech is not a fixed object. It is a series of actions which have an accumulated effect. It is a system."

No. It's a collection of basically unrelated techniques or processes, based on a set of basic assumptions and pseudo axioms, which are arranged in sequences to hopefully permit good progress. It includes many systems.

"That auditing only drives some people to suicide or only a few children crazy is bad enough, especially when there is no way of knowing from the start who will commit suicide or which children will go crazy."

This is pure assumption on your part. what evidence do you have that the tech, or any part thereof drove anyone crazy, or to suicide? Pure speculation.

"The defenders of the tech will say it is other factors and not the tech that was applied to the person that did the damage."

Perhaps. But if they are sane and honest, they'll just likely say there is no evidence to support claims of direct cause of damage. I've yet to see credible evidence to support such claims. Heresay, innuendo, suspicions, projections, extrapolations, wishful thinkingnesses, but zero evidence. Maybe it WAS tech application. Maybe it was tech misapplication. Maybe it was application of the wrong tech for the task. Maybe it was something else going on at the time. Maybe it was an undiagnosed illness or injury being audited over. Maybe the PC was doing something, like taking drugs while knowing they mustn't during runs of auditing, and didn't bother to tell the auditor or C/S. But in your conveniently simplistic view of "don't analyze my theory too closely, or I'll accuse you of reductionist reasoning, the theory goes "person receives tech-person later commits suicide-tech causes suicide. The fact is suicide may or may not have anything at all to do with tech or it's application, and there could be an almost unlimited number of factors involved. Same goes for your "undefined" harm, which could also have any number of causes, besides auditing, but including the auditing.

"But if this is true then you cannot make the claim that it was the tech that gave any benefits. Because if you do you are thereby basing your argument on the premise that only the good things come from the tech. And this would be arguing in a circle, or begging the question."

Another false and fallacious argument. Same criteria apply. It could have been the tech, or could have been the tech in combination with other things, or it could have been something unrelated that happened a week ago, or anything you'd care to imagine. The point is you can't prove it wasn't tech related, anymore than the Scientologist or auditor can prove it was. It's all just speculation. It's up to the person who had the supposed gain to decide where it came from, not you.

"You would be saying that the proof that your premise is true is that your premise is true. This is much like saying we know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so and therefore it must be true because the Bible is the word of God."

No. This is YOU saying that. That isn't in any way implied in a statement that the tech gave someone specific benefits. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but there is no circular reasoning going on. It's a simple statement, whether true or false.

"I am making the claim that the tech is destructive because of the damage I see it does."

You see no such thing. That's an extrapolation based on your personal prejudice. You assume it was the tech causing damage,without evidence to support the claim, because that's what you want to see there. Simple as that.

"I am making the claim that Scientology Tech warps reasoning because I see the warped reasoning that Scientologists use when defend the Tech or in other areas too. Also because of the inherent illogic in the writings of Hubbard which many insist are true."

This is your opinion, again based on your personal prejudice. I see no more warpage of reason in Scientologists here than I do in critics. You critics jump to all the same unsubstantiated conclusions as Scientologists do, except on a completely reversed vector. It's a simple game. Pro vs con. The Scientologists being he pros, and the critics being the cons. (pun intended).
Secondly, I'd question your claim of the. inherent illogic in LRH writings. That's a gross generality. All his writings inherently illogical? Just some? which ones? Which "many" are insisting LRH writings are true, and is it all of his writings, or just his illogical ones that this undefined "many" are insisting is true, and how is this in any way evidence of warped reasoning and it's supposed cause? Your thinking seems very convoluted to me, with unfounded leaps where no apparent connection exists.

"I realize that there are those who claim big wins from the tech. But I say that these results, while subjective and sometimes euphoric, and sometimes changing a person attitudes and emotions and mental paradigms, have a net deteriorating effect on individuals."

Yeah, you say alot, none of which is backed up with any evidence. smoke and mirrors. Prove a deteriorating effect on individuals, and what caused it. Dox or GTFO.

"My evidence for that is what I observe about an ever growing number of Scientologists living lives of desperation, when if the tech worked, things should be just the opposite."

So your evidence is what you observe, and therefore valid as evidence, but a PC's evidence of what they observe working for them, is, what, some sort of hallucination intentionally caused by LRH because he wanted their money? You stretch this any thinner, and it vanishes completely.

OFO

The Anabaptist Jacques[/QUOTE]

[Escalus]

“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967

It seems to me that the time has come to make no distinction between "freezone" and "scientology." It's pretty obvious that the indoctrination that a scientologist must accept relative to handling criticism will always remain as set out by Hubbard in the 1967 quote given above. In that universe there are only a handful of reasons for someone to debate the efficacies of the techniques and theory behind scientology;

1. The critic does not understand it correctly.

(This implies that it is, in fact not an ongoing, evolving study as put forth by Alan further up the thread but an established, axiomatic, universal fact)

2. The critic is speaking only from his or her personal abberations.

(Often coupled with the idea that the best way to handle this particular condition would be for the critic to submit themselves to the auditing whether or not the critic believes it is efficacious or not)

3. The critic is wrong on as many side items as can be brought up and attached to either his personality or his thought processes and therefore should be viewed as a "dead agent".

(Which has been shown to be a favored method for dismissing the argument).

I think it's rather telling, in the main, that the basis for these tactics must rest on the assumption that scientology in and of itself is a complete and true system; and that a critic is not a questioner but an enemy - and this enemy must be diminished as quickly as possible.

People observing the debate must see the charges leveled at the value of the critic as the issue - NOT the value of scientology as questioned by the critic. It's a practice that the cult uses and has used for decades, and only patient exposing of it is the antidote. The observer needs to see the method for what it is before they can make a distinct and completely informed opinion of the matter. That there are scientologists still willing to rise to the troll and demonstrate the phenomenon is telling, in my opinion.

It could not possibly be that the scientologist is reacting out of his own needs and justifications because scientology has basically "cleared" him of these kinds of cause-and-effect behaviors. Transversely the critic has not had the benefit of scientology to get him over his problems.

But the one remarkable thing that should be noted, I think, is that the serenity, competence, assuredness, tolerance, maturity, and good humor that are often seen as traits of those men and women who have attained a certain level of wisdom - are no where to be seen in the discourse of the scientologist when presented with rational arguments relative to his assumptions.

I couldn't have done this as a script to a one act any better, and I thank the participants for taking the bait.

What follows now will be more reasons I am not to be listened to. Go ahead fellas, you're doin it right! :wink2:

[Escalus]

Jacques - in that your observations of the result of the tech do not jive with the observation of scientologists (you will note), it s not assumed that therefore the "tech" needs to be looked at again objectively, or we need to review what we've found, but that your observations are simply wrong.

In any standard procedure if two different results are obtained with the same process it is normally considered - at that point - that the process requires closer review. Note here that that is NOT the result of the discussion. The result of the discussion is that YOUR varying results are based on your prejudice and must therefore conform with the results someone else has observed. Uh,... not how it works of course, in the real world.

No thinking person should accept that kind of conclusion, but the implication being made is that - in this case - that's the only answer.

[Zinjifar]

Well, what's the *point* to a 'Stable Datum' if it's not something you can calibrate your whole cognitive machinery with?

Zinj

[Escalus]

Well, what's the *point* to a 'Stable Datum' if it's not something you can calibrate your whole cognitive machinery with?

Zinj

That would cause a held down 7 though... wouldn't it??? :ohmy:

[Oneflewover]

“…Never discuss Scientology with the critic. Just discuss his or her crimes, known and unknown. And act completely confident that those crimes exist….” ~L. Ron Hubbard, “Critics of Scientology”, November 5, 1967

It seems to me that the time has come to make no distinction between "freezone" and "scientology." It's pretty obvious that the indoctrination that a scientologist must accept relative to handling criticism will always remain as set out by Hubbard in the 1967 quote given above. In that universe there are only a handful of reasons for someone to debate the efficacies of the techniques and theory behind scientology;

1. The critic does not understand it correctly.

(This implies that it is, in fact not an ongoing, evolving study as put forth by Alan further up the thread but an established, axiomatic, universal fact)

2. The critic is speaking only from his or her personal abberations.

(Often coupled with the idea that the best way to handle this particular condition would be for the critic to submit themselves to the auditing whether or not the critic believes it is efficacious or not)

3. The critic is wrong on as many side items as can be brought up and attached to either his personality or his thought processes and therefore should be viewed as a "dead agent".

(Which has been shown to be a favored method for dismissing the argument).

I think it's rather telling, in the main, that the basis for these tactics must rest on the assumption that scientology in and of itself is a complete and true system; and that a critic is not a questioner but an enemy - and this enemy must be diminished as quickly as possible.

People observing the debate must see the charges leveled at the value of the critic as the issue - NOT the value of scientology as questioned by the critic. It's a practice that the cult uses and has used for decades, and only patient exposing of it is the antidote. The observer needs to see the method for what it is before they can make a distinct and completely informed opinion of the matter. That there are scientologists still willing to rise to the troll and demonstrate the phenomenon is telling, in my opinion.

It could not possibly be that the scientologist is reacting out of his own needs and justifications because scientology has basically "cleared" him of these kinds of cause-and-effect behaviors. Transversely the critic has not had the benefit of scientology to get him over his problems.

But the one remarkable thing that should be noted, I think, is that the serenity, competence, assuredness, tolerance, maturity, and good humor that are often seen as traits of those men and women who have attained a certain level of wisdom - are no where to be seen in the discourse of the scientologist when presented with rational arguments relative to his assumptions.

I couldn't have done this as a script to a one act any better, and I thank the participants for taking the bait.

What follows now will be more reasons I am not to be listened to. Go ahead fellas, you're doin it right! :wink2:


You don't seem to be paying attention here. The above is pure fantasy. Sounds damning, but has only any relation to the posts on this thread in your mind. Wake up here, Robert.

[Zinjifar]

That would cause a held down 7 though... wouldn't it??? :ohmy:

Or, 'nailed down'. The stable datum is the spike the chains of the mind attach to. Which is why Scientologists so often seem to run in logical circles...

Zinj

[Escalus]

You don't seem to be paying attention here. The above is pure fantasy. Sounds damning, but has only any relation to the posts on this thread in your mind. Wake up here, Robert.

Thank you.

[Escalus]

Or, 'nailed down'. The stable datum is the spike the chains of the mind attach to. Which is why Scientologists so often seem to run in logical circles...

Zinj

You know maybe Ron had something there with the theory of the held down 7. By God you know... I think I'll go get me zumma dat dere auditingness!

[Escalus]

Merely asserting something as true does not make it so. From my viewpoint it seems to be some kind of defense mechanism that attemts to prevent analysis of the primary assertion through mis-direction of attention.

Now you have it. This is, very succinctly put, the main mechanism of scientologists. That is exactly my observation of the phenomenon that occurs when anyone questions the efficacy of the "tech".

[Oneflewover]

Thank you.

No really. I makes no sense to pay no attention to what transpires on the thread and then pretend your point has been made despite the non sequitur quality of the assertion.

Like nobody is going to notice that?

[Escalus]

No really. I makes no sense to pay no attention to what transpires on the thread and then pretend your point has been made despite the non sequitur quality of the assertion.

Like nobody is going to notice that?

Here is the point of reference. http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=128537&postcount=94

[Oneflewover]

Now you have it. This is, very succinctly put, the main mechanism of scientologists. That is exactly my observation of the phenomenon that occurs when anyone questions the efficacy of the "tech".

questioning efficacy is fine. assertions of inefficacy needs proof. That's all.

If someone claims workability, they need proof, or stfu.

If someone claims non workability, they need proof, or stfu.

so, STFU. As there is no proof.

[Boldgirl]

No really. I makes no sense to pay no attention to what transpires on the thread and then pretend your point has been made despite the non sequitur quality of the assertion.

Like nobody is going to notice that?

You are delusional. You think no one notices how indoctrinated you are? You are so funny ! Your post is not worth responding to....which is why no one is.
Go back to the church---where you can be yourself. :duh:

[Escalus]

questioning efficacy is fine. assertions of inefficacy needs proof. That's all.

If someone claims workability, they need proof, or stfu.

If someone claims non workability, they need proof, or stfu.

so, STFU. As there is no proof.

Nope. No one is required to prove a negative. That's accepted procedure for as long as there has been science. Assertions of existence require proof. The doubter need prove nothing whatsoever. Basic stuff, really.

[Oneflewover]

Jacques - in that your observations of the result of the tech do not jive with the observation of scientologists (you will note), it s not assumed that therefore the "tech" needs to be looked at again objectively, or we need to review what we've found, but that your observations are simply wrong.

In any standard procedure if two different results are obtained with the same process it is normally considered - at that point - that the process requires closer review. Note here that that is NOT the result of the discussion. The result of the discussion is that YOUR varying results are based on your prejudice and must therefore conform with the results someone else has observed. Uh,... not how it works of course, in the real world.

No thinking person should accept that kind of conclusion, but the implication being made is that - in this case - that's the only answer.

Nonsense Robert. None of that actually happened. You're just not reading the thread. Do you write your posts without first looking at the posts you claims to have under consideration?

[Zinjifar]

Nope. No one is required to prove a negative. That's accepted procedure for as long as there has been science. Assertions of existence require proof. The doubter need prove nothing whatsoever. Basic stuff, really.

A paper airplane will fly whether the witnesses believe in aerodynamics or not.
Not so ashtrays.

Zinj

[Escalus]

Nonsense Robert. None of that actually happened. You're just not reading the thread. Do you write your posts without first looking at the posts you claims to have under consideration?

On this site my name is actually "Escalus" - or have you been reading me from somewhere else and why? But nevermind that, I've given you the example of what I was referring to, and your answer is

1. The critic does not understand it correctly.

with a little bit if
3. The critic is wrong on as many side items as can be brought up and attached to either his personality or his thought processes and therefore should be viewed as a "dead agent"

thrown in for seasoning. :)

[Boldgirl]

A paper airplane will fly whether the witnesses believe in aerodynamics or not.
Not so ashtrays.

Zinj

:roflmao: :roflmao:

:omg: all this time I thought I was, in fact, affecting that damn ashtray. another hard lesson.

[Oneflewover]

Nope. No one is required to prove a negative. That's accepted procedure for as long as there has been science. Assertions of existence require proof. The doubter need prove nothing whatsoever. Basic stuff, really.

That's because you can't prove a negative, which is why all you've got is innuendos. complete nonsense.

[Escalus]

A paper airplane will fly whether the witnesses believe in aerodynamics or not.
Not so ashtrays.

Zinj

Oh thanks. Boy if my cigar disappears here in the next two minutes I'm coming after you!

[Escalus]

That's because you can't prove a negative, which is why all you've got is innuendos. complete nonsense.

OK you lost me on that one. I wrote that in stuff like this a person isn't required to prove a negative, and you said that's because I can't prove a negative.

And.... OK I admit I'm lost on this line of reasoning. Halp?

[thetanic]

:roflmao: :roflmao:

:omg: all this time I thought I was, in fact, affecting that damn ashtray. another hard lesson.

Meanwhile, I was asking myself, "why a fucking ashtray?"

It seemed like Hubbard had been mad that people hadn't been emptying their ashtrays and that's the real why for that little exercise. Be cause over your ashtray -- empty the damn thing.

[Oneflewover]

On this site my name is actually "Escalus" - or have you been reading me from somewhere else and why? But nevermind that, I've given you the example of what I was referring to, and your answer is

1. The critic does not understand it correctly.

with a little bit if
3. The critic is wrong on as many side items as can be brought up and attached to either his personality or his thought processes and therefore should be viewed as a "dead agent"

thrown in for seasoning. :)

Well, actually, the critic in this case doesn't understand it correctly, because the critic in question isn't even reading the thread he's talking about.

And nobody said you're wrong on any side issues. just that you're not paying attention, because what you are saying has no relation to what's gone before.

[Escalus]

Well, actually, the critic in this case doesn't understand it correctly, because the critic in question isn't even reading the thread he's talking about.

And nobody said you're wrong on any side issues. just that you're not paying attention, because what you are saying has no relation to what's gone before.

I beg to differ because when Jacques presented his results using the tech and you an Div6 presented your findings they didn't jive and the answer he was given was he was prejudiced. That's really not how it works.

[Oneflewover]

OK you lost me on that one. I wrote that in stuff like this a person isn't required to prove a negative, and you said that's because I can't prove a negative.

And.... OK I admit I'm lost on this line of reasoning. Halp?

You said that in usual scientific practice that negatives need not be proven. I said that it's because a negative can't be proven, which is why your basis of criticism is innuendo, and non sequiturs.

[Escalus]

Meanwhile, I was asking myself, "why a fucking ashtray?"

It seemed like Hubbard had been mad that people hadn't been emptying their ashtrays and that's the real why for that little exercise. Be cause over your ashtray -- empty the damn thing.

I'm saving mine to do a study on ash so I can tell the difference between cigars just like Shemlock Jones. :D

[Escalus]

You said that in usual scientific practice that negatives need not be proven. I said that it's because a negative can't be proven, which is why your basis of criticism is innuendo, and non sequiturs.

No actually the way it works is that assertions must be proven. :) The doubter has no requirement to prove anything. It's the way science works. :eyeroll:

[Oneflewover]

I beg to differ because when Jacques presented his results using the tech and you an Div6 presented your findings they didn't jive and the answer he was given was he was prejudiced. That's really not how it works.


Again that's non sequitur. I told him he was prejudiced much later in the thread and in no relation to what you refer to, yet you paint it as though a direct follow up. That's dishonest. Or you're not paying attention.

[Zinjifar]

You said that in usual scientific practice that negatives need not be proven. I said that it's because a negative can't be proven, which is why your basis of criticism is innuendo, and non sequiturs.

He's a friggin meatball. Probably doesn't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy either; yet, can't prove they don't exist!

Atheist!

Zinj

[Oneflewover]

No actually the way it works is that assertions must be proven. :) The doubter has no requirement to prove anything. It's the way science works. :eyeroll:

You guys are ASSERTING the tech doesn't work and damages people.

PROVE IT.

[Escalus]

lol

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=128537&postcount=94

[Escalus]

You guys are ASSERTING the tech doesn't work and damages people.

PROVE IT.

OK catch up & I'll get it all down in one post for ya. My fingers are aching!

And you can't fool me, Zinj, there ain't no Sanity Clause

[Zinjifar]

You guys are ASSERTING the tech doesn't work and damages people.

PROVE IT.

1) If The Tech 'worked', we would not be having this discussion.

2) Damage is sometimes seen as a 'feature' rather than a 'bug'. By the damaged.

Zinj

[paradox]

I repeat it every time I see an example of it. By reduction reasoning is to reduce things to their tinest element and thereby neutralize differences. You can then reconstruct anything to be the equivalent or opposite of any other thing.

The Anabaptist Jacques



Is that an invented definition? I can't find any external references to it in that context.

Merely asserting something as true does not make it so. From my viewpoint it seems to be some kind of defense mechanism that attemts to prevent analysis of the primary assertion through mis-direction of attention. I'm not saying that is what it is, I am just saying that is what it appears to be....but I'm willing to learn.

And I don't follow how reducing things to their tiniest elements (a good trick if you can do it, but even the physicists are having issues with that one) "neutralizes" them. Scientific Reductionism is pretty well defined and used in various ways.....http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Scientific_reductionism

It would appear AJ's definition is his own. I believe reductionist reasoning is actually more correctly defined as (paraphrasing) an attempt to reduce to, or assign as, a single (or simplified) cause for a complex scenario or set of circumstances.

Prisoners of Reason paper (pdf download link at top-right of the page).
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.32.5902


Abstract:

In this contribution, the prisoner's dilemma is revisited and taken as an example par excellence for the problems with reductionist reasoning. It is related to recent findings in evolutionary psychology and also set into the broad context of critiques against rationalism as such. It will be argued that rationality goes well beyond traditional logic and reductionist reasoning based on it. Complex decision making in a complex world is very much a matter of learning and adaptation, but also of understanding things in their context considering their interconnections. Reasoning has to reflect that in order not to run into severe problems. Since everyday reasoning is not independent of the context in which it takes place, the rules of reasoning can be valid only with respect to a particular domain and scenario. The paper shows first steps towards a logic that is based on evolutionary methods. A good solution in the prisoner's dilemma is one that can be reused in the context of the iterated prisoner's dilemma, that is, that would be reused if faced with the same situation as well. 1

[Oneflewover]

1) If The Tech 'worked', we would not be having this discussion.

2) Damage is sometimes seen as a 'feature' rather than a 'bug'. By the damaged.

Zinj

1. no argument.

2. very funny, as usual.

[Escalus]

All caught up now? lol... Let's try this again...

scientologists have put forth a program for addressing the ills of men's spiritual and mental condition. They posit a complete set of principles and procedures and have established locations and organizations to promulgate their ideas.

Sometimes a person coming out of the processing claims to have been helped and to have achieved good things in their life.

Other times the results have not been at all what was promised, and actual damage had been done.

In the thread above Jacques pointed out that in his experience he saw damage done.

The correct procedure would have been to review the situation. If there are exceptions to the claims made by scientology then there are obviously problems with the stated "tech".

However... Oneflewover, defending the claims made by his observations pointed out to Jacques that Jacques' results were based on his own personal prejudices.

That's not the scientific method, that's actually attacking the critic.

That's what I was talking about, and commented on.

Oneflewover then said I wasn't paying attention to the thread.

That's saying I didn't understand what was happening.

Now we're taking about the fact that for as long as there has been science the idea is that claims that a methodology works is the responsibility of the claimant, and it is not the responsibility of the doubter to prove the claims don't exist.

It's science 101.

And, per what I consider to be the standard practice of scientologists; we are talking now about the scientific method, not the unsubstantiated claims of scientology that was put out waaaaaaay back in the first post.

Except it didn't work. But I'm lovin it!

[Boldgirl]

"When I was in the moon cult, my friends and family told me time and time again that I had been "brainwashed", or that I was under "mind control". At the time, I thought "mind control" meant being handcuffed, tortured, and interrogated under bright lights, and I knew that hadn't happened to me. So, when people called me a :brainwashed robot", I thought they were just persecuting me for my beliefs, and their negative comments wound up reinforcing my commitment to the group" .(we see this on the board a lot when talking to scn's---no wonder they get so upset) "Like any member of a destructive cult. I needed to learn what mind control really was, and how it was used, before I could understand that I had been subjected to it."

"....Everyone has an authentic self. Although a healthy individual will grow and mature over time, his personality type should never change. Changes in personality type often indicate unhealthy social pressure that forces a person to act as if he were someone else. The results of Yeakley's study showed that cults create this kind of pressure. It also verified the existence of a cult identity which binds and gags the authentic self like a strait jacket."

(all taken from Hassan's book "Releasing the Bonds".)

Since we didnt know each other pre-cult....hard to say who is authentic and who isnt.

I could not admit I was changed negatively in any way during cult time---no way--when I was in I didnt think I was different than I had been. My friends and family did not agree.

Now that I am really out ---I see it like night and day.

To the scn's on this board--ask yourself and your friends and family if there is a difference---and if it isn't what you wanted to hear---take it to heart....THEY KNOW.

[Escalus]

Boldgirl this is really me I swear t'gawd! :coolwink:

I think....

[Boldgirl]

Boldgirl this is really me I swear t'gawd! :coolwink:

I think....

I definitely was NOT referring to you !!! You are not a scientologist !

[Escalus]

I definitely was NOT referring to you !!! You are not a scientologist !

I'm not??

Oh!

Hey!

I'm NOT!!!

:wink2:

[thetanic]

I could not admit I was changed negatively in any way during cult time---no way--when I was in I didnt think I was different than I had been. My friends and family did not agree.

Now that I am really out ---I see it like night and day.

To the scn's on this board--ask yourself and your friends and family if there is a difference---and if it isn't what you wanted to hear---take it to heart....THEY KNOW.

That's my story as well, and it's been a long healing process.

[Oneflewover]

All caught up now? lol... Let's try this again...

scientologists have put forth a program for addressing the ills of men's spiritual and mental condition. They posit a complete set of principles and procedures and have established locations and organizations to promulgate their ideas.

Sometimes a person coming out of the processing claims to have been helped and to have achieved good things in their life.

Other times the results have not been at all what was promised, and actual damage had been done.

In the thread above Jacques pointed out that in his experience he saw damage done.

The correct procedure would have been to review the situation. If there are exceptions to the claims made by scientology then there are obviously problems with the stated "tech".

However... Oneflewover, defending the claims made by his observations pointed out to Jacques that Jacques' results were based on his own personal prejudices.

That's not the scientific method, that's actually attacking the critic.

That's what I was talking about, and commented on.

Oneflewover then said I wasn't paying attention to the thread.

That's saying I didn't understand what was happening.

Now we're taking about the fact that for as long as there has been science the idea is that claims that a methodology works is the responsibility of the claimant, and it is not the responsibility of the doubter to prove the claims don't exist.

It's science 101.

And, per what I consider to be the standard practice of scientologists; we are talking now about the scientific method, not the unsubstantiated claims of scientology that was put out waaaaaaay back in the first post.

Except it didn't work. But I'm lovin it!


Very succinct. So if that's true, you can show me where ("However... Oneflewover, defending the claims made by his observations pointed out to Jacques that Jacques' results were based on his own personal prejudices.") occurred. And not in some non sequitur, 20 posts apart fashion, but as a direct response.

[Boldgirl]

I'm not??

Oh!

Hey!

I'm NOT!!!

:wink2:

thank goodness....or I would have had to shoot myself if I was 'identifying' with a scientologist after all this crap!!!

[Escalus]

So in other words, you are saying that the entirety of your thrust is based on a personal prejudice. Now I understand. Every single point you make above has another equally plausible explanation, but you've decided ahead of time that your take on it is correct, and use nonsensical logical ruses to support your contentions, while assigning the exact same illogics you credit to Scientologists.

Point by point:

"Let’s say I said that and automobile struck and killed a man. And let’s say someone replies “That’s illogical. Which part of the car specifically killed the guy. The carburetor? The steering wheel? The Fender? How can you say that one piece of a car can kill someone.”
Do you see what I mean?"

No. That example makes no sense.

"But reducing thing to parts one can invalidate that there is a system and the sum of the parts can have an entirely different result than each part taken separately."

fine. unless there are in fact just parts, and you are hallucinating a system where none exists. Someone points out the disparate parts, and you parade your meaningless list of nonsense again.

"The Tech is not a fixed object. It is a series of actions which have an accumulated effect. It is a system."

No. It's a collection of basically unrelated techniques or processes, based on a set of basic assumptions and pseudo axioms, which are arranged in sequences to hopefully permit good progress. It includes many systems.

"That auditing only drives some people to suicide or only a few children crazy is bad enough, especially when there is no way of knowing from the start who will commit suicide or which children will go crazy."

This is pure assumption on your part. what evidence do you have that the tech, or any part thereof drove anyone crazy, or to suicide? Pure speculation.

"The defenders of the tech will say it is other factors and not the tech that was applied to the person that did the damage."

Perhaps. But if they are sane and honest, they'll just likely say there is no evidence to support claims of direct cause of damage. I've yet to see credible evidence to support such claims. Heresay, innuendo, suspicions, projections, extrapolations, wishful thinkingnesses, but zero evidence. Maybe it WAS tech application. Maybe it was tech misapplication. Maybe it was application of the wrong tech for the task. Maybe it was something else going on at the time. Maybe it was an undiagnosed illness or injury being audited over. Maybe the PC was doing something, like taking drugs while knowing they mustn't during runs of auditing, and didn't bother to tell the auditor or C/S. But in your conveniently simplistic view of "don't analyze my theory too closely, or I'll accuse you of reductionist reasoning, the theory goes "person receives tech-person later commits suicide-tech causes suicide. The fact is suicide may or may not have anything at all to do with tech or it's application, and there could be an almost unlimited number of factors involved. Same goes for your "undefined" harm, which could also have any number of causes, besides auditing, but including the auditing.

"But if this is true then you cannot make the claim that it was the tech that gave any benefits. Because if you do you are thereby basing your argument on the premise that only the good things come from the tech. And this would be arguing in a circle, or begging the question."

Another false and fallacious argument. Same criteria apply. It could have been the tech, or could have been the tech in combination with other things, or it could have been something unrelated that happened a week ago, or anything you'd care to imagine. The point is you can't prove it wasn't tech related, anymore than the Scientologist or auditor can prove it was. It's all just speculation. It's up to the person who had the supposed gain to decide where it came from, not you.

"You would be saying that the proof that your premise is true is that your premise is true. This is much like saying we know the Bible is the word of God because the Bible says so and therefore it must be true because the Bible is the word of God."

No. This is YOU saying that. That isn't in any way implied in a statement that the tech gave someone specific benefits. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, but there is no circular reasoning going on. It's a simple statement, whether true or false.

"I am making the claim that the tech is destructive because of the damage I see it does."

You see no such thing. That's an extrapolation based on your personal prejudice. You assume it was the tech causing damage,without evidence to support the claim, because that's what you want to see there. Simple as that.

"I am making the claim that Scientology Tech warps reasoning because I see the warped reasoning that Scientologists use when defend the Tech or in other areas too. Also because of the inherent illogic in the writings of Hubbard which many insist are true."

This is your opinion, again based on your personal prejudice. I see no more warpage of reason in Scientologists here than I do in critics. You critics jump to all the same unsubstantiated conclusions as Scientologists do, except on a completely reversed vector. It's a simple game. Pro vs con. The Scientologists being he pros, and the critics being the cons. (pun intended).
Secondly, I'd question your claim of the. inherent illogic in LRH writings. That's a gross generality. All his writings inherently illogical? Just some? which ones? Which "many" are insisting LRH writings are true, and is it all of his writings, or just his illogical ones that this undefined "many" are insisting is true, and how is this in any way evidence of warped reasoning and it's supposed cause? Your thinking seems very convoluted to me, with unfounded leaps where no apparent connection exists.

"I realize that there are those who claim big wins from the tech. But I say that these results, while subjective and sometimes euphoric, and sometimes changing a person attitudes and emotions and mental paradigms, have a net deteriorating effect on individuals."

Yeah, you say alot, none of which is backed up with any evidence. smoke and mirrors. Prove a deteriorating effect on individuals, and what caused it. Dox or GTFO.

"My evidence for that is what I observe about an ever growing number of Scientologists living lives of desperation, when if the tech worked, things should be just the opposite."

So your evidence is what you observe, and therefore valid as evidence, but a PC's evidence of what they observe working for them, is, what, some sort of hallucination intentionally caused by LRH because he wanted their money? You stretch this any thinner, and it vanishes completely.

OFO


He didn't say his opinion was based on personal prejudice. You did.

And now we will dance the angels on the pin to define this. But this was your assertion, not his.

[Boldgirl]

That's my story as well, and it's been a long healing process.

yes indeed.....

god I hate scn.

[Escalus]

Ah dunno dude, mebbe you just weren't paying attention to the thread. :clap:

[Oneflewover]

"When I was in the moon cult, my friends and family told me time and time again that I had been "brainwashed", or that I was under "mind control". At the time, I thought "mind control" meant being handcuffed, tortured, and interrogated under bright lights, and I knew that hadn't happened to me. So, when people called me a :brainwashed robot", I thought they were just persecuting me for my beliefs, and their negative comments wound up reinforcing my commitment to the group" .(we see this on the board a lot when talking to scn's---no wonder they get so upset) "Like any member of a destructive cult. I needed to learn what mind control really was, and how it was used, before I could understand that I had been subjected to it."

"....Everyone has an authentic self. Although a healthy individual will grow and mature over time, his personality type should never change. Changes in personality type often indicate unhealthy social pressure that forces a person to act as if he were someone else. The results of Yeakley's study showed that cults create this kind of pressure. It also verified the existence of a cult identity which binds and gags the authentic self like a strait jacket."

(all taken from Hassan's book "Releasing the Bonds".)

Since we didnt know each other pre-cult....hard to say who is authentic and who isnt.

I could not admit I was changed negatively in any way during cult time---no way--when I was in I didnt think I was different than I had been. My friends and family did not agree.

Now that I am really out ---I see it like night and day.

To the scn's on this board--ask yourself and your friends and family if there is a difference---and if it isn't what you wanted to hear---take it to heart....THEY KNOW.

My experience was much different. My family was delighted by the changes they saw in me when I got into Scientology. I'd been heavily into drugs before Scientology, and the changes were dramatic enough for my family to say "whatever you're doing, it's working."

[Oneflewover]

He didn't say his opinion was based on personal prejudice. You did.

And now we will dance the angels on the pin to define this. But this was your assertion, not his.

Oh Gawd. just go read it already. I wasn't talking about his observations. I was talking about his premise for his criticship.

[Zinjifar]

yes indeed.....

god I hate scn.

A little non sequitur, 'hate' is almost never something that I feel about Scientology, but, 'despise' often is. Maybe because I was never personally in.

Different strokes I guess.

Zinj

[Boldgirl]

My experience was much different. My family was delighted by the changes they saw in me when I got into Scientology. I'd been heavily into drugs before Scientology, and the changes were dramatic enough for my family to say "whatever you're doing, it's working."

I would never inval that--I am glad for you, truly.

[Oneflewover]

He didn't say his opinion was based on personal prejudice. You did.

And now we will dance the angels on the pin to define this. But this was your assertion, not his.

Oh wait. I get it now. It was a TLDR, amirite?:duh:

[Boldgirl]

A little non sequitur, 'hate' is almost never something that I feel about Scientology, but, 'despise' often is. Maybe because I was never personally in.

Different strokes I guess.

Zinj

loathe, detest, vomit over, want to crush....just carrying on with more words that describe how I feel about it.

You were never in? Huh? You?

[Oneflewover]

I would never inval that--I am glad for you, truly.

Thanks. (but you were thinking about it, weren't you?:yes: )

[Zinjifar]

loathe, detest, vomit over, want to crush....just carrying on with more words that describe how I feel about it.

You were never in? Huh? You?

Not even an 'orientation film' :) By the time I would have enjoyed watching one, they wouldn't have let me.

Zinj

[Escalus]

Oh Gawd. just go read it already. I wasn't talking about his observations. I was talking about his premise for his criticship.

I count actually twenty three angels on that
pinhead.

[Good twin]

Not even an 'orientation film' :) By the time I would have enjoyed watching one, they wouldn't have let me.

Zinj

You want me to try and smuggle a copy out for you?:confused2:

[Escalus]

Not even an 'orientation film' :) By the time I would have enjoyed watching one, they wouldn't have let me.

Zinj

Me me me! Pick meeeeee! Can I watch?

[Boldgirl]

Thanks. (but you were thinking about it, weren't you?:yes: )

more like shock---but then again going from a 'danger state' like being on drugs in life is a different story--any intervention by any human being in my opinion would have helped you as I have seen wog help with so many.

Howevere me, I was quite healthy before scn, doing very well, and then scn scraped me up--I dont feel good anymore and I feel depressed all the time after auditing--the more I did the worse it got. So I hate scn.

[Zinjifar]

You want me to try and smuggle a copy out for you?:confused2:

Actually, by this time, I've seen it :)

But, I meant in a more formal setting; with regging and personality bla bla too.

After all, it's about the 'context' :)

Zinj

[Oneflewover]

more like shock---but then again going from a 'danger state' like being on drugs in life is a different story--any intervention by any human being in my opinion would have helped you as I have seen wog help with so many.

Howevere me, I was quite healthy before scn, doing very well, and then scn scraped me up--I dont feel good anymore and I feel depressed all the time after auditing--the more I did the worse it got. So I hate scn.

understandable. Are you doing anything about it?

[Escalus]

Actually, by this time, I've seen it :)

But, I meant in a more formal setting; with regging and personality bla bla too.

After all, it's about the 'context' :)

Zinj

If it isn't in a dianetical or scientological context it can't be defined... just remember that.

[Boldgirl]

Not even an 'orientation film' :) By the time I would have enjoyed watching one, they wouldn't have let me.

Zinj

The tick should always be let in.
SPOON !!!!!!!!!!!
EVIL IS AFOOT !!!!!!!!!!

[Escalus]

The tick should always be let in.
SPOON !!!!!!!!!!!
EVIL IS AFOOT !!!!!!!!!!

I have a tick in my left eye... does that count? Maybe I should get some auditing...

[Boldgirl]

understandable. Are you doing anything about it?

YEP. Yelling at FZ's and scientologists to f-in wake up. Then there is reading lots of books to rekindle my faith --whatever that is. Taking vitamins, working, and selling all my scn crap. That's phase one.

[Boldgirl]

I have a tick in my left eye... does that count? Maybe I should get some auditing...

Escalaus...you DO know about 'The Tick"...don't you? His sidekick was arthur the moth.

[Zinjifar]

YEP. Yelling at FZ's and scientologists to f-in wake up. Then there is reading lots of books to rekindle my faith --whatever that is. Taking vitamins, working, and selling all my scn crap. That's phase one.

Phase 2 is to join a bowling league; to take care of any incipient 'group' needs. Or, a quilting bee...

Or, ESMB for that matter.

Zinj

[Escalus]

Escalaus...you DO know about 'The Tick"...don't you? His sidekick was arthur the moth.

That's zinj's avatar I think?

I'm a little slow.

[Zinjifar]

Escalaus...you DO know about 'The Tick"...don't you? His sidekick was arthur the moth.

Destiny, that finely-shaped engine of the universe with the warm hands and the tasteful footwear, pushed Arthur, wings and all, into my path. We were meant to be together, friends to the end. He has a three-pound brain, and it's all smarts. - The Tick

Zinj

[Good twin]

Actually, by this time, I've seen it :)

But, I meant in a more formal setting; with regging and personality bla bla too.

After all, it's about the 'context' :)

Zinj

I assure you I could recreate the entire intro service lineup start to finish. I've "dummy run" all posts in the line up and would be happy to crunch you into your ruin and move you through the awareness characteristics up to "demand for improvement" and drive you to the nearest ATM or rich relative for payment. It's what I'm good at. I was comfortable doing that.
These days I'm learning the joy of mediocracy. I'm not all that good at regular life skills. I'm clumsy and awkward and I get emotional for no reason. It's fascinating! I feel like I missed some very important steps of growing up. Oh yeah and I always have enough money to buy whatever I want when I grocery shop. That's amazing!

[Boldgirl]

That's zinj's avatar I think?

I'm a little slow.

yes, the cartoon was quite funny.

http://keithdevens.com/images/fun/TheTick.jpg

[Escalus]

I thought it had something to do with stock prices.... oh well.

[Boldgirl]

I thought it had something to do with stock prices.... oh well.

:roflmao: :roflmao:

[Escalus]

These days I'm learning the joy of mediocracy. I'm not all that good at regular life skills. I'm clumsy and awkward and I get emotional for no reason. It's fascinating! I feel like I missed some very important steps of growing up. Oh yeah and I always have enough money to buy whatever I want when I grocery shop. That's amazing!

It's ok to just be yourself.

[Zinjifar]

I assure you I could recreate the entire intro service lineup start to finish. I've "dummy run" all posts in the line up and would be happy to crunch you into your ruin and move you through the awareness characteristics up to "demand for improvement" and drive you to the nearest ATM or rich relative for payment. It's what I'm good at. I was comfortable doing that.
These days I'm learning the joy of mediocracy. I'm not all that good at regular life skills. I'm clumsy and awkward and I get emotional for no reason. It's fascinating! I feel like I missed some very important steps of growing up. Oh yeah and I always have enough money to buy whatever I want when I grocery shop. That's amazing!

Homo Novis was the Evolutionary Edsel of Spirituality. :)

Us Homo Sapiens Sapiens get along just fine. If you're not too picky.

Zinj

[Good twin]

It's ok to just be yourself.

Yeah well it's fun learning that. So far so good.:thumbsup:

[Escalus]

Yeah well it's fun learning that. So far so good.:thumbsup:

There's a lot of freedom in being able to say - "I don't know." This is not a principle that ever leaked from the eastern traditions into scientology as far as I could see.

[Good twin]

Actually it's been a major shift. More "case gain" in these past few months of letting go of the so called stable data to handle life, than in the thirty two years of using it. I feel so alive. I know I just keep going on and on about it but it just has me baffled. I really had no clue.....................

[Escalus]

Actually it's been a major shift. More "case gain" in these past few months of letting go of the so called stable data to handle life, than in the thirty two years of using it. I feel so alive. I know I just keep going on and on about it but it just has me baffled. I really had no clue.....................

That's truly great.

[The Anabaptist Jacques]

Hi folks,
Thanks for jumping in. I have been a bit too preoccupied to respond. This Geogian thing may threaten some family members so my atention is on this.
I think that Scientologist and Freezoners are so brainwashed it is almost impossible to reason with them. They are completely blind to the faults of the tech. Are they will never accept responsibility for promoting and defending something that harms so many people.
Thanks guys. I got to get back on the phone.

The Anabaptist Jacques

[Escalus]

Hi folks,
Thanks for jumping in. I have been a bit too preoccupied to respond. This Geogian thing may threaten some family members so my atention is on this.
I think that Scientologist and Freezoners are so brainwashed it is almost impossible to reason with them. They are completely blind to the faults of the tech. Are they will never accept responsibility for promoting and defending something that harms so many people.
Thanks guys. I got to get back on the phone.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Oh man, I didn't know. I'll be keeping your family in the Light.

[Zinjifar]

Hi folks,
Thanks for jumping in. I have been a bit too preoccupied to respond. This Geogian thing may threaten some family members so my atention is on this.
I think that Scientologist and Freezoners are so brainwashed it is almost impossible to reason with them. They are completely blind to the faults of the tech. Are they will never accept responsibility for promoting and defending something that harms so many people.
Thanks guys. I got to get back on the phone.

The Anabaptist Jacques

Good luck with the Georgian thing. It endangers all of us, but, some are more on the firing line.

Zinj

[Good twin]

Good luck Taj.

[Boldgirl]

Hi folks,
Thanks for jumping in. I have been a bit too preoccupied to respond. This Geogian thing may threaten some family members so my atention is on this.
I think that Scientologist and Freezoners are so brainwashed it is almost impossible to reason with them. They are completely blind to the faults of the tech. Are they will never accept responsibility for promoting and defending something that harms so many people.
Thanks guys. I got to get back on the phone.

The Anabaptist Jacques

More positive thoughts of your family being safe coming your way....

[Voltaire's Child]

This is fiction fluffyand another lame scn attempt to not confront, spin the truth, and take attention off self--right from the book-I give you that-you know your scientology!!

Why should attention be put on "self" to begin with? It shouldn't.

And, no, I do nothing by the Scn book when posting to forums. I wish you wouldn't typecast me just because of my creed. I never, in all my life, did any of the drills or courses for handling critics or dissemination when I was in CofS. Everything I learned about debate I learned on a critical forum called alt.religion.scientology.

If I've stated anything that's incorrect, then of course, you can feel free to post commentary to the contrary.


Back on other threads in the past, I spoke of the FACT that scn , and FZ'es and other alternative wacko so called therapists.....all of whom do NOT practice informed consent. If this one point was practiced by scn, many would never sit down once in an auditing room.


My point that I was making is that anything anyone does, whether or not it's something that comes with a degree from Harvard or whether it's some New Age thing or a religious practice from an elder religion or a religious practice from some fringey weird group has risk. I've seen, first hand, the wildly variable nature of psychology and psychiatric treatment. I'd never say people shouldn't go to therapists or even psychiatrists, but I know for a fact that there's no gilt-edged guarantee and one doesn't know what emotional reactions will come up. One doesn't. Same with Scn. If one were to avoid something because of risk, then there is not one sort of treatment or counselling anyone could ever do.

PCs in CofS and in the Freezone are given a lot of "R factors". The Freezone, however, is much better at advance disclosure and discussion and that's because in the FZ and independent scene, you don't have a bunch of people screaming and freaking out about verbal data whenever you try to talk to people about stuff.



People who go to md's, psychs (all licensed practitioners) etc ALL have to sign informed consents where the patients are told of the possible side effects and dangers....then they mke that decision to move forward or not---THIS INCLUDED MEDS.


Actually, you know, CofS has people sign a huge big wankin' waiver. In fact, that's caused some scandal in critical circles. :wink2: :ohmy:

And, no, I can tell you for a fact- and I know this because my family and I lived this and I have friends who also did- psychiatrists do NOT tell you everything that can happen as a result of their treatment. They really don't. They do about drugs, but they don't tell you all the stuff that can shake loose and come up from therapy sessions and they sure as shit steered my family wrong about the ECT. So, no, it depends on what the method or treatment is.



PS: Informed consent exists to protect the public from uneducated unlicensed ill intentioned people. There is a reason that non licensed people do not practice informed consent-they do not want accountability for their actions. They do not stand so strong on their expertise that they would stake their career on what they practice.


Too bad it isn't as thorough as it could be in all cases. But then again, sensible people know that there's inherent risk in any venue, whether or not that venue has won the GoodHousekeeping Seal or Approval.



So in conclusion-if a person goes to take 'purple nurple magic mind bending' services but has signed and read the possible dangers and side effects (all of them)--and they still want to do it---hey go for it!


That's exactly how it is with auditing. Too bad not all other venues are as thorough as Scn is with that. But life's a crapshoot anyway.

[Voltaire's Child]

Believe it or not I agree with you. But I also feel the added strong opinion that people should have all the info before they leap WHEN they are seeking help from a prctice that could damage them. It is on that premise that I deviate hard from fluffy--she thinks that scn practices are a 'belief' and I know they are not just that. They have practices which kill people and she still thinks that is a belief.


They do have all the info. A whole lot more than they do in other venues.

I do not say that practices are beliefs. Practices are not beliefs. I do say that one may have a belief or beliefs as to whether or not they work or are worth doing.

[Voltaire's Child]

Nope, not typical.

If there weren't SP declares of people who had declared they'd left the CofS (and done NOTHING ELSE), I'd probably say I was an ex-Scn.

However, with friends in and caring that I keep in contact with them, that avenue isn't open to me. For that reason alone, I'm a Scientologist, though one that's "offlines indefinitely."


There are a lot of CofS members who've quietly drifted away, because they really don't want the hassle from CofS about leaving publicly or is the person PTS or any of that. I've talked to some. Disenchanted, angry, but really not wanting to officially leave and get messed with by CofS all the time.

As to the creed one professes in one's heart, well, the person him or herself knows what it is better than anyone else.:)

[Voltaire's Child]

Well , because to me, a scientologist furthers the aims and goals of scientology, in every sense. So I feel that when a FZ or scn here on esmb says they disagree with the management of the church etc etc--but like the tech --or some of the tech--and are still using it on others, then they are furthering the aims of scientology.

So I dont buy the 'escape clause' that FZ or scientologits on this board love to point out---they try to 'qualify' to what degree a scn they are-like it is OK to any degree.

You either are or you are not. And if you are a scn, then you support the church and you are helping them. You are continually creating it and trying to with others.

So when I said they try to deny they are scientologists, I do mean they try to deny that they are the kind of scientologists that support the management of the church.....when in reality they are the only kind of scientologist....full fledge 1000%.

That is what I mean.


However, I did provide links of two FZ websites, each described their FZ thang as Scn.

Freezoners and indie Scn'ists don't want to be CofS Scn'ists.

Your historical precedent for this is the Protestant Reformation.

[Voltaire's Child]

Div 6,

I had a friend commit suicide after some auditing. He was not under any Church pressure. The auditing simply intoverted him and he killed himself. I have another friend who followed LRHs advice regarding cures and died of cancer. No Church pressure was involved. The philosophy you are defending kills.


And I've heard of people who killed themselves who'd been receiving psychological counselling, psychiatric treatment or even counselling from priests or ministers. Lots of people have. A lot of the people who've gone in and shot people at workplaces, fast food restaurants, etc, were receiving psychiatric or psychological treatment, yet I'd never dream of telling people that psychiatry and psychology kill.

Some people aren't too stable to begin with. And also stuff can get stirred up in any counselling or treatment. So if one were to use your logic and criteria, no one could avail him or herself of any treatments whatsoever, whether mainstream and accredited, or mainstream religious or something else.

[Voltaire's Child]

You are delusional. You think no one notices how indoctrinated you are? You are so funny ! Your post is not worth responding to....which is why no one is.
Go back to the church---where you can be yourself. :duh:

People here should be glad that people leave CofS and speak out against it as a lot of Freezoners have done. It's pretty insulting to tell people to go back to CofS. Some people in the FZ have been hurt by CofS greatly and fair gamed and you want to tell them to go back to CofS? That isn't such a good thing to say to people who've been through the same things other ex members have.

[Voltaire's Child]

You guys are ASSERTING the tech doesn't work and damages people.

PROVE IT.

Yes, and at least one of those individuals is saying certain other non Scn methods are just fine in their book...notwithstanding that those venues have had plenty of suicides.

It's not either/or. Risks are inherent in any method where you're stirring up emotions and mental processes.

[gomorrhan]

Yeah, this is a red herring. A lot of people who want auditing are already very depressed, or have some other very serious problem, and are hoping that auditing or whatever else will help them. Most such problems don't stem from something very simple, or very easy to tease apart. It could take very many sessions to "unburden" a case to the point where the person has access to the item from which their depression or other problem stems (if it stems from a psychosomatic origin at all). During the time that you are looking for it, and working on whatever else IS accessible and runnable, the person could become unwilling to wait, or to continue working, or they may decide that auditing or whatever else doesn't work, and become impatient, and off themselves or someone else, or act on some sadistic urge. It is the nature of dealing with complex problems that the people who are connected to them can be highly unpredictable.

[Voltaire's Child]

YEP. Yelling at FZ's and scientologists to f-in wake up. Then there is reading lots of books to rekindle my faith --whatever that is. Taking vitamins, working, and selling all my scn crap. That's phase one.


So....some varieties of proselytization are ok and others aren't.

Why should anyone take their cues of what to believe or not to believe from someone on a forum? From some other individual?

[Terril park]

You are, of course correct about John Galusha and my connection with Scientology. We both worked closely with LRH; John as LRH’s right hand technical person and researcher in the 1950s and I worked with Hubbard on the Apollo in the early 1970s. We were both good Scientologists working at the top echelon of the Scientology movement in different decades. We worked together with Diana Hubbard to create the “Book One” movement that occurred in the CoS field in the early 1980s. After leaving the CoS, we continued for two years to practice a standard application of the technology that you are now practicing.
I have never denied nor do I regret my past involvement with LRH or Scientology. However, in the mid-1980s, we recognized the limitations of that technology and began a specific line of research and development that, in 1987, culminated in breakthroughs that would herald a new subject – Idenics. Different from most of the other subjects that were originated by people coming from a Scientology background, Idenics was not just a rehash of Scientology technology; the “same old” with alterations, additions or rewordings. In trying to come up with a “next step” from where Hubbard had left off we actually came up with an “undercut” to his entire bridge of services. Out of our past knowledge and experience a new subject was born; a subject with a philosophy and approach 180 degrees from that of Scientology.
The above information is discussed in detail in a series of articles titled "Life After the CoS" that I wrote about five years ago for people who have been involved with Scientology. One can read this series on the ESMB Web site, exscn.net, under the heading, “Alternatives” in the category, “Independent Field.”
Mike Goldstein

Do you still use basics of comm cycle, granting of beingness etc?

You use creative processing?

Just enjoying being a straight man for you. :)

[Escalus]

Why should anyone take their cues of what to believe or not to believe from someone on a forum? From some other individual?

I agree with this. Which is precisely why I came into the scientologist area of this venue and posted an alternative. People need to look for themselves, but if they don't see an active questioning going on it is possible, I think anyway, that they could be sucked right back into being a robot again.

[gomorrhan]

Who was a robot? I wasn't!

[Escalus]

Who was a robot? I wasn't!

Neither was I, which is why I left. But there are some... what did we call them so that folks would understand?... "circuits?"... that some people just can't seem to get out from under the influence of, and I think it takes a visible alternative to help them out.

[gomorrhan]

Well, I'd agree with that. I read a very helpful book, when I was 21, that helped me escape from many traps. It was called "The Illuminatus! Trilogy" by Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea. Reading "Prometheus Rising", and "Sex, Drugs and the Occult", I realized that Scientology was just another "reality tunnel".

I agree with exposure to many different ways of thinking, as long as those ways are well-reasoned and coherent.

When it starts to seem incoherent, to me, I start turning off the noise. I seek a harmonic reality tunnel.

[Escalus]

I agree with exposure to many different ways of thinking, as long as those ways are well-reasoned and coherent.

When it starts to seem incoherent, to me, I start turning off the noise. I seek a harmonic reality tunnel.

Agree once again. Why i wish we could all stay on the subject sometimes, but noise happens. What can you do...:confused2:

[Oneflewover]

Agree once again. Why i wish we could all stay on the subject sometimes, but noise happens. What can you do...:confused2:

Not THE subject. YOUR subject. People look from their viewpoints. What they see depends on that to a large extent.

Chewing people out for not seeing what you're seeing is a losing game. Will never end well.

Most people seek understanding, not enforced viewpoints, and bigotry.

Oops:moon: which of your preset stereotypes am I dramatizing now?

[Mike Goldstein]

Do you still use basics of comm cycle, granting of beingness etc?

You use creative processing?

Just enjoying being a straight man for you. :)

Regarding the "basics" of Scientology like you mention - there are many differences. But if you are truely interested in exploring these things, all you would need to do is to read the articles and listen to the audio recordings on my Web site at www.idenics.com. But you could start with the "Life After the CoS" series on the exscn Web site that I mentioned in my last posting to you. If you would do that, you would also understand the connection between creative processing and Idenics.

As far as being a straight man for me: Thank you. You do a very good job of it.

Mike Goldstein

[Escalus]

So....some varieties of proselytization are ok and others aren't.

Why should anyone take their cues of what to believe or not to believe from someone on a forum? From some other individual?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me; I would be happy if - after coming out - folks just took a deep breath before making a commitment to still more scientology. People should take a vacation - like maybe three years - and just get back into the swing of things first. And then when they have themselves back on their feet, and stabilized things again, then take a look.

My thinking on this is based on my own experience. Three months after I left FCDC and was back home in Chicago I took a trip up to where there used to be an org I think in Evanston. What the hell was I doing there - I can't tell you. But I do know I wasn't yet ready to make a decision for myself.

After being inside the cult, even for a short while, I truly believe a person should be careful to turn off the juice and tone it down for a while, unless you turn out to be just another obsessive recidivist pain in the ass.

Then, anyway, once you've put some time between yourself and the bad experience, you may be able to reclaim some of your own free will.

[feline]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me; I would be happy if - after coming out - folks just took a deep breath before making a commitment to still more scientology. People should take a vacation - like maybe three years - and just get back into the swing of things first. And then when they have themselves back on their feet, and stabilized things again, then take a look.

My thinking on this is based on my own experience. Three months after I left FCDC and was back home in Chicago I took a trip up to where there used to be an org I think in Evanston. What the hell was I doing there - I can't tell you. But I do know I wasn't yet ready to make a decision for myself.

After being inside the cult, even for a short while, I truly believe a person should be careful to turn off the juice and tone it down for a while, unless you turn out to be just another obsessive recidivist pain in the ass.

Then, anyway, once you've put some time between yourself and the bad experience, you may be able to reclaim some of your own free will.

Escalus, I both agree and disagree with you.

I have met people with a belief system that is partially FreeZone and partially other things that don't seem to be carrying around the weight of a cult experience any longer. They simply found things in Scn that were workable and sought a better "take" on those things.

On the other hand, there are those who are still marked by the cult experience, even years later and for those people, staying away from any flavor of Scn seems to be the right thing.

And there are folks in the middle of both those sides.

When Anonymous came on the scene, one of the things that I heard often was that the protests were about the Corporation of Scientology, not attacks on a system of belief. I know people who got out BECAUSE they could continue to access the tech outside of Scn.

So what, in the end, is the best thing? To my mind, having FZ information available serves a purpose, having Identics and Knowledgism serves a purpose, having other tech like Paul's Robot Auditor serves a purpose- just as having dissenting viewpoint serves a purpose. Bottom line, I don't believe that there is a single right answer.

[Zinjifar]

Bear in mind that the abuses and horrors of Scientology are *not* accidental, or aberrations of the 'doctrine'. They're the fullest expression of it, and, were Scientology able to actually achieve its *secular* goals, they would be horrors and abuses available to *all*, whether they chose Scientology or not.

What's called the 'Freezone' is a schismatic bit of Hubbardism that no longer lives under the enforced 'solidarity' of Ron's 'Church'. The people peddling it are themselves rejected by the 'Church' for exactly the reasons the doctrine of Scientology gives; they're 'squirrels'.

Yes, some 'Freezoners' believe that they peddle 'standard tech'. Yes, some Freezoners believe they peddle 'improved' tech. (usually improved to justify their own variation)

Yes, most of the abuses and horrors of Scientology are *not* present in the 'Freezone', but, for some elements, it's not because they're rejected, but, because it's impossible to *enforce* the kinds of malignant 'ethics' and oppression the 'Church' manages.

This is a question of *infrastructure*, not intent. The Freezone *can't* enforce its own 'policies', so, it doesn't. That's preferable to a 'Church' of Scientology, but, not more acceptable.

And, there are the 'Not-quite-Scientology' flavor Zonies; who are *not* Scientologists per L. Ron Hubbard, but, are by their own revisionist lights.

None of the above are a real problem, because, they can't be. If there comes a day that the 'Church' is dismantled and some Freezone replacement *again* attempts to 'Clear the Planet' without regard to woggy considerations about justice, freedom or honesty...

Well, then we'll deal with them too. But, it aint gonna happen.
Because, except for those already scammed into Scientology by the 'Church', nobody's biting.

Zinj

[Terril park]

Regarding the "basics" of Scientology like you mention - there are many differences. But if you are truely interested in exploring these things, all you would need to do is to read the articles and listen to the audio recordings on my Web site at www.idenics.com. But you could start with the "Life After the CoS" series on the exscn Web site that I mentioned in my last posting to you. If you would do that, you would also understand the connection between creative processing and Idenics.

As far as being a straight man for me: Thank you. You do a very good job of it.

Mike Goldstein

My pleasure. :)

[Oneflewover]

Bear in mind that the abuses and horrors of Scientology are *not* accidental, or aberrations of the 'doctrine'. They're the fullest expression of it, and, were Scientology able to actually achieve its *secular* goals, they would be horrors and abuses available to *all*, whether they chose Scientology or not.

What's called the 'Freezone' is a schismatic bit of Hubbardism that no longer lives under the enforced 'solidarity' of Ron's 'Church'. The people peddling it are themselves rejected by the 'Church' for exactly the reasons the doctrine of Scientology gives; they're 'squirrels'.

Yes, some 'Freezoners' believe that they peddle 'standard tech'. Yes, some Freezoners believe they peddle 'improved' tech. (usually improved to justify their own variation)

Yes, most of the abuses and horrors of Scientology are *not* present in the 'Freezone', but, for some elements, it's not because they're rejected, but, because it's impossible to *enforce* the kinds of malignant 'ethics' and oppression the 'Church' manages.

This is a question of *infrastructure*, not intent. The Freezone *can't* enforce its own 'policies', so, it doesn't. That's preferable to a 'Church' of Scientology, but, not more acceptable.

And, there are the 'Not-quite-Scientology' flavor Zonies; who are *not* Scientologists per L. Ron Hubbard, but, are by their own revisionist lights.

None of the above are a real problem, because, they can't be. If there comes a day that the 'Church' is dismantled and some Freezone replacement *again* attempts to 'Clear the Planet' without regard to woggy considerations about justice, freedom or honesty...

Well, then we'll deal with them too. But, it aint gonna happen.
Because, except for those already scammed into Scientology by the 'Church', nobody's biting.

Zinj

This post does not give the impression of any sort of personal experience with the Freezone.

I've got plenty of personal experience with the freezone, and from what I've seen, there is really only one group that would try to use all that ill conceived policy the church runs on. But even that one group can't do it, because people aren't interested in that shit anymore.

It's not a case of the freezone would be the church if it could. It's just nothing like that. Those in the Freezone generally despised the church.

They supported LRH and the tech to varying degrees, but the church and it's policy are largely anathema to the Freezone.

From what I've seen, anyway.

[Escalus]

Yes, most of the abuses and horrors of Scientology are *not* present in the 'Freezone', but, for some elements, it's not because they're rejected, but, because it's impossible to *enforce* the kinds of malignant 'ethics' and oppression the 'Church' manages.

This is a question of *infrastructure*, not intent. The Freezone *can't* enforce its own 'policies', so, it doesn't. That's preferable to a 'Church' of Scientology, but, not more acceptable.



This is what I've seen as well. And I'd look very carefully at freezoners in the anti movement as it is currently constituted because

1. their defense against critics is exactly the same as the cult proper's
and
2. I just get the spidey sense sometimes that some can't wait until the current regime is taken down so they can get back in there and claim the franchise.

I think Anonymous should use them for all their worth, and then throw them away like a used condom.

[Zinjifar]

The most common chant from 'Zonies' is that 'Current Management' has fucked things up.

Ron Was Right.

Are there variations on that?

Soitenly!

Zinj

[Oneflewover]

The most common chant from 'Zonies' is that 'Current Management' has fucked things up.

Ron Was Right.

Are there variations on that?

Soitenly!

Zinj

I think if you went around and looked and talked to Freezoners, you'd find that your won't get a lot of "Ron was right".

You're much more likely to get "Ron was sometimes right". Probably 90%.

Nice Curly.

Why I oughta....

[Smitty]

Do you still use basics of comm cycle, granting of beingness etc?)
Terril, we have been through these questions from you before on different threads. I hope you read this and understand it this time.
Just to clear these questions out: Communication and acknowledgement of presence between two people goes far back into antiquity. Questions and acknowledgements are very ancient. Idenics uses communication which relies on acknowledgement of presence.
Hubbard wrote and published what he thought it was, as if it proper communication never existed before him. That is a pretense. It is certainly cult thinking to tie a basic aspect of life that has long existed to Hubbard's pretentious pronouncements.


You use creative processing?

Idenics uses as a last step, John Galusha's style of creative processing, which is different than the style advocated by Hubbard in the 1950's.
In February of 1960, Hubbard wrote the HCOB Create and Confront, where he invalidated creative processing and essentially cancelled its use in scientology.
In a SHSBC tape in February 1965, he elaborated on his reasons for cancelling creative processing.
The rest of the Idenics procedure is very different than anything in scientology.
I think that it is vastly superior to anything in scientology.
Smitty

[Escalus]

Are there variations on that?

Soitenly!

Zinj

It's an entire universe of people who've been (or will soon be) dead agented by each other.

[Oneflewover]

This is what I've seen as well. And I'd look very carefully at freezoners in the anti movement as it is currently constituted because

1. their defense against critics is exactly the same as the cult proper's
and
2. I just get the spidey sense sometimes that some can't wait until the current regime is taken down so they can get back in there and claim the franchise.

I think Anonymous should use them for all their worth, and then throw them away like a used condom.

Which is undoubtedly the source of your prejudice and bigotry. You're a critic, hang around with critics, and talk ONLY to Freezoners who are also currently hanging around with critics.

You really think you're in touch with a representative sampling of the Freezone population? :nope:

The only anon I've seen visit a Freezone group without the intention to disrupt things, and be an asshole, is Sam Hughes. Ask him what he thinks, since he's actually looked for himself, instead of gobbling up the crap being spewed by juvenile delinquents bored with their video games.

[thetanic]

I think if you went around and looked and talked to Freezoners, you'd find that your won't get a lot of "Ron was right".

You're much more likely to get "Ron was sometimes right". Probably 90%.

I've actually heard more of "Ron was mostly right up until X, which was very very wrong and set things awry."

Where X is one of:

1) 1982 Mission holder's fiasco
2) First SP declare
2a) Definitions of PTS/SP
3) OTIII
4) KSW
5) 1963, when the change was from the Client's goals to the organization's (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=127595&highlight=1963#post127595)
6) Founding of CoS
7) Founding of Scn, taking the energy away from Dianetics

[Voltaire's Child]

I think that people who feel free to proselytize, to the point of advocating in at least one case, enforced deprogramming and interventions,etc had better be ready to get proselytized to.

So I'd like to see any non CofS Scn'ists who are so inclined, continue to or even start to post pro Scn commentary on other threads. Fair's fair. Debate and proselytization of the "not in favor of" sort are occurring in the FZ section- fine, great. Let's have some reciprocity.

[Oneflewover]

I've actually heard more of "Ron was mostly right up until X, which was very very wrong and set things awry."

Where X is one of:

1) 1982 Mission holder's fiasco
2) First SP declare
2a) Definitions of PTS/SP
3) OTIII
4) KSW
5) 1963, when the change was from the Client's goals to the organization's (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=127595&highlight=1963#post127595)
6) Founding of CoS
7) Founding of Scn, taking the energy away from Dianetics


Yeah. I've run into all of that too, and have my own opinions on that matter. But if one would like to be honest, there was good mixed with bad all along the way, and the ones who are pro LRH/tech/Scientology don't want to acknowledge the bad, while the anti/disaffected/disillusioned/harmed don't want to acknowledge the good, or don't see it.

Balance works best, I think. and honesty. although, that sometimes seems too much to ask of both camps. C'est la vie.

[Oneflewover]

I've actually heard more of "Ron was mostly right up until X, which was very very wrong and set things awry."

Where X is one of:

1) 1982 Mission holder's fiasco
2) First SP declare
2a) Definitions of PTS/SP
3) OTIII
4) KSW
5) 1963, when the change was from the Client's goals to the organization's (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=127595&highlight=1963#post127595)
6) Founding of CoS
7) Founding of Scn, taking the energy away from Dianetics

Oh yeah. Personally, I feel something went terribly wrong sometime in 65, and there was a pronounced shift away from good and towards bad. Really bad.

[Zinjifar]

Oh yeah. Personally, I feel something went terribly wrong sometime in 65, and there was a pronounced shift away from good and towards bad. Really bad.

Because of the pathologically secretive nature of Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard, it's impossible to actually *analyse* 'what went wrong' or 'when', but, I'd suggest taking a look at:

http://www.aberree.com/

"The Aberree was a 'zine, or newletter, published from 1954 through 1965. The editor, Alphia Hart, and the publisher, Agnes Hart, put out ten issues a year.

The Aberree started out as "the non-serious voice of Scientology" and ultimately encompassed all kinds of spiritual and self-help interests, from psychic phenomena and UFOs to improving eyesight.

The Aberree shows that convention and uniformity weren't the whole story of the 50s, by a long shot. It also shows that Scientology, which has grown famous for its attempts to silence dissent and criticism, was trying to squelch debate 50 years ago ... with similarly ineffective tactics."

My take? Scientology (and Ron) were always bad, but, over time, as the finances and consolidation of power evolved, they got to be more *effectively* bad.

Zinj

[Voltaire's Child]

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me; I would be happy if - after coming out - folks just took a deep breath before making a commitment to still more scientology. People should take a vacation - like maybe three years - and just get back into the swing of things first. And then when they have themselves back on their feet, and stabilized things again, then take a look.

My thinking on this is based on my own experience. Three months after I left FCDC and was back home in Chicago I took a trip up to where there used to be an org I think in Evanston. What the hell was I doing there - I can't tell you. But I do know I wasn't yet ready to make a decision for myself.

After being inside the cult, even for a short while, I truly believe a person should be careful to turn off the juice and tone it down for a while, unless you turn out to be just another obsessive recidivist pain in the ass.

Then, anyway, once you've put some time between yourself and the bad experience, you may be able to reclaim some of your own free will.


I'm completely fine with people who leave CofS and decide they don't want anything to do with Scn in any way, shape or form. But when those people (who would scream blue murder and often do so if anyone proselytized Scn to them) try to convert non CofS Scn'ists or get really personal about what they should or should not believe, then my opinion of any individual who does that plummets to a new low. I don't mean you, Escalus. You manage not to be ad hominem. You say what you think about Scn as philosophy and methodology and that's fine. You don't write stuff about the individuals on the forums. You're pretty patient with some of the people who've gotten mad at you and actually come down pretty ad hom on you. I just think there's a difference between discussing the subject and writing things about people, value judgments, etc. I'm glad you refrain from doing that.

[Escalus]

I'm completely fine with people who leave CofS and decide they don't want anything to do with Scn in any way, shape or form. But when those people (who would scream blue murder and often do so if anyone proselytized Scn to them) try to convert non CofS Scn'ists or get really personal about what they should or should not believe, then my opinion of any individual who does that plummets to a new low. I don't mean you, Escalus. You manage not to be ad hominem. You say what you think about Scn as philosophy and methodology and that's fine. You don't write stuff about the individuals on the forums. You're pretty patient with some of the people who've gotten mad at you and actually come down pretty ad hom on you. I just think there's a difference between discussing the subject and writing things about people, value judgments, etc. I'm glad you refrain from doing that.

Thanks, but I'm not completely out of the woods yet. :blush:

Sometimes putting some folks on "ignore' (not permanently but just till things defuse) can make a person look wiser than he really is... heh.

[Smitty]

This is stupid ad hominem bullshit. I have no problem with those interested in Idenics.
I did not state that you did.


You are calling me a liar.
You did lie.


I happily admit that LRH had as his major inspiration Magick, via Crowley.
That is not an issue here.


You wish to deny that John Galusha was a top reseach auditor for scientology from 1954, and with Mike Goldstein went to Flag with their wonderful book 1 course in I believe the seventies?
I have no such wish.


To deny the connection is like an ostrich putting its head in the sand.
Thats you.
Now you accuse me of doing something that I never did. You are lying again, Terril.


Why the fuck should you attack me and call me a liar? You discredit the subject of Idenics!
Please explain your connection between my exposing your lying and thus discrediting Idenics. How does your premises lead to your conclusion?
Smitty

[Voltaire's Child]

Harsh to call Terril a liar. You know that a person can be incorrect or wrong about something and not be a liar. Why not just state your disagreements and why you think he's wrong rather than call him a liar?

[Voltaire's Child]

Thanks, but I'm not completely out of the woods yet. :blush:

Sometimes putting some folks on "ignore' (not permanently but just till things defuse) can make a person look wiser than he really is... heh.

Sometimes. :coolwink:

[Mark A. Baker]

When applying methods to people's psyche - whether they work or not - it would help to know what we're trying for. As faulty as psychoanalysis can be sometimes we at least have a methodology that can explain itself.


Which is fine if what you are seeking are self-explanatory methodologies.

Mental phenomena are NOT well understood in any regard and the actual question of what causes "consciousness" to arise is philosophically & academically undetermined (and quite controversial).

In additon note: the word YOU used is "psyche".

"Psyche" does NOT denote mind or mental phenomena. "Psyche" is a direct reference to SOUL or SPIRIT, neither of which are bound by the dictates of the materialist models common in "psychoanalysis".

Spiritual practices, scientology included, are legitimate activities for investigation of the nature of spirit. Arguably, clinical "psychoanalytic" practices can not be as they commonly make broad assumptions denying the EXISTENCE of the phenomena to be investigated.


Mark A. Baker

[gomorrhan]

Or just not assuming that they are.

Occam's Razor doesn't justify pretense.

[Mark A. Baker]

Or just not assuming that they are.

Occam's Razor doesn't justify pretense.

That's a fair point from a strictly analytical viewpoint, Kevin. Problem is metaphysical realities are NOT subject to strict analysis (hence the prefix "meta").

For myself, the experiences which demonstrated unequivocally to me the actual "spiritual" nature of my existence are completely compelling. They allow for the utilization of analytical techniques but are clearly not delimitable by them. By the same regard, such can not be "communicated" using strictly physical processes. It can only be experienced subjectively by the "self".

Thus, one can never get "proof" of the reality of "spirit". But if he is fortunate, he will come to experience that reality for himself.


Mark A. Baker