Let's retake our church

[dexter gelfand]

With Marc Headly moving forward with his civil suit over wages, this could be the right time to press the attack, overwhelm the opposition with truth, extend our anchor points and recapture what was meant to stay ours.

I believe that if those of us who could testify to the following experiences at the hands of OSA/CoS, it could be done:

(1) Having had our confidebtial session statements used against us, or threat of same as blackmail, or having participated in doing so as a member of OSA/CoS.

How many people would spend their $ and go into session knowing this was actually happening?

(2) Having experienced or observed physical abuse at the hands of David Miscaviage.

Both (1) and (2) have happened to enough people that if even 20% of victims and participants were to litigate and testify against the CoS for this, one way or another, the walls could come tumbling down, perhaps through internal mutiny to save the organization from the ramifications of Miscaviage's actions.

I recommend that a handful of people with actual experience of (1) and/or (2) lead the charge.

Love,
Dex

[byte301]

You go first Dex. :D

[GreyLensman]

With Marc Headly moving forward with his civil suit over wages, this could be the right time to press the attack, overwhelm the opposition with truth, extend our anchor points and recapture what was meant to stay ours.

I believe that if those of us who could testify to the following experiences at the hands of OSA/CoS, it could be done:

(1) Having had our confidebtial session statements used against us, or threat of same as blackmail, or having participated in doing so as a member of OSA/CoS.

How many people would spend their $ and go into session knowing this was actually happening?

(2) Having experienced or observed physical abuse at the hands of David Miscaviage.

Both (1) and (2) have happened to enough people that if even 20% of victims and participants were to litigate and testify against the CoS for this, one way or another, the walls could come tumbling down, perhaps through internal mutiny to save the organization from the ramifications of Miscaviage's actions.

I recommend that a handful of people with actual experience of (1) and/or (2) lead the charge.

Love,
Dex

The policy and example of LRH lead to this. What exactly are you going to change that would not lead back exactly where this is now? This Church is fraudulent, dishonest, specializes in intimidation. And it is not just DM, it is a whole structure, something I don't believe can be remodeled, but needs to be removed and scraped.

[HappyGirl]

You go first Dex. :D
Hahahaha!!
Well, as they recede further and further into distant memory, I intend to "flourish and prosper" and forget all about the 38 years I wasted on them, and they seem to be sliding into their own self-created sinkhole without us doing anything, anyway.

[Night Owl]

I'll gather my troops immediately.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/upload/2008/06/kpp2.jpg

[Terril park]

With Marc Headly moving forward with his civil suit over wages, this could be the right time to press the attack, overwhelm the opposition with truth, extend our anchor points and recapture what was meant to stay ours.

I believe that if those of us who could testify to the following experiences at the hands of OSA/CoS, it could be done:

(1) Having had our confidebtial session statements used against us, or threat of same as blackmail, or having participated in doing so as a member of OSA/CoS.

How many people would spend their $ and go into session knowing this was actually happening?

(2) Having experienced or observed physical abuse at the hands of David Miscaviage.

Both (1) and (2) have happened to enough people that if even 20% of victims and participants were to litigate and testify against the CoS for this, one way or another, the walls could come tumbling down, perhaps through internal mutiny to save the organization from the ramifications of Miscaviage's actions.

I recommend that a handful of people with actual experience of (1) and/or (2) lead the charge.

Love,
Dex

Go Dex!

I'd volunter in a heartbeat but was on staff too long ago.

[rich]

Hi Dexter. I miss the church and the comeraderie, but I really think small obscure groups are much much better and more what LRH intended.

[uniquemand]

Sorry, I have to join the trend, here, and I'm not just jumping the bandwagon. When I did go to the Church, I never intended to join a Church or a movement. I intended to learn Dianetics, and then get a job as an auditor, or do it privately with my friends. Joining a Church was the furthest thing from my mind.

You are welcome to your Church. I will live my private life and help people with what I know, no carrots or whips, no cash and no commitments.

[dexter gelfand]

I understand, Unique (by the way, I love the pictures you post:) ).

I myself have never experienced the physical abuse or been threatened with having the contents of my sessions used against me, but I would absolutely not take it lying down had these occurred, and I think the fact of these particular things having been done are both points of vulnerability for the current CoS management and salient reasons to bring about change by any effective means.

My feeling is that the original meaning and purpose of the Church of Scientology was to provide workable techniques for spiritual recovery to a very high level and to facilitate this in a safe, participant-friendly non-prohibitive way. I feel that this is what we have always had a right to expect, that this has been corrupted and stolen from us all.

I feel that those of us that feel and have been treated this way could and should act to take back what should be ours.

Love,
Dex

[HappyGirl]

Sorry, I have to join the trend, here, and I'm not just jumping the bandwagon. When I did go to the Church, I never intended to join a Church or a movement. I intended to learn Dianetics, and then get a job as an auditor, or do it privately with my friends. Joining a Church was the furthest thing from my mind.

You are welcome to your Church. I will live my private life and help people with what I know, no carrots or whips, no cash and no commitments.
:iagree: :yes:

[Megalomaniac]

Hi Dexter. I miss the church and the comeraderie, but I really think small obscure groups are much much better
:yes:


... and more what LRH intended.
And his opinion used to matter a lot to me, too. Not much now.


Hahahaha!! ... I intend to "flourish and prosper"
You go, Happy G!


I'll gather my troops immediately.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/eduwonkette/upload/2008/06/kpp2.jpg
Love your troops!


I never intended to join a Church or a movement...
You are welcome to your Church. I will live my private life and help people with what I know, no carrots or whips, no cash and no commitments.


My feeling is that the original meaning and purpose of the Church of Scientology was to provide workable techniques for spiritual recovery to a very high level and to facilitate this in a safe, participant-friendly non-prohibitive way. I feel that this is what we have always had a right to expect, that this has been corrupted and stolen from us all.

I feel that those of us that feel and have been treated this way could and should act to take back what should be ours.

Love,
Dex

Hi Dex, I like the idea. I miss the camaraderie, too. But what exactly do we take back? The buildings? The materials? The copyrights? The trademarks? The corporations? I'm not sure where I'm heading now, but I think whatever I do, it'll be local, small and independent. Above the local level, I don't see a big need for a governing authority or international "church", or similar. Perhaps some standardization & accreditation entities would naturally form. But I'm with Unique on this. Do your thing locally and let it grow naturally from there. No need to try to recover the bureaucracy. As long as we can efficiently communicate, how much more organization do we need? As for ethics & justice, it looks like we're relying on the ole' government for that. So maybe that's where that function belongs and we should be sure to keep our governments in line.

[Smitty]

Except that corporate scientology is not, nor has it ever been, a church. It is and has been an unethical business. Is there enough in that organization that is precious enough to save?
Dexter, I wonder if you are one of those Freezoners who would rejoin the cofs tomorrow if D.M. were to die or run away.

[Lohan2008]

/push
"you first"

[dexter gelfand]

Except that corporate scientology is not, nor has it ever been, a church. It is and has been an unethical business. Is there enough in that organization that is precious enough to save?
Dexter, I wonder if you are one of those Freezoners who would rejoin the cofs tomorrow if D.M. were to die or run away.

Hi Smitty, it would take a great deal more than that for me to seriously consider being supportive of the current CoS. People I trust would have to be running the show for one thing-not people who sucked up to or cowered before DM, and not auditors and course supervisors who went along with all the corruption of the tech....

But I still like the idea of DM dying or running away:) :) :) .

I can appreciate the validity of the viewpoints expressed thus far on this thread, and I appreciate the responses. I only ask that you not make assumptions about me, and not attempt to ridicule my viewpoint. Many of us would have to agree that there was a time when gains and wonderful life-changing realizations were being experienced regularly in and through the efforts of many good people working earnestly to help others at the Church of Scientology; in fact that's why many of us are so upset with what it has become.

Love, Dex

[Been Done Had]

I imagine the real estate and assets rightfully belong to parishioners. Of course that is not realistic. It's about the tech, so the real prize is the right to use, and full access to all materials. Two people under a tent can be a church.

A reformed CofS should be dedicated to mass producing auditors and getting them auditing as many WDAH as possible. The era of invented stops needs to cease.

Boot the moneychangers from the temple.

[Veda]

The so called "Church" of Scientology has been culling PC folders, and collecting blackmail-information, since the early 1960s, probably earlier. What's shocking to the well-intentioned "tech" person is that it was done, not only on "SPs," who - per 'Science of Survival' (being below 2.0 on the "Tone Scale") should "have no rights of any kind," but that it was done on Scientologists in good standing too.

The impulsive - angry outburst - physical abuse of Miscavige and, earlier, Hubbard (remember the chain locker, etc.) pales in comparison to the slow and steady, systematic, physical abuse (sleep deprivation, etc.), and myriad forms of psychological abuse, inflicted on Scientologists, notably Sea Org members - and this since the 1960s.

Scientology has been a mind-controlling,Totalist, Fair-Game-Law-applying, personality cult since the 1960s.

If Scientology were reformed in any meaningful way, it would no longer be Scientology.

As the saying goes, "You can't go home again." In this case, that's because the "good old days" didn't really exist in the first place, and it's mind-bogglingly perverse to consider that someone would re-convert to once again being a naive and "happy" Cult member.

Scientology was a Cult not because the "Tech" was corrupted, but because it was applied. That the "tech" (Hubbard's official "know-how" and instructions) is multi-layered, deceptive, and secretive, with the average Scientologist - then (1960s) and now - unaware of what's really going on, is testament to the fulfillment of Hubbard's 1938 vision of achieving a self-aggrandizing hidden "real goal" (cloaked in a "philosophy"), and the intention that those adopting this "philosophy," and falling under its influence, "not know why."

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=111116&postcount=5

[Thrak]

If we take it back can we sell it? Free caek for everyone. :cake:

[sallydannce]

The so called "Church" of Scientology has been culling PC folders, and collecting blackmail-information, since the early 1960s, probably earlier. What's shocking to the well-intentioned "tech" person is that it was done, not only on "SPs," who - per 'Science of Survival' (being below 2.0 on the "Tone Scale") should "have no rights of any kind," but that it was done on Scientologists in good standing too.

The impulsive - angry outburst - physical abuse of Miscavige and, earlier, Hubbard (remember the chain locker, etc.) pales in comparison to the slow and steady, systematic, physical abuse (sleep deprivation, etc.), and myriad forms of psychological abuse, inflicted on Scientologists, notably Sea Org members - and this since the 1960s.

Scientology has been a mind-controlling,Totalist, Fair-Game-Law-applying, personality cult since the 1960s.

If Scientology were reformed in any meaningful way, it would no longer be Scientology.

As the saying goes, "You can't go home again." In this case, that's because the "good old days" didn't really exist in the first place, and it's mind-bogglingly perverse to consider that someone would re-convert to once again being a naive and "happy" Cult member.

Scientology was a Cult not because the "Tech" was corrupted, but because it was applied. That the "tech" (Hubbard's official "know-how" and instructions) is multi-layered, deceptive, and secretive, with the average Scientologist - then (1960s) and now - unaware of what's really going on, is testament to the fulfillment of Hubbard's 1938 vision of achieving a self-aggrandizing hidden "real goal" (cloaked in a "philosophy"), and the intention that those adopting this "philosophy," and falling under its influence, "not know why."

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=111116&postcount=5

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Exactly!

[Feral]

Dex,

I can see you like scientology, that's fine.

There were enough likable bits to get us all into it at one point (I mean the exes), so take the parts you liked with you, but I suggest you leave the crumbling wreckage of secret directives and malevolent financial rape of parishioners behind, it's imploding and succumbing, let it.

Soon I think the Cof S will fade into obscurity with it's "superior" tech of admin and PR.

The reason it's so hard to live with is that there are FATAL flaws laid into it's makeup, they went in very early and will cause it's demise. They are more numerous than all the ANONS put together.

The tech will live in the freezone and will be available to all who want it for a long time yet.

[exccc]

As the saying goes, "You can't go home again." In this case, that's because the "good old days" didn't really exist in the first place, and it's mind-bogglingly perverse to consider that someone would re-convert to once again being a naive and "happy" Cult member.

Unfortunately, you are probably correct.

On the other hand, I had some great sessions, too. It wasn't all a crock, or we'd all be pretty stupid!

LRH was a genius, but he wasn't the perfect, saintly genius he wanted us to believe. He was a flawed, vain character. Fatally flawed, in fact.

Is OT all he said? I don't think so. Clear? Nope. But some good case gain was had before the rest of the organization suppressed it.

Maybe it's in the Freezone where the true hope for Scientology lies. They have the freedom to stay constructive, throw out the bad parts and even do further research.

Perhaps, I'm dreaming, but hey, who knows?

I'm not actively seeking the FZ, but I'm keeping my eye on it.

[exccc]

Dex,

I can see you like scientology, that's fine.

There were enough likable bits to get us all into it at one point (I mean the exes), so take the parts you liked with you, but I suggest you leave the crumbling wreckage of secret directives and malevolent financial rape of parishioners behind, it's imploding and succumbing, let it.

Soon I think the Cof S will fade into obscurity with it's "superior" tech of admin and PR.

The reason it's so hard to live with is that there are FATAL flaws laid into it's makeup, they went in very early and will cause it's demise. They are more numerous than all the ANONS put together.

The tech will live in the freezone and will be available to all who want it for a long time yet.


Yeah right! Exactly.

If I would have read your post first, there was no need to post mine! :thumbsup:

[Div6]

There is nothing there to "retake". The books are not written by LRH, the tech is NOT "LRH", the admin is some squirrel form of DM's demented imagination....

You don't need a "church" to go free. You just have to do it.

[Veda]

The difficulty with discussing the subject of Scientology with Scientologists, including most "outside the C of S" Scientologists, is that they don't know (or don't want to know) what the subject of Scientology consists of. That's not entirely their fault, I suppose, since, per its founder's design, they weren't supposed to know.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=65167&postcount=11

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=137009&postcount=58

[dexter gelfand]

The difficulty with discussing the subject of Scientology with Scientologists, including most "outside the C of S" Scientologists, is that they don't know (or don't want to know) what the subject of Scientology consists of. That's not entirely their fault, I suppose, since, per its founder's design, they weren't supposed to know.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=65167&postcount=11

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=137009&postcount=58

I must take exception to your statements, Veda. I have no problem with you expressing your opinion, based on your experience, but then you should be big enough to grant that, and also that others' viewpoints can be just as valid.

I have, over several years, carefully applied the tech by the book and gotten text book results, and as recently as last week recieved good standard auditing sessions and got very good results. I'm not stupid, mistaken, delusional or anybody's sucker.

I'm as aware as anyone that gross alterations that don't get the results have been practiced for as long as the subject has been around. I'm aware that it has been misused to milk every last cent from trusting customers. I'm aware that it is not a perfect system, and that in fact there is no such thing.

But for me, for you to publicly state that the subject of the tech is inherently an invalid sham, well, its not hard to understand why you could be angry, disappointed and/or upset enough to say that because of what you've observed or experienced. But it isn't the truth. Not in my experience. I remain happy for my gains, and those I've helped others achieve, beeing a proud and competent Grad IV auditor, now in the Freezone.

To each his own, Veda.

Love, Dex

[uniquemand]

Met any clears, or OTs yet, Dex? I h'ain't.

[Veda]

Dex,

I think you're responding to someone else, not moi. Suggest that you read the posts again, and the links - which will take a little while.

[Wisened One]

Assuming DM was gone, Co$ WAS 'reformed', Prices WERE lowered, Staff/SO WAS overhauled/improved, etc...

Hubby and I still say: Show Me The OT!!

(There ain't any to be had for THAT amount of money C0$ charges, nor to even do thru the FZ..imho....)

So....?????? :confused2:

I'm NOT against bettering myself thru whatever methods I might choose, but I'm NOT ever gonna max out my CC's nor work my life and health away for anything as such, EVER again. :grouch:

NO, NO and MOAR NO! :nope:

[dexter gelfand]

Dex,

I think you're responding to someone else, not moi. Suggest that you read the posts again, and the links - which will take a little while.

Perhaps you're right Veda, when I'm home tonight I will do as you suggest.

Love,
Dex

[dexter gelfand]

Met any clears, or OTs yet, Dex? I h'ain't.

Hello Unique, in all honesty, yes. I have met OT's. People who without doing it for my benefit demonstrated extraordinary spiritual abilities. Personally, yes, without any reservations. One actual example: An OTIII who phoned me immediately when I went over to the phone and waited for her call.

25 years ago, I discovered that I could tell when somebody was OTIII. I could somehow percieve this difference: They were always in complete commend of their own space. They were not experiencing confused or distracting thoughts, somehow I could tell. Every time I percieved that, the person, it turned out, was in fact at least at the level of OTIII.

Love,
Dex

[uniquemand]

Interesting. I don't know if such abilities are restricted to OTIII completions, but I have certainly experienced very clean, direct and powerful communication from people who were OTIII and up (and below that point, as well).

BTW, I'm one of those people who answers the telephone before it rings, when I can reach it in time. I know such things are possible. I don't think they are at all restricted to people who are "OT".

[Wisened One]

unique: Oh I also have 'abilities' like that (answering the phone and knowing who it was, this before caller id's and/or before looking at the id's), and other things. I don't doubt many people have these sorts of abilities at varying levels. (this BEFORE and WITHOUT doing any OT levels). I'm not knocking those who have gotten gains from doing OT levels....it's just....I don't think there is anything, any OT's that display behavior/abilities (or even have them and are not displaying them) that is worth the money they pay for it, nor the amount of abuse SO/Staff are put (and put themselves) thru!!

Sorry. :shrug:

[dexter gelfand]

Interesting. I don't know if such abilities are restricted to OTIII completions, but I have certainly experienced very clean, direct and powerful communication from people who were OTIII and up (and below that point, as well).

BTW, I'm one of those people who answers the telephone before it rings, when I can reach it in time. I know such things are possible. I don't think they are at all restricted to people who are "OT".

I'm sure you are right, Unique. I'm not meaning to imply that such an ability is unique (no pun intended, U!:) ) to those who have done Scientology OT levels. Some of us never lost the ability to begin with, and some people may have regained such an ability through different means; but I have observed specifically where people have regained such abilities as a result of getting their OT levels.

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

Hi Smitty, it would take a great deal more than that for me to seriously consider being supportive of the current CoS. People I trust would have to be running the show for one thing-not people who sucked up to or cowered before DM, and not auditors and course supervisors who went along with all the corruption of the tech....That is everybody who is currently active.


I can appreciate the validity of the viewpoints expressed thus far on this thread, and I appreciate the responses. I only ask that you not make assumptions about me, and not attempt to ridicule my viewpoint. I did not ridicule you at all. I was asking questions.


Many of us would have to agree that there was a time when gains and wonderful life-changing realizations were being experienced regularly in and through the efforts of many good people working earnestly to help others at the Church of Scientology; in fact that's why many of us are so upset with what it has become.
Love, DexDex, prior to 1982, from my perspective, things were not as bad in the cofs as they became after that time. What I got out of scientology was a mixed bag. The organization was committing crimes long prior to 1982 under the direction of L. Ron Hubbard. As a staff member in a mission, I saw most of the public take one or two courses and were no longer interested. Hubbard most definitely did not produce a "uniformly workable technology".

[Smitty]

Hello Unique, in all honesty, yes. I have met OT's. People who without doing it for my benefit demonstrated extraordinary spiritual abilities. Personally, yes, without any reservations. One actual example: An OTIII who phoned me immediately when I went over to the phone and waited for her call.Dex, people with unusual abilities are not rare amongst the human race. An OT is supposed to have unlimited superhuman abilities. "At cause over matter, energy, space, and time on all dynamics". Are you being honest with yourself when you say you have met OTs? Can these people walk through walls? Make objects disintegrate at will?


25 years ago, I discovered that I could tell when somebody was OTIII. I could somehow percieve this difference: They were always in complete commend of their own space. They were not experiencing confused or distracting thoughts, somehow I could tell. Every time I percieved that, the person, it turned out, was in fact at least at the level of OTIII.
Love,Dex
When I was in the cofs, I had a number of people ask me if I was OT III, and upon questioning them why, the comment was to the effect that I seemed like I was. I have never done the level, and only saw that material many years later. It is not relevant to me. I have talked with some ex-cofs members who did the OT levels and considered it to be nonsense. I have also spoken with a few who claim to have gotten gains from it. Frankly, I think that the whole implant gpm, Xenu, body thetan upper levels may be helpful to some people, but not all, or even most. I would agree that it had some relationship to Hubbard's own case.

[dexter gelfand]

That is everybody who is currently active.

(Well, many, but I wouldn't presume to say all. After all, many of us "Ex-Scns" were well-meaning staff members shielded from what was happening further up the command structure)

I did not ridicule you at all. I was asking questions.
(My misunderstanding Smitty, thanks for clarifying.):)

Dex, prior to 1982, from my perspective, things were not as bad in the cofs as they became after that time. What I got out of scientology was a mixed bag. The organization was committing crimes long prior to 1982 under the direction of L. Ron Hubbard. As a staff member in a mission, I saw most of the public take one or two courses and were no longer interested.
(I would have to agree with you here, Smitty.)

Hubbard most definitely did not produce a "uniformly workable technology".(Here I have to disagree. As a Grad IV auditor, I did learn for myself that the tech I was trained in, when applied as per the provided materials, worked, period. There are those on ESMB who could tell you, having been audited by me in the 1980's in New York, that I am not exaggerating. My own assumption is that you experienced and/or observed less than perfect application of the materials, a common occurrence, sadly. As I said, that's merely my assumption. I couldn't possibly know exactly what occurred for you. I won't pretend to know.)

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

(Here I have to disagree. As a Grad IV auditor, I did learn for myself that the tech I was trained in, when applied as per the provided materials, worked, period. There are those on ESMB who could tell you, having been audited by me in the 1980's in New York, that I am not exaggerating. My own assumption is that you experienced and/or observed less than perfect application of the materials, a common occurrence, sadly. As I said, that's merely my assumption. I couldn't possibly know exactly what occurred for you. I won't pretend to know.)
Love, Dex

My observations extend to my time as Flag Crew, where Flag is considered to be "The Mecca of Standard Tech". The 100% standard tech game there still did not produce reliable results. Perhaps you have some unusual talent as an auditor.

[dexter gelfand]

[QUOTE=Smitty;193483]Dex, people with unusual abilities are not rare amongst the human race. An OT is supposed to have unlimited superhuman abilities. "At cause over matter, energy, space, and time on all dynamics". Are you being honest with yourself when you say you have met OTs? Can these people walk through walls? Make objects disintegrate at will?

LOL! I've put people through walls for not responding adequately to my son's medical needs..but seriously Smitty, I have 3 comments to the above:

(1) I think that OT Levels have indeed been over-hyped by the church in the promotional materials;

(2) "Walking through walls"? "Making objects disintegrate"? I never saw those claims made for OT Levels. It would be more practical to be able to transmute a Whopper into fillet mignon, for that matter:) .

(3) Each OT Level has its own particular end phenomena, which is worthwhile enough. While it is obvious that many people were not properly set up for these, ran incorrectly or with other technical goofs that ruined it for them, there is no shortage of OT's satisfied that they got the real goods-even if they can't fly over tall buildings, bend steal in their bare hands or make sense of a George Bush state of the union address.

Maybe you are a very knowing, serene and competent person, so you come across to people like an OTIII. That doesn't make any less of the benfits of actual properly experiencing the level.

Love, Dex

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

LOL! I've put people through walls for not responding adequately to my son's medical needs..but seriously Smitty, I have 3 comments to the above:
(1) I think that OT Levels have indeed been over-hyped by the church in the promotional materials;
Fair enough. Then those materials should not be called OT levels, but something more neutral.


(2) "Walking through walls"? "Making objects disintegrate"? I never saw those claims made for OT Levels. It would be more practical to be able to transmute a Whopper into fillet mignon, for that matter:) . Check out Hubbard's writings and lectures on that subject from the 1950's.


(3) Each OT Level has its own particular end phenomena, which is worthwhile enough. While it is obvious that many people were not properly set up for these, ran incorrectly or with other technical goofs that ruined it for them How can you honestly assert that? You have no knowledge of their experiences or lived their lives. Are you presuming without evidence?
there is no shortage of OT's satisfied that they got the real goods-even if they can't fly over tall buildings, bend steal in their bare hands or make sense of a George Bush state of the union address.Except that they are not OTs. They may have obtained an ability, but calling them OTs is dishonest. They are not supermen.


Maybe you are a very knowing, serene and competent person, so you come across to people like an OTIII. That doesn't make any less of the benfits of actual properly experiencing the level.
Love, Dex What evidence do you have that I would obtain benefits from auditing OT III materials? Have you lived my life? Do you know everything there is to know about me?

[dexter gelfand]

Fair enough. Then those materials should not be called OT levels, but something more neutral.
Check out Hubbard's writings and lectures on that subject from the 1950's.
How can you honestly assert that? You have no knowledge of their experiences or lived their lives. Are you presuming without evidence?Except that they are not OTs. They may have obtained an ability, but calling them OTs is dishonest. They are not supermen.
What evidence do you have that I would obtain benefits from auditing OT III materials? Have you lived my life? Do you know everything there is to know about me?

Hey, I said MAYBE!:)

As to Flag, knowing people who have been there recently and not long ago, it seems these days that the corruption is thickest at the top. But I wouldn't advise anyone to go to any part of the CoS for any service now.

I never claimed to have any specific knowledge about you Smitty. I merely stated in general that there are benefits to be gotten from correctly running OTIII. Never used the word "You". Sorry if the implication offends you, that was not and is not my intention.

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

As to Flag, knowing people who have been there recently and not long ago, it seems these days that the corruption is thickest at the top. But I wouldn't advise anyone to go to any part of the CoS for any service now.
The time period I was referring to is 1978-1979. Unreliable results were occurring at that time as well.


I never claimed to have any specific knowledge about you Smitty. I merely stated in general that there are benefits to be gotten from correctly running OTIII. Never used the word "You". Sorry if the implication offends you, that was not and is not my intention.
Love, DexHow can you honestly state that in general, there are benefits to be gotten from correctly running OT III? Is there a study done applying scientific method to demonstrate that? If so, please cite it.
I was not offended by anything you stated. I stopped having ARC breaks after I stopped practicing scientology.

[Zinjifar]

The only 'reliable result' of Scientology is the proliferation of Ex-Scientologists.

Zinj

[Free to shine]

When I was in the cofs, I had a number of people ask me if I was OT III, and upon questioning them why, the comment was to the effect that I seemed like I was. I have never done the level, and only saw that material many years later. It is not relevant to me.

You reminded me of an OT VII who said to me I was the "most OT non OT she had ever met". I think it was a compliment! :laugh:

[dexter gelfand]

[QUOTE=Smitty;193506]Fair enough. Then those materials should not be called OT levels, but something more neutral.
Check out Hubbard's writings and lectures on that subject from the 1950's.
How can you honestly assert that? You have no knowledge of their experiences or lived their lives. Are you presuming without evidence?Except that they are not OTs. They may have obtained an ability, but calling them OTs is dishonest. They are not supermen.

There are degrees, that is, levels of OT Smitty, it is not an absolute state of omnipotence. You are referring to particular writings in order to assert your (discreditable) definition of OT, which, intentionally on your part, is too fantastic to be taken seriously by most.

As you actually already know,OT means to operate as a spiritual entity, your basic self (thetan), as distinct from operating as a body, with all the limitations therein. It shouldn't be hard to understand that there could be many levels between the two- greater or lesser degrees of being able to do things flesh cannot.

Do you expect classifications such as "17.5% OT, 82.5% body"? We draw the line at the first step of recognized ability beyond what is commonly expected of a body, with OT I. OT I, not "OT 99 gazillion", or "Omnipotent Superman".
Technically, in Scientology, a "pre-OT".

The fact that many of us have attained the higher states of function without becoming your stated idea of "Supermen" does not devalue the accomplishment.

For whatever reason, you would deny that there is anything real, worthwhile or substantial to such attainments. Of course, you are not alone in your assertion.

Nevertheless, there are those of us who have achieved such levels, and having experienced these levels, are not limited to what you can concede as possible or real, and not lessened by expressions intended to devalue. For us, the sins, crimes, and lies of the church are a separate issue from the validity of the technology. It is most unfortunate that the two become so entangled in so many minds.

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

There are degrees, that is, levels of OT Smitty, it is not an absolute state of omnipotence. You are referring to particular writings in order to assert your (discreditable) definition of OT, which, intentionally on your part, is too fantastic to be taken seriously by most. How can you even use the term if you concede that the state does not exist? The definition of OT I stated is one that Hubbard promulgated. Why cannot you simply discuss abilities and leave it at that?


As you actually already know,OT means to operate as a spiritual entity, your basic self (thetan), as distinct from operating as a body, with all the limitations therein. It shouldn't be hard to understand that there could be many levels between the two- greater or lesser degrees of being able to do things flesh cannot. O.K. But show us an OT. If you cannot, please don't use the term as if there are such people with unlimited superhuman abilities.


Do you expect classifications such as "17.5% OT, 82.5% body"? We draw the line at the first step of recognized ability beyond what is commonly expected of a body, with OT I. OT I, not "OT 99 gazillion", or "Omnipotent Superman".
Technically, in Scientology, a "pre-OT".Who is we? OT is exactly what Hubbard said it was. You seem to want to redefine it. Then call it something else, like a Gelfand OT, a GOT.


The fact that many of us have attained the higher states of function without becoming your stated idea of "Supermen" does not devalue the accomplishment. But nobody is an OT. That is fact.


For whatever reason, you would deny that there is anything real, worthwhile or substantial to such attainments. Of course, you are not alone in your assertion. I never have. You seem to suspect that I do.


Nevertheless, there are those of us who have achieved such levels, and having experienced these levels, are not limited to what you can concede as possible or real, and not lessened by expressions intended to devalue. For us, the sins, crimes, and lies of the church are a separate issue from the validity of the technology. It is most unfortunate that the two become so entangled in so many minds.
Love, DexThose are not entangled in my mind. I don't have evidence that is even an issue with anyone else.
BTW, I have done the OT I version of 27 July 1968. That material was originally issued in 1952. I enjoyed it thoroughly and got stable gains from it.

[dexter gelfand]

I'm most gratified to know that you have in fact done OTI, enjoyed it thoroughly and got stable gains from it, Smitty.

Everything else you've had to say on the subject of OT levels made it appear to me that you considered OT levels to be bogus, and a complete con, and wanted others to think that way of them.

Love, Dex

[Zinjifar]

OT Levels are bogus and a complete con (and marketing tool)

Just so you don't waste any preconceptions :)

Zinj

[Smitty]

I'm most gratified to know that you have in fact done OTI, enjoyed it thoroughly and got stable gains from it, Smitty.
The OT I that I did was a reissue of some 1952 creative processes on 27 July 1968, not any of the later versions which I would never bother with.


Everything else you've had to say on the subject of OT levels made it appear to me that you considered OT levels to be bogus, and a complete con, and wanted others to think that way of them.
Love, DexThe old OT IV-VII I think can be of benefit. I consider OT II, OT III, and the present NOTs OT IV, OT V, OT VI, OT VII, and OT VIII to be bogus, a con for most people, and should be exposed as such.

[GreyLensman]

There is nothing there to "retake". The books are not written by LRH, the tech is NOT "LRH", the admin is some squirrel form of DM's demented imagination....

You don't need a "church" to go free. You just have to do it.

Exactly right. No "church" there to salvage.

[degraded being]

[QUOTE=Smitty;193506]Fair enough. Then those materials should not be called OT levels, but something more neutral.
Check out Hubbard's writings and lectures on that subject from the 1950's.
How can you honestly assert that? You have no knowledge of their experiences or lived their lives. Are you presuming without evidence?Except that they are not OTs. They may have obtained an ability, but calling them OTs is dishonest. They are not supermen.

There are degrees, that is, levels of OT Smitty, it is not an absolute state of omnipotence. You are referring to particular writings in order to assert your (discreditable) definition of OT, which, intentionally on your part, is too fantastic to be taken seriously by most.

As you actually already know,OT means to operate as a spiritual entity, your basic self (thetan), as distinct from operating as a body, with all the limitations therein. It shouldn't be hard to understand that there could be many levels between the two- greater or lesser degrees of being able to do things flesh cannot.

Do you expect classifications such as "17.5% OT, 82.5% body"? We draw the line at the first step of recognized ability beyond what is commonly expected of a body, with OT I. OT I, not "OT 99 gazillion", or "Omnipotent Superman".
Technically, in Scientology, a "pre-OT".

The fact that many of us have attained the higher states of function without becoming your stated idea of "Supermen" does not devalue the accomplishment.

For whatever reason, you would deny that there is anything real, worthwhile or substantial to such attainments. Of course, you are not alone in your assertion.

Nevertheless, there are those of us who have achieved such levels, and having experienced these levels, are not limited to what you can concede as possible or real, and not lessened by expressions intended to devalue. For us, the sins, crimes, and lies of the church are a separate issue from the validity of the technology. It is most unfortunate that the two become so entangled in so many minds.

Love, Dex


Show me any level of "operating as a spiritual entity as distinct from operating as a body".

You cannot "operate" at all, distinctly from your body.
You can believe what you like, but even the believing can not be done without a body. It sucks big time doesn't it?
To be stuck with the human condtion, the worst aspect of which is a set of beliefs about how contemptible and limiting the human body is. For a fat fee you can also buy the set of beliefs about how you can be free. But as you say, only almost, not quite, or some other sorry excuse for the non delivery of the total freedom that you were promised. Not delivered because it's not possible to enable you to "operate" without your body.

[exccc]

Not delivered because it's not possible to enable you to "operate" without your body.

I was pretty much with you up till that last bit.

Who's to say what's not possible? Mabye the OT levels don't reliably produce it, no argument from me there.

But that's a long way from grandiose pronouncements of what is and is not possible.

Putting Scientology aside, there have been many Eastern and even Western mystics, past and present, who would disagree with your statement.

Just because we haven't experienced it doesn't mean it's not possible.

[Neo]

OT Levels are bogus and a complete con (and marketing tool)

Just so you don't waste any preconceptions :)

Zinj

Except that I knew you were going to say that, so am I OT?

Neo

[Tim Skog]

I was pretty much with you up till that last bit.

Who's to say what's not possible? Mabye the OT levels don't reliably produce it, no argument from me there.

But that's a long way from grandiose pronouncements of what is and is not possible.

Putting Scientology aside, there have been many Eastern and even Western mystics, past and present, who would disagree with your statement.

Just because we haven't experienced it doesn't mean it's not possible.


Perhaps. Perhaps anything is possible. However, I choose to believe it is not possible. How would one ever prove such a thing occurred? It would all be anecdotal.

For example: "I spoke with God." How do you prove it. It will always come down to faith.

[uniquemand]

I choose not to believe either way. It is unproven. Until it is proven, one way or another, I suspend judgment, and work with what seems evident.

[dexter gelfand]

I was pretty much with you up till that last bit.

Who's to say what's not possible? Mabye the OT levels don't reliably produce it, no argument from me there.

But that's a long way from grandiose pronouncements of what is and is not possible.

Putting Scientology aside, there have been many Eastern and even Western mystics, past and present, who would disagree with your statement.

Just because we haven't experienced it doesn't mean it's not possible.

One has to wonder why a person would feel a need to deny what others have experienced. It is one thing to say "From my viewpoint..", or "In my experience...", but to be saying "It is impossible for that to be for anybody", is a disingenuous statement, driven by emotion. (I mean, in MY opinion:) ).

Like everybody else, I know What I have experienced. You don't.

Love, Dex

(Not directed at you, exccc, but addressing the posts of those who apparently cannot have the possibility of others making real gains on OT Levels or other elements of the tech)

[Veda]

One has to wonder why a person would feel a need to deny what others have experienced. It is one thing to say "From my viewpoint..", or "In my experience...", but to be saying "It is impossible for that to be for anybody", is a disingenuous statement, driven by emotion. (I mean, in MY opinion:) ).

Like everybody else, I know What I have experienced. You don't.

Love, Dex

(Not directed at you, exccc, but addressing the posts of those who apparently cannot have the possibility of others making real gains on OT Levels or other elements of the tech)

It's not about not being able to "have others making gains." If you have gains, that's great, but be aware that these "gains" come with a price. You're being plunged further into the mind-trap of (what is sometimes called) the "Commodore Hubbard-era/Emperor Xenu Bridge."

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=77478&postcount=14

I've audited plenty of people, and on lengthy programs, both inside and outside of the "Church" of Scientology. We even have the same level of auditor training, except that, when outside $cientology, I studied further, and audited some no longer used procedures (from the 1950s), and some "NOTs"-type actions.

I also examined the "dark side" of the doctrine of Scientology, and that's something you've yet to do.

Here are a few more links that may be of interest:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1079

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=510&highlight=sole+source+myth

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1192

[uniquemand]

I don't deny that people have made gains, and I don't insist that they are mind-fucked. However, if they are going to claim to be OT, and yet they can't levitate an ashtray, nevermind generating new universes, then I find them full of shit. If they are Clear, but ever experience restimulation of unwanted emotions, then they are full of shit. It's that simple.

If they are OT, and they can generate new universes and can levitate ashtrays, then I'm impressed, but I won't believe them until I see it. If they make dodges about why they can't or won't do that, then I say bullshit. Same with Clear abilities.

Essentially, "show me". Otherwise, stop braying.

[dexter gelfand]

It's not about not being able to "have others making gains." If you have gains, that's great, but be aware that these "gains" come with a price. You're being plunged further into the mind-trap of (what is sometimes called) the "Commodore Hubbard-era/Emperor Xenu Bridge."

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=77478&postcount=14

I've audited plenty of people, and on lengthy programs, both inside and outside of the "Church" of Scientology. We even have the same level of auditor training, except that, when outside $cientology, I studied further, and audited some no longer used procedures (from the 1950s), and some "NOTs"-type actions.

That's cool Veda, and good to know. Thanks for the background! I wonder if we ever bumped into each other, if not, too bad, I would have liked to.

I also examined the "dark side" of the doctrine of Scientology, and that's something you've yet to do.

Actually I have read a lot of these materials, although certainly not to the degree you have. I just haven't come to all the same conclusions you have.


Here are a few more links that may be of interest:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1079

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=510&highlight=sole+source+myth

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1192

Thanks V, I will examine these for myself.

Love, Dex

[alex]

I don't deny that people have made gains, and I don't insist that they are mind-fucked. However, if they are going to claim to be OT, and yet they can't levitate an ashtray, nevermind generating new universes, then I find them full of shit. If they are Clear, but ever experience restimulation of unwanted emotions, then they are full of shit. It's that simple.

If they are OT, and they can generate new universes and can levitate ashtrays, then I'm impressed, but I won't believe them until I see it. If they make dodges about why they can't or won't do that, then I say bullshit. Same with Clear abilities.

Essentially, "show me". Otherwise, stop braying.

If you are looking for others to fulfill your expectations, and/or for them to have absolute and totally dramatic abilities, you may miss what has actually happened.

I hope you are not so skeptical of the results of your processing. Or constrained in your hopes.

As a clear I will say that there are people much clearer than I, and many less so, but there was a distinct point of change, thus I still believe in it.

You had better hope no one starts mocking up new universes....

I think an ashtray is perhaps just a little beyond what is now available, but not impossible.

The problem is not the technology, but our misjudgement of just how far into the material we are.

Here is another way of looking at it. Proof of OT? Every moment we exist and the material exists is an instance of an entity, (spirit, soul, being whatever) using "ot" powers to create. The whole material world, universes, all of it is a constant creation that without us consciousness' would not exist.

But we need to learn that, how and why we do it.

You yourself are contributing moment by moment to this miraculous creation, but like most of us, lost IN it. We are so busy mocking up everything, and mocking up that we dont know we are doing it, that we dont have the free "attention" to do tricks, such as you suggest would prove it to you.

The proof of the ability, the possiblity, is all around you, a forrest you cannot see because of the trees.



imo.

[uniquemand]

Your concept of proof is weak, IMO. The fact that the universe exists is not proof of a creator spirit. Sorry, that's an assumption.

I see the trees. I see the forest. I don't see any spirits creating either.

Yes, there is a change, a moment when we take charge of our minds/emotions, etc. This is NOT what is described as CLEAR, Alex. Disingenuous.

[dexter gelfand]

I don't deny that people have made gains, and I don't insist that they are mind-fucked. However, if they are going to claim to be OT, and yet they can't levitate an ashtray, nevermind generating new universes, then I find them full of shit. If they are Clear, but ever experience restimulation of unwanted emotions, then they are full of shit. It's that simple.

If they are OT, and they can generate new universes and can levitate ashtrays, then I'm impressed, but I won't believe them until I see it. If they make dodges about why they can't or won't do that, then I say bullshit. Same with Clear abilities.

Essentially, "show me". Otherwise, stop braying.

"Braying"? I don't know that I would characterize my words that way, but I see where you're coming from, Unique.

I guess the difference is, I didn't get into this field in the first place so that I could levitate ash trays, or make elephants disappear. For me (and obviously, some others), the abilities that ARE gained are HUGE, and do include the abilities to create impressive effects.

That is not to say that your standards of "OT" for yourself are any less valid or important. But it isn't fair to use these to discredit what is accomplished.

I wouldn't argue the point that some claims have been made for it that create the opportunity to hold the subject up to ridicule, but that doesn't take away from the actual results.

Love,
Dex

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

"Braying"? I don't know that I would characterize my words that way, but I see where you're coming from, Unique.

I guess the difference is, I didn't get into this field in the first place so that I could levitate ash trays, or make elephants disappear. For me (and obviously, some others), the abilities that ARE gained are HUGE, and do include the abilities to create impressive effects.

That is not to say that your standards of "OT" for yourself are any less valid or important. But it isn't fair to use these to discredit what is accomplished.

I wouldn't argue the point that some claims have been made for it that create the opportunity to hold the subject up to ridicule, but that doesn't take away from the actual results.

Love,
Dex

Love, Dex

I, for one, look forward to gaining the ability to keystroke without typo's.:)

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

I wouldn't argue the point that some claims have been made for it that create the opportunity to hold the subject up to ridicule, but that doesn't take away from the actual results.
Love,
Dex
Love, Dex

It is more than an opportunity to hold scientology up to ridicule, the OT claims that Hubbard made are at best speculation and at worst fraud. It is logical to distrust and disparage L. Ron's utterances in general when so many of them were false, useless, or destructive.

[Pascal]

Your concept of proof is weak, IMO. The fact that the universe exists is not proof of a creator spirit. Sorry, that's an assumption.

I see the trees. I see the forest. I don't see any spirits creating either.

Yes, there is a change, a moment when we take charge of our minds/emotions, etc. This is NOT what is described as CLEAR, Alex. Disingenuous.

Beings are not equal. LRH talks about the POTENTIAL of thetans. Not about absolutes re abilities. Some beings can create universes, others can move a grasshopper leg, the latter type being the most common and the former the stuff of legends.

The material is all there from 51 to 59. But idiots thing LRH wrote it all up in "super duper secret folders" and his "OT research" in his wenabago and it's all going to be released when an imbecil from Philly deems we are ready. :p

Wake up humanity! :confused2:

[uniquemand]

I'm awake, Pascal. I agree that abilities can be amplified, but the idea that there are beings that can create universes is completely unsubstantiated. That there are some who can move grasshopper legs is not.

[alex]

Your concept of proof is weak, IMO. The fact that the universe exists is not proof of a creator spirit. Sorry, that's an assumption.

I see the trees. I see the forest. I don't see any spirits creating either.

Yes, there is a change, a moment when we take charge of our minds/emotions, etc. This is NOT what is described as CLEAR, Alex. Disingenuous.

You and I have had this convo so many times.....

My concept is not proof but a suggestion of a way to look and possibly gain some insight or whatever.

My point is more to the notion that we are so EMBEDDED in the gestalt of it that disentagling is the way to increased awareness.

One concept needed to disengage is that the apparency of reality does not exist without us. There is no independent reality or objective reality.

If we dont see the trees, they are not there. But we are so dependent on the forest that we cannot even conceive of walking out into the meadow.

Disregard my insistence and consider it.

If you dont like the words....spirit, soul, etc, substitute consciousness.

You dont see spirits because there are no mirrors.

[uniquemand]

I do agree that disentangling ourselves from it is key. I don't think that makes us spirits, but you are right that this could be seen as semantics (except that many people, when thinking of spirits, think this means immortal, or any number of other things). Again, the fact that we are conscious and that we see a universe doesn't mean that we created it (though we did create our idea of it), or that it was created by an entity. That's my point.

[Mark A. Baker]

I'm awake, Pascal. I agree that abilities can be amplified, but the idea that there are beings that can create universes is completely unsubstantiated. That there are some who can move grasshopper legs is not.


Depends on what you expect is meant by "creating universes". Back in my university days I studied mathematics. Most of the department was busy "creating universes". D@mn clever ones too! :thumbsup:



Mark A. Baker

[uniquemand]

So, you think that's what Hubbard meant? Math?

[Mike Goldstein]

With Marc Headly moving forward with his civil suit over wages, this could be the right time to press the attack, overwhelm the opposition with truth, extend our anchor points and recapture what was meant to stay ours.

I believe that if those of us who could testify to the following experiences at the hands of OSA/CoS, it could be done:

(1) Having had our confidebtial session statements used against us, or threat of same as blackmail, or having participated in doing so as a member of OSA/CoS.

How many people would spend their $ and go into session knowing this was actually happening?

(2) Having experienced or observed physical abuse at the hands of David Miscaviage.

Both (1) and (2) have happened to enough people that if even 20% of victims and participants were to litigate and testify against the CoS for this, one way or another, the walls could come tumbling down, perhaps through internal mutiny to save the organization from the ramifications of Miscaviage's actions.

I recommend that a handful of people with actual experience of (1) and/or (2) lead the charge.

Love,
Dex

Excuse me, Dex, but I was wondering; when did you first become involved with the CoS?

Mike

[Pascal]

I'm awake, Pascal. I agree that abilities can be amplified, but the idea that there are beings that can create universes is completely unsubstantiated. That there are some who can move grasshopper legs is not.

Not substantiated for you. Don't generalise. And yes, such beings are scarce. I have a friend who recalls having been a "planet builder" thetan. Painting continents, rivers and forests on the odd globe.

The more I go up the awareness scale, the more nothing seems impossible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Flqpj0VMG5c

[uniquemand]

Substantiation isn't subjective, Pascal.

[alex]

Not substantiated for you. Don't generalise. And yes, such beings are scarce. I have a friend who recalls having been a "planet builder" thetan. Painting continents, rivers and forests on the odd globe.

snip

Was his name slarty bartfast by any chance?

His Norways are to die for!


:whistling:

[uniquemand]

Ah ha ha ha! You made me laugh, Alex!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slartibartfast

[alex]

I do agree that disentangling ourselves from it is key. I don't think that makes us spirits, but you are right that this could be seen as semantics (except that many people, when thinking of spirits, think this means immortal, or any number of other things). Again, the fact that we are conscious and that we see a universe doesn't mean that we created it (though we did create our idea of it), or that it was created by an entity. That's my point.

OK. Do you agree that consciousness is/can be independent of a body?

I suspect not.

I dont claim that any one entity created all that is, but that all of the consciousness's collectively continually do so holographicly.

Each of our contributions is much less spectacular, but in aggregate, inextricably meshed together, is what we live IN.

Our own bits of personal universe creation is telepathicly communicated and integrated by others, and others such, by us.

Alan would call this the games matrix.

I do not believe in the existence of anything independent of "us" (in some form or another).

Although I recently read some interesting material that suggests that consciousness itself is an overlay on more basic existence.

[alex]

check out this if you get a chance....


http://www.lilaparadigm.org/

and perhaps....

http://www.charlesberner.org/Design/home.html

[alex]

"The world we all experience is created by each of us as non-physical individuals, non-physically choosing to deny billions upon billions of other non-physical individuals and choosing not to deny one, two or perhaps three of the others. Through the few non-denied others, each of us is indirectly
connected to all the others; however, because we are only in-directly connected to most of the others, we don’t know that they are non-physical individuals. Instead, we experience them collectively as the totality of this physical universe of things and bodies.





http://www.naturalmeditation.net/charlesberner/Lifting%2520the%2520Veil.pdf

[uniquemand]

OK. Do you agree that consciousness is/can be independent of a body?

I suspect not.

I dont claim that any one entity created all that is, but that all of the consciousness's collectively continually do so holographicly.

Each of our contributions is much less spectacular, but in aggregate, inextricably meshed together, is what we live IN.

Our own bits of personal universe creation is telepathicly communicated and integrated by others, and others such, by us.

Alan would call this the games matrix.

I do not believe in the existence of anything independent of "us" (in some form or another).

Although I recently read some interesting material that suggests that consciousness itself is an overlay on more basic existence.

I agree that consciousness is virtual, rather than physical. Whether it can exist independently of a virtual reality generator (like a nervous system) hasn't been established. I suspect that is not possible, but I don't know. I do think that biological bodies are not the only possible virtual reality generators, and that consciousness could possibly be exported to another environment. Existence without environment strikes me as impossible.

[Pascal]

I agree that consciousness is virtual, rather than physical. Whether it can exist independently of a virtual reality generator (like a nervous system) hasn't been established. I suspect that is not possible, but I don't know. I do think that biological bodies are not the only possible virtual reality generators, and that consciousness could possibly be exported to another environment. Existence without environment strikes me as impossible.

You seem to rely on authority. Establish things for yourself. Either you are after truth or want to "fit in". Can't have both.

Problem is, the blind have such sharp eyes. :p

[Zinjifar]

You seem to rely on authority. Establish things for yourself.

Problem is, the blind have such sharp eyes. :p

Perfect for popping balloons, bubbles and gasbags

Zinj

[uniquemand]

Lol. I rely on others to establish validity of things I don't have enough interest or time to pursue, myself. I consider the "spiritual stuff" to be unlikely, and outside my interest, so I pursue "other stuff". I'm not a scientist, but I have benefited greatly by technology generated by advances in science. I trust our scientific establishment is actually after truth, and they have much better products, IMO, than most Scientologists.

[Pascal]

Lol. I rely on others to establish validity of things I don't have enough interest or time to pursue, myself. I consider the "spiritual stuff" to be unlikely, and outside my interest, so I pursue "other stuff". I'm not a scientist, but I have benefited greatly by technology generated by advances in science. I trust our scientific establishment is actually after truth, and they have much better products, IMO, than most Scientologists.

I suggest you watch the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Trust noone but yourself. Remember...

What's true for you is what YOU YOURSELF have observed. The rest is outside information you have yet to observe and evaluate. Use it sure, but don't swear by it!!!

[Zinjifar]

I've never deep-fried a frozen turkey, but, considering the (as yet unseen by me directly) evidence, I don't think I'll bother.

Zinj

[Pascal]

I've never deep-fried a frozen turkey, but, considering the (as yet unseen by me directly) evidence, I don't think I'll bother.

Zinj

That's because you're not Scottish!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep-fried_Mars_bar

Scientology is an adventure.

CoS is a nightmare though.

:p

[uniquemand]

I suggest you watch the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed".

Trust noone but yourself. Remember...

What's true for you is what YOU YOURSELF have observed. The rest is outside information you have yet to observe and evaluate. Use it sure, but don't swear by it!!!

And I suggest you immerse yourself in scientific journals, instead of Hubbardian mindfuck.

You, yourself, did not observe the start of the universe, nor do you know it's dimensions.

Thus, do some science, and lay of the meter for a few hours.

[exccc]

Just to butt in...

I think there is room enough for all different viewpoints here. There's probably some truth to both ways of looking at things.

In the church, we all had to agree. The beauty of being out is that we don't.

Those who espouse an anti-Tech, -LRH, etc. view have their reasons for doing so. I wouldn't feel it my place to preach to them. Those who still think a lot of it can be beneficial also have their own experiences and road that led them to that conclusion.

The one thing we can probably all agree on is that we are out and better for it. After that, opinions will naturally diverge.

[Zinjifar]

While the 'truth' may usually be 'somewhere in-between', it's not necessarily or even probably right in the *middle*

Zinj

[Pascal]

And I suggest you immerse yourself in scientific journals, instead of Hubbardian mindfuck.

You, yourself, did not observe the start of the universe, nor do you know it's dimensions.

Thus, do some science, and lay of the meter for a few hours.

Scientific journals don't give me case gain. Hubbardian mindfuck does.

Science is the new Catholic Church with it's dogma and god Chaos, and I don't agree with authorities like you do.

As for what I have observed, you have no idea. :coolwink:

[Pascal]

Just to butt in...

I think there is room enough for all different viewpoints here. There's probably some truth to both ways of looking at things.

In the church, we all had to agree. The beauty of being out is that we don't.

Those who espouse an anti-Tech, -LRH, etc. view have their reasons for doing so. I wouldn't feel it my place to preach to them. Those who still think a lot of it can be beneficial also have their own experiences and road that led them to that conclusion.

The one thing we can probably all agree on is that we are out and better for it. After that, opinions will naturally diverge.

Well put.

[uniquemand]

Scientific journals don't give me case gain. Hubbardian mindfuck does.

Science is the new Catholic Church with it's dogma and god Chaos, and I don't agree with authorities like you do.

As for what I have observed, you have no idea. :coolwink:

You are welcome to the mindfuck.

As to whether I agree with authorities, only when I think they're right!

I don't know what you have observed during your life, but you'd have to prove it for me to believe you observed anything before this life.

[GreyLensman]

Dex,

I can see you like scientology, that's fine.

There were enough likable bits to get us all into it at one point (I mean the exes), so take the parts you liked with you, but I suggest you leave the crumbling wreckage of secret directives and malevolent financial rape of parishioners behind, it's imploding and succumbing, let it.

Soon I think the Cof S will fade into obscurity with it's "superior" tech of admin and PR.

The reason it's so hard to live with is that there are FATAL flaws laid into it's makeup, they went in very early and will cause it's demise. They are more numerous than all the ANONS put together.

The tech will live in the freezone and will be available to all who want it for a long time yet.

It's better to have the tech out in the wild. The Church is truly not something I would ever consider being a part of in any way shape or form. It is evil, dishonest, corrupt, distorted, detrimental, abusive - and that is its foundation and operating basis. And this occurs despite the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned and dedicated, honest, upright staff and public.

How can that be recovered? First it would have to admit the overts and the withholds, the lies and the degradations, and take responsibility for all of that and make amends and it will not happen, ever.

[Pascal]

You are welcome to the mindfuck.

As to whether I agree with authorities, only when I think they're right!

I don't know what you have observed during your life, but you'd have to prove it for me to believe you observed anything before this life.

I'm not asking you to believe me. It's my reality, not yours. :coolwink:

[dexter gelfand]

Excuse me, Dex, but I was wondering; when did you first become involved with the CoS?

Mike

Hello Mike, sorry, I just noticed your post to me, the past couple days have been busy.

I first came "on lines" at the New York Org around August of 1978.

Love,
Dex

[Mike Goldstein]

Hello Mike, sorry, I just noticed your post to me, the past couple days have been busy.

I first came "on lines" at the New York Org around August of 1978.

Love,
Dex

Thanks, Dex.
Looks like you got involved just a few years before the "New Regime" takeover.

Mike

[EP - Ethics Particle]

My observations extend to my time as Flag Crew, where Flag is considered to be "The Mecca of Standard Tech". The 100% standard tech game there still did not produce reliable results. Perhaps you have some unusual talent as an auditor.

Re Smitty's post above replying to Dexter Gelfand:

I have the personal experience to state my belief and opinion that Dex does indeed have unusual talent as an auditor. :yes:

So there! :p

Mike, aka Roy and the EPs

[dexter gelfand]

Thanks, Dex.
Looks like you got involved just a few years before the "New Regime" takeover.

Mike

Hi Mike, by all that I've read, largely yes, I joined NY org staff in '79, and outpoints of oppressive and dictatorial leadership were beginning to emerge even at that level. I was still on staff in '82, by which time the public excoriation of David Mayo, the sacking of the mission holders and the group SP declares were happening.

At the time, I merely thought it all was strange and curious. Had I thought more objectively at the time, and/or knew a little more of what I know now, I'd have left then. I guess the good part of having stayed longer is that I sharpened my skills and knowledge as an auditor for a few more years as lead HGC auditor, giving others case gain. Even that would have been hard to accomplish had that been the 1990's with the "Golden Age of Tech" garbage.

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

Re Smitty's post above replying to Dexter Gelfand:

I have the personal experience to state my belief and opinion that Dex does indeed have unusual talent as an auditor. :yes:

So there! :p

Mike, aka Roy and the EPs

Awe, thanks Mike, it was always a pleasure to audit you!:)

Love, Dex

[dr3k]

If L Ron Hubbard did not mean that beings (physical/spiritual) would be granted or recapture super-human (super-theta) abilities, what exactly does he mean by being "cause over MEST". I take being cause over MEST (matter/energy/space/time) to mean that I can make them the effect of anything I desire whether it be to deteriorate such objects like Smitty suggested by melting walls with pure causality or whether it be flying through space to Venus.

You have to remember Dexter, Hubbard claimed that during exteriorization he was able to travel to foreign planets and observe super-human activities among their populations. Listen to "Between Lives Implants" on the briefing course tapes again and you'll get a feel for what exactly LRH was promising people.

For your "word clearing" I've gathered up a list of abilities L Ron Hubbard attributed to the study and practice of the "subject" of Dianetics and Scientology which I might consider to be super-human. I've added the page numbers as well as the book it comes from and the quotation itself.



$cientology super-power #1 - A Scientologist can make you feel hot:
“When a thetan discharges energy, another person may feel hot.”
Scientology 8-80 page 110
$cientology super-power #2 - A Scientologist can heal himself or
others:
“Healing at a glance is done by a thetan, not interiorized, making
perfect duplicates of the illness of a body without perfectly
duplicating the body itself.”
The Creation of Human Ability page 136


“The thetan can clean up and heal his own body and those of others at
will.”
Scientology 8-80 page 111


$cientology super-power #3 - A Scientologist can convince inanimate
objects not to get stolen:
“Operating Thetan should be able to fix and unfix ideas in energy,
i.e., to be able to fix into a car an idea that “it can’t be stolen,”
and it won’t be.”
The Creation of Human Ability page 376


$cientology super-power #4 - A Scientologist can make you see
illusions, and move objects with his mind:
“The state of Cleared Theta Clear is, however, another thing. For it
means a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in
the MEST universe, is able to create illusions perceivable by others
at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and
to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep
himself and his friends interested in existence.”
Scientology 8-8008 page 175


“After a very large amount of auditing, even as much as fifty hours
(when the preclear has regained his ability to create, with
considerable solidity, his own illusions), it will be found that the
preclear can at will perceive the MEST universe and can do so with
accuracy. He can further (without the aid of a body) move objects,
heal at a distance and do a thousand other “interesting tricks” which
could very well be viewed with considerable awe. For they have not
been seen on earth in recorded history, but have lived in legend.”
Scientology 8-8008 page 170


“An Operating Thetan, then, is one who can handle things without
having to use a body of physical means. “Poltergeist” is a learned
term for only one of the phenomena of this state.”
Scientology 0-8 page 425


$cientology super-power #5 - A Scientologist can control other bodies:
“…the awareness of awareness unit can control or even make physical
bodies…”
Dianetics 55! page 50


$cientology super-power #6 - A Scientologist can create a measurable
flow of energy at a distance:
“It goes further and demonstrates that the awareness of awareness unit
can bring about, without further contact, an energy flow in a body at
a distance. This is a very startling demonstration, and is one of the
more significant electrical discoveries of recent times. The
conditions of the experiment are sufficiently rigorous to dispel any
doubt, in the mind of a physicist, concerning the authenticity of the
current.”
Dianetics 55! page 28


$cientology super-power #7 - A Scientologist is bulletproof:
“…one might go so far as to say that a bullet's arrival is a heavy
sort of hypnotism. The individual receiving a bullet does not outflow
a bullet and thus he is injured. If he could outflow a bullet
immediately after receiving a bullet, we could introduce the
interesting question: "Would he be wounded?" According to our rule he
would not be. Indeed, if he were in perfect communication with his
environment, he could not even receive a bullet injuriously…”
Dianetics 55! page 105


Hubbard, L. Ron. Scientology 8-80: The Discovery & Increase of Life
Energy in the Genus Homo Sapiens. Los Angeles, CA. Bridge
Publications, Inc. 2007.
Hubbard, L. Ron. The Creation of Human Ability: A Handbook for
Scientologists. Los Angeles, CA. Bridge Publications, Inc. 2007.
Hubbard, L. Ron. Scientology 8-8008. Los Angeles, CA. Bridge
Publications, Inc. 2007.
Hubbard, L. Ron. Scientology 0-8: The Book of Basics. Los Angeles, CA.
Bridge Publications, Inc. 2007.
Hubbard, L. Ron. Dianetics 55!. Los Angeles, CA. Bridge Publications,
Inc. 2007.

[Smitty]

Thanks for posting these Hubbard quotes dr3k. Because of their scientology programming, some freezoners reading it will "feel ARC broken". Some may snitch on you claiming that you are insulting/abusing them.

[Pascal]

Thanks for posting these Hubbard quotes dr3k. Because of their scientology programming, some freezoners reading it will "feel ARC broken". Some may snitch on you claiming that you are insulting/abusing them.

Most will yawn at such childish taunts. :coolwink:

[dexter gelfand]

Thanks for posting these Hubbard quotes dr3k. Because of their scientology programming, some freezoners reading it will "feel ARC broken". Some may snitch on you claiming that you are insulting/abusing them.

The intention behind these quotes is to "prove" that unbelievable and unachievable claims were made by Ron Hubbard. Beyond that, to hold the subject to ridicule, and create the impression that Scientology is a worthless scam.

I think that for nearly everyone on the list, our viewpoints are not likely to be changed one way or the other by either side of the argument.

Smitty, you, dr3k and some others are half preaching to your own choir, and insulting the rest of us. That sh*t you shovel about how you "no longer have ARC breaks" since you left Scientology, and how "Scientologists are programmed" to be offended is intended to offend, as if that made you right, which, apparently is your actual goal.

I'd like to think that there are better purposes for this list than this.

This is no spirited exchange of viewpoints; this is a make-wrong. You apparently feel threatened by the idea that, despite how you feel, there are people who have done well through Scientology, so much that you can't allow another person to have his win and let it go at that.

I'm sorry for how you and many people were mistreated, betrayed, abused and taken advantage of by people who claimed to be practicing, protecting and/or enforcing Scientology. Get in line, its obviously a very long line.

But for Gods sake consider letting it go enough to make the distinction between the actual subject of Scientology and the organization(s).

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

Most will yawn at such childish taunts. :coolwink:

Please show me some children who taunt by quoting absurd statements made by cult leader L. Ron Hubbard. dr3k is an adult.

[uniquemand]

Some people, no doubt, have done well using scientology. The absurd claims about OT abilities, however, have never been substantiated, and, IMO, never will be. Selling this crap is a scam! Selling the idea that a person can get better through self-examination and discipline is another story. Scientology can be used for those purposes. This is the exception, rather than the rule, though, in my experience. Usually, it is used to manipulate people for a profit.

[Smitty]

Some people, no doubt, have done well using scientology. The absurd claims about OT abilities, however, have never been substantiated, and, IMO, never will be. Selling this crap is a scam! Selling the idea that a person can get better through self-examination and discipline is another story. Scientology can be used for those purposes. This is the exception, rather than the rule, though, in my experience. Usually, it is used to manipulate people for a profit.

Yes.

[Smitty]

The intention behind these quotes is to "prove" that unbelievable and unachievable claims were made by Ron Hubbard. Beyond that, to hold the subject to ridicule, and create the impression that Scientology is a worthless scam.
Are you quoting what dr3k stated his intention was, dexter, or do you think that you have the ability to read his mind and speak for him?


Smitty, you, dr3k and some others are half preaching to your own choir, and insulting the rest of us.Dexter, the only person who you can factually speak for here is yourself. It is unfortunate that factual quotes from L. Ron Hubbard have power to produce a thought reaction of "insulting the rest of us" with you.

That sh*t you shovel about how you "no longer have ARC breaks" since you left Scientology, and how "Scientologists are programmed" to be offended is intended to offend, as if that made you right, which, apparently is your actual goal.The "sh*t you shovel"? So, according to dexter gelfand, anyone who does not practice scientology is supposed to have ARC breaks? Have you lived anyone else's life? When one is instructed about what an ARC break is, in order to run it in session, and assert that it is a punishable reality within the cult, that is definitely a form of implanting or programming.


I'd like to think that there are better purposes for this list than this.
It is the Ex-Scientologist Message Board. What does that mean to you?


This is no spirited exchange of viewpoints; this is a make-wrong. You apparently feel threatened by the idea that, despite how you feel, there are people who have done well through Scientology, so much that you can't allow another person to have his win and let it go at that.I don't see any threats here. Are you speculating? I never stated that someone who has had wins with scientology cannot have them. You are falsely accusing me of that.
I guess a "make-wrong" to you is any criticism of L. Ron Hubbard's dogma, no matter how absurd it may be.


I'm sorry for how you and many people were mistreated, betrayed, abused and taken advantage of by people who claimed to be practicing, protecting and/or enforcing Scientology. Get in line, its obviously a very long line.That is irrelevant at this point. Scientology is intrinsically mistreating, betraying, abusive and exploiting. Just read Hubbard's policies on Fair Game, SPs, PTSs, Comm Evs, Ethics Offenses, and critics.


But for Gods sake consider letting it go enough to make the distinction between the actual subject of Scientology and the organization(s).
Love, Dex
The organization is the outgrowth and application of scientology tech and policy. That is the distinction.

[Pascal]

The intention behind these quotes is to "prove" that unbelievable and unachievable claims were made by Ron Hubbard. Beyond that, to hold the subject to ridicule, and create the impression that Scientology is a worthless scam.

I think that for nearly everyone on the list, our viewpoints are not likely to be changed one way or the other by either side of the argument.

Smitty, you, dr3k and some others are half preaching to your own choir, and insulting the rest of us. That sh*t you shovel about how you "no longer have ARC breaks" since you left Scientology, and how "Scientologists are programmed" to be offended is intended to offend, as if that made you right, which, apparently is your actual goal.

I'd like to think that there are better purposes for this list than this.

This is no spirited exchange of viewpoints; this is a make-wrong. You apparently feel threatened by the idea that, despite how you feel, there are people who have done well through Scientology, so much that you can't allow another person to have his win and let it go at that.

I'm sorry for how you and many people were mistreated, betrayed, abused and taken advantage of by people who claimed to be practicing, protecting and/or enforcing Scientology. Get in line, its obviously a very long line.

But for Gods sake consider letting it go enough to make the distinction between the actual subject of Scientology and the organization(s).

Love, Dex

Touché amigo

[Smitty]

Touché amigo

Fail post is fail.

[degraded being]

The intention behind these quotes is to "prove" that unbelievable and unachievable claims were made by Ron Hubbard. Beyond that, to hold the subject to ridicule, and create the impression that Scientology is a worthless scam.

I think that for nearly everyone on the list, our viewpoints are not likely to be changed one way or the other by either side of the argument.

Smitty, you, dr3k and some others are half preaching to your own choir, and insulting the rest of us.

That sh*t you shovel about how you "no longer have ARC breaks" since you left Scientology, and how "Scientologists are programmed" to be offended is intended to offend, as if that made you right, which, apparently is your actual goal.

I'd like to think that there are better purposes for this list than this.

This is no spirited exchange of viewpoints; this is a make-wrong.

You apparently feel threatened by the idea that, despite how you feel, there are people who have done well through Scientology, so much that you can't allow another person to have his win and let it go at that.

I'm sorry for how you and many people were mistreated, betrayed, abused and taken advantage of by people who claimed to be practicing, protecting and/or enforcing Scientology. Get in line, its obviously a very long line.

But for Gods sake consider letting it go enough to make the distinction between the actual subject of Scientology and the organization(s).

Love, Dex

We in the choir have heard this "distinction between the subject Scientology and the organization" line enough times to have had our "buttons" well and truly "flattened" on it.

Find out where you are. This is not the Scientology Defenders Message Board.
You say that the quotes from Ron are being used to hold the subject up to ridicule. What do you expect? This is a place where people are freeing themselves of years of being coerced to accept the ridculous and spend their lives and income pursuing ridiculous goals (per the quotes). Ridiculous claims by a riduculous megalomaniac. The ridiculous should be ridiculed when it is being used to fuck with people's minds.

If people feel they got some benefit from parts of scientology that are not ridiculous, so be it. Being told not to criticise Scientology or Ron, well, it ain't what people come here for.
Find out where you are.

[alex]

I'm with you Dex....

(philosophically)

But I do enjoy playing with the folks who would degrade and ridicule, its fun to hear them squeak when I bite.

(oh alex, when will you ever learn....)
:)

[Pascal]

I'm with you Dex....

(philosophically)

But I do enjoy playing with the folks who would degrade and ridicule, its fun to hear them squeak when I bite.

(oh alex, when will you ever learn....)
:)

On the road to greatness... I've kicked the odd cat too... :whistling:

I love it when they screach. :)

[Smitty]

I'm with you Dex....
(philosophically)
That follows. You are a scientologist.


But I do enjoy playing with the folks who would degrade and ridicule, its fun to hear them squeak when I bite.
(oh alex, when will you ever learn....)
:)
Since when do you have teeth?

[uniquemand]

In answer, Alex: you will learn when you are willing to look.

[TheSneakster]

In answer, Alex: you will learn when you are willing to look.

That could be said of me, yourself or any of us, uniquemand.

Looking at what actually is in the real world long enough may enlighten one.

Looking at whatever baggage one happens to be carrying around in one's mind may or may not.

Does one always know when they are looking at the world through the distorting lens of their mental baggage and so seeing something different from what actually is ?

Do you, uniquemand, really believe any of us are immune to that particular human failing ?

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson

[Night Owl]

Cult Watch

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=9518

3. Emotional overreaction when the group or leader is criticized. Seen as evil persecution

8. Demonization of former members or members of alternative viewpoints

It is what it is. These are just two. It isnt exclusively applicable to ex COS'ers that still support scientology; it is aphenomena observed in all ex cult members.... it's an awakening process...we all went through that stage....now I am out of the last layer of the Matrix.

[Megalomaniac]

But for Gods sake consider letting it go enough to make the distinction between the actual subject of Scientology and the organization(s).

Love, Dex

Hi Dex,

I saw the photo of you and your gal. And I've read a few of your posts & replies here. So that's all I know about you. But based on just that, I have to say that guys like you put the greatness into Scientology. You put the beef behind making a world "where honest beings have rights and man is free to rise to greater heights". Whatever part of the Church you salvage, or whatever activity you put together, by whatever name, I have high hopes it will be a force for good. Obviously some members of this board won't be part of your activity. But I appreciate your comments and your spirit. :thumbsup:

-mac

[uniquemand]

That could be said of me, yourself or any of us, uniquemand.

Looking at what actually is in the real world long enough may enlighten one.

Looking at whatever baggage one happens to be carrying around in one's mind may or may not.

Does one always know when they are looking at the world through the distorting lens of their mental baggage and so seeing something different from what actually is ?

Do you, uniquemand, really believe any of us are immune to that particular human failing ?

Michael "The Sneakster" Hobson

Of course not. I have all human failings, and some of those shared by armadillos. I am, after all, a human. I was answering Alex's question.

[Voltaire's Child]

It never ceases to amuse and appall me how many people on forums are so into talking down to Scn'ists, telling them that someday you will learn, Grasshopper and all that sort of thing.

C'mon y'all. As Firesign Theater says, "we are all bozos on this bus."

[uniquemand]

Anyone who would call themself a scientologist, after knowing what scientology is all about, should be not only talked down to, but castigated, and brought up on RICO counts, where possible.

[Mark A. Baker]

Anyone who would call themself a scientologist, after knowing what scientology is all about, should be not only talked down to, but castigated, and brought up on RICO counts, where possible.


I'm a scientologist. :)


Mark A. Baker

[Pascal]

Anyone who would call themself a scientologist, after knowing what scientology is all about, should be not only talked down to, but castigated, and brought up on RICO counts, where possible.

I'm a Scientologist too and not living in the moronic USA. :p

[alex]

Of course not. I have all human failings, and some of those shared by armadillos. I am, after all, a human. I was answering Alex's question.

Funny thing is, I drafted a reply to it, and then discarded it, as I frequently do....

Uniques opinions are well known to me and mine I think to him.


My discarded reply to his implication that I needed to look, was something to the effect that it was ironic in light of the vast area not seen by him, that I have been trying to get him to see for years...

I'll gladly accept uniques "human failings" as but a small part in a much more constructive person.

[uniquemand]

Thanks, Alex. I do look, as I'm sure you do. You asked when you'd learn, and I simply responded "when you look".

As to those saying "I'm a Scientologist": yes, yes, I know. Hopefully, you'll come to your senses.

[Pascal]

Thanks, Alex. I do look, as I'm sure you do. You asked when you'd learn, and I simply responded "when you look".

As to those saying "I'm a Scientologist": yes, yes, I know. Hopefully, you'll come to your senses.

To quote an oriental saying...:

Whatever you wish for us, we wish you 10 times that. :coolwink:

[uniquemand]

You wish for me to come to my senses ten times? Or you want me to be brought up on 10x as many RICO violations? BTW, aren't RICO violations required by policy?

[Zinjifar]

You should come to your sentences 10 times in 25 words or less.

Zinj

[Pascal]

Funny thing is, I drafted a reply to it, and then discarded it, as I frequently do....

Uniques opinions are well known to me and mine I think to him.


My discarded reply to his implication that I needed to look, was something to the effect that it was ironic in light of the vast area not seen by him, that I have been trying to get him to see for years...

I'll gladly accept uniques "human failings" as but a small part in a much more constructive person.

Unique wants us to look... But Unique... Things look different without R6 in your puss. :coolwink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNVc9biKOXA

[Pascal]

You wish for me to come to my senses ten times? Or you want me to be brought up on 10x as many RICO violations? BTW, aren't RICO violations required by policy?

Religion trumps RICO. Go fish.

[Zinjifar]

When 'religion' *is* RICO

It's banco all the way

Zinj

[uniquemand]

How would you know, Pascal? Last I checked, you were on ARC S/W. Did you skip all the other grades and go directly to R6EW?

[dexter gelfand]

Hi Dex,

I saw the photo of you and your gal. And I've read a few of your posts & replies here. So that's all I know about you. But based on just that, I have to say that guys like you put the greatness into Scientology. You put the beef behind making a world "where honest beings have rights and man is free to rise to greater heights". Whatever part of the Church you salvage, or whatever activity you put together, by whatever name, I have high hopes it will be a force for good. Obviously some members of this board won't be part of your activity. But I appreciate your comments and your spirit. :thumbsup:

-mac


Thanks Meg, I appreciate your support. I can also appreciate that many on this forum have, because of their experience, formed a very bitter, negative opinion on Scientology. But just as they would want to be accepted for their viewpoint, so do the rest of us.

I think it shouldn't require unattainable levels of graciousness to simply state "My experience has made me decide the whole subject is false", rather than "The whole subject factually is false", and thus imply that those of us whose experience dictates that we beg to differ are incapable of percieving facts.

Apparently, a person doesn't need to agree with Scientology to demonstrate the existence of covert (or overt) hostility.

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

Thanks Meg, I appreciate your support. I can also appreciate that many on this forum have, because of their experience, formed a very bitter, negative opinion on Scientology. But just as they would want to be accepted for their viewpoint, so do the rest of us.
How do you know that those with negative opinions of scientology are bitter? Have they said that? Or are you putting that there? Have you lived their lives?


I think it shouldn't require unattainable levels of graciousness to simply state "My experience has made me decide the whole subject is false", rather than "The whole subject factually is false", and thus imply that those of us whose experience dictates that we beg to differ are incapable of percieving facts.
Dexter, that is a rather black and white point of view: We decide things largely based on our experience. Experience does NOT make us decide anything. We decide. I think you have experience and the response to experience confused. Who said "The whole subject factually is false"? Specifically, what about it is false? What about it is speculation? What about it can be shown to be factual?


Apparently, a person doesn't need to agree with Scientology to demonstrate the existence of covert (or overt) hostility.
Love, Dex
To those using that attribute, it has or had some value. Being a scientologist had some value for some people. But of those who have had wins, some of them cannot let go of that perspective, thus cannot view the world outside of it.

[Mark A. Baker]

Thanks, Alex. I do look, as I'm sure you do. You asked when you'd learn, and I simply responded "when you look".

As to those saying "I'm a Scientologist": yes, yes, I know. Hopefully, you'll come to your senses.


Some of us never lost ours or bought into the cult mentality. :)


Mark A. Baker

[Smitty]

Some of us never bought into the propaganda that scientology was a religion or a church.

[Pascal]

How would you know, Pascal? Last I checked, you were on ARC S/W. Did you skip all the other grades and go directly to R6EW?

Please don't be dumb. I lose interest when you're dumb. :bigcry:

[Pascal]

Some of us never bought into the propaganda that scientology was a religion or a church.

Thank god you ain't in power for us then.

:p

[Smitty]

Thank god you ain't in power for us then.
:p

Who is the 'Us'? And who is the 'Them'?

[Pascal]

Who is the 'Us'? And who is the 'Them'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlY-JlE5ZCo

:p

[Smitty]

You did not answer the question. Who is the 'Us' and who is the "them'?

[Pascal]

You did not answer the question. Who is the 'Us' and who is the "them'?

More importantly. Who cares?

:p

[MarkWI]

I find this Open Letter relates to the title of the tread:




Dear Scientologist,

I am writing to you in hopes of bringing some clarity to the recent upsets and protests.

L. Ron Hubbard speaks much about integrity, responsibility, honesty and ethics. These are good things. The world needs more honesty and people need more integrity, better ethics, and need to take more responsibility.

But we have a problem.

I'm sorry but I must be blunt here. You have given up your responsibility for your church. You have given all the responsibility for your church to unnamed and unseen “others” of church management. Most Scientologists only know of one person, David Miscavige, who is in charge.

You trust that your church management is doing a good job. You trust that they are doing the right things. But your only source of information on how and what management is doing is management's own event presentations, which are, obviously, produced to make management look good.

The actual actions and statistics of the Church of Scientology management are hidden. The actual people involved in church management, except for David Miscavige, are hidden.

You are told that all information from outside sources about the church is false, and that church management's event presentations are the only valid sources of information. And you believe, and follow that.

This is irresponsible.

It is your church. You are responsible for the Church of Scientology. You. Not David Miscavige, not some mysterious and unnamed “management team”, not “someone else”, you.

You have been told that your "responsibility" is to follow management's orders. This is not responsibility. "Obedience" is not part of any definition of responsibility. Responsibility involves knowledge and it includes action--knowledge you have gathered for yourself, not some spoon-fed, predigested presentation, and action you have decided is best, based on your own personal knowledge.

I won't tell you what you should do, except to say that you need to take responsibility. The information available on the Internet won't kill you. Millions of people have read everything available and no one has died from it. No one has even gotten sick. Scientology has certainly not made you weaker than those people. It is safe for you to look.

Some of the information may be upsetting. So? Is your faith so weak that it falls apart at the slightest contrary opinion? Don't you think you have the intelligence and awareness to spot truth and lies? I think you do.

Taking responsibility has never been easy, but it has always been necessary. It is time for you to step up and assume the responsibility you abandoned.

You should be ashamed that others have felt it necessary to take responsibility for your church. They might not understand and may be clumsy in their attempts to correct things. You would obviously be better at it but you haven't done anything.

Take responsibility for your church. It is time.

Bill



You will find many other great articles on his blog:
http://askthescientologist.blogspot.com/2008/03/open-letter-to-all-scientologists.html

[Pascal]

Great letter and great blog.

[dexter gelfand]

More importantly. Who cares?

:p


I don't know (Oh, that's right- he's on third:) )

Love, Dex

[Megalomaniac]

Dear Scientologist,

...

Take responsibility for your church. It is time.

Bill




I agree with this letter. It is actually written to me. I made my last donation to Scientology very recently. I failed to take responsibility for the group I was blindly supporting. Now, I am considering how to take responsibility. Firstly, through direct communication, I'm putting pressure on people in the Church to either prove the "entheta" stories to be false, or provide me a solution. Secondly, I'm considering how I can make up the damage to the victims. This is all in the category of taking responsibility for past wrongdoings.

Dex seems to want to go further and retake the Church. In my mind, he might actually be talking about re-constructing one. Dex, I'm curious what specific actions you would recommend to "retake" the Church? What exactly would you have us do? Right now, I'm not ready to do anything along these lines other than make up for the past, but I'm willing to listen.

[dexter gelfand]

I agree with this letter. It is actually written to me. I made my last donation to Scientology very recently. I failed to take responsibility for the group I was blindly supporting. Now, I am considering how to take responsibility. Firstly, through direct communication, I'm putting pressure on people in the Church to either prove the "entheta" stories to be false, or provide me a solution. Secondly, I'm considering how I can make up the damage to the victims. This is all in the category of taking responsibility for past wrongdoings.

Dex seems to want to go further and retake the Church. In my mind, he might actually be talking about re-constructing one. Dex, I'm curious what specific actions you would recommend to "retake" the Church? What exactly would you have us do? Right now, I'm not ready to do anything along these lines other than make up for the past, but I'm willing to listen.

Hello Meg,

What I propose is that all those who have been physically assaulted, been threatened with blackmail, had their pc folder data used against them, etc, go public and press lawsuits. Press the attack, force the CoS to spit out DM and others guilty of these crimes and offenses. Put ethics in, create the opportunity for correction, new leadership, restoration of the values and the tech, redress of wrongs, and the filling of key positions with more trustworthy and capable people, including many who left or were forced out.

Restoration of tech before GAT, before RTC rewrote the grade chart, before NOT's was designated as OT levels, before the original OT levels 4 through 7 were buried, before training was corrupted with all DM's arbitraries. Back to when class VIII's were being made in volume. Before misuse of sec checks and rewriting the basic books. Back to when being on services or staff was actually fun. Without the abusive use of RPF and SP declares.

Those who have made their ideas known how they consider basic Scientology bogus, need not comment here. We already know your opinions.

Love, Dex

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Hello Meg,

What I propose is ...

...snip...

Those who have made their ideas known how they consider basic Scientology bogus, need not comment here. We already know your opinions.

Love, Dex

Dex,

Thinking and "looking" at my response to this thread just a bit, I see that I respond very negatively and really "shy away" from the word "church"!:nervous: :confused2: :yes:

Also, I (for reasons unknown) seem to have a different reaction To Scientology that I do to scientology...:melodramatic:

Does this mean I'm wierd or something? :unsure:

Mike

[Megalomaniac]

Hello Meg,

... Put ethics in, create the opportunity for correction, ....

Restoration of tech ...

Those who have made their ideas known how they consider basic Scientology bogus, need not comment here. We already know your opinions.

Love, Dex

Hi Dex,

I generally agree with you. I have my doubts on the tech, especially the parts I don't know, which is most of it. But I would be happy to see the good aspects of Scientology back. I don't like the word "attack". I see it more as a "defense". Again, I'm not sure how much I'll participate.

Also, it would be nice to keep this thread more or less on your topic. Another thread might be better to argue the merits of Scientology. Maybe those who were arguing you could simply discuss whether they are for, against, or indifferent to a "retaking" or "restoration" of CoS.

-mac

[dexter gelfand]

Dex,

Thinking and "looking" at my response to this thread just a bit, I see that I respond very negatively and really "shy away" from the word "church"!:nervous: :confused2: :yes:

Also, I (for reasons unknown) seem to have a different reaction To Scientology that I do to scientology...:melodramatic:

Does this mean I'm wierd or something? :unsure:

Mike

Hey Mike, I think its fair to say use of the word "church" is going to have particular connotations for each of us individually (I was raised as a nice Jewish boy myself:) ). I'm not overly fond of the idea that it was labeled "church" in the first place, because that implies a Christian-type religion. Just a word, but not what I would have chosen. Scientology centers aren't (or weren't meant to be, or shouldn't be) houses of worship. That word just begs for restimulating all that was difficult to experience one on's track in Catholic school, and in church environments. It also implies the idea that LRH was positioning Scientology as comparable to Christianity. Then again, it would be easier to get the IRS to accept a "church" as a justifiably tax-free entity..

I would have preferred a word other than "church"..maybe "House of spiritual study"? Hmmm, that doesn't exactly role of fthe tongue, but it would be more accurate...

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

Hi Dex,

I generally agree with you. I have my doubts on the tech, especially the parts I don't know, which is most of it. But I would be happy to see the good aspects of Scientology back. I don't like the word "attack". I see it more as a "defense". Again, I'm not sure how much I'll participate.

Also, it would be nice to keep this thread more or less on your topic. Another thread might be better to argue the merits of Scientology. Maybe those who were arguing you could simply discuss whether they are for, against, or indifferent to a "retaking" or "restoration" of CoS.

-mac

True Meg, this course of action would only be worthwhile for those of us who consider basic original Scientology worthwhile in the first place. There are forums on ExScn for discussion on that subject.

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

Before misuse of sec checks and rewriting the basic books. Back to when being on services or staff was actually fun. Without the abusive use of RPF and SP declares. Sec checks are inherently abusive. You don't need to do such things in an attempt to help somebody. The RPF and SP declares are inherently abusive. They always were methods to demonize somebody.



Those who have made their ideas known how they consider basic Scientology bogus, need not comment here. We already know your opinions.
Love, DexWho is we? Speak for yourself, Dexter.

[Smitty]

More importantly. Who cares?
:p

I care. I acknowledge that you do not.

[dexter gelfand]

Sec checks are inherently abusive. You don't need to do such things in an attempt to help somebody. The RPF and SP declares are inherently abusive. They always were methods to demonize somebody.

Who is we? Speak for yourself, Dexter.


Isn't that a rephrasing of your "Who is us?" question, Smitty? Back to 3rd base.

"WE" would be those of us who feel Scientology is worth restoring, preserving and protecting. Obviously.

Love, Dex

[alex]

Sec checks are inherently abusive. You don't need to do such things in an attempt to help somebody. The RPF and SP declares are inherently abusive. They always were methods to demonize somebody.

Who is we? Speak for yourself, Dexter.

Funny, the last major sec check (I am not auditing you variety) I got, was a very enlightening action from which I believe I got case gain regardless of its status. Getting a person to a point of understanding their responsibility in regards to others, even in the interest of justice for those others, does help the person undergoing it.

And a sec check is voluntary. Yes it may require leaving the group to volunteer out of it, but it is voluntary in the sense that it is something one has agreed to as a condition of belonging to a certain group.

Not saying sec checks are not abused, and mightily, just that inherent abuse is not accurate.

I will cop to being one of his we's....

[Smitty]

Isn't that a rephrasing of your "Who is us?" question, Smitty? Back to 3rd base.No, I am asking you this question.


"WE" would be those of us who feel Scientology is worth restoring, preserving and protecting. Obviously.
Love, Dex
It was not obvious. That is my reason for asking.

[Smitty]

Funny, the last major sec check (I am not auditing you variety) I got, was a very enlightening action from which I believe I got case gain regardless of its status. Getting a person to a point of understanding their responsibility in regards to others, even in the interest of justice for those others, does help the person undergoing it.I think there are ways to help a person take ownership of actions or inactions that do not impart the additive baggage that sec checks often do. BTW, you are one of the few folks I have communicated with who have had 'wins' doing a sec check.


And a sec check is voluntary. Yes it may require leaving the group to volunteer out of it, but it is voluntary in the sense that it is something one has agreed to as a condition of belonging to a certain group.You contradicted yourself. None of us signed a contract to consent to a sec check when we joined corporate scientology. If one is forced out of a group because they refuse to do a certain thing, that thing is NOT Voluntary, it is Mandatory. Thanks for your attempt to spin that point, however.


Not saying sec checks are not abused, and mightily, just that inherent abuse is not accurate.
I will cop to being one of his we's....
Abusive is as abusive does. I think that there is sufficient evidence that the sec check is abusive. Your experience may be an exception.

[Zinjifar]

Every couple of years; sometimes every couple of months, trying to run a computer that's accumulated crap and contradictions and deliberate spyware and infestations and just plain kludge is best served by formatting the whole damn thang and starting fresh. You can put it off; but, eventually it's time.

Whatever happens to the 'Church' of Scientology, by this time 'Scientology' is in that state. Time to dump it all. Start fresh. The 'data' is still available, so, bite the bullet; start fresh; examine every bit you add and only add what *you* want.

Trying to patch that puppy just isn't worth it.

First things to *not* reinstall? KSW and 'Clearing the Planet'.

Zinj

[exccc]

Funny, the last major sec check (I am not auditing you variety) I got, was a very enlightening action from which I believe I got case gain regardless of its status. Getting a person to a point of understanding their responsibility in regards to others, even in the interest of justice for those others, does help the person undergoing it.

And a sec check is voluntary. Yes it may require leaving the group to volunteer out of it, but it is voluntary in the sense that it is something one has agreed to as a condition of belonging to a certain group.

Not saying sec checks are not abused, and mightily, just that inherent abuse is not accurate.

I will cop to being one of his we's....

This is very well said.

If sec checks were given in the spirit of doing what's good for the PC rather than what's good for the org, they can be very beneficial.

Of course, all that provided the priest-penitent privilege is never violated, so evidence for that comm ev would have to be gotten by other means... I don't see that happening anytime soon in the church.

Of course, the justification is they only do this for supressives, but since that term has been redefined over the years to mean anyone who thinks for himself, it lacks any moral standing, if indeed, there ever was one.

In any case, staff gossips about all the stuff in the folder. It's been going on for as long as there were folders, as far as I can tell. It is a pity.

[Smitty]

Every couple of years; sometimes every couple of months, trying to run a computer that's accumulated crap and contradictions and deliberate spyware and infestations and just plain kludge is best served by formatting the whole damn thang and starting fresh. You can put it off; but, eventually it's time.
Whatever happens to the 'Church' of Scientology, by this time 'Scientology' is in that state. Time to dump it all. Start fresh. The 'data' is still available, so, bite the bullet; start fresh; examine every bit you add and only add what *you* want.
Trying to patch that puppy just isn't worth it.
First things to *not* reinstall? KSW and 'Clearing the Planet'.
Zinj

Very true. A major step in recovery from scientology is simply to reject everything, then re-examine the basic information piece by piece.

[Smitty]

If sec checks were given in the spirit of doing what's good for the PC rather than what's good for the org, they can be very beneficial.How can anyone else know "what's good for the PC", except that person? Have you lived their life? Are you addressing exactly what concerns that person has voiced about their life?


Of course, all that provided the priest-penitent privilege is never violated, so evidence for that comm ev would have to be gotten by other means... I don't see that happening anytime soon in the church.There is no priest or penitent in a sec check. A committee of evidence is Hubbard's version of a military tribunal which are notoriously biased and unjust.


Of course, the justification is they only do this for supressives, but since that term has been redefined over the years to mean anyone who thinks for himself, it lacks any moral standing, if indeed, there ever was one.
The criteria for a SP was never based on research employing a scientific method, thus was invalid from day one. Hubbard used the term to demonize his created and imagined enemies.

[Veda]

-snip-

"WE" would be those of us who feel Scientology is worth restoring, preserving and protecting. Obviously.

Love, Dex

Do you agree with 'KSW' that "the whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman, and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depends on... Scientology?"

[dexter gelfand]

Funny, the last major sec check (I am not auditing you variety) I got, was a very enlightening action from which I believe I got case gain regardless of its status. Getting a person to a point of understanding their responsibility in regards to others, even in the interest of justice for those others, does help the person undergoing it.

And a sec check is voluntary. Yes it may require leaving the group to volunteer out of it, but it is voluntary in the sense that it is something one has agreed to as a condition of belonging to a certain group.

Not saying sec checks are not abused, and mightily, just that inherent abuse is not accurate.

I will cop to being one of his we's....

Thanks Alex (and exccc). Unburdening one of their transgressions is, of course, therapeutic, when done for that purpose, and speaking as an auditor who has run confessional lists on PC's as an auditing action, I've always been happy for the relief my PC's felt, and the changes in how they felt about themselves once they regained the personal integrity they'd compromised initially.

I've also run "HCO style" confessionals once or twice as a mission holder when needed, but never abusively, always F/Ning everything, and handling the matters that came up with the PC so that they could agree with and feel good about the resolution of whatever was done. No RPF-style penalties, no SP declares, no public pronunciations, no exclusions from the group.

As with many things, the tech is just fine, as long as its application is correct and appropriate.

Love, Dex

[Zinjifar]

As with many things, the tech is just fine, as long as its application is correct and appropriate.

Love, Dex

And, that's the tautology.
Every time the 'Tech' is *not* just fine, it's, per doctrine, due to incorrect and unappropriate application.

That's how you can tell when it's incorrect and unappropriate; it's not 'just fine'.

Ipso dictum.

Scientology Works! Except when it doesn't, and, then, you did it wrong!

Poifect

Zinj

[Pascal]

I see no problem with sec checks. It's what happens after..

Although I did have a newbie give me a sec check and I got red tagged. There was serious out-tech involved and I almost thrashed that intern.

In any case CoS is desperate in most of their actions. Like the NRA says...

Scientology doesn't harm people.

People harm people.

[dexter gelfand]

And, that's the tautology.
Every time the 'Tech' is *not* just fine, it's, per doctrine, due to incorrect and unappropriate application.

That's how you can tell when it's incorrect and unappropriate; it's not 'just fine'.

Ipso dictum.

Scientology Works! Except when it doesn't, and, then, you did it wrong!

Poifect

Zinj


That's true Zinj, that is the doctrine. BUT it is also my personal experience, as an auditor.

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

I see no problem with sec checks. It's what happens after..After an authority in organized scientology determines that 'you need a sec check'.


In any case CoS is desperate in most of their actions. Like the NRA says...
Scientology doesn't harm people.
People harm people.
No, a slogan of the NRA is "Guns do not kill people, people kill people."
And it is documented fact that scientology has contributed to the deaths of many people. Google 'Lisa McPherson'. Google 'Quentin Hubbard'.

[Veda]

Scientology has been a mental-healing-coated devious & abusive personality-cult since the 1960s. No amount of spin will change that.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI

[Pascal]

After an authority in organized scientology determines that 'you need a sec check'.

No, a slogan of the NRA is "Guns do not kill people, people kill people."
And it is documented fact that scientology has contributed to the deaths of many people. Google 'Lisa McPherson'. Google 'Quentin Hubbard'.

Someone committed out-tech on her. You can only blame people. People are cause and responsible.

The thing with Lisa is that she's the only one. If the Ls were evil you'd have dead people all the time. Duh.

You know how many people die in hospitals every day? Does that mean medicine kills?

Your arguments are sophomoric.

[dexter gelfand]

Do you agree with 'KSW' that "the whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman, and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depends on... Scientology?"

Hi Veda,

I don't feel the need to defend every statement Ron Hubbard ever made. In fact he has said and done things I disagree with (whattaya know, kinda like every other person who ever was!).

I don't believe that the fate of the universe specifically hangs by the thread of my (or your) every next decision or action. But I believe every decision and action makes a difference one way or another, that there are better and worse decisions and actions. I have found for myself that Scientology tech, correctly applied, is a very good thing, and that alterations and omissions, to a greater or lesser degree, compromise those results.

Love, Dex

[Pascal]

Scientology has been a mental-healing-coated devious & abusive personality-cult since the 1960s. No amount of spin will change that.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI

If a guy nailed on a stick after getting his ass kicked can claim to be the son of the supreme being and have his philosophy adopted by most of this planet then Scientology will rule soon enough.

Sorry, this is MEST, not your home universe.

I feel your pain though. :p

[Smitty]

Someone committed out-tech on her. You can only blame people. People are cause and responsible.Exactly what was the 'out-tech' and who did it?


The thing with Lisa is that she's the only one. If the Ls were evil you'd have dead people all the time. Duh.Is she the only person who died as a result of scientology? "If the Ls were evil..." is your strawman. I said no such thing.


You know how many people die in hospitals every day? Does that mean medicine kills?Sometimes it does. That is documented fact.


Your arguments are sophomoric.My arguments are based on facts. Your statement is your opinion.

[Smitty]

If a guy nailed on a stick after getting his ass kicked can claim to be the son of the supreme being and have his philosophy adopted by most of this planet then Scientology will rule soon enough.
Where is the evidence that there was such a person? Explain how the spread of Christianity implies that scientology (which is not a religion) "will rule soon enough".


Sorry, this is MEST, not your home universe.
I feel your pain though. :p
Those statements are non-sequitur.

[Pascal]

Exactly what was the 'out-tech' and who did it?
Is she the only person who died as a result of scientology? "If the Ls were evil..." is your strawman. I said no such thing.
Sometimes it does. That is documented fact.
My arguments are based on facts. Your statement is your opinion.

Your facts are odd events, not the norm. Hence a generalization, Sheesh...

[Veda]

Hi Veda,

I don't feel the need to defend every statement Ron Hubbard ever made. In fact he has said and done things I disagree with (whattaya know, kinda like every other person who ever was!).

I don't believe that the fate of the universe specifically hangs by the thread of my (or your) every next decision or action. But I believe every decision and action makes a difference one way or another, that there are better and worse decisions and actions. I have found for myself that Scientology tech, correctly applied, is a very good thing, and that alterations and omissions, to a greater or lesser degree, compromise those results.

Love, Dex

That's really not what I asked, to paraphrase, "Do you consider that the survival and well being of yourself, others, and Mankind, depend on Scientology?"

[Pascal]

Where is the evidence that there was such a person? Explain how the spread of Christianity implies that scientology (which is not a religion) "will rule soon enough".

Those statements are non-sequitur.

Anything is possible with religion. Scientology just needs it's Constantine, Justinian, Aquinus, etc... They will come. Religions go through the same cycle. Right now Scientology is with Mohammad in Medina... Soon they will take Mecca.

My statements are sequitur to someone knowledgeable in Scientology, which you are most certainly not.

[Terril park]

That's really not what I asked, to paraphrase, "Do you consider that the survival and well being of yourself, others, and Mankind, depend on Scientology?"

Scientology enhances livingness.

You agree Veda?

[Smitty]

Anything is possible with religion. Scientology just needs it's Constantine, Justinian, Aquinus, etc... They will come. Religions go through the same cycle. Right now Scientology is with Mohammad in Medina... Soon they will take Mecca.Except that scientology is not a religion.


My statements are sequitur to someone knowledgeable in Scientology, which you are most certainly not.On the contrary, I most definitely am knowledgeable in scientology.

[Smitty]

Scientology enhances livingness.

I think that depends on the person and circumstances. In my experience, it degrades 'livingness'.

[Smitty]

Your facts are odd events, not the norm. Hence a generalization, at least try not to act like an SP, learn to hide your nature. Sheesh...

I never stated that deaths from scientology were the norm. That is your strawman. Your second statement is clearly a personal attack.

[Veda]

Scientology enhances livingness.

You agree Veda?

At first it can, then it slowly places the person at effect.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=177122&postcount=41

And the question has still not been answered.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=196236&postcount=171

[uniquemand]

Steer Clear!

[Pascal]

Except that scientology is not a religion.
On the contrary, I most definitely am knowledgeable in scientology.

Romans and Jews said the same about Christianity.

I believe it's a religion and so do many experts and governments. It's an atheistic religion like Buddhism.

[Smitty]

Romans and Jews said the same about Christianity.
Which Romans and Jews said the same about Christianity? Citations please.


I believe it's a religion and so do many experts and governments. It's an atheistic religion like Buddhism.Which experts and governments affirm that scientology is a religion? BTW, Buddhism is NOT an atheistic religion.

[Pascal]

I never stated that deaths from scientology were the norm. That is your strawman. Your second statement is clearly a personal attack.

Nice backpedaling with Lisa...

Psychology and Psychiatry have way higher numbers in suicides and crime yet they are the "authorities" and receive billions of taxpayer dollars all around the world.

Yet you pick on a poor lost Church run by a moronic dwarf barely able to apply the scriptures to a mediocre end.

[dexter gelfand]

That's really not what I asked, to paraphrase, "Do you consider that the survival and well being of yourself, others, and Mankind, depend on Scientology?"

Do I think that everything will explode and disintigrate without Scientology? Nope. We've all muddled along since the beginning of our existence as a race.

I think Scientology, properly applied can create big and wonderful effects, and make life better, and that it is not any kind of trap or trick, although certain warped people aren't above promoting and corrupting the subject for their own purposes.

I also believe that there are people who would be upset to hear reports that anybody has done or is doing well through Scientology, and would feel a need to say anything that might act to prevent such success from being believed or accepted, or experienced by others.

Love, Dex

[Dulloldfart]

You know how many people die in hospitals every day? Does that mean medicine kills?


Logically no, but here's a relevant article re one published in July 2000 in the Journal of the American Medical Association on doctors being the third leading cause of death in the US:

http://www.healingdaily.com/Doctors-Are-The-Third-Leading-Cause-of-Death-in-the-US.htm

Paul

[Smitty]

Nice backpedaling with Lisa...No backpedaling on my part. I do note that YOU backpedalled on your personal attack on me.


Psychology and Psychiatry have way higher numbers in suicides and crime yet they are the "authorities" and receive billions of taxpayer dollars all around the world.Please cite the statistics per capita for suicides and crime in psychology, psychiatry, and scientology. Let's do the comparison.


Yet you pick on a poor lost Church run by a moronic dwarf barely able to apply the scriptures to a mediocre end.It is neither a church, poor or lost.

[Smitty]

I also believe that there are people who would be upset to hear reports that anybody has done or is doing well through Scientology, and would feel a need to say anything that might act to prevent such success from being believed or accepted, or experienced by others.
Love, Dex

Exactly who are those people?

[uniquemand]

They are SPs, Smitty! Probably psych-products. EEEVIL!

[Terril park]

At first it can, then it slowly places the person at effect.



In the Freezone also?

[Smitty]

They are SPs, Smitty! Probably psych-products. EEEVIL!

I want to see if Dexter Gelfand has any fact and substance behind his statement. I am asking him to "Show me the SPs!"

[Smitty]

In the Freezone also?

In the Freezone also.

[dexter gelfand]

They are SPs, Smitty! Probably psych-products. EEEVIL!

I don't throw that "SP" phrase around much at all. The CoS has so over-used it that all its come to mean is, somebody is not genuflecting on demand. A person doesn't have to be an "SP" to have a bad attitude, or to in general be non-productive or counter-productive, or be bad news to have around.

But its nothing to be proud of either, Unique.

Love, Dex

[Veda]

In the Freezone also?

Yes. The Scientology Freezone is Scientology-lite, including, as the person descends further into the subject, mind f__k-lite.

[Smitty]

I don't throw that "SP" phrase around much at all. The CoS has so over-used it that all its come to mean is, somebody is not genuflecting on demand. A person doesn't have to be an "SP" to have a bad attitude, or to in general be non-productive or counter-productive, or be bad news to have around.
But its nothing to be proud of either, Unique.
Love, Dex

It is a fiction. If you dispute that, then show me ONE person who has most of the 12 SP characteristics that Hubbard claimed, most of the time.
If you cannot do that, then let us forever end the discussion of boogeymen that do not exist.

[Mark A. Baker]

Psychology and Psychiatry have way higher numbers in suicides and crime yet they are the "authorities" and receive billions of taxpayer dollars all around the world.


Not an apt analogy, Pascal. Since those predisposed to suicide are often referred for psychiatric assistance when identified as such their "stats" would be expected to reflect an "unusually high" rate of suicides. Similarly for those with mental problems which predispose to some form of criminal behavior.


Mark A. Baker

[Mark A. Baker]

It is a fiction. If you dispute that, then show me ONE person who has most of the 12 SP characteristics that Hubbard claimed, most of the time.
If you cannot do that, then let us forever end the discussion of boogeymen that do not exist.


Dick Cheney? :coolwink:


Mark A. Baker

[Iknowtoomuch]

As I said in chat...anyone that believes Scientology can make this planet much better is absolutely delusional.

[Iknowtoomuch]

Not an apt analogy, Pascal. Since those predisposed to suicide are often referred for psychiatric assistance when identified as such their "stats" would be expected to reflect an "unusually high" rate of suicides. Similarly for those with mental problems which predispose to some form of criminal behavior.


Mark A. Baker


Let's see what would happen to the death rate if all those people were handed over to Scientology.:whistling:

[Smitty]

Dick Cheney? :coolwink:
Mark A. Baker

Does he have a majority of Hubbard's 12 anti-social characteristics most of the time? Has that been documented?

[Iknowtoomuch]

Does he have a majority of Hubbard's 12 anti-social characteristics most of the time? Has that been documented?

He was joking Smitty.

[Smitty]

He was joking Smitty.

I saw the jest, but my point is this: Not one scientologist has ever been able to document one person who has a majority of Hubbard's 12 SP characteristics most of the time. It is a fiction used to demonize those who disagree with or object to any part of scientology.

[Pascal]

As I said in chat...anyone that believes Scientology can make this planet much better is absolutely delusional.

Anything could make this planet better. We've reached bottom centuries ago.

[Pascal]

I saw the jest, but my point is this: Not one scientologist has ever been able to document one person who has a majority of Hubbard's 12 SP characteristics most of the time. It is a fiction used to demonize those who disagree with or object to any part of scientology.

Prove that.

:p

[Iknowtoomuch]

I saw the jest, but my point is this: Not one scientologist has ever been able to document one person who has a majority of Hubbard's 12 SP characteristics most of the time. It is a fiction used to demonize those who disagree with or object to any part of scientology.


I've never read where he says most of the time.

[Iknowtoomuch]

Anything could make this planet better. We've reached bottom centuries ago.

This isn't even close to bottom.

[Smitty]

Prove that.
:p
That is proven by there being no studies or documentation extant that at least one person has been found to have a majority of Hubbard's 12 SP characteristics, most of the time. If you are aware of a study, please cite it and prove me wrong.

[uniquemand]

Is that a proof in your hand, or are you just happy to see me?

[Veda]

-snip-

"WE" would be those of us who feel Scientology is worth restoring, preserving and protecting.

-snip-



Just so I understand you, and perhaps to put this thread back on track...

In your opinion, and the opinion of others in the Scientology Freezone, the pre-RTC Scientology, the Scientology of the mid 1970s "is worth restoring, preserving and protecting."

[LRonAnon]

Normally, when a train wreck is occurring, people are not chasing after it get on board.

But then again, "you know your only one who can help."

[Pascal]

That is proven by there being no studies or documentation extant that at least one person has been found to have a majority of Hubbard's 12 SP characteristics, most of the time. If you are aware of a study, please cite it and prove me wrong.

There being no studies that you have read doesn't prove or disprove anything.

You haven't proven yourself right. So it's just speculation. :coolwink:

[Iknowtoomuch]

Normally, when a train wreck is occurring, people are not chasing after it get on board.

But then again, "you know your only one who can help."


:lol:
Scientologists...:duh:

[Smitty]

There being no studies that you have read doesn't prove or disprove anything.
You haven't proven yourself right. So it's just speculation. :coolwink:

I am not required to "prove myself right" when I verify something that has never been proven to exist. It is verifiable that there are no scientific studies demonstrating that SPs exist or there is at least one person who 'is an SP'. That is fact, not speculation. Asserting that SPs EXIST, IS, at best, speculation.

[dexter gelfand]

Just so I understand you, and perhaps to put this thread back on track...

In your opinion, and the opinion of others in the Scientology Freezone, the pre-RTC Scientology, the Scientology of the mid 1970s "is worth restoring, preserving and protecting."

I wouldn't claim to speak for everyone in the "Freezone", which is not a uniform association of people in lockstep with each other, but I'd say its fair to assume something close to what you mention, Veda. There is some disagreement about exactly at what point others wrote issues in Hubbard's name, and/or at what point these issues were not approved by him.

But pre-RTC, yes.

This is not to say that application of the tech was ever perfect, but it was far more reliably practiced, and the pressure from the top to treat dissatisfied participants like criminals was not nearly so evident, if at all.

Love, Dex

[dexter gelfand]

I am not required to "prove myself right" when I verify something that has never been proven to exist. It is verifiable that there are no scientific studies demonstrating that SPs exist or there is at least one person who 'is an SP'. That is fact, not speculation. Asserting that SPs EXIST, IS, at best, speculation.

A datum of comparable magnitude:

Hey Smitty, can you prove that you don't still beat your wife?

Love, Dex

[uniquemand]

He might not, but I still smack that bitch around.

[Smitty]

A datum of comparable magnitude:
Hey Smitty, can you prove that you don't still beat your wife?
Love, Dex

Ya. I could answer that by stating that I am not married and then the rejoinder could be, "Prove that you aren't married."

[degraded being]

I'm still stuck way back on "put ethics in on.." (others).

Two aspects. The phrase itself seems to presuppose things that don't sit well with me. For example moral superiority. Rightness of self vs wrongness of others.

If it was not a matter of "putting ethics in on.." But 'negotiating' or discussing that would be a completely different place to start from.
With the former you are likely to get people who think that you are the one who needs someone to put ethics in on you.

Which takes me to the second aspect. What kind of consensus do you think you'd have? Would you have to "re-educate" people to the ppoint where they will cooperate enough to make your operation succesful? Presumably some may consider you are very out ethics and going against KSW, the Brilliant saviour of mankind LRH, etc. Do you think they are just waiting for you - their next saviour? Do you think they have the rosey memories of when scientlogy was good and wholesome.

I agree with smitty. Try throwing the whole lot out --- and see how you do for two or three years. Just experiment with that bit of danger.

And when Miscaveitch is deposed tell the people to pack up and go home.
Distribute the accumulated wealth to the people who put it in there in the first place plus compensation for rpf-ers, older SO members etc.

Retake the "church" and demolish it. If individuals want to practice what they call "spiritual" counselling make them get a license to ensure they are not abusing people.

[Div6]

I'm still stuck way back on "put ethics in on.." (others).

Two aspects. The phrase itself seems to presuppose things that don't sit well with me. For example moral superiority. Rightness of self vs wrongness of others.

If it was not a matter of "putting ethics in on.." But 'negotiating' or discussing that would be a completely different place to start from.
With the former you are likely to get people who think that you are the one who needs someone to put ethics in on you.

Which takes me to the second aspect. What kind of consensus do you think you'd have? Would you have to "re-educate" people to the ppoint where they will cooperate enough to make your operation succesful? Presumably some may consider you are very out ethics and going against KSW, the Brilliant saviour of mankind LRH, etc. Do you think they are just waiting for you - their next saviour? Do you think they have the rosey memories of when scientlogy was good and wholesome.

I agree with smitty. Try throwing the whole lot out --- and see how you do for two or three years. Just experiment with that bit of danger.

And when Miscaveitch is deposed tell the people to pack up and go home.
Distribute the accumulated wealth to the people who put it in there in the first place plus compensation for rpf-ers, older SO members etc.

Retake the "church" and demolish it. If individuals want to practice what they call "spiritual" counselling make them get a license to ensure they are not abusing people.

This is a valid point, and one that evolved (morphed) through time with Hubbard. From the very 1st ACC in Camden, NJ, in 1953, in one lecture there (this is pre-cos) he said "It isn't an ethical question. Motivators and overt acts are not a question which belongs
in morality or ethics. And any time you tangle it with morality or ethics, you're simply letting your preclear agree some more with a system which won't put him up into the line of being an artist again or being able to make space again or anything else. Morality is itself an interesting thing because it's a nice game; it's a game of restraint and restriction. When it gets played down to the level of making somebody a slave, that's playing the game a little bit too far and a fellow looks up and he can't quite see that it's a game
anymore." (1 ACC-44 30.10.53)

Within the group dynamic, "Traditional Sea Org Ethics were No-Report = Liability, False Report = Doubt", but these were then overlaid with a cumbersome list of Crimes and High-Crimes that virtually criminalized anybody and anything on the whim of a "Sea Org Officer with Full Ethics Authority".

So it is a valid area of confusion and debate.

[Pascal]

I'm seeing some smart debating and posts here. 2009 is looking good. I hope this continues.

Now back to work, it's 2pm soon! :p

[Smitty]

Within the group dynamic, "Traditional Sea Org Ethics were No-Report = Liability, False Report = Doubt", but these were then overlaid with a cumbersome list of Crimes and High-Crimes that virtually criminalized anybody and anything on the whim of a "Sea Org Officer with Full Ethics Authority".
So it is a valid area of confusion and debate.

And then in January 1991, David Miscavige revised the HCOPL "Keeping Scientology Working" to criminalize violation of any of the very broad and general ten points Hubbard lists. The brunt of that is ANY member of the cofs can be accused of violating KSW, comm ev'd and declared an SP. Any member can plausibly be in violation of any of those ten points, thus has "committed suppressive acts".
Very convenient way for Davey to get rid of anyone he wants to.

[Mark A. Baker]

I wouldn't claim to speak for everyone in the "Freezone", which is not a uniform association of people in lockstep with each other, but I'd say its fair to assume something close to what you mention, Veda. There is some disagreement about exactly at what point others wrote issues in Hubbard's name, and/or at what point these issues were not approved by him.

But pre-RTC, yes.

This is not to say that application of the tech was ever perfect, but it was far more reliably practiced, and the pressure from the top to treat dissatisfied participants like criminals was not nearly so evident, if at all.

Love, Dex


And also whether LRH should be viewed as "sole source" and whether his views on tech need be accepted as given. :)


Mark A. Baker

[Carmel]

Do I think that everything will explode and disintigrate without Scientology? Nope. We've all muddled along since the beginning of our existence as a race.

I think Scientology, properly applied can create big and wonderful effects, and make life better, and that it is not any kind of trap or trick, although certain warped people aren't above promoting and corrupting the subject for their own purposes.

I also believe that there are people who would be upset to hear reports that anybody has done or is doing well through Scientology, and would feel a need to say anything that might act to prevent such success from being believed or accepted, or experienced by others.

Love, Dex
Agreed and well said Dex - and in my mind, the same goes for other posts of yours on this thread. :)

I too believe that scn "properly applied" (or many tenets within scn applied in a constructive and positive manner), can go and have gone a long way towards improving conditions for oneself and others. I've argued the point for some months now though, hence I didn't feel inclined to jump into this thread and repeat myself yet again. :eyeroll: :giggle:

I'm glad you've made the points you have - good thread. :thumbsup:

Cheers,
Carmel

[Megalomaniac]

I've argued the point for some months now though, hence I didn't feel inclined to jump into this thread and repeat myself yet again. :eyeroll: :giggle:

Please repeat yourself, Carmel. Dex deserves some back-up.


I'm glad you've made the points you have - good thread. :thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

I was imagining being in session, where money wasn't an ever-present Present Time Problem, and every critical thought wasn't to be taken up as an overt.

Me: LRH was a prick. I missed my best friend's wedding.
Auditor: Yeah, he was a prick. When was the wedding?

I was imagining being on course, where I could originate that I had a new idea and I wouldn't be threatened with Ethics if I seriously wanted to pursue it. I was imagining leaving course on time. I was imagining telling the sup, "I'll be off course Friday night: bowling night", and him saying, "No problem. Have fun.". I was imagining the staff eating well, getting enough sleep, having a day off and a real life. I must be a dilletante squirrel suppressive, but it almost seemed like a situation I might want to be in. :confused2: Still not sure, though. :unsure:

-mac

[Megalomaniac]

How about a Sea Org mission fired to a class V Org to find out what the Org is doing right?

[dexter gelfand]

Agreed and well said Dex - and in my mind, the same goes for other posts of yours on this thread. :)

I too believe that scn "properly applied" (or many tenets within scn applied in a constructive and positive manner), can go and have gone a long way towards improving conditions for oneself and others. I've argued the point for some months now though, hence I didn't feel inclined to jump into this thread and repeat myself yet again. :eyeroll: :giggle:

I'm glad you've made the points you have - good thread. :thumbsup:

Cheers,
Carmel

Thanks Carmel, also Megalo and others for raising their voices in support of the idea that The tech of Scientology is well worth recovering, preserving, practicing and protecting.

Perhaps we will see more people like the Headly's, with the courage and integrity to legally challenge the CoS for reparations, and shed daylight on the corrupt and abusive practices. Enough people are out there who have experienced physical abuse, use of their confidential session statements and other deplorable actions to keep a lot of lawyers very busy. In doing so, in increasing numbers, it can help to force changes in leadership.
I believe the majority of staff working in the orgs (like many of us did) are good people who could be salvaged to get back on track and learn not to robotically act out on others what management has been acting out on them. It isn't what any of us signed on for.
I think it would take less upheaval than most people imagine to restore things to make the CoS a safe provider of actual Scientology tech.
This whole experience could also engender a much greater acceptance of those in the field to practice freely.

Love, Dex

[uniquemand]

By the time you recover what is good and should be in use in Scientology, and separate out the evil, manipulative and abusive, it's no longer Scientology. Besides, I think it's been done.

Enter: Metapsychology.

[dexter gelfand]

By the time you recover what is good and should be in use in Scientology, and separate out the evil, manipulative and abusive, it's no longer Scientology. Besides, I think it's been done.

Enter: Metapsychology.

Metapsychology, or, TIR, as I understand it, is certain valid and workable elements of Dianetics, somewhat altered, and avoiding use of Dianetics terminology. My friend Kevin Brady advocates and practices this. (He may very well disagree with my perception of it, and he would know far better than me).That's fine for Kevin and all the other participants. In my observation they are doing good work.

But many of us want the free and uncorrupted practice of all the actual original tech of Scientology. To each his own. And Scientology doesn't belong to David Miscaviage, his goons, or anyone who would contaminate it for selfish or abusive purposes. It belongs to all of us who choose to faithfully practice and benefit from it to the best of our ability.

And we can take it back.

Love, Dex

[Veda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_w-YWwC1lI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbpTrMe5pk

[nexus100]

Thank you Veda!

[Carmel]

Please repeat yourself, Carmel. Dex deserves some back-up.

Nah! - I'm working on decreasing my dogmatism! :coolwink: Besides, Dex doesn't seem to need any back up AND on this board, we all sit in different places, and most of us can appreciate the different perspectives. :)


Thanks Carmel, also Megalo and others for raising their voices in support of the idea that The tech of Scientology is well worth recovering, preserving, practicing and protecting.

Perhaps we will see more people like the Headly's, with the courage and integrity to legally challenge the CoS for reparations, and shed daylight on the corrupt and abusive practices. Enough people are out there who have experienced physical abuse, use of their confidential session statements and other deplorable actions to keep a lot of lawyers very busy. In doing so, in increasing numbers, it can help to force changes in leadership.
I believe the majority of staff working in the orgs (like many of us did) are good people who could be salvaged to get back on track and learn not to robotically act out on others what management has been acting out on them. It isn't what any of us signed on for.
I think it would take less upheaval than most people imagine to restore things to make the CoS a safe provider of actual Scientology tech.
This whole experience could also engender a much greater acceptance of those in the field to practice freely.

Love, Dex
I understand why you and others would want to go there, but personally I wouldn't want to.

Scn helped give me a whole new life/existence. The comraderie between us all in the early days was amazing. The knowledge I gained through the training I did (and then used) is irreplacable to me. Some of the auditing I had and administered was "blow out" stuff. My experience on staff taught me much and I wouldn't be without those lessons in a fit. These are things that no-one could ever take away from me, and things I will treasure and be thankful for forever.

However, I don't believe in the "bridge" (so to speak), and I realize now that for me, "Scientology" was what I made it and what others made it - but for some it was something entirely different. I saw anomalies, but I made them dissapear in my world, by working out how it could all "fit". I was in denial, in that I justified the magnitude of the out-points with LRH and the body of tech as a whole.

I spent years and years dedicated to a cause that I thought came under the scn banner. I still have that "cause", but it's only of late I've realised that it's not the CofS's cause. In saying that though, I believe a lot of scn tech can contribute to it.

In the last few weeks I've thrown out about 400kgs of scn library stuff (like R&D Vols, leather bound fiction, old course packs, advance mags, tapes, org staff pgm crap, all the books mags on LRH etc). We've kept the red and green vols, the leather bound basics, all the tapes and cd's (including the bloody reel to reels) and basic course packs and children's course packs. I've also kept my reference book (which I started compiling in 1980), of all the tech and refs that I liked and used - it's full of references to "truths" which if known and used can make a hell of a difference to life. I've used these to give tools to my kids (among other things). I'm intent on keeping what I have left so I have the same tools there for our grandchildren (can't wait for grandchildren), if and when those tools may be needed or wanted by their mum and dad.

Needless to say, I'm pro Scn tech - the stuff that works, and when it's used in a positive manner - but I can't say that I'm pro Scientology. I totally agree with the need and benefit, of the acceptance and availability of Scn tech (as something separate to the CofS). The denial of such, would be a crime IMO.

[uniquemand]

Metapsychology, or, TIR, as I understand it, is certain valid and workable elements of Dianetics, somewhat altered, and avoiding use of Dianetics terminology. My friend Kevin Brady advocates and practices this. (He may very well disagree with my perception of it, and he would know far better than me).That's fine for Kevin and all the other participants. In my observation they are doing good work.

But many of us want the free and uncorrupted practice of all the actual original tech of Scientology. To each his own. And Scientology doesn't belong to David Miscaviage, his goons, or anyone who would contaminate it for selfish or abusive purposes. It belongs to all of us who choose to faithfully practice and benefit from it to the best of our ability.

And we can take it back.

Love, Dex

It is arguable that Scientology was created by Hubbard for exactly those selfish and abusive purposes. This, to me, is an old argument, and always ends the same way. People of very good intention argue that they want cleaned up Scientology, free of the parts they think ruin it or distort it, and they feel that when they do this, it's "free and uncorrupted", but when someone else does it, it's watered down or altered tech. I know Kevin's viewpoint, it is identical with my own. :wink: I don't object to people using the parts of "the Tech" that they think are good for others and rejecting those parts that they feel are corrupt or out of alignment with what they feel is consistent with their perception of what scientology should be. I just feel that it's not Scientology if it's not the product Ron created, and the product Ron created is the WHOLE product, including all the confidential and compartmentalized stuff that is actually very much in alignment with what Miscavige and his goons are practicing.

[Veda]

Scientologist: One who does not know the whole subject, as put there by its founder, and does not know that he does not know.

[Alanzo]

Scientologist: One who does not know the whole subject, as put there by its founder, and does not know that he does not know.

Correction:

Scientologist: One who does not know the full subject of Scientology, and who resists learning the whole subject, even though it is the central fascination of his life.

[alex]

It is my observation that what many people object to about scientology is Policy rather than Tech.

Since Policy is subordinate to tech, and a wide ranging selection of tools, I think in Tech, on Policy scientology is a possibility with a change in CULTure.

A better sense of priority of data, and observation of conditions, and larger degree of confront of the breadth of peoples viewpoints would go far in this regard.

Much of the objectionable policy is in fact reaction to specific circumstances and not necessarily something that needs blanket application.

It is OUR church. We paid for it. In money, and in sweat and tears.

[uniquemand]

People object to Tech, too. With good reason. Much of it is based on untested supposition, and kept confidential because it is absurd.

[dexter gelfand]

People object to Tech, too. With good reason. Much of it is based on untested supposition, and kept confidential because it is absurd.

Will you ever grow to recognize that your opinion is merely that? That people besides yourself have a viewpoint? That common decency requires that you show enough respect for other people's convictions, knowledge or beliefs to preface such pronouncements with "For me..", or "In my own opinion.."?

Give me a break, Unique. Ever hear the expression "It is better to be silent and let others think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"?

This is not the "Uniquemand Website". Get a clue.

Love, Dex

[uniquemand]

Dexter, look at the top of the website. Does it say "Dexter's Movement to start a Reformed Church of Scientology"? I don't think so.

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that it says "Ex Scientologist Message Board". Is part of that hard for you to understand? Flunk. Restudy.

Certainly my opinion is just that. I don't have any need to preface all of my remarks with "this is my opinion", because it should be assumed to be such except by those following the as yet undefined cult of Uniquemand. Donations are acceptable.

BTW, there's lots of people who have opinions and viewpoints which don't conform with observable evidence. These people are called lunatics.

[Veda]

The confidential part of the "Grade Chart" is the advertised confidential part of the doctrine of Scientology. There's also the not advertised confidential part of the doctrine of Scientology. To a degree, the advertised secret part acts as cover for, and distraction from, the not advertised secret part. Scientologists, typically, don't know the not advertised secret part exists, even though it influences them.

"Tech," in Scientology, is L. Ron Hubbard's instructions on how to do stuff.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=195947

[alex]

The confidential part of the "Grade Chart" is the advertised confidential part of the doctrine of Scientology. There's also the not advertised confidential part of the doctrine of Scientology. To a degree, the advertised secret part acts as cover for, and distraction from, the not advertised secret part. Scientologists, typically, don't know the not advertised secret part exists, even though it influences them.

"Tech," in Scientology, is L. Ron Hubbard's instructions on how to do stuff.

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?p=195947

In Scientology the tech as presented in the HCOB's and policy as in HCOPL's is permanent, other issues exist, flag orders, adivces etc. I believe this is what you refer to when you refer to the "not advertised secret parts". Per policy these other issues expire.

That the Church still follows expired issues is one of the points of contention some scientologists have with the church as it stands.

Not all scientologists are unable to establish the priority and value of the various things Hubbard said.

[Smitty]

Metapsychology, or, TIR, as I understand it, is certain valid and workable elements of Dianetics, somewhat altered, and avoiding use of Dianetics terminology. My friend Kevin Brady advocates and practices this. (He may very well disagree with my perception of it, and he would know far better than me).That's fine for Kevin and all the other participants. In my observation they are doing good work.I am not a client or a practicioner of MP, but you are speculating about that subject. TIR is based on dianetics, but has evolved away from it considerably and the procedure currently is only somewhat similar to dianetics. MP is based on scientology, with some processes reworded, some processes that are not and have never been part of scientology, and a foundation that has some similarities to scientology, but also drawing on discoveries in the field of psychology that have a factual basis. MP does not have the science fiction, evaluative and unreliable 'OT levels' of scientology. The last step of MP is a process to audit one's own gpms, a route that Hubbard miserably failed with. One notable thing about MP is that there is an endpoint where you no longer need it, unlike scientology which goes on and on with 'OT levels'.


But many of us want the free and uncorrupted practice of all the actual original tech of Scientology. To each his own. Free as in beer? Scientology was largely corrupted by Hubbard from the start.


And we can take it back.
Love, DexSpeak for yourself. I think that organization ought to be shut down.

[Smitty]

Will you ever grow to recognize that your opinion is merely that? That people besides yourself have a viewpoint? That common decency requires that you show enough respect for other people's convictions, knowledge or beliefs to preface such pronouncements with "For me..", or "In my own opinion.."?Gosh, dexter, you habitually seem to think that you know what other folks who post here are thinking when you are consistently wrong and off the mark. "Common decency"? Is that your hidden standard to make others who disagree with you wrong? Respect is earned. You need to earn it. If you don't get respect, it is time for you to ask how you can earn it.


Give me a break, Unique. Ever hear the expression "It is better to be silent and let others think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"? Dexter, please take your own advice.


This is not the "Uniquemand Website". Get a clue.
Love, DexNo, it is the Ex-Scientologist Message Board. If you are interested in pushing scientology dogma, start your own forum elsewhere please.

[dexter gelfand]

Gosh, dexter, you habitually seem to think that you know what other folks who post here are thinking when you are consistently wrong and off the mark. "Common decency"? Is that your hidden standard to make others who disagree with you wrong? Respect is earned. You need to earn it. If you don't get respect, it is time for you to ask how you can earn it.
Dexter, please take your own advice.
No, it is the Ex-Scientologist Message Board. If you are interested in pushing scientology dogma, start your own forum elsewhere please.

Smitty, unlike you, I have not tried to persuade others to agree with my viewpoint. I'm not "pushing dogma", I'm suggesting certain actions by those who value what I value.

As for "respect is earned", I find it arrogant of you to imply that there is no assumption of respect of others, that they must first prove they deserve to be respected per your (or anyone's) standards. People should communicate to others respectfully, and that does include voicing one's opinion in a way that does not imply that those who disagree are stupid or delusional or cannot possibly be right.

You, Unique and others here have, for me, demonstrated wit, intelligence and a great sense of humor often, and I enjoy and appreciate these. Jsut be mindful of others' rights to have their viewpoints respected.

Love, Dex

[Smitty]

Smitty, unlike you, I have not tried to persuade others to agree with my viewpoint. I'm not "pushing dogma", I'm suggesting certain actions by those who value what I value. Scientology is a prime example of Dogma. "A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence". Anyone who promotes scientology is pushing dogma. Deny it all you care to.


As for "respect is earned", I find it arrogant of you to imply that there is no assumption of respect of others, that they must first prove they deserve to be respected per your (or anyone's) standards. People should communicate to others respectfully, and that does include voicing one's opinion in a way that does not imply that those who disagree are stupid or delusional or cannot possibly be right.Respect is earned. It is a social credit. Tolerance is a recognition and the allowance of something or someone to exist. I am very tolerant, socially liberal, but pay respect to those I decide should get it. Credit to those where credit is due.


You, Unique and others here have, for me, demonstrated wit, intelligence and a great sense of humor often, and I enjoy and appreciate these. Jsut be mindful of others' rights to have their viewpoints respected.
Love, Dex
Again, nobody is obligated to respect the views of another. We may be obligated to tolerate such views. I tolerate your views.
BTW, a fellow who is a freezone auditor and has been badly maligned on esmb is Pierre Ethier. He has been called arrogant by some of the freezoners on this forum. I do not agree with scientology, but I know him and respect him because he has earned it.

[Voltaire's Child]

Smitty, unlike you, I have not tried to persuade others to agree with my viewpoint. I'm not "pushing dogma", I'm suggesting certain actions by those who value what I value.

As for "respect is earned", I find it arrogant of you to imply that there is no assumption of respect of others, that they must first prove they deserve to be respected per your (or anyone's) standards. People should communicate to others respectfully, and that does include voicing one's opinion in a way that does not imply that those who disagree are stupid or delusional or cannot possibly be right.

You, Unique and others here have, for me, demonstrated wit, intelligence and a great sense of humor often, and I enjoy and appreciate these. Jsut be mindful of others' rights to have their viewpoints respected.

Love, Dex


This request may never be honored as everyone has their own ways of looking at the things they do and say. If it doesn't get honored, then consider asking him to add you to his ignore list.

[Smitty]

It is my observation that what many people object to about scientology is Policy rather than Tech.
That is true. I would say that some scientology policies violate human rights and should be outlawed.


Much of the objectionable policy is in fact reaction to specific circumstances and not necessarily something that needs blanket application.Actually, it was Hubbard's reaction to specific circumstances and he held onto those reactions from the win in those reactions.


It is OUR church. We paid for it. In money, and in sweat and tears.
No, it always was Hubbard's organization. It never was a church or a religion. Just take credit for your sweat and tears.

[Zinjifar]

If you don't have the code-phrases to the secret bank accounts; it's not *your* 'Church'.

Zinj

[Carmel]

Scientology is a prime example of Dogma. "A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence". Anyone who promotes scientology is pushing dogma.<snip>

Anyone who denies "truths" (despite where they may have come from, and despite what banner they may come under) is being foolish.

[Veda]

Well, Dex, it doesn't seem as though your well-intentioned (but naive) desire to restore the secretive personality cult ("Church") of the 1970s has met with much approval.

Hoping that you'll take the time to examine the many links provided.

The negatives are emphasized only because they are hidden or denied by Scientology, and need to be exposed; however, the positives are also acknowledged and described.


The so called "Church" of Scientology has been culling PC folders, and collecting blackmail-information, since the early 1960s, probably earlier. What's shocking to the well-intentioned "tech" person is that it was done, not only on "SPs," who - per 'Science of Survival' (being below 2.0 on the "Tone Scale") should "have no rights of any kind," but that it was done on Scientologists in good standing too.

The impulsive - angry outburst - physical abuse of Miscavige and, earlier, Hubbard (remember the chain locker, etc.) pales in comparison to the slow and steady, systematic, physical abuse (sleep deprivation, etc.), and myriad forms of psychological abuse, inflicted on Scientologists, notably Sea Org members - and this since the 1960s.

Scientology has been a mind-controlling,Totalist, Fair-Game-Law-applying, personality cult since the 1960s.

If Scientology were reformed in any meaningful way, it would no longer be Scientology.

As the saying goes, "You can't go home again." In this case, that's because the "good old days" didn't really exist in the first place, and it's mind-bogglingly perverse to consider that someone would re-convert to once again being a naive and "happy" Cult member.

Scientology was a Cult not because the "Tech" was corrupted, but because it was applied. That the "tech" (Hubbard's official "know-how" and instructions) is multi-layered, deceptive, and secretive, with the average Scientologist - then (1960s) and now - unaware of what's really going on, is testament to the fulfillment of Hubbard's 1938 vision of achieving a self-aggrandizing hidden "real goal" (cloaked in a "philosophy"), and the intention that those adopting this "philosophy," and falling under its influence, "not know why."

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=111116&postcount=5


The difficulty with discussing the subject of Scientology with Scientologists, including most "outside the C of S" Scientologists, is that they don't know (or don't want to know) what the subject of Scientology consists of. That's not entirely their fault, I suppose, since, per its founder's design, they weren't supposed to know.

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=65167&postcount=11

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=19183&postcount=1

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=137009&postcount=58


It's not about not being able to "have others making gains." If you have gains, that's great, but be aware that these "gains" come with a price. You're being plunged further into the mind-trap of (what is sometimes called) the "Commodore Hubbard-era/Emperor Xenu Bridge."

http://forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=77478&postcount=14

I've audited plenty of people, and on lengthy programs, both inside and outside of the "Church" of Scientology. We even have the same level of auditor training, except that, when outside $cientology, I studied further, and audited some no longer used procedures (from the 1950s), and some "NOTs"-type actions.

I also examined the "dark side" of the doctrine of Scientology, and that's something you've yet to do.

Here are a few more links that may be of interest.

Rambling thread on exteriorization. Contains some informative posts and interesting exchanges:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1079

'The Sole Source Myth' thread:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=510&highlight=sole+source+myth

(Narrated by Leonard Cohen. Some videos require being clicked at the top.)

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=1192

And some music by the Incredible String Band, now Ex-Scientologists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu0brlGGQ2Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLKMb_OJ5So

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_JnyN1ajYw

[dexter gelfand]

Well, Dex, it doesn't seem as though your well-intentioned (but naive) desire to restore the secretive personality cult ("Church") of the 1970s has met with much approval.






And some music by the Incredible String Band, now Ex-Scientologists:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nu0brlGGQ2Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLKMb_OJ5So

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_JnyN1ajYw

Hoping that you'll take the time to examine the many links provided.

The negatives are emphasized only because they are hidden or denied by Scientology, and need to be exposed; however, the positives are also acknowledged and described.

I wouldn't use the word "naive", Veda, trust me on that. I'm not weak on confronting evil; I just don't lightly assign that label. I put enough higher-ups in their place when I was on staff, and they exhibited the wrong attitude toward me.

I know a good number of people who enjoyed a great experience within the CoS before the days of DM, including training and processing at the higher levels. Although the great truths and value of Scientology may not interest you, the majority of staff and practicioners were and are good people.

I promise I will examine the links-and thanks for the music!:thumbsup:


Love, Dex

[Veda]

-snip-

great truths and value of Scientology may not interest you, the majority of staff and practicioners were and are good people.

-snip-



Great truths always interest me, and I do recognize that the majority of staff and practitioners were and are good people.

Enjoy the music.

[Smitty]

Anyone who denies "truths" (despite where they may have come from, and despite what banner they may come under) is being foolish.
What are those "truths"? And true accordiing to who?

I would rephrase your statement thusly:
Anyone who denies facts is being foolish.

[EP - Ethics Particle]

Anyone who denies "truths" (despite where they may have come from, and despite what banner they may come under) is being foolish.


What are those "truths"? And true accordiing to who?

I would rephrase your statement thusly:
Anyone who denies facts is being foolish.

Seems to be you are both close to the mark here! :unsure: :yes:

Are you antagonists? :confused2:

Smitty, have you ever read Mark Twain's criticism of James Fenimore Cooper's prose?

You might find it edifying. :coolwink:

Mike