Scientology: How Bad Can it Get?

[Commander Birdsong]

Great point, HH.

As a 'raw wog' SO recruit, I can give a very blind opinion of some of the initial processes done on me.

It is my opinion that objectives are a brutal form of forcing a person into an automaton state and worse, so that the mind compensates for this by "blowing". IMHO, objectives are solely for the purpose of getting the auditor into and controlling the other person on both a physical and mental level and getting the person's agreement to do this. They are evil and insidious.

IMHO that "past track" auditing recall is not valid memory recall. It is something else altogether and should not be confused with real memories. I ran E/S in my very first ever auditing (even before objectives, because I redtagged on a sec check and the repair went past track and I had only bee in Scn or the SO two months at that time and not even read anything about auditing. I was not "Grooved in" beyond the word clearing and command clearing required.

IMHO that past track recall is bits and glimpses of various memories as well as imagination and interpretations - yours and others, television and otherwise. IF past track memory exists, it is not sequential, it has different perceptions and it does not cause any problems of its own. What causes problems is our interpretations of events and/or refusal to accept or act upon those interpretations. Whether these interpretations are represented symbolically or otherwise does not matter, they can be represented many ways. What matters is that what is in the imagination is NOT REAL and that it is completely unnecessary to contact past lives to resolve issues.

ahhh GB...

your assessment of objectives might certainly very accurate from your personal experience as a sea org recruit and i do not mean to invalidate either you or your own reality

but...

run well by a person who is using the processes for the benefit of the pc rather than for their own or the groups agenda they can produce very good result. i was especially fond of CCH's I-IV. they seemed totally mickey mouse to them when i studied them but i quickly got a good grasp of them and always did some good for those i ran them on. not so with op pro by dup though. i never did get a feel for that one

[RogerB]

ahhh GB...

your assessment of objectives might certainly very accurate from your personal experience as a sea org recruit and i do not mean to invalidate either you or your own reality

but...

run well by a person who is using the processes for the benefit of the pc rather than for their own or the groups agenda they can produce very good result. i was especially fond of CCH's I-IV. they seemed totally mickey mouse to them when i studied them but i quickly got a good grasp of them and always did some good for those i ran them on. not so with op pro by dup though. i never did get a feel for that one

Yes . . . as I said, Opedupe is a bit of a bitch of a process . . . . as run in the Cof$.

I personally had no gain on it . . . but by the time it was run on me, I'd already accomplished what it might have. So it was O/R and cleaning a clean.

Opedupe was mandatory to be run on all students on the early (1950's-'60's) HPA?HCA courses for 8 hours each way!!!

That's idiotic on the face of it . . . like why not to an EP?? Eight bloody hours! Christ I didn't spend that much time per day doing my swim training of 6 daily miles!!!

By the way, I short-changed you all on Alan's approach to "objectives."

The more full commands are: "As a spiritual Being, create the .... (etc) (or whatever.)"

In Kn we have a process called the "Presence Process" . . . definition basically is: Be here/now.

Most ex-$cn types do it as though they are doing a re-do of TR0

It's part of correct Kn tech to process the Being actually in front of you

One guy, an old timer well trained experience auditor cat who lurks here was teamed up with me for some "Presence Process" used to begin each day's action at the ranch.

I didn't then know his history and extent of $cn training and experience, I just knew he was "experienced" and hatted on the fact we are spiritual.

So I gave him the command: "As a spiritual Being, be present."

The result was huge wins with him voicing the action recovered to him his awareness of his full, true spirituality that had become "lost" or muddied on Cof$ lines.

Another was a lady, another experienced cat, who had this thing of flicking her eyes from side to side on a constant continuing basis.

It was something she felt had unsettled others she'd done the presence process with. She warned me that it was a "thing she had running, and hoped I wouldn't mind."

Well, I knew another Jewish lady on London staff with me who had the same thing running on TR0 . . . so I told the new girl: "No sweat mate, I've seen it all before!"

I Gave her the same command: "As a spiritual Being, be present."



It took about 2 minutes for her to start bursting out in laughter and cogniting on her actual spiritual Beingness, powers, capacities, awareness, and such.

And the interesting thing is that her eye flickering "thing" vanished!

So there is real merit in getting one's processing commands precise

Hubbard screwed that vital point up

R

[I told you I was trouble]

Posted by RogerB

snipped

I Gave her the same command: "As a spiritual Being, be present."



It took about 2 minutes for her to start bursting out in laughter and cogniting on her actual spiritual Beingness, powers, capacities, awareness, and such.

And the interesting thing is that her eye flickering "thing" vanished!

So there is real merit in getting one's processing commands precise

Hubbard screwed that vital point up

R

Goodness me ... in two minutes she was a new person just from a precise, single, six word 'command' ... that sounds like a true miracle!



But, what happened next?

What changes in her continuing life were evident using her 'actual spiritual beingness, powers, capacities, awareness and such'?

Don't be modest now Roger, tell us ... please.

Surely there must have been significant and lasting change observable by others, no?

[GoNuclear]

ahhh GB...

your assessment of objectives might certainly very accurate from your personal experience as a sea org recruit and i do not mean to invalidate either you or your own reality

but...

run well by a person who is using the processes for the benefit of the pc rather than for their own or the groups agenda they can produce very good result. i was especially fond of CCH's I-IV. they seemed totally mickey mouse to them when i studied them but i quickly got a good grasp of them and always did some good for those i ran them on. not so with op pro by dup though. i never did get a feel for that one

Between trying to kill a headache and then trying to kill some heartburn and some assorted other pains, I am now officially three sheets to the wind. 2 1/2 perks and about 8 oz. of a cheap knock off of Captain Morgan spiced rum is where I am at right now. And that is just to let folks know where I am coming from.

Regardless ... under conditions such as these, I sometimes get introspective ... and having read some of the posts here, I have had some unique insights ... namely giving credit where credit is due.

Specifically ... ya reeeeeeeeeeeeelly gotta hand it to the HubTurd. That phuggen asshole! He had us walking into walls, back and forth, doing that to others as well, and then the book and bottle torture ... WHAT A SILLY PHUGGEN RITUAL!!!!!!!!!!!!
Walking back and forth ... first the book, then the bottle, pick it up, what is its phuggen weight, etc ... AND THAT PHUGGER HAD US PAYING FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!

Think about it ... most of us regular folk can't even imagine shit like that ... coming up with shit that is that phuggen ridiculous, getting folks to do it, AND PAY FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When you think about it, you have to laugh, even if that means laughing at yourself a bit, getting conned by horseshit like that. Yup, here's to the HubTurd ... PHUGGHIM!

Pete

[RogerB]

Pete,

Yours above is hilarious!

Drink more Captain Morgan!

This image below reminds me of lots of pieces of Hubbard's writings and instructions:

[I told you I was trouble]

This is very sad.

I was merely attempting to improve my bad attitude by giving Roger some encouragement, I thought he may have leapt at the opportunity I offered to tell us more about this apparent miracle of scientology/ knowledgism (and maybe slip a couple more through at the same time) ... but sadly he hasn't and he didn't.

I'm very upset and TBH a little bit disappointed.

[Minuet #1 in G]

I was going to say in respect to objectives and opedupe that you have to participate in process in terms of concentration and willingness to be there etc, rather than be just being passive. I didn't think the idea of the auditing pill was a valid one. Ie the process should work regardless of whether the pc knows what the hell is going on or not. Then, following this logic down I got into the consideration of how one might co-create the whole scientology paradigm and have it all work wonderfully well for them, while they continued to create it. So while you are in, and a believer, you get the benefits.

However, this isn't true, cause you can be in and a believer and not get any gains or only limited ones. Duh. Though you probably don't let on to yourself.

So some got it on some processes occasionally, and like poker machine players who get an occasional win, kept feeding their coins into the slot. Other saw those winners, and kept feeding, even thought the machine would never spit for us.

Perhaps the imprecision of the commands didn't bother some, but just rendered processes unworkable for others. Or everyone needed a customised approach rather than the cookie cutter method. Perhaps as Brian said, you just have to work things out for yourself..

[Gottabrain]

ISo some got it on some processes occasionally, and like poker machine players who get an occasional win, kept feeding their coins into the slot. Other saw those winners, and kept feeding, even thought the machine would never spit for us.

Perhaps the imprecision of the commands didn't bother some, but just rendered processes unworkable for others. Or everyone needed a customised approach rather than the cookie cutter method. Perhaps as Brian said, you just have to work things out for yourself..

Funny you bring up the poker machine scenario.

It's Pavlov's dog psychological behavioural training.

Sporadic, random rewards (reinforcement) are more effective in psychological behavioural training than anticipated rewards (reinforcements). In other words, a dog that is trained by getting treats every time will not do the action as consistently well as one that only gets sporadic treats.

Perfect analogy.

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

Reinforcement is a term in operant conditioning and behavior analysis for a process of strengthening a directly measurable dimension of behavior—such as rate (e.g., pulling a lever more frequently), duration (e.g., pulling a lever for longer periods of time), magnitude (e.g., pulling a lever with greater force), or latency (e.g., pulling a lever more quickly following the onset of an environmental event)--as a function of the delivery of a "valued" stimulus (e.g. money from a slot machine) immediately or shortly after the occurrence of the behavior.

A reinforcer is a temporally contiguous environmental event, or an effect directly produced by a response (e.g., a musician playing a melody), that functions to strengthen or maintain the response that preceded the event. A reinforcer is demonstrated only if the strengthening or maintenance effect occurs.

Response strength is assessed by measuring the frequency, duration, latency, accuracy, and/or persistence of the response after reinforcement stops. Early experimental behavior analysts measured the rate of responses as a primary demonstration of learning and performance in non-humans (e.g., the number of times a pigeon pecks a key in a 10-minute session).

[I told you I was trouble]

Funny you bring up the poker machine scenario.

It's Pavlov's dog psychological behavioural training.

Sporadic, random rewards (reinforcement) are more effective in psychological behavioural training than anticipated rewards (reinforcements). In other words, a dog that is trained by getting treats every time will not do the action as consistently well as one that only gets sporadic treats.

Perfect analogy.

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

Reinforcement is a term in operant conditioning and behavior analysis for a process of strengthening a directly measurable dimension of behavior—such as rate (e.g., pulling a lever more frequently), duration (e.g., pulling a lever for longer periods of time), magnitude (e.g., pulling a lever with greater force), or latency (e.g., pulling a lever more quickly following the onset of an environmental event)--as a function of the delivery of a "valued" stimulus (e.g. money from a slot machine) immediately or shortly after the occurrence of the behavior.

A reinforcer is a temporally contiguous environmental event, or an effect directly produced by a response (e.g., a musician playing a melody), that functions to strengthen or maintain the response that preceded the event. A reinforcer is demonstrated only if the strengthening or maintenance effect occurs.

Response strength is assessed by measuring the frequency, duration, latency, accuracy, and/or persistence of the response after reinforcement stops. Early experimental behavior analysts measured the rate of responses as a primary demonstration of learning and performance in non-humans (e.g., the number of times a pigeon pecks a key in a 10-minute session).

Exactly.

I can't have been the only one to have fallen into the trap of learning quickly what was expected in scientology and then producing it ... perhaps as a way of seeming normal.



It would have been hard (even at the beginning) to admit that the process wasn't making the slightest difference (and that I was fine in the first place).

I never wanted to disappoint my auditor or get them sent to qual, and that became the thing I was mainly focused on!

The only way I knew of to get out of a boring and unproductive session with everybody remaining happy (ie no red tag) was to act as if all was going well, have the needle float, flash some good indicators and then run (discreetly) for the hills (for walkies!) as soon as I was set free.

Woof woof.

I find it hard to believe now that I was so silly and that I just accepted that being held and controlled until I did as expected (very much like a trained dog) was OK.

I was never interested in so called 'case' after the initial flurry of excitement when new, but I really felt a sense of obligation to the auditor because I knew the hours they spent training and auditing and the pressure they were under to produce 'well done auditing hours'.

Sadly, it's the auditors that are the real highly trained dogs and they are lucky if they even get thrown a bone as thanks for all the effort they put in (in the cofs).

What an incredibly unhealthy environment to be in!