Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213141516171819
Results 181 to 190 of 190

Thread: What if it wasn't dub in?

  1. #181
    Silver Meritorious Patron George Layton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    1,148

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimsey Borogrove View Post
    What I try to do is explain the tech or answer questions about it - if someone wants to believe it or not - fine by me. I believe they should understand it correctly, rather than have some off the wall idea. I don't believe by asking one to understand it correctly is the same as endorsing it.

    Earlier in the thread Demented Hubbard was asking these hypothetical questions that he felt would be a good test for the validity of the existence of BT's. I have no desire to pick up the cans and waste my time on a wild goose chase. I tried to explain why it wouldn't fly, and ultimately told him to get a meter, a book of e-meter drills and down load the ot5 mats and find and ask the BTs his questions himself. Maybe he will find some BTs, maybe he won't. Maybe they will be real, maybe he will mock them up.

    Perhaps that was misunderstood as an endorsement of Scientology, it wasn't - but it was a simple suggestion - go check it out for yourself.

    Another point some what related, I guess my viewpoint on the whole BT thing is agnostic.

    Mimsey

    Even if you understand the mechanics of the tech, do you know what it is doing to the persons mind that it is being used on? A person has to learn from scientology what the tech is curing them of before they can have the tech used on them. It has nothing to do with endorsing scientology it is the assumption that scientology understands the human mind, understands that it is needs repair and has the tools to repair it. scientology is used to bring you to the point that the tech is the method of verifying the tech.
    What I experience justifies my experience.
    What is true for me is true.
    With that sort of thinking a person can be completely delusional and convince themselves what they believe is true.
    Each time I spot hypocrisy, it turns around and points at me.

  2. #182
    Goldenrod SP ThetanExterior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    1,667

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    I knew two people who left the CoS having received little or no auditing yet once they were out they both decided they were past-life Clears.

    That's the way to do it - no DCSI or CCRD, just decide you're Clear!

    One of them then discovered the OTIII materials and started going at it with gusto despite never having had any auditor training and he told me he was having huge wins.

    I couldn't help noticing though that his teeth were all rotten and he had no job and no money. Never mind, he was enjoying himself looking for BTs.

  3. LOL! Enthetan, pineapple laughed at this post
  4. #183

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dulloldfart View Post
    Could be. I was trying to be as objective and fair as possible; but I'm never any good at giving 1-5 ratings unless there are very clear guidelines as to what the scores mean. One could assume * means a score of 1-20, ** 21-40 etc, but what does a point mean? It's all very arbitrary. If there's just one assessment, and it's important, then there's scope for some careful thought. But 4 or 5 different factors rating 1-5 each, times 40 or 50, come on. I got tired of the whole thing after a couple of hours.
    Sure, I know what you mean. I felt the same way after doing a bunch of BE comments and reviews.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dulloldfart View Post
    Now, I think something important can change in a person's position with regard to his "case", "baggage", whatever you want to call it, where it assumes less importance than before: in imprecise shorthand (it's bedtime!) bank>pc changes to pc>bank. Whatever that means in terms that would satisfy anyone, myself included, trying to understand what's really going on. Lord knows what people are looking at when they pick a point where they "went Clear."

    The state as described by Hubbard is meaningless. I think the anguish some others go through over their Clear checks is caused by chasing a chimera, trying to nail it down when it doesn't exist in the first place. Since it's not real, only opinions can exist about it, plus whatever phenomena get suggested into being, which ARE real and then become important as they can be documented.

    My own Clear auditing, I think there was a DCSI and a few years later a CCRD, went smoothly. That doesn't mean they made sense, or agreed with each other; it means each took an hour or so, ended well, and no C/S ever dicked with the subject on me ever again. . I wondered about a few loose ends every now and then, but never enough to worry about it or mention it to anyone. What the DCSI/CCRD did for me was give me a pass to get on with other stuff, not really clear up any confusions that were bothering me.

    That's a lot more thought than I put into the original review, which I'm not even going to look at again.

    And so

    Paul
    Tired or not, you explained this well.

    When my son reached his teens, my brother recommended I read a book that had helped him tremendously with his own son. I don't remember the name, it was a bestseller at the time, though, and it was all about acknowledging and celebrating a boy's passage to manhood. It only made that one point, but it was well documented with rich history of different cultures through the ages and why this was so important.

    The same concept applies to young women, or any significant life event or achievement that demonstrates successful passage into the next level of maturity or life, like marriage, the birth of your first child, your first job, etc. We are social creatures and group acknowledgement of these various events and passage into our next level in society is important to us.

    The thing is, every one of the events in that book, historical and otherwise, were external and demonstrable. In fact, most of the boys' rites of passages involved actual physical achievements and tests. None of Scientology's levels, whether Clear or anything else can be demonstrated to a group. It's all smoke and mirrors.

    For a society to celebrate some internal change that can't be demonstrated and only an individual can claim is a perversion of the entire rite of passage. That doesn't stop COS from continually churning out new rundowns, levels, certificates and awards. That doesn't stop COS from abusing this need we have for group acknowledgement. DM will keep doing it, just like L Ron did, because exploiting this basic human need sells Scientology.

    I agree with you that SOME sort of thing happened that made a person feel good when the person claimed Clear or whatever. Ironically, for me, the realization that "I don't have a reactive mind" was never an acknowledgement of Hubbard or Dianetics. My realization was that what Hubbard described didn't apply to me. I didn't have one of those reactive mind things and never did. I felt sorry for people who did, but was greatly relieved to discover I didn't. Honestly.

    What goes on inside a person's mind can vary. Another person might have experienced relief to talk about some traumatic incident and then felt clear. It occurred to me when I read your post and Mimsey's that DM's big move of declaring others "UN" clear, reverifying the state over and over and forcing others to pay and do the Bridge again may have been more than a money move. It seems to me that DM may have realized that Scientology hadn't been making Clears after all. It may have been a desperate attempt to prove to himself that Scientology works because he was seeing that it didn't. And DM stopped personally getting auditing, too.
    "Looking back on it I think I got these gains only because the processing made me self reflect and try to repair the damage done by it. So I made gains in spite of Scientology not because of it. It's better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."

    - Cleared Cannibal


  5. Likes Dulloldfart liked this post
  6. #184
    Crusader RogerB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,144

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    Wow, Mimsey, you and wife were royally screwed over . . . all I have to say is, thank the idiotic Finance Police for getting me off-lines before they started pulling that shit on me . . .

    And Gib too . . . .

    This below I wrote in an email to a person just this week, on this very subject of the goofy, basic tech stupidity contained or, actually omitted, in the cult's tech.

    Yes . . . big time YES on the COS O/R shite. The situation that Alan eventually sorted out is sort of two-fold. First is that, once the guy has become ascended and really, really become aware of and truly experienced his spirituality, the guy actually processes differently . . . the difference being that the guy there ever after will tend to blow stuff on contact/inspection because the instant he touches areas of case it goes into involuntary replication and evaporates. The problem being, we were never taught that, and were caused to believe and taught to have to continue to "go through" the stuff to "handle it" . . . but in reality it had generally already blown.


    Then of course, there was the drama on being run on stuff that did NOT apply to our cases. . . and this along with the drama of being told what we all must run (the Grade Chart) . . . well cases open up individually in the way they do for each of us . . . not according to some sort of cookie-cutter line-plot!


    But the greatest crime is that the COS was never able to acknowledge the actual true state of case/Beingness achieved once the guy ascended, and the ascension very often occurred very early on his his Scn journey. And because of this, the guy was put back down into his case to then run out what Hubbard and/or the CS's said was there and had to be run . . . the fact is, a case must be run from the position of its highest attained state for this is where the power and knowledge of the Being is greatest.


    Just acknowledging this fact for a gal in S. America who did "OT10" with Capt Bill . . . she and I had a talk via Skype a couple of months ago, and I caused her ascended-to-state to be rehabbed and blew 20+ years of built up BPC. Actually, she is new to our group, still catching up on reading the tech but, last night she posted this below. By the way, she is a medical practitioner specializing in alternative/natural healing stuff. Her English is not perfect, as you'll note.


    Yesterday at 05:25:10 PM

    I had not seen this part of the forum. Here if I can write directly, good things?

    Wonderful.

    Then I will share 2 things:
    1. I already understood how to "articulate" all this knowledge. I have much to study and that is why I could not come to greet them all. A cordial greeting to all.

    2. One of my great wins with the processing of knowledgism has been that my physical pain disappears ...... jejjejjeje ...... I am happy (Logically after handling the spiritual pain). Logically the management through the basic processes has been fundamental. And this was complemented by neural therapy: I always had it in front of my nose ... And I never "See it" until now. Because what happens when you start to "balance" your "polarity" is that "it starts to emerge" the pole that was occluded. Fascinating.
    Thank you again to Roger and Alan.



    I replied:



    Reply #11 – Today at 08:03:21 AM

    Nice win Marta!!!!

    Yes, the thing we have with our tech that the other techs actually miss it that we have clearly delineated the distinction between processing physical universe/bodily charge, mental charge, and spiritual charge . . .

    And as Alan revealed, they each process and behave differently.

    Thus you will note that various different R/Ds cause you to process certain actions appropriate to the nature of the case area you are addressing . . . example: note when the process calls for you to process as a spiritual presence. It will use the command: "As a spiritual being . . . " But if you are being caused to process at the bridge between the spiritual and mental, it uses the command: "As a (named identity) what . . ."

    In the bulletin "Processor Alerts" (use the search function, it is here on the forum) Alan warns that you MUST ascertain what the understanding of the client's is regarding his state of Being. Does he see himself as A God of his own universe? A God-like Being? A Huge Giant Super Being? A spiritual Being? A mind? A body? A problem? An identity? A harmful act? . . . .

    And once this is established, you had better process the client as the level of Being he is . . . not as something else.

    The nuances of all this is spread throughout the many and various posts of Alan's we have here . . . look for them as you progress though the forum.

    Rog


    Anyway, sweetness . . . this is now a little long


    Rog
    Life is supposed to be enjoyed, Mate!

    Don't show me the money . . . give me the TRUTH!
    Visit: http://knowledgism-practice-group.org

  7. #185
    Gold Meritorious Patron Mimsey Borogrove's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    92,955,887.6 miles from the sun
    Posts
    4,995

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerB View Post
    Wow, Mimsey, you and wife were royally screwed over . . . all I have to say is, thank the idiotic Finance Police for getting me off-lines before they started pulling that shit on me . . .

    And Gib too . . . .

    snip
    It just goes to show you the elephant in the room - if they truly had a workable technology - why put my wife, myself and thousands of others through the wringer? Per their own technology - a clear is cause over mental matter, energy and thought regards to the first dynamic, and further it is a person who has had the clear cog that they are "mocking up their reactive mind" It, the cog, has or it hasn't happened. It shouldn't be a question. It is in the work sheets or it isn't.

    The whole concept of looking over past sessions to find errors in the application of the tech is flawed. I am not saying errors shouldn't be corrected, but far too much emphasis was put on redoing stuff the PC was happy with. If the organization's position that they do not promise any results, if the person attests he has gotten the gains and is satisfied with them, then why redo it?

    This is all a giant unusual solution for an unworkable technology that does not produce the gains it purports to achieve.

    But beyond that - there is this overlooked conundrum: If there is no such thing as the reactive mind in the first place, and by reading Dianetics or other things like the PC hatting information, you educate him to believe in this non-extant reactive mind actually exists, then, when the person goes clear - his cognition is actually this: that he is no longer mocking up the reactive mind he never had in the first place, we then see that Scientology is a colossal joke played on us rubes by a man who had no moral fiber, but lusted after our money.

    Oh, by the way, did you know that gullible is not in the dictionary?

    Edit: Why all the upset over these DCSI's and declaring a person is no longer clear? Why does it upset people so?

    I do not think it is an ego trip denied - "now I no longer have the status of being a clear." I think it strikes into the very heart of Scientology's famed Auditors code #1 & #2 about not invalidation the persons case or gains and evaluating for the PC - because by saying the person isn't clear when he / she thought he was, you are violation those very principals that are the rock that auditing stands on, and you are invalidating the shit out of the person. You are making nothing of him / her. And as I hope Trump is finding out, people don't much like being made insignificant or nothing of.
    Mimsey
    Last edited by Mimsey Borogrove; 18th February 2017 at 07:12 PM.

  8. #186
    Silver Meritorious Patron Elronius of Marcabia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    1,295

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    Quote Originally Posted by George Layton View Post
    Even if you understand the mechanics of the tech, do you know what it is doing to the persons mind that it is being used on? A person has to learn from scientology what the tech is curing them of before they can have the tech used on them. It has nothing to do with endorsing scientology it is the assumption that scientology understands the human mind, understands that it is needs repair and has the tools to repair it. scientology is used to bring you to the point that the tech is the method of verifying the tech.
    What I experience justifies my experience.
    What is true for me is true.
    With that sort of thinking a person can be completely delusional and convince themselves what they believe is true.
    Yes self referential looping logic is what the "Tech" is.
    Simpler said it's loopy just like WhoBird.

    Freezoners would like you to think it has some redeeming value if done
    correctly or modified slightly or even drastically, simple truth is its garbage.

    Call me a naysayer and debunker some shit needs debunking Scientology and it's derivatives
    certainly qualifies

    I aint here to "help" anybody in or out of anything, just have a take and let
    folks choose what they like or don't.

    A few laughs at myself and some of the real whackier stuff which scientology
    specializes in
    And what do you call it when a condescending asshole walks in and starts preaching from
    the delusional works of an even bigger asshole ?
    "Standard Scientology"

  9. #187
    Crusader RogerB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,144

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mimsey Borogrove View Post
    It just goes to show you the elephant in the room - if they truly had a workable technology - why put my wife, myself and thousands of others through the wringer? Per their own technology - a clear is cause over mental matter, energy and thought regards to the first dynamic, and further it is a person who has had the clear cog that they are "mocking up their reactive mind" It, the cog, has or it hasn't happened. It shouldn't be a question. It is in the work sheets or it isn't.

    The whole concept of looking over past sessions to find errors in the application of the tech is flawed. I am not saying errors shouldn't be corrected, but far too much emphasis was put on redoing stuff the PC was happy with. If the organization's position that they do not promise any results, if the person attests he has gotten the gains and is satisfied with them, then why redo it?
    Yep! . . . But as Alan and I say, "Clear of what!?!"

    The notion of "Clear" is a totally false proposition. It is an erroneous notion.

    What in actuality happens is that, the person experiences a CHANGE OF CONDITION AND, due to the expectation based on the false proposition, the CHANGE of case state-cum-change of relationship with and change of condition of the guy's "mind" is assumed to be the mis-named, hoped for state.

    But beyond that - there is this overlooked conundrum: If there is no such thing as the reactive mind in the first place, and by reading Dianetics or other things like the PC hatting information, you educate him to believe in this non-extant reactive mind actually exists, then, when the person goes clear - his cognition is actually this: that he is no longer mocking up the reactive mind he never had in the first place, we then see that Scientology is a colossal joke played on us rubes by a man who had no moral fiber, but lusted after our money.
    Again, the notion of the "mind," reactive or otherwise is a misunderstood and misused notion.

    Lots of sharp people in university and other research areas are currently running about trying to pin down the notion of "consciousness" . . . but they admit they do not know what it is . . . in fact, "consciousness" is simply their fancy academic, ivory tower name for the awareness unit-cum-causative spiritual element of humankind.

    What we have observed in Knowledgism is that we are indeed spiritual in nature . . . but what has happened is that we have gone through various changes in condition through our existence. One of the key, critical changes has been that we adopted some wrong answer solutions to handle the things we did not want to experience. The sequence was that we did in fact experience the unwanted but then had to solve it. And the experiencing of the unwanted produced an impression and/or turbulence in our spiritual presence and Being . . . the old wrong answer was to try and separate this experience and its impression and effect in us off from us: notions such as, "put it behind you" are typical.

    What this caused was the creating of a part of our self as being "not self" and labelled as "the mind." Hence the conundrum when a person addresses this old stuff and it converts from its turbulent and unwanted condition back to being more pristine and again as part of the truer spirit of self.

    Alan recognized this scenario and was able to develop a tech that honored the true you and correctly upgrade your condition.


    [QUOTE
    Oh, by the way, did you know that gullible is not in the dictionary?

    Edit: Why all the upset over these DCSI's and declaring a person is no longer clear? Why does it upset people so?

    I do not think it is an ego trip denied - "now I no longer have the status of being a clear." I think it strikes into the very heart of Scientology's famed Auditors code #1 & #2 about not invalidation the persons case or gains and evaluating for the PC - because by saying the person isn't clear when he / she thought he was, you are violation those very principals that are the rock that auditing stands on, and you are invalidating the shit out of the person. You are making nothing of him / her. And as I hope Trump is finding out, people don't much like being made insignificant or nothing of.
    Mimsey[/QUOTE]

    Ya . . . there is no quicker way to upset a person than to lie about them . . . and the shit the Cof$ is running on "the gullible" is a lie; not only as to technical truth, but the Cof$ is lying about the Being they are addressing when they inval and eval.

    Gullible . . . not in "the" dictionary??? You must be speaking of the Scn dictionary and/or Hubbard's lexicon . . . Google gives me a wonderfully applicable understanding of what "the Ronald" played us

    Rog
    Life is supposed to be enjoyed, Mate!

    Don't show me the money . . . give me the TRUTH!
    Visit: http://knowledgism-practice-group.org

  10. #188
    Squirrel Extraordinaire Dulloldfart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    North-East England
    Posts
    23,745

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    Quote Originally Posted by RogerB View Post
    Gullible . . . not in the dictionary???
    I think he fooled you there, Rog.

    Paul
    PaulsRobot Iconic now available for use at www.PaulsRobot2.com. With Auto-Report. Video here. Introductory post here. Debug post here. Dipoles post here.

  11. Likes Mimsey Borogrove liked this post
  12. #189
    Crusader RogerB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    7,144

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dulloldfart View Post
    I think he fooled you there, Rog.

    Paul
    Ya mean I'm gullible?!!!!

    R
    Life is supposed to be enjoyed, Mate!

    Don't show me the money . . . give me the TRUTH!
    Visit: http://knowledgism-practice-group.org

  13. LOL! Mimsey Borogrove, Dulloldfart laughed at this post
  14. #190
    Oh, a wise guy,eh? F.Bullbait's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    811

    Default Re: What if it wasn't dub in?

    That's what's needed these days, a Gullibility Rundown...

    "Go to heaven for the climate and hell for the company." –Mark Twain

    "Religion and theology must not be confounded. Religion is not doctrine, but a new birth." - R. Falckenberg History of Modern Philosophy (on German mysticism).

Page 19 of 19 FirstFirst ... 910111213141516171819

Similar Threads

  1. Sick of M Rathbun Putting Himself Where He Wasn't
    By Gottabrain in forum MartyWorld
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 13th April 2011, 01:54 AM
  2. Objectivity--It wasn't all bad
    By Boojuum in forum Scientology Technology
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 21st February 2011, 03:34 PM
  3. It wasn't the same as in the books???? It was very very different...
    By Evolution in forum New Member Introductions
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 17th November 2009, 01:44 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •