How Hubbard created a 100% workable technology

[beyond_horizons]

It's been an interesting journey hasn't it! Moving out and viewing the bigger picture is rather painful, especially if you had a lot of fulfilled expectations in the limited picture.

Thankfully those expectations are no longer limited.

If Hubbo hooks are what the decadent scientologist , and halfway house scientologist mindset needs to hang their existence on, then so be it for the time being. WISI, it’s the end of the season for that sort of reason.
__________________

We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
-- T. S. Eliot

 

[alex]

Thankfully those expectations are no longer limited.

If Hubbo hooks are what the decadent scientologist , and halfway house scientologist mindset needs to hang their existence on, then so be it for the time being. WISI, it’s the end of the season for that sort of reason.
__________________

We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
-- T. S. Eliot

I have always seen scientology as relevant in a certain context, the material universe and a way out, but limited in the fact that it was just a "bridge" from one context to the next.

The upper OT levels 9-15 seem to be where a person gets back their familiarity with the other context and then the whole material universe context reverts to what it should be, a sub-game in a larger field of play.

Scientology or related practices are not the end all of knowing, but a repair of injured players.

Your sig line is so true.

But when we get back we will not be the same.

Will we play it again or what?

alex (who is midway through Robert Monroes "ultimate journey" at the moment!!)

 

[lionheart]

Thankfully those expectations are no longer limited.

If Hubbo hooks are what the decadent scientologist , and halfway house scientologist mindset needs to hang their existence on, then so be it for the time being. WISI, it’s the end of the season for that sort of reason.
__________________

We shall not cease from exploration, and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.
-- T. S. Eliot

Yes once you get through the pain of betrayal when you realise it is a scam and you take on the bigger picture, magically the world becomes more wonderful, more liberating. Once you let go of the "gains" or the "losses" from Hubbard's suggestive tech, you are free to experience the philosophies and techniques that Hubbard forbid you to look at.

I love your quote from T S Eliot!

 

[alex]

Yes once you get through the pain of betrayal when you realise it is a scam and you take on the bigger picture, magically the world becomes more wonderful, more liberating. Once you let go of the "gains" or the "losses" from Hubbard's suggestive tech, you are free to experience the philosophies and techniques that Hubbard forbid you to look at.

I love your quote from T S Eliot!

Funny that you and I both find such agreement with "beyond Horizons" post, yet from such different viewpoints!

Love

alex

 

[Muhammad]

Hypnosis and Scn

I am new to this board just found it recently and WOW i think it pust scn into
prospective. I have found scn workable and had great gains but most came in early days . I started scn in Riverside in 74 and got my declare in 1999 for chasing down OSA punk with a baseball bat and questioning the churches stance of IRS issue when the church install someone to police scn taxes first thing came to my mind is that the state and church line had been crossed and if one agency act for another it make them by law an arm of that organiztion.then when try came up with laws the land bull shit i explained to them to show me the law which try never did because there isn't one. I never took shit from anyone.THe one thing that distrubing about scn is that Ron aways told us hypnosism
was not worth studying and it only implanted people and to use it surmounted to a surpressive act. But it was ok for the great lrh to use it but not for us.well in recent years i have become very interested in hypnosis and found alot of distrubing things.hyp is used in many aspect of life from wave pulse coming out of tv set , repartition of ideas , christian churches use it in their music, shaman using distince rhyms to put follower in trances, drugs and on adn on. From time immorial men with knowlege of hyp used it to gain control of the mass. Look at 911 the building fell feel fall and some belive it was the airlplanes that brought them down and seeing video of Brown and girl in woods can make people seem that anything that doesn't fall into our frame work of reallity is hyn. But what the video doesn't show is that the girl was very
suggestable and easyly put under trance and Brown being psycholgist and hyp knew she was perfect subject which make one wonder why ron didn't want us to study psycholgy because it is used on us every day just google bernays and freud sister. In begining of video he used basic hyn tech to put her under. In the public at large there are about 10% of population who are walking round in hypnotic state and most can be hyp under right conditions.Its easy just have person focus relax then confuse them.I have seen video where a hypnosis walks up to person on street and puts them in trance and have them do crazy shit. So here i am been in scn long time had great wins on most of auditing exterioriztion, occasional having ability to remote view, predicting the future and reading person thought also I was a past life scn. did lots of work on PDCs expriemental auditing. I am faced with this delemer is it all in my mind or have i created an alternate reality or is it real and what this brings up is the age old question of many "what is reality"
Is auditing self hyp or do u really blow charge. I quess that up to each of us to answer for our self

 

[nw2394]

You're trying to box me into the limited view that you find "Real" for you!

You're missing the pont and misinterpreting whatever I say, so I think a dialogue with you is probably pointless.

You invent interpretations of what I'm saying, which are things I'm not saying at all! The phrases "not totally hypnotism", "not totally random chance" and "some of us are not hypnotised" have no resemblance to any of my contentions!

Yes, you "found it interesting, tried it out, had some genuine success, continued, had more success, and after thirty-eight years of that still regard the core subject as being valid and workable and are glad of our involvement with it" just like the lady who had genuine success with the 100% successful tips that she was given. She enjoyed it too.

Let's stop ping ponging the same points backwards and forwards, it is pointless. You don't get what I'm saying and that is completely ok.

I'm happy to discuss my posts with anybody and will expand ideas with them, but not if what I am saying is being twisted and misinterpreted, that's pointless.

I did look back at this thread with the idea of saying something nice to you. Unfortunately you apparently think continuing high handed invalidation of others seems more important. What a waste of time.

Nick

 

[Leon]

What I know of hypnotism I got from seeing people being hypnotised - on stage shows, in transformation groups, in religious ecstacy groups, in people in terror, and so on; and also from sreading texts on the subjects. Nowhere have I ever heard the weak focussed attention you talk about being included as hypnotism. That is your own loose definitioon which serves you in that you can attach a big word onto the mild or avid interest that people show in Scientology.

ref: HCOP/L on Propaganda by redefinition of words. It is relevant here.

As regards your argument - You brought to our attention an experiment where by way of random selection various choices were made, a person's attention was focussed on those choices which suited the experiment (with the exclusion of other evidence) and the subject was then persuaded to believe that there was a method by which horse race winners could be selected accurately and she then wasted some money on that. You then alleged that Scientologists were all hoodwinked in this same manner.

I think that is an accurate depiction of your argument.

I suggest that whereas it may be true that some or even many people were gulled into Scientology in this was it yet did not apply to all Scientologists.

You cannot accept this. "If it is true for you it has to be true for everyone else" seems to be the viewpoint you are defending. That this happens to be the exact viewpoint you claim the CofS is using escapes you.

 

[alex]

What I know of hypnotism I got from seeing people being hypnotised - on stage shows, in transformation groups, in religious ecstacy groups, in people in terror, and so on; and also from sreading texts on the subjects. Nowhere have I ever heard the weak focussed attention you talk about being included as hypnotism. That is your own loose definitioon which serves you in that you can attach a big word onto the mild or avid interest that people show in Scientology.

ref: HCOP/L on Propaganda by redefinition of words. It is relevant here.

As regards your argument - You brought to our attention an experiment where by way of random selection various choices were made, a person's attention was focussed on those choices which suited the experiment (with the exclusion of other evidence) and the subject was then persuaded to believe that there was a method by which horse race winners could be selected accurately and she then wasted some money on that. You then alleged that Scientologists were all hoodwinked in this same manner.

I think that is an accurate depiction of your argument.

I suggest that whereas it may be true that some or even many people were gulled into Scientology in this was it yet did not apply to all Scientologists.

You cannot accept this. "If it is true for you it has to be true for everyone else" seems to be the viewpoint you are defending. That this happens to be the exact viewpoint you claim the CofS is using escapes you.

Yet he claims to now view from from a larger perspective.

I love irony.

And I love Lionheart. (because he cares and tries)

alex

 

[Leon]

I don't think I have misunderstood him at all. He just wont recognise that his argument flips both ways and that is what makes it weak.

 

[Alanzo]

When were these upgraded definitions of hypnosis put forth Alanzo?

Well, MONOIDEISM was coined in the mid 1800's by James Braid.

But I also understand that a lot of work was done and published in the mid to late 1970's which clarified suggestibility and other aspects of hypnosis and hypnotic states.

I think this is related to EriK Erickson and Neuro-linguistic Programming, but I am not as hep on that as you, and everyone else here probably, wants me to be.

 

[lionheart]

What I know of hypnotism I got from seeing people being hypnotised - on stage shows, in transformation groups, in religious ecstacy groups, in people in terror, and so on; and also from sreading texts on the subjects. Nowhere have I ever heard the weak focussed attention you talk about being included as hypnotism. That is your own loose definitioon which serves you in that you can attach a big word onto the mild or avid interest that people show in Scientology.

ref: HCOP/L on Propaganda by redefinition of words. It is relevant here.

As regards your argument - You brought to our attention an experiment where by way of random selection various choices were made, a person's attention was focussed on those choices which suited the experiment (with the exclusion of other evidence) and the subject was then persuaded to believe that there was a method by which horse race winners could be selected accurately and she then wasted some money on that. You then alleged that Scientologists were all hoodwinked in this same manner.

I think that is an accurate depiction of your argument.

I suggest that whereas it may be true that some or even many people were gulled into Scientology in this was it yet did not apply to all Scientologists.

You cannot accept this. "If it is true for you it has to be true for everyone else" seems to be the viewpoint you are defending. That this happens to be the exact viewpoint you claim the CofS is using escapes you.

If you read what I said, you'll see I said Hubbard used suggestion and expectation. I didn't say LRH used hypnotism. I used Derren Brown's theory about stage hynotism to give examples of suggestion and expectation.

Although I agree with Alanzo's ideas about hypnotism, these days I personally don't use it to describe any aspect of Scientology because it stirs up too much misunderstanding and protest. Alanzo has explained his ideas as to the reason for this, but that is his conversation, not mine.

I think I've described expectation and suggestion quite thoroughly with examples as to how it applies to Scn, but I'm happy to give some more examples if you haven't understood me yet. Scientology is littered with suggestion and the generation of expectation.

I have no particular problem with your idea about "many people" being "gulled" into Scn. It doesn't alter my argument about the money pyramid aspect of Hubbard's scam, except you are restricting it to "many people" rather than all. Ok, so what proportion do you think were not scammed? And how do you define their experience compared to my theory of expectation and suggestion? And how does their experience relate to my theory of the importance of disconnecion and preventing people from seeing the failures?

I'm quite happy to hear counter arguments so long as they are discussing what I'm actually saying. We seem to be getting on that track now.

BTW Alex, I believe you know perfectly well that I am willing to discuss my ideas, expand them and consider counter ideas. I believe you know that, which is why you aren't engaging in real discussion and exchange of ideas about what I'm saying. Egging someone else on, rather than engaging yourself, is a bit OSA "Op"y isn't it? Are you slipping back into your old ways again?

 

[Leon]

You're being disingenuous. Look at this from your first post on this thread:

See, it is simply a numbers game, the oldest con trick in the book and we, I'm afraid, fell for it. We are the tip of the pyramid, the ones who experienced what Ron said we would experience just like the lady in the TV program.

Remember, also that Hubbard had studied hypnotism/suggestion and by all accounts was a charismatic personality. He must have known the simple datum that if you tell a group of people something with enough conviction and throw in a bit of suggestible language, that a percentage of them will experience that thing as being true for them.

It is a limited view, numbers con with a heavy dose of suggestion thrown in.

Right in there you have that it is a con, a numbers game, and a a "heavy dose of suggestion" to the point of being hypnotic. (Why else refer to hypnotism at all if not to suggest it to us, just as you say Hubbard is doing.)

What you discount totally - since it does not fit in with what you want your readers to buy into - is that a technology of the mind is possible and that Hubbard may have been onto something and that thousands of people may have experienced huge life-changing benefits from that technology.

Just as you complain of recalcitrant people being routed off-lines from Scientology because it would muddy the image they wanted to present, so exactly do you seek to eliminate all who would say there is some validity to Scientology. As you accuse, so you expose your own false argument.

Sure there have been many thousands of people who had a bum deal in Scientology. I can accept that. Clearly you cannot accept that as many thousands got great benefit from it and continue to do so every day.

It is you, and those like you, who needs to open your eyes to the bigger picture and get a more balanced view of things.

 

[alex]

snip





BTW Alex, I believe you know perfectly well that I am willing to discuss my ideas, expand them and consider counter ideas. I believe you know that, which is why you aren't engaging in real discussion and exchange of ideas about what I'm saying. Egging someone else on, rather than engaging yourself, is a bit OSA "Op"y isn't it? Are you slipping back into your old ways again?

I have the heart of a troll. I love to provoke. Yes.

Its play. Play is serious business.

I am not really interested in debating you on the issue at hand. Its really more an issue of belief. You believe its a con and look for ways to prove it.

I say if its a con, it moved me along the path to enlightenment.

Scientology is not an end in itself, nor any sort of ultimate philosophy, but a bridge from one context to another.

If someone builds a better bridge or maybe builds airplanes to make the metaphorical travel, all the better.

But it hasnt happened yet and I know whats on both sides.

I dont want to tear down the bridge and go back to the dark ages.

I dont see any other uniformly workable solution yet otherwise.

And I take hubbard at his word(s).

alex

 

[Hanover Fist]

You're being disingenuous. Look at this from your first post on this thread:





Right in there you have that it is a con, a numbers game, and a a "heavy dose of suggestion" to the point of being hypnotic. (Why else refer to hypnotism at all if not to suggest it to us, just as you say Hubbard is doing.)

What you discount totally - since it does not fit in with what you want your readers to buy into - is that a technology of the mind is possible and that Hubbard may have been onto something and that thousands of people may have experienced huge life-changing benefits from that technology.

So what is the problem with this? I think this is what most critics ARE saying about scientology/Hubbard. There is no technology of the mind and the only thing Hubbard was onto was his ego trip and a con game. I also think that LH has also explained in excruciating detail why it is immaterial that "thousands may have experienced huge life-changing benefits". How many millions have not? You HAVE to look at the bigger picture rather than losing the forest for the trees.

Just as you complain of recalcitrant people being routed off-lines from Scientology because it would muddy the image they wanted to present, so exactly do you seek to eliminate all who would say there is some validity to Scientology. As you accuse, so you expose your own false argument.

That is quite simply not true. The relative few that have experienced an unbroken (relatively) series of gains is an integral part of LH's argument. It is only when you look at the distribution of failures vs. successes that the pattern emerges.


Hanover Fist

 

[alex]

snip

It is only when you look at the distribution of failures vs. successes that the pattern emerges.


Hanover Fist

Would you care to share your peer reviewed data on this with us?

alex

 

[Hanover Fist]

Would you care to share your peer reviewed data on this with us?

alex

Let me rephrase lest you misunderstand:

It is only when you begin to look at the ratio of successes vs failures that the pattern begins to develop.

Is that any better for you? LH's point still stands.

Hanover Fist

 

[lionheart]

You're being disingenuous. Look at this from your first post on this thread:





Right in there you have that it is a con, a numbers game, and a a "heavy dose of suggestion" to the point of being hypnotic. (Why else refer to hypnotism at all if not to suggest it to us, just as you say Hubbard is doing.)

What you discount totally - since it does not fit in with what you want your readers to buy into - is that a technology of the mind is possible and that Hubbard may have been onto something and that thousands of people may have experienced huge life-changing benefits from that technology.

Just as you complain of recalcitrant people being routed off-lines from Scientology because it would muddy the image they wanted to present, so exactly do you seek to eliminate all who would say there is some validity to Scientology. As you accuse, so you expose your own false argument.

Sure there have been many thousands of people who had a bum deal in Scientology. I can accept that. Clearly you cannot accept that as many thousands got great benefit from it and continue to do so every day.

It is you, and those like you, who needs to open your eyes to the bigger picture and get a more balanced view of things.

Thanks for referring me back to my first post. Sorry, my mistake. I'm happy to consider the word hypnotism be taken out of it. Please consider the paragraph to be corrected to say:
Remember, also that Hubbard had studied suggestion and by all accounts was a charismatic personality. He must have known the simple datum that if you tell a group of people something with enough conviction and throw in a bit of suggestible language, that a percentage of them will experience that thing as being true for them.

I didn't however say "heavy dose of suggestion to the point of being hypnotic". Those are your words not mine. I simply said Hubbard studied hypnotism - which is well documented. The point I tried to make is that hypnotism is not what people generally take it to be and I gave Derren Brown's analysis of it to explain that idea.

But I am happy for any impression that Hubbard used hypnotism to be taken out of my argument. My argument is complete as it is using simply the words suggestion and expectation.

I hope I have clarified that and it is not necessary for me to repeat that again.

Your other points have been well covered by HF's replies, there is no need for me to repeat what I've already said.

If you don't agree, that's fine by me. Remember the lady with the winning system would not have believed it was a con if anyone had told her. But you don't think you are in that situation - so ok. Thanks for your input.

 

[lionheart]

I have the heart of a troll. I love to provoke. Yes.

Its play. Play is serious business.

I am not really interested in debating you on the issue at hand. Its really more an issue of belief. You believe its a con and look for ways to prove it.

I say if its a con, it moved me along the path to enlightenment.

Scientology is not an end in itself, nor any sort of ultimate philosophy, but a bridge from one context to another.

If someone builds a better bridge or maybe builds airplanes to make the metaphorical travel, all the better.

But it hasnt happened yet and I know whats on both sides.

I dont want to tear down the bridge and go back to the dark ages.

I dont see any other uniformly workable solution yet otherwise.

And I take hubbard at his word(s).

alex

A typical synthetic Scientology personality.

But I know that is really not you, because I too once had that Hubbard implanted personality. May it drop from you like melting ice and your heart be thawed!

I love the real you, minus Hubbard's implantology.

 

[pomfritz]

Scientology works, just like placebos work.

Neither works 100% of the time, and the ones it does have the desired effect will swear by it.

 

[Leon]

Thanks for referring me back to my first post. Sorry, my mistake. I'm happy to consider the word hypnotism be taken out of it. Please consider the paragraph to be corrected to say:
Remember, also that Hubbard had studied suggestion and by all accounts was a charismatic personality. He must have known the simple datum that if you tell a group of people something with enough conviction and throw in a bit of suggestible language, that a percentage of them will experience that thing as being true for them.

I didn't however say "heavy dose of suggestion to the point of being hypnotic". Those are your words not mine. I simply said Hubbard studied hypnotism - which is well documented. The point I tried to make is that hypnotism is not what people generally take it to be and I gave Derren Brown's analysis of it to explain that idea.

But I am happy for any impression that Hubbard used hypnotism to be taken out of my argument. My argument is complete as it is using simply the words suggestion and expectation.

So then what your argument comes down to is plain advertising. Normal everyday advertising does all of what you complain about above in Hubbard.