NOTs case

[mate]

Hi Ralph and Paul, I bow to your information. Thank you. In fact, it is a relief that the comment about the human aura being made up from BTs, was probably not from Mayo, what with him being a Kiwi and all that.

Thanks again. BTW, this is a genuine acknowledgment and not an Alanzo-style posting to achieve plutonium status!

Regards David.

 

[Bea Kiddo]

Hi Ralph and Paul, I bow to your information. Thank you. In fact, it is a relief that the comment about the human aura being made up from BTs, was probably not from Mayo, what with him being a Kiwi and all that.

Thanks again. BTW, this is a genuine acknowledgment and not an Alanzo-style posting to achieve plutonium status!

Regards David.

Mate, you are a natural plutonium.:wink2:

 

[Mary]

But, Hubbard was in terror of uncertainty, while the people discussing here are discussing *possible* explanations. Hubbard *needed* to pronounce absolute 'truth', because any uncertainty meant lack of control, and lack of control was something Hubbard couldn't stand. And, since he couldn't control his entities, they hadda go. Like a junkie with coke bugs.

Zinj

Yeah, I think that's correct. Real research, done in a scientific manner, was sorely lacking in Hubbard's work.

 

[johnAnchovie]

My take on it

I think people who have no other framework with whitch to approach mental phenomena can be made to believe or assign values to that which they see or experience. Hubbard was very good at getting people to believe things about their own minds. Witch doctors and priests were always very good at getting people to believe things about their minds and phenomena that fitted to their own agendas.

I was made to believe that I had attained a level of or near clear, it now does not seem any different to that state experienced by those who have done OT VII or VIII, in reality all that has happened is that I had been able to talk about mental phenomena with a person who took interest and made me believe that I was improving. Study I did in Scientology only served the purpose of giving me a focused outlook because the apparent answers to mysteries sufficed at the time.

I have since made more subjective gain outside of Scientology from reading Durkheim, Fromm and Jung than I ever experienced doing Scientology. I operate so much better in life now than I did in scientology, using scientology. Now I just use my inate intellegence and seek to learn, stay inquisitive and most of all value every remaining day that I have stolen back from Hubturd and Messcavbitch.

This begs the question: Why are the OT levels confidential? - I have read most of them, I don't get it? I don't belive that the poor soul that spent over a hundred grand doing OT VIII is any more capable or functional than I am.

Reading posts by FZ Scientologists is disturbing because I feel that the framework and values they adopted are fictional and that they themselves are delusional in this area of 'case gain', it is my take on it, and if I could see emphirical evidence to the contrary I would be more comfortable with what I see in 'tech postings' from FZ techies. This is an open forum, I am genuinly interested in REAL information and insight into this issue.

John Anchovie

 

[Ralph Hilton]

One of the people that Hubbard studied was Alisteir (I always have problems spelling his name) Crowley. He said "Do what thou wilt is the law" "Love is the law, Love under will". It works as long as people understand that "thou" is referring to one's better aspect, love is not meant carnally and that will doesn't involve domination.

 

[Zinjifar]

One of the people that Hubbard studied was Alisteir (I always have problems spelling his name) Crowley. He said "Do what thou wilt is the law" "Love is the law, Love under will". It works as long as people understand that "thou" is referring to one's better aspect, love is not meant carnally and that will doesn't involve domination.

For Aleister Crowley, both 'love' and 'will' involved domination.

Zinj

 

[Alanzo]

I think people who have no other framework with whitch to approach mental phenomena can be made to believe or assign values to that which they see or experience. Hubbard was very good at getting people to believe things about their own minds. Witch doctors and priests were always very good at getting people to believe things about their minds and phenomena that fitted to their own agendas.

I was made to believe that I had attained a level of or near clear, it now does not seem any different to that state experienced by those who have done OT VII or VIII, in reality all that has happened is that I had been able to talk about mental phenomena with a person who took interest and made me believe that I was improving. Study I did in Scientology only served the purpose of giving me a focused outlook because the apparent answers to mysteries sufficed at the time.

I have since made more subjective gain outside of Scientology from reading Durkheim, Fromm and Jung than I ever experienced doing Scientology. I operate so much better in life now than I did in scientology, using scientology. Now I just use my inate intellegence and seek to learn, stay inquisitive and most of all value every remaining day that I have stolen back from Hubturd and Messcavbitch.

This begs the question: Why are the OT levels confidential? - I have read most of them, I don't get it? I don't belive that the poor soul that spent over a hundred grand doing OT VIII is any more capable or functional than I am.

Reading posts by FZ Scientologists is disturbing because I feel that the framework and values they adopted are fictional and that they themselves are delusional in this area of 'case gain', it is my take on it, and if I could see emphirical evidence to the contrary I would be more comfortable with what I see in 'tech postings' from FZ techies. This is an open forum, I am genuinly interested in REAL information and insight into this issue.

John Anchovie

Very interesting John.

That's something I noticed, too.

When someone is standing with you outside a door, and they tell you the underlying meaning of what you are about to see when they open it, then, when they open the door and you look at it, what you were told beforehand is used to control your interpretation of what you see.

Sometimes that pre-explanation is not spotted, as it was delivered when you had your attention on something else - the door and what's behind it.

Hubbard knew all about this from his days as a hypnotist.

And he applied his suggestions on Scientologists intentionally.

He told you what you were going to see in your own mind, and why you were seeing it.

And for some of us - it stuck.

 

[johnAnchovie]

Exactly

This is what I have observed, and it is heartning to see another concur, I appreciate that Alanzo.

The Cherub thing on OTII or III? I have read where Hubbard stated that this would be seen, he described the damb thing, then people solo audit and some of them see the image Hubbard implanted. This was reavealing.

The more the time gap widens between being free of and being in (the cult), the more free, confident and self assured I become. My understanding of the mechanisms of the individual concience that of the concience collective has incrased and this has had an expidentialy positive effect on my sense of individual identity, my interactions with others and my empathy with others around me; there a comensurate increase in my quality of life as a direct outcome.

You made an increadably astute observation Alanzo, that of the synthetic personality created in order to operate, think and to interact as a Scientologist, and this observation of yours has informed much of my new found clarity of mind.

I wonder what it is that (for lack of a better descriptive) a freezone scientologist is actually trying to come to terms with in doing Hubbard derived processes?

Again, I pose the question, not out of cynisim, but out of genuine curiosity. I don't think there is anything in the OT levels except a sense of exclusiveness, or a predesigned, predermined, apparency of achievement. I can deal with being wrong, but I have to see actual outcomes in measurable, quatifiable improvement in how one deals with the mulitude of interactions inherant in living in this world here.

I would be very interested your futher comments on this Alanzo.

I know Mary, I met her, and have had some good discussions with her, so I would trust her direct input. Can you shed light on this, Mary?

John Anchovie

 

[Bea Kiddo]

The cherub is part of OT III. It is part of Incident One. (Incident Two is the one always talked about on forums about Xenu and his music band).

 

[Alanzo]

This is what I have observed, and it is heartning to see another concur, I appreciate that Alanzo.

The Cherub thing on OTII or III? I have read where Hubbard stated that this would be seen, he described the damb thing, then people solo audit and some of them see the image Hubbard implanted. This was reavealing.

The more the time gap widens between being free of and being in (the cult), the more free, confident and self assured I become. My understanding of the mechanisms of the individual concience that of the concience collective has incrased and this has had an expidentialy positive effect on my sense of individual identity, my interactions with others and my empathy with others around me; there a comensurate increase in my quality of life as a direct outcome.

You made an increadably astute observation Alanzo, that of the synthetic personality created in order to operate, think and to interact as a Scientologist, and this observation of yours has informed much of my new found clarity of mind.

I wonder what it is that (for lack of a better descriptive) a freezone scientologist is actually trying to come to terms with in doing Hubbard derived processes?

Again, I pose the question, not out of cynisim, but out of genuine curiosity. I don't think there is anything in the OT levels except a sense of exclusiveness, or a predesigned, predermined, apparency of achievement. I can deal with being wrong, but I have to see actual outcomes in measurable, quatifiable improvement in how one deals with the mulitude of interactions inherant in living in this world here.

I would be very interested your futher comments on this Alanzo.

I know Mary, I met her, and have had some good discussions with her, so I would trust her direct input. Can you shed light on this, Mary?

John Anchovie

I don't know about Freezoners any more.

I used to be adamant that they were continuing the brainwashing. But then Alan made a series of statements that indicated lots of "charge" for me.

Once he asked something like "What has LRH put you into opposition to?"

That made me "blow down" and kinda come to terms a little with Freezoners.

Then, he later made the statement that anyone or anything that represents LRH tends to bypass charge on people. And that indicated to me a lot, and I blew down some more.

And then I got a session from Paul's Robot Auditor and I remembered how much I loved auditing - even with its inherent risks.

And then other things have kind of cooled me out. I've talked to a lot of Freezoners and Independent Practitioners. They are not the Rondroidedly ill-reasoned robots that Churchies tend to be. They seem to think with the negatives to a very large degree. And they do not pretend to enforce anything at all, really, that I have seen. (But neither did the Churchies during the "honeymoon" phase, either)

Freezoners don't represent the danger to me that they used to.

I think that the real danger in what Hubbard did with his positive suggestions were to keep them uninspected and enforced by the socially coercive environment he created in Scientology. Without that socially coercive environment, a person is free to question things.

And if he can diligently question things, he can free himself from past misconceptions, and even the positive suggestions which slipped in while his attention was elsewhere.

So I've kinda made peace with Freezoners. Unless they run unchecked power over their clients and pcs and never let them question anything, then I think that people should simply be allowed to believe whatever bullshit they want. And if they believe it helps them, then maybe it does.

I know I believe plenty of bullshit.

I have my reasons for it.

And it sure helps me!

 

[johnAnchovie]

Hmmmmm...

Thanks Bea, but is the image a (as in Jung) achetype? Or is it described and then 'revealed' in auditing that level?

I have huge respect for your analytical and critical thinking ability, Alanzo, but what are you seeking to achieve with such processes?

My girlfriend, who had never heard of Scientology until I spoke of my experiences and what I was dealing with, asked me a question, something like "What hold do they still have on you"? I cried in her arms for hours. It felt good.

Of course, I have a visceral antipathy to anything Scienetology or Hubbard, I have seen enough evidence to make me confident that they guy was a complete wanker,and I cannot believe that such a person could do anyone any good at all. Yet I am astounded that I and so many other people who I consider quite intellegent, if not brilliant, remain hooked even after having seen the true face of Hubbard and the cult he founded. What am I missing here?

John Anchovie

 

[Div6]

This is what I have observed, and it is heartning to see another concur, I appreciate that Alanzo.

The Cherub thing on OTII or III? I have read where Hubbard stated that this would be seen, he described the damb thing, then people solo audit and some of them see the image Hubbard implanted. This was reavealing.

The more the time gap widens between being free of and being in (the cult), the more free, confident and self assured I become. My understanding of the mechanisms of the individual concience that of the concience collective has incrased and this has had an expidentialy positive effect on my sense of individual identity, my interactions with others and my empathy with others around me; there a comensurate increase in my quality of life as a direct outcome.

You made an increadably astute observation Alanzo, that of the synthetic personality created in order to operate, think and to interact as a Scientologist, and this observation of yours has informed much of my new found clarity of mind.

I wonder what it is that (for lack of a better descriptive) a freezone scientologist is actually trying to come to terms with in doing Hubbard derived processes?

Again, I pose the question, not out of cynisim, but out of genuine curiosity. I don't think there is anything in the OT levels except a sense of exclusiveness, or a predesigned, predermined, apparency of achievement. I can deal with being wrong, but I have to see actual outcomes in measurable, quatifiable improvement in how one deals with the mulitude of interactions inherant in living in this world here.

I would be very interested your futher comments on this Alanzo.

I know Mary, I met her, and have had some good discussions with her, so I would trust her direct input. Can you shed light on this, Mary?

John Anchovie

I left the CoS over 15 years ago, having attested to Clear, and done the basic FPRD form. (Which resulted in a huge win for me.) My life was OK, but there were things going on in my universe that I had no answers for....finally, I bought an e-meter, and sat down and rehabbed my metering, and then started on the CC platens as a Solo Action. It is a different form of auditing (digging a ditch is what it is referred to). I had a huge win off of that, so I got a C\S and did OT 1-III. Total cost was just my time, really, as I continued my daily routine. I spent a fair amount of time on OT II, and when that EP'ed III just fell in my lap, so to speak, and auditing on it was quite a joy. All the stuff I had been "effect of" just kind of started melting away...insteaqd of having to "put my smiley on" and force a tone level, I could "be" the tone level. Areas of earth track and beyond just began to open up. Dates would present them selves in session, and then events on those dates would appear. After session a quick bit of research confirmed most of it.......

But this isn't just about me, and going "whee" etc. I began interacting with people in a different way...more playful, less formal.
The biggest area that "chunked into view" was my total roboticness towards beauty and aesthetics. I always was a sucker for a pretty face, but I would go totally robotic towards members of the opposite sex. Of course, the thing that you are totally willing to die for (defend at all costs) is the thing you have the most overts on. At least some really hot ones.....

So I am growing up. Part of that growth is that I just can't ignore Flow 3.

My opinion of LRH and the CoS flucutates as well. Currently the organization seems to be functioning as a containment facility for some of the most spiritually psychopathic. If it keeps them busy and prevents their dramatizing on a broad social scale, that is a plus. It also seems to me that LRH got stuck in a "trying to control" type of incident, and became an entity. The current NOTs tech is just a piece of a complex issue. So I give him points for trying, take off points for style, and keep my heart open....

 

[Zinjifar]

What am I missing here?

John Anchovie

The actual mechanisms of the Mind Fuck are brilliant and don't rely on only a single 'action'. There's behaviorism, hypnotism, social conditioning, and the whole gammut of orwellian 'newspeak' manipulatons. The 'preloading' of 'expected results' deliberately takes advantage of our critical thinking skills, by 'predicting' results that are then found. It's sleight of hand, since the expected result was already installed, but, most still practicing Scientologists will object that 'The auditor didn't tell me to find that!'. Because he didn't have to.

Scientology 'recalibrates' our own yardstick with all new numbers. The Scientology speedometer shows fantasy numbers. The 'philosophy' says that reality is *only* what you accept and the scientologist is trained to accept 'axioms' that are the 'stable data' and then rationalize any new data till it fits.

Once in it's not surprising how hard and onion-skinned the exit is. Nobody wants to throw out *everything*. But, as long as you try to keep that one favorite 'Tech' bangle, everything else must be adjusted to match.

Zinj

 

[Dulloldfart]

Of course, I have a visceral antipathy to anything Scienetology or Hubbard, I have seen enough evidence to make me confident that they guy was a complete wanker,and I cannot believe that such a person could do anyone any good at all. Yet I am astounded that I and so many other people who I consider quite intellegent, if not brilliant, remain hooked even after having seen the true face of Hubbard and the cult he founded. What am I missing here?

Auditing can be very therapeutic, especially when it is on something that comes up by itself and hasn't particularly been suggested to you.

Try a session from a YouTube video or Paul's Robot Auditor in the comfort and privacy of your own home. Online 24/7, free of charge but not free of effort.

Wins from 37 people so far posted here.

Paul

 

[Alanzo]

I have huge respect for your analytical and critical thinking ability, Alanzo, but what are you seeking to achieve with such processes?

My girlfriend, who had never heard of Scientology until I spoke of my experiences and what I was dealing with, asked me a question, something like "What hold do they still have on you"? I cried in her arms for hours. It felt good.

I am not doing any processing. I simply tried a few things, like a person returning to a childhood home to settle things in his own mind after he has moved on.

I used to love auditing. And in many ways, it saved my life. (Actually, I used it to save my own life.)

That was real. And I just wanted to touch it again.

With that, I have come to terms with others who are still using auditing to a much greater degree than I ever will.

I guess, for me, it was part of the process of healing and moving on.

And I know what you mean about talking with loved ones and crying in their arms about the whole thing. It's essential.

Thanks, John.

 

[johnAnchovie]

More hmmmm...

Why do I find your experience so disturbing, Div 6? Open heart, I certainly have no problem with that. Your achievement, on the subjective, no problem with that either, that the tech works? Hmmm, I do have difficulty with that.

I suppose that were any of it to have validity, it would open up a can of worms that has no possibility of resolution. It would point to something deeply uncomfortable. Not sure how to take this on board at all really. I suppose I find it impossible to resolve how something so bad can produce a good and useful product. It does run contrary to my own experience.

If it could be clarified without BTs and SF then great.

I am not closed off to the concept that something of person can exist beyond the tangible world in which we live, I wonder about the relevence of this.

To function well in the now is surely the goal of any of these processes? Please correct me if I am wrong.

JA

 

[Div6]

Why do I find your experience so disturbing, Div 6? Open heart, I certainly have no problem with that. Your achievement, on the subjective, no problem with that either, that the tech works? Hmmm, I do have difficulty with that.

I suppose that were any of it to have validity, it would open up a can of worms that has no possibility of resolution. It would point to something deeply uncomfortable. Not sure how to take this on board at all really. I suppose I find it impossible to resolve how something so bad can produce a good and useful product. It does run contrary to my own experience.

If it could be clarified without BTs and SF then great.

I am not closed off to the concept that something of person can exist beyond the tangible world in which we live, I wonder about the relevence of this.

To function well in the now is surely the goal of any of these processes? Please correct me if I am wrong.

JA

To function in the now and create your future. To know the difference between your own goals and thoughts and those of others. To have what you want, not what others want you to have. To be able to freely create your own emotions....and share those of others.

There are many paths to enlightenment. I think the resistance to the statement "the tech works" is the packaging....that that then somehow validates the delivery vehicle. I would say that there are major amounts of context missing in the "scn package". For example, shamans have been practicing soul retrieval techniques for 1000's of years. It is historically more "correct" than the johnny-come-lately freudian analyses. Catharsis as a healing method is documented back to Greek times. There was a huge rise in spiritualism in the late 1800's..seances, talking to discarnate spirits etc.
Transcending dual-valued logic was a major contribution of the Bhuddist schools. For by holding to binary logic suffering is created. Korzybski's General Semantics is another. What is being passed off as "Scn" today is pure crap. The "leader" of the movement is a high school drop out....who appears to run his case on everyone around him.

What is important is that each person find their own way. I spotted DM as a major SP early on, and left as quickly as I could. In the few times I have "poked my head in" to see what was going on, I could only cry to myself at what I was seeing.

 

[Mary]

Wow! Terrific posts with so much insight!

Like many others here, I’m still trying to make some sense out of all the years of working for and auditing and training in the Church.

I’m a strong believer in the scientific method.

IMHO: It’s not a really fast direct method, it requires extreme patience and pedantic thoroughness. It can have a tendency to stifle those leaps of intuition, basic knowingness and creative thinking.

It’s greatest virtues are that it establishes proven and workable natural laws, facts and data that can be used to make further discoveries. If previously established natural laws etc are found to be in error they can be revised and corrected. It does not rely solely on the work of any one man.

Unlike Scientology.

Our science today has very little established science on the nature of our spirituality. Up until very recently this subject was made difficult to study because it kept treading on the toes of the established religions.

It seems to me that Scientology did, by whatever means, gather up, find and/or research some truths and natural laws. It did provide some workable technology in the form of auditing etc. I cannot deny that I loved the auditing and got gains from it.

One of the main reasons that I signed up was because I believed that LRH was using the scientific method, researching and making actual proven discoveries.

Later I believed (probably because of KSW1) that he must have some sort of direct line to truth, scientific data etc that others did not. And no one must question or challenge his data because;

"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..."

Now, I don’t believe that.

Maybe our hope for spiritual enlightenment and workable, proven technology in this field does lie with the work of the Freezone and Independent Field. Maybe they are doing research as part of the early pioneers and this could be developed.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Good post, Mary.

 

[Terril park]

Why do I find your experience so disturbing, Div 6? Open heart, I certainly have no problem with that. Your achievement, on the subjective, no problem with that either, that the tech works? Hmmm, I do have difficulty with that.

I suppose that were any of it to have validity, it would open up a can of worms that has no possibility of resolution. It would point to something deeply uncomfortable. Not sure how to take this on board at all really. I suppose I find it impossible to resolve how something so bad can produce a good and useful product. It does run contrary to my own experience.

If it could be clarified without BTs and SF then great.

I am not closed off to the concept that something of person can exist beyond the tangible world in which we live, I wonder about the relevence of this.

To function well in the now is surely the goal of any of these processes? Please correct me if I am wrong.

JA

As a thought on this, a tool can be used for good or bad.

If one uses the tech with the intention of helping others make a better life, that is one thing.

If one uses it in order to control and dominate that is another.

From the wordsmith:-


PRINCIPLES OF SCIENTOLOGY

The fate of any piece of knowledge man has ever been able to learn about himself, his society or this universe has [been to] sooner or later become subservient to some special interest with a curve on it to make more slaves. And this is one time when as long as I’ve got words in my mouth and breath in my thetan - this is one time that curve isn’t going to happen. And that’s all I want your help in. We want to make sure that what we know never comes to serve some special interest for the subjugation of man.

All Dianetics and Scientology attempts to do is to undo the magic spell which has made people less than they want to be. And to do that it requires that some truth be known. And that the central and principal truths of man be know, merely as truths - not as pitches and curves to serve some different reason or purpose. And that information is its own best protector. If it is itself, if it is what is known, if it is what has been learned, then it undoes its own spells. And the only possible excuse we have for training anybody, for processing anybody is that Dianetics and Scientology will undo Dianetics and Scientology. And that’s the first time known in the history of man that a subject, if it ever curved down, could also go up - that a subject undid itself. And that would be true knowledge.

We must never let what we know get into a state whereby it itself is a tremendous numbers of 'now-I’m-supposed-tos.'

L.Ron Hubbard, c59118c, Final Lecture