Re-evaluating Scientology concepts

Discussion in 'Evaluating and Criticising Scientology' started by Wilbur, Oct 22, 2018.

View Users: View Users
  1. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    Does anyone have any views on Scientology concepts that they used to believe in, but have subsequently observed to be incorrect? Or maybe Scientology concepts that they still believe to be true, having observed them to pan out in life?

    I don't want this thread to degenerate into a "Scientology is all bullshit" or "there are no Clears" type thread, so please save that for a different thread. Also, the intention of this thread is not to say "see, Scientology IS workable!" Rather, I'm just curious about what people jettison, and what they keep, in their models of the world, after they leave Scientology. And how long it takes for what part of Scientology think to drop away. Maybe a few examples will convey what I had in mind, from my own list of things.

    The tone scale: I was quite struck by this idea when I got into Scientology. And I STILL think that there are different emotions, and some of them are definitely 'higher' than others, some definitely 'lower'. Which, I suppose, does amount to a tone scale. But I drew the line at trying to give a numerical value to someone's tone level. Rather, I just had a sort of intuitive idea of what kind of level they were at. Also, even when in Scientology, I questioned how Hubbard could have known the upper and lower tone scales (needing bodies, hiding, etc, and action, games, postulates, serenity of beingness). I suppose now that he was just guessing.

    I have observed that there is a certain type of person that is covertly hostile a lot, another type that is angry a lot, and these all seem to me to be lower emotions. But do they follow the order that Hubbard said in his tone scale? I don't know.

    The idea of earlier-similar: I thought it was a clever idea when I first encountered it, that earlier incidents would 'lock up' later incidents of the same kind, and that going down the chain E/S would free up the later incidents. I now suspect that that is bullshit. Maybe it's true. Maybe not. But it doesn't seem so OBVIOUSLY true to me now as it did. Doesn't seem like a route to freer thinking, at any rate.

    TOTAL CAUSE: Before I got into Scientology, my idea of enlightenment was probably something similar to that of hindus or buddhists. That it was a blissful and aware state, but wasn't necessarily an ACTIVE state. At least, not active in the sense of TOTAL CAUSE. I now think that the idea of TOTAL CAUSE as a state of ultimate enlightenment is a carefully worded tautology. I don't think someone who is totally enlightened can necessarily manipulate the physical universe like a magician, or totally dominate others. They would only be total cause in their own universe, to use a Scientology phraseology. And probably be totally separate from the physical universe, with no effect on it. In which case, it's nothing like the way Scientologists conceptualise enlightenment. I'm not necessarily saying that this state exists, but just talking hypothetically. When I thought of enlightenment as a kid, I never conceptualised it as being along the lines of capacity to dominate/control/cause things in the physical universe.

    MUs causing dope-off/blankness/commission of overts: The MU phenomenon is one piece of Scientology that I have held onto, because I did observe some of the phenomena in myself and others. But I haven't seen a totally convincing explanation for why MUs would cause dope-off. When I was in, I supposed that the MU would key in an implant, or something like that, and hence phenomena related to tiredness. Hubbard himself didn't (as far as I'm aware) give a coherent explanation of WHY those phenomena would occur.

    Withholds cause natter: I used to totally believe this. But I have seen a number of 'nattery' people who are, or appear to be, physically ill. So now, when I see someone being very curmudgeonly, I suspect that they are physically ill. The times in my own life when I have been the most nattery/critical of others have been times when I have been ill.

    Anyway, I just wondered what people have held onto, and what they jettisoned and why. Again, please, no "I jettisoned the whole thing because it is all bullshit". We get that on every thread, so no need to repeat here. I'm thinking here about SPECIFIC aspects of the 'tech' that you concluded, after observation or thought, just didn't seem to work.

    I hope I haven't asked this before - I'm getting a deja vu as I type this!
  2. Bill

    Bill Gold Meritorious Patron

    Not interested in this idea. "What is good in Scientology is not original and what is original in Scientology is not good."
  3. No One

    No One a girl is no one

    Touch assists never worked for me. Contact assists never worked for me. I guess I said I felt 'better' because it was what was expected. Touch assists always kind of creeped me out.

    I like the idea of this thread.

    Here's One.

    Something I've been thinking about is the concept of death and what is after.

    Have lost a few people recently so it's been on my mind.

    I thought I believed in being a spirit and coming back. My partner doesn't believe in anything like that, and is very science oriented, which is fine. It does not bother me, at one time it would have been a deal breaker.

    There was so much comfort in scientology in regard to death being impermanent. That was a HUGE LOSS shaking that 'stable data'. The big pull for me was to not have to truly lose anyone I loved ever again. I don't believe in heaven/god/hell, really.

    Now I really feel totally lost and do not even know what I believe in regard to death and what may come after.

    I don't think there is a big nothing.

    I do I tend to want to toss the baby with the bath water, because scientology. Then again, a lot of other groups and people believe in spirituality and reincarnation as well, just in different ways.

    I thought I had remembered a past life before. I know someone who got to at least OTIII without having had any past life recall prior. Now I think I made it up, so I've EP'd OT8, right? LOL!

    I wish I could find that comfort again, though, in something.

    Can anyone shed light on this? Not likely, right? Just figure it couldn't hurt to ask.
  4. Clay Pigeon

    Clay Pigeon Silver Meritorious Patron


    I'm an auditor and I've used what I learned for vast and far-ranging things...

    Just my dweezling as a sport wizard has been phenomenal.

    To this day the 2003 Patriots season is my personal favorite but with this years version of The Olde Towne Team I've come up with advanced technique with greater resonance and depth.

    Enjoy the Series!

    It should be a good one!!!
  5. programmer_guy

    programmer_guy True Ex-Scientologist


    1. A person could benefit from doing the 1st half of the Comm Course.

    2. A person could benefit from a Touch Assist IF at least some of their physical symptoms are psychosomatic (brain).

    3. A person could feel better from some auditing (talk therapy) BUT this doesn't prove Hubbard's model of the mind.

    4. Extensive earlier-similar auditing could lead to false memory syndrome (mixture of good and bad effects).
    4a. e-meter use can sometimes cause the prefrontal cortex to "makeup stuff" that are notions/feelings coming from other parts of the brain.​
    4b. One type of "Clear cognition" is "I am mocking this stuff up".​

    5. no such thing as Clear or OT (supernatural stuff).
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2018
  6. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Well, Wilbur, a good sensible post presented in a way that really does invite sensible discourse . . .

    There are a lot of answers that can be supplied in response to what you have proposed . . . but here as a first offering is an example of Hubbard's gross error when pinching some tech discovered and developed by another.

    I address your point as raised regarding "MU's" . . .

    This you cite is a classic example of Hubbard's alteration and erroneous presentation of material on a subject.

    In actuality, it is the NON-Comprehension . . . the words for which the person does not have a definition or a clear understanding of, that causes the dope-off. There are mechanics behind why, but I'll not make this too long or contentious by getting into them. But basically, the person is, presumably, intending to understand what is being read but due to the missing definition and non-comprehension, he ends up failing that endeavor.

    MISunderstoods on the other hand are a different thing all together, and often as not the guy does not know he has been using and operating on a wrong definition . . . he thinks he has it right.

    I point this out because Hubbard failed to properly differentiate these two issues, and hence fugged up a very valuable subject.

    If you want to see this played out in a demonstration, go to this video of a workshop Virginia and I did for the tutors at Learning Partners here in NYC (it's a charity that rescues illiterate adults). It is as filmed. Not edited . . . hence the beginning of the thing while I set the camera and then had to get up front to get into it.

    The part relating to this nonsense regarding MU's versus non-comprehension resulting from absent definitions begins at the 16:00 minute mark (the opening statement I make here being: "Next, we are going to terrorize you with an exercise."

  7. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    Thanks Rog. The link didn't show in your post, but the youtube ref is visible when I reply to your message, and I can get to the youtube page from that. I will have a look at it.
  8. Wilbur

    Wilbur Patron Meritorious

    I enjoyed watching your class, Rog (well, it's still playing as I type this, actually). It reminded me of why I gave up playing the tenor horn at school. Although I passed "grade three" in the instrument, no-one was teaching me music theory, and I was experiencing increasing mental resistance from the fact that I was expected to play more and more complex pieces, but didn't really understand why the sharps and flats were where they were, and how scales really worked. I was startled when a clarinet-playing friend asked me to play a 'C', and then responded 'that's not a 'C'! I didn't really realise that the music for my instrument was transposed from C to B flat (and hence the alternative name for the tenor horn - B flat horn).

    The skills I was expected to learn were beginning to so far outstrip my understanding of musical theory that I couldn't keep up, and started to feel like I was only 'pretending' to play the instrument.

    When my horn teacher, who had a higher opinion of my playing ability than I did, enthusiastically suggested I skip Grade 4 and go straight to the Grade 5 test, I stopped playing the horn soon after.