ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

I once thought that. . .

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by HelluvaHoax!, Jul 17, 2013.

  1. SchwimmelPuckel

    SchwimmelPuckel Genuine Meatball

    I once thought that.. Scientology was working towards a society without insanity and crime.. Hmm..

    That's not even funny.. Sorry to sort a' break the mood of the thread..

    Well, I didn't realize that Hubbard's primary principle was fighting fire with fire.

  2. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    I once thought that thinking too much about walls and fires might just restimulate me too much and I'd get the screaming hab-dabs and end up in a mental hospital.
  3. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    Well, I was never in, but I once thought that Chinese women were demure little flowers.

    Then I married one. :omg:

    On a serious note, I once thought that gay people were deliberately defying God.

    I grew up surrounded by Fundamentalists and Evangelicals.

    Despite being infected with that belief, my mother still went to and was friends with a gay hairdresser back int he 70s. I don't think she ever fully bought in to the crap her friends belived in. But I still had a stack of these in my bedroom.

    The other thing that saved me from a young adulthood full of bigotry was that we lived in a small town and she was a schoolteacher who wanted to avoid small town gossip, so we went to a church down the road a piece and across the river. There were three white folks in that church: me and my parents. Black folks have a little bit different take on religion than white folks, and I think living between worlds like that helped innoculate me from the viral vectors who claimed that they had the only hold on the Truth.

    There was one side effect, though. I now live in New England, where people want to show how open minded they are, so the white churches often try to sing gospel hymns. A completely white choir singing gospel makes me twitch. I haven't seen one get it right, yet. :giveup:
  4. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    Thanks for this! I would say that my ambition is more to find out via scientifically valid methods whether it holds up rather than making that judgement based on the non-systematically collected reports of individuals - in order to do this it is imperative for me to keep the possibility of something being able to stand up to scrutiny open while not expressing that I believe in particular parts of it, because that introduces bias. I'm specifically trying to keep that little window of possibility open without saying whats inside of it because no one has, as far as I am aware, done proper tests in this direction. I'm not trying to gain an inch so I can take a yard, I'm trying to make sure an inch doesn't get squashed out with all the rest so that I can then spend years conducting research on that inch to determine if another inch which depends on that inch is worth looking at. I don't hold any particular hope that any bit of scientology will show to be beneficial to anyone, I merely have the hope that it is possible to test some parts of it to make that determination objectively.
  5. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    Kate, this is my two cents as a practicing scientist.

    I take the view that science and religion are, at this point in time, orthogonal in the mathematical sense - they touch nowhere except at the origin (mankind). Most of the postulates of religion are untestable, and I'm willing to let that go.

    I have a vague belief in a higher Power, but the more I see of the world the more I drift from my Christian origins into Materialism (I'm certainly not going to trade one load of superstitious horse shit for another by changing religions). I also wonder sometimes if that Power is totally benevolent.

    Since I believe that all of the "wins" of scientology are a result of 2 factors - having someone else help you pay attention to your problems and placebo effect (look at Clamicide's description of why she was an effective auditor and how those skills pre-dated SCN), it looks as if you or anyone else would be better off with talk therapy and not Scientology. It's certainly cheaper, and except in individual outlying cases, the people at the top of academic psychiatry are not out to defraud and enslave you. They are also, by and large, better educated and less circumstantially crazy than L. Ron Hubbard.

    I fear that, despite your good intentions, you may fall into logical traps such as cherry picking and moving the goal posts. I think you should carefully read Feynman's excellent musings on the scientific method.

    In that spirit, the way I approach the scientific study of Scientology, given my limited time on this planet, is to turn the question around ask why I should use my valuable time and hard earned critical skills (as SOT noted, I spent over 11 years on the path to my terminal degree) looking at this particular set of ideas and people - why do I even have a glimmer of a suspicion that they would have come up with anything worthwhile?

    Looking at Ron's resume, his military record, his public record of dissemination, looking how he defined "research" and the actual amount of time he spent on said reasearch versus the amount of time I've spent partially mastering a set of subjects far narrower in scope, and then looking at Campbell, Heinlein and the other dilettantes he surrounded himself with who got this shit off the ground - why do I think it's worth that much effort testing anything in Scientology? There are so many other areas of life where study is likely to reward you much more richly.

    Sometimes, you gotta look at your life and the time and resources available to you, and then you play the odds. I always remember what my Marketing professor drilled into us: 90% of what is outside the box, is outside because it's crap. Unless you get really good and really efficient at spotting and quickly refuting the crap, a study of Scientology will be an exercise in idiocy and frustration.
  6. HelluvaHoax!

    HelluvaHoax! Platinum Meritorious Sponsor with bells on

    Oh! Maybe you need an auditing "process" to help you with your research. In Scientology, perhaps you know, there is a beginning process called "Op Pro By Dup" (Opening Procedure By Duplication). It is run for vast numbers of hours (sometimes over 100) until the person (pre-clear) has gone out of their body ("exteriorized"). In that process the pre-clear is given repetitive commands to walk between a BOOK and a BOTTLE and pick them up and tell their color and weight. Then put them down.

    Perhaps you can use the same "technology" to find out if there is any validity to L. Ron Hubbard's first claim in DMSMH; the assertion that asking a person questions could bring them to the supernatural state of "Clear", an evolutionary advance beyond Homo Sapiens.

    Here are the process commands:

    1. Look at that Clear.
    2. Walk over to that Clear.
    3. Pick it up?
    4. What is its color?
    5. What is its weight?
    6. What is its memory of what it had for breakfast exactly one year ago?
    7. What is its memory of what Ron Hubbard wrote verbatim about a Clear's memory in DMSMH?

    The process is really effective. It's called Op Pro By Dupes.

    Technical Advice: Beware of false EP (End Phenomena) on this process because some people claim to have "exteriorized" when they have, in fact, only blown (exteriorized from) from Scientology.
  7. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    I'm not so certain of this. I personally believe every religious claim is ultimately testable, but that we currently have no tests for the vast majority of them. I don't propose to know how to conduct these tests, and I think we are probably a couple hundred years away from being able to even work out how to conduct some of them (and maybe much longer for some others), but I do think we are at a point that we can start narrowing certain things down in a systematic way.

    My beliefs about this are much more complicated than most people's I think, perhaps stemming from my rather Gnostic beliefs. I don't believe that if there is a higher power that it is benevolent or malevolent but rather doing what it does because it's working on its own thing. I believe that what you might call the ultimate power is only concerned with continuation of existence and as long as something (anything) is continuing to exist in some form then its happy (so it's probably not at all concerned with humanity, at least not until we have an understand of physics that allows for dustruction of many universes at once or something like that)

    Sure, though I'm not looking to better myself through having 'wins' or to prove that someone else can either. Doing a proper study that shows the wins occur at the same reported rate and have similar reported quality and longevity as talk therapy or placebo is also a good result. Right now we are only making an educated guess about the usefulness about the therapy aspects. But then, the therapy aspects of this stuff are not my primary area of interest.

    Oh absolutely. I'm returning to college in two weeks to work on psychology and religion degrees. I certainly don't trust any education from LRH but that doesn't mean he might not have been accidentally right about something. I'm not saying that he was - only that he might have been and for me it's important to leave that possibility open until it can be evaluated properly.

    I understand and appreciate those fears, they are one reason why I reject the vast majority of previously done research into religious/paranormal/etc matters.

    Because there is, I believe, a large amount of overlap in certain areas of Scientology and many other religions. To some degree testing things in a manner similar to how Scientology describes them has the potential to be easier to test than some other religions, especially when talking about things that overlap with practices in more theistic religions. My interest in research here does not at all revolve around Scientology, however. It includes certain parts of it, but it also includes many things completely outside of it.

    Oh don't get me wrong, I think he lied about every one of those things you mentioned. His 'research' was in no way properly conducted from what I have seen. I can understand that many people do not see value into doing real actually properly done research into religious claims, and many people are aware that it is very daunting and so I am sure many feel its too high of a mountain. Well, I'm not out to conquer the mountain, only to see if there are a couple pebbles lying around at the base. I'm not out to prove or disprove anything, unlike many who are interested in research in this area. I have beliefs, but I do not cling to them and every one of them is changeable - I refer to most of my beliefs as hypotheses rather than beliefs since many people have a notion that beliefs have to be unchangeable (which is something I reject).

    Sure, thats why I say I reject 90% of it and want to test the other 10% - if 90% of it is crap but there is 10% that seems to have value I have a healthy dose of skepticism of that value. My area of interest is not so much on Scientology but on human spiritual/mental/emotional experiences during unusual mental states, such as various sorts of trance-states. Scientology just happens to offer a large number of ways to induce such states and variations on these states in a way that doesn't involve things like traditional magical rituals, but differ from other methods like hypnosis - this is a primary reason why I believe it useful as the basis for certain types of research.
  8. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    I have no interest in proving the state of 'clear' or anything like that - but processes like the one you described _are_ useful for inducing unusual mental states and potentially trances and hallucinations which does make them interesting to me.

    I hypothesize that the state of clear that some people report experiencing is actually sort of an after-effect of certain types of trace-states, but to me 'clear' is mostly just a vague promise by LRH to make money off of people. If I am right about that, then it's not like a permanent state that you enter and has nothing to do with a 'reactive mind' or such, but yeah, things like that really are secondary to what I am interested in.
  9. hpm1999

    hpm1999 Patron with Honors

    I once thought that it was possible to have a "serious" discussion about Elron- his work, his theories the tech, what went wrong , how it could have been right, how DM messed it up...if only...

    Now I realize that having a serious discussion about a crackpot theory by a manic depressive paranoid schizophrenic who had his "breakthrough" insights whilst popping greys and pinks is about as insane actually BEING a crackpot manic depressive schizophrenic who pops amphetamines.

    I used to think the OT levels were & would a source of power and being finally and fully human for mankind. I now realize that the OT levels are nothing more than simply a ten year $ 500,000 tour through the mental chambers of a manic depressive paranoid schizophrenic who had his "breakthrough" insights whilst popping greys and pinks.

    The whole thing is rotten as rotten as elon's teeth and that is saying something.:duh:
  10. Udarnik

    Udarnik Gold Meritorious Patron

    I think all of that can be explained by currently understood neurology combined with the Placebo effect, and that there will be no benefit in drilling deeper. I hate to see a bright young person spend some precious years of their life chasing shadows, but that is now coming dangerously close to telling you how to live your life, and so I'll shut up about the subject.
  11. kate8024

    kate8024 -deleted-

    Sure, I plan to have a health dose of neurology-related classes under my belt as well. I'm 32 and already doing quite well in my normal career so at this point I can afford to go to school for useless stuff and chase ghosts because I always have my day job to fall back on ;-)
  12. Free Being Me

    Free Being Me Crusader

    The nerve of critics speaking out against hubbard and scientology, thankfully you're here to keep them in check. :melodramatic: (end sarcasm)
  13. Gib

    Gib Crusader

    I once thought a critic was an SP.

  14. DoneDeal

    DoneDeal Patron Meritorious

    How is it even possible to derail a thread titled "I once thought that..." It's missing some kinda noun at least. I think the ... invites more words.
    I don't understand the complaints.

    I once thought that lrh saying "To communicate or not to communicate (and I can't remember the rest of the stupid quote and probably don't have it handy) was a good saying. Then years later I had a good conversation with a cool regular (not a scn) guy who said once to me "it's best not to say too much." lol, proof I don't listen to anybody.
  15. Queenmab321

    Queenmab321 Patron Meritorious

    I once thought that evil geniuses only existed in Bond films.
  16. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    I'm new on this thread and don't want to read the entire thread from page 1 so I don't know if this obvious item has been stated yet so here it is: "I once thought that Scientology would get rid of my bank. Well at least I was partially correct, it got rid of my bank account!"

  17. lkwdblds

    lkwdblds Crusader

    I once thought that OT 7's and OT 8's had all the answers. Well, they do, but their answers are wrong.

    I once thought that "ideal orgs" would be full of people and that their growth would be based on live communication between beings. What naive thinking and how wrong I was! The key to an "ideal org" is to be almost empty of people while live communication is replaced with robot like communication delivered by machines. Silly me, how could I have been so short sighted?
  18. La La Lou Lou

    La La Lou Lou Crusader

    I once thought that the only way I could overcome the inval and eval of scientology would be with auditing. Perhaps even a correction list...

    In scientology has there been any evaluation?..............................
    in scientology has there been any invalidation?..................................
    in scientology has there been any evil fucking bastard boss?....................
    in scientology has there been any out tech?.....................................
    in scientology have you missed an opportunity to really do some damage?.............................
    in scientology did you fail to call the police?...................................
    In scientology did you fail to blow when you should have?..............................

    Then I thought, nah, it's just bollocks, I did fail to blow a few times, but I made it in the end.:yes:
  19. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    I once thought that if you went to the psychs for help they would betray you...they would lie to you and deceive you and break up your marriage and pork your spouse and commit statutory rape when appointed as guardians and all that and then try to cover it go to them for help and they commit 2D atrocities as a result and bill you for it. I once thought that there was no 2D activity on TTCs or between students and supervisors and that being upstat meant ethics protection and that Scientology stood for salvaging things. I thought writing this up would make Scientology intervene and stop this.

    Everything I once thought that psychs would do was and has been done by Scientology and Scientologists. I once thought that "something can be done about it" and "the wrong thing to do is nothing" meant that Scientology would do SOMETHING to prevent illegal activity and not just practice Depraved Indifference...but I observed this across multiple orgs and guess what was done each time? Nothing...except after the facts it was covered up so as not to cause a "PR flap".

    I now know for a fact that Scientology is 100% guilty of everything it accuses psychiatry of with the possible exception of drugs, electric shock and surgery. In their place we'll put starvation, isolation and sleep's that?

    Here's a nice thread about sordid stuff with Senior CS WUS with minors no less...nice to think that your case is being handled for the price you paid, huh?
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2013
  20. guanoloco

    guanoloco As-Wased

    I once thought that this clearly demonstrated to people that screaming and hollering were ineffectual and a waste of time...certainly second rate to being at cause and intending things to happen...well below Homo Novis and more along the force/MEST lines of Homo the Effort band and stuff.


    I once thought that certainly people who had the keys to sanity were miles and miles above such conduct.