What is Idenics?

[beyond_horizons]

A datum that is "incomparable" is called an origination or original thought.

What happens in the mind is it starts a new thread or chain.

An "incomparable" origination or original thought is now subject to - depending how bright your associates are to an evaluation.

It can be evaluated as great or stupid. Usually the later as the person has nothing to compare it to.

It is the ability to market an original thought that makes great leaders and very rich people.

Alan

Then there are people who have something to compare a thought originated in a closet, aka 'a so called secret thought', and knows the thought is stupid! Then after about 20 or 30 of them, well the rest is scientological history!

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

BTs and Clusters seen from the viewpoint of those who have had Idenics processing:

"Scenario #1 – What the client had previously believed to be entities were in fact identities. Attached to the major identities were insignificant or "locked" identities that disappeared when the major ones were handled. Since identities are not the individual, they can appear to the person to be separate beings.

On Scientology upper levels, people are educated with the existence, characteristics, and activity of entities. As explained in my previous write-ups concerning additives, the individual can fit their actual case into the explained framework regarding BTs and clusters. Auditing levels such as OT 3 or NOTs, the person thinks they are auditing BTs and clusters when in actuality, they are handling identities and locked identities.

Since, on these Scientology levels the identities are not being properly or fully addressed, they don't always get completely handled. This is why people spend so much time auditing on these levels, keep coming up with more entities to handle, and don't always resolve their unwanted conditions."

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

"Scenario #2 – Two questions have puzzled people who have audited on their NOTs levels. (1) How does a person get into a situation where other beings are attached to them and (2) how is it that they are adversely and unknowingly affected by this attachment? There are explanations available in the NOTs materials, but many people don't feel completely satisfied by these answers. They search for a deeper explanation, and some hope it would be revealed on later OT levels.

In the NOTs training materials, LRH said that it was an interesting fact that the aberration of the BT or cluster is similar to the aberration of the pc. Hubbard had his explanations for this statement, but the important point here is that he noticed a similarity that existed.

The similar aberration in the pc that Hubbard noticed is actually an identity. BTs and clusters having a similar or mutual-type aberration attach themselves to the identity. A pc can blow off BTs and clusters and get relief, but as long as the identity remains, BTs and clusters can later attach to it. This explains what happens in a case like the one mentioned above.

The pc has a condition they want to resolve, they receive NOTs auditing to handle BTs and clusters connected with that condition, feel better, but the condition comes back. The pc then does additional NOTs auditing on the condition and discovers more BTs and clusters attached that need to be handled.

Idenics undercuts NOTs auditing and renders it unnecessary. By handling the identity, anything attached to it leaves. Furthermore, there is nothing still there for additional entities to attach themselves to.

Some clients have expressed a reality that is made up of parts of both of the above scenarios. I leave it up to the reader to find his or her own reality. I cannot provide a definitive answer as to why Idenics processing works as it does in the above mentioned cases. However, what I do know is that it does work.

I can say with confidence that running levels that directly address the subject of entities, BTs, or clusters, is not necessary. What's more, many Idenics clients who had previously been heavily into the running of entities were more difficult to process than people not involved with entities. Clients believing that BTs and clusters were causing all of their problems have had a rougher time in session and have taken longer than clients without those beliefs."

 

[Zinjifar]

"Scenario #2 What's more, many Idenics clients who had previously been heavily into the running of entities were more difficult to process than people not involved with entities. Clients believing that BTs and clusters were causing all of their problems have had a rougher time in session and have taken longer than clients without those beliefs."

Something here makes some sense to me.

From *my* point of view, Scientology is a specific 'technique' intended to trick the target into believing that much of his own 'personality' or 'beingness' is actually 'alien infestation' or influence and use abreactive therapy, operant conditioning (Wins!) and false-memory-implanting (hypnosis) to cause him to *himself* deconstruct himself to a manageable 'chunk' of 'raw meat' which can be '100% trimmed' to fit into the Scientology mold.

Naturally, nobody in his right mind would *sign up* for such a 'treatment', so, Scientology *necessitates* the 'ever dwindling spiral' and doom doom doom and personal 'ruin' so as to justify its rabid and megalomanic *political* designs.

As 'self-help', there are bits of Scientology that might be of some value; as a *movement*, Scientology is the batshit crazy rabid pet mouse who runs around in the basement and just *might* someday bite the kids.

Zinj

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

The thing that beings do best is mock-up. So I guess hypnosis is a suggestible being using his abilities to mock up to the tune of the the hypnotist.

Sometimes for a game, when I watch an exciting movie, I like to make it happen to me and somehow I do mock up an approximation.

Once a friend told me a story of a greek man and 3 ladies. That night while dining out I encountered a greek man and 3 ladies. Boy do I mock-up!

 

[Zinjifar]

The thing that beings do best is mock-up. So I guess hypnosis is a suggestible being using his abilities to mock up to the tune of the the hypnotist.

Sometimes for a game, when I watch an exciting movie, I like to make it happen to me and somehow I do mock up an approximation.

Once a friend told me a story of a greek man and 3 ladies. That night while dining out I encountered a greek man and 3 ladies. Boy do I mock-up!

There *is* magic in the world. In fact, it *is* magic, but, not all magic is not a fraud.

Zinj

 

[Zinjifar]

There *is* magic in the world. In fact, it *is* magic, but, not all magic is not a fraud.

And... Not all Frauds are *not* magic.

Scientology is a bit low on the convincing scale though, since it *demands* to be able to control your sense of 'wonder' before you're allowed to experience it.

I think it's safe to say that practically *anyone* not subjected to Scientology Training is better able to 'evaluate' Scientology than someone who has been.

Most of Scientology Training is *about* controlling the ability to evaluate Scientology.

Zinj

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

And... Not all Frauds are *not* magic.

Scientology is a bit low on the convincing scale though, since it *demands* to be able to control your sense of 'wonder' before you're allowed to experience it.

I think it's safe to say that practically *anyone* not subjected to Scientology Training is better able to 'evaluate' Scientology than someone who has been.

Most of Scientology Training is *about* controlling the ability to evaluate Scientology.

Zinj

That indicates.

 

[Zinjifar]

That indicates.

Our needle is floating

Zinj

 

[Veda]

And... Not all Frauds are *not* magic.

Scientology is a bit low on the convincing scale though, since it *demands* to be able to control your sense of 'wonder' before you're allowed to experience it.

I think it's safe to say that practically *anyone* not subjected to Scientology Training is better able to 'evaluate' Scientology than someone who has been.

Most of Scientology Training is *about* controlling the ability to evaluate Scientology.

Zinj

"Practically *anyone*"... Does this mean that you're allowing for exceptions?

 

[programmer_guy]

I think it's safe to say that practically *anyone* not subjected to Scientology Training is better able to 'evaluate' Scientology than someone who has been.

I disagree.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I think it's safe to say that practically *anyone* not subjected to Scientology Training is better able to 'evaluate' Scientology than someone who has been.

Oh. So someone with no experience of the thing is in a better position to see what it is than someone with experience of it?

I'm sure there's something wrong with the logic of that, but can't quite put my finger on it....

Most of Scientology Training is *about* controlling the ability to evaluate Scientology.

Do you ever feel a need to back up outrageous generalizations like this, Zinj?

Paul

 

[Zinjifar]

Oh. So someone with no experience of the thing is in a better position to see what it is than someone with experience of it?

I'm sure there's something wrong with the logic of that, but can't quite put my finger on it....



Do you ever feel a need to back up outrageous generalizations like this, Zinj?

Paul

Not so much

But, since it's you Paul, I'll flesh it out a bit, despite the fact that, thanks to the multifarious nature of Scientology 'courses' and 'processes' and the claims as to 'what they're for' I doubt that we'll reach any 'agreement'.

From *my* perspective, and, not only mine, but numerous other interested outsiders and, yes, even former practitioners, the subtext and common element of all the disparate elements is 'thought stopping', 'agreement', 'acceptance of authority' and paralysis of evaluation and critical examination. Of Scientology.

Possibly what might take it out of the realm of the 'generalized' would be to examine any *single* element; so, if you'd like to suggest some 'lower bridge' course or practice or training, I'll do what I can to give my take on how it serves the general 'thought stopping' goal.

I've done this numerous times before with things like the TRs and Word Clearing or even 'concepts' like the ARC Triangle and the 'Tone Levels', so, if you choose one of those, I'm at least up to speed, but, I'm pretty sure that the same 'thrust' can be found literally anywhere. Generally speaking

Zinj

 

[Colleen K. Peltomaa]

By the way, that quote came from the Idenics.com website and was written by Mike Goldstein. I pasted it here because there has been a lot of discussion about BTs and Clusters on the OTIII threads.

 

[Zinjifar]

I disagree.

How Dare You!!!

But, since you dare, I could just say that 'That's your training speaking'

Except that, per the 'training' you *couldn't* disagree; you must have a misunderstood word on what I said...

So, off to wordclearing with you!

Zinj

 

[lionheart]

I think your take on training is a very interesting one Zinj.

Are you saying there is no merit in the study tapes datum that a person being trained in Scn (or any subject) does not go through the cycle of applying rotely to applying with judgement?

I can see your point about training being thought-stopping. But once I'd done HSDC, the levels, NEd training and audited them a lot, I did feel that I developed judgement about them, but maybe I was just fooled by LRH.

Certainly a tech trained person studied KSW, Tech Degrades, etc a lot more than public PCs did! They were pretty thought-stopping PLs!

 

[Zinjifar]

I think your take on training is a very interesting one Zinj.

Are you saying there is no merit in the study tapes datum that a person being trained in Scn (or any subject) does not go through the cycle of applying rotely to applying with judgement?

I can see your point about training being thought-stopping. But once I'd done HSDC, the levels, NEd training and audited them a lot, I did feel that I developed judgement about them, but maybe I was just fooled by LRH.

Certainly a tech trained person studied KSW, Tech Degrades, etc a lot more than public PCs did! They were pretty thought-stopping PLs!

Well, if you have some specific tape our course you'd like my 'take' on, feel free to suggest it. Naturally, it'd be best if it's something commonly available as a 'transcript' or some text version we can 'agree' on, but, I do think that every piece of the puzzle will have its own little boobytrap. Some are hypnotic; some are behaviorist; some are just smuggled in fallacious reasoning, and, all are, to some extent, based on *earlier* training on the 'gradient'. Some of the booby-traps span simultaneous processes, activities or practices, but, let's give it a whirl.

Zinj

 

[Zinjifar]

"Practically *anyone*"... Does this mean that you're allowing for exceptions?

Going back a bit to answer this; yes.

The broad majority of people on earth have never heard of Scientology, and, of those who have, it's a minimal number who have any concept of it beyond some deliberately deflective 'PR' material.

Even for those mildly familiar with some of the elements of Scientology, it's not a foregone conclusion that they will recognize the often subtle manipulation.

It can be frustrating hearing otherwise knowledgable 'critics' dismiss things like the 'Scientology Code of Ethics' or 'Creed' or 'Auditor's Code' as mere 'feelgood eyewash', when, in truth, they actually contain quite revalatory 'hooks'.

Zinj

 

[lionheart]

Going back a bit to answer this; yes.

The broad majority of people on earth have never heard of Scientology, and, of those who have, it's a minimal number who have any concept of it beyond some deliberately deflective 'PR' material.

Even for those mildly familiar with some of the elements of Scientology, it's not a foregone conclusion that they will recognize the often subtle manipulation.

It can be frustrating hearing otherwise knowledgable 'critics' dismiss things like the 'Scientology Code of Ethics' or 'Creed' or 'Auditor's Code' as mere 'feelgood eyewash', when, in truth, they actually contain quite revalatory 'hooks'.

Zinj

Ok, Zinj, hit me with the Tone Scale. That's one of the Scn theories I still think has some merit - no the extremist analysis in Science of Survival which was partly LRH's rant on ex-wives in my opinion, but how about the simple chart of emotions?

Love to read how you analyse that at thought-stopping.

 

[Zinjifar]

Moving

Ok, Zinj, hit me with the Tone Scale. That's one of the Scn theories I still think has some merit - no the extremist analysis in Science of Survival which was partly LRH's rant on ex-wives in my opinion, but how about the simple chart of emotions?

Love to read how you analyse that at thought-stopping.

OK, let's move this off topic (OT) discussion off of Mike's thread...

I'll start one called 'Tech Tripwire'

Zinj