A few days ago I posted about the talk I was about to do on Scientology in Trondheim.
The talk was yesterday, and here’s a short summary.
I didn’t know much about the context, and I decided to not prepare my talk other than being generally inspired by the comments to the previous blog post.
I was pleasantly surprised. With the student society, their 100 year old building, the main event hall build like a circus, the atmosphere, the people. They wanted a different take on Scientology – a more open and un-slanted approach than what is usually presented in the media. The girl that first suggested that I should come to the event, Astrid Trondal, is an interesting person -very direct and no fuss. The rest of the directors of the student society – very pleasant, open and focused on creating quality events.
And then I got to meet professor Asbjørn Dyrendal. Asbjørn is very knowledgeable in areas of new religious movements and conspiracy cultures. He gave me interesting relations between Scientology and other movements with various similarities.
Asbjørn Dyrendal
As the event was in the main hall of the student’s society building, the formality was strict. Asbjørn started with a 20 minute introduction to Scientology. It was pretty spot-on and laid the foundation for my talk, also 20 minutes. I dispensed with some of the formalities by requesting that instead of talking from behind the formal stand, I could use the floor and wave my hands an walk/jump around as I wish. There was probably more than 150 students attending, and from the response it seems they enjoyed the talk 🙂
The main hall before the attendants filled the seats.
I basically told my story into, in and out of Scientology. My main message was that even though I had seen much craziness over the years, my positive gains from Scientology out-weighed it by a large factor… that I had spent lots of money on Scientology, and that I would spend it all again, or even the double amount to get the same gains.
After a cool artist break (improvisation theater), it was time for the audience to ask questions to Asbjørn and myself.
Very intelligent questions, different angles, covering many areas of Scientology – from my shift in viewpoint over the years, what is good and what is bad about Scientology and the Church, Scientology and bloated PR, the apparent expansion but factual contraction, how Scientology is viewed in different countries and the various levels of Scientology. When one of the attendees asked if the South Park episode on Xenu reflected what parishioners get to learn on OT 3, I answered that yes, it’s pretty accurate. I didn’t hold back or soften anything or beat around the bush. It was straight talk on Scientology. I returned their intellectual honesty with the same.
I was asked if people would get the same gains from other practices. I answered that I don’t know as I haven’t done other practices covering the same types of gains. I also made a point that I cannot vouch for any scientific accuracy of Scientology. I can only vouch for what Scientology has done for me. I didn’t defend Scientology, nor did I attack it. But I did tell them that they should avoid the church. If they wanted to look into Scientology themselves, they should look outside the Church of Scientology.
It was fun, good laughs, inspiring. A great audience. We ended the evening off in the nice student bar with interesting discussions about Scientology, new religious movements, copyrights, patents and free information.
Update: Pic from the event:
Geir Isene - uncut 
Geir,
Your summary was bit vague, or ambiguous.
Since you asked us for suggestions on what to say, I think you should give a bit more.
You said you told them to look outside the COS. To a wog that does not mean much. If I put myself in their position.
I feel I would be left with a mystery.
Did you mention the word ‘freezone”?
Did you say that there are a lot of fz orgs around the world delivering scn services at a fraction of the cost?
Did you tell them what to look for on the net?
Do you have business cards that you hand out, with your contact info as a fz scn connection?
Long story short:
I suffered so much before I got in to scn. I searched tooth and nail for over 25 yrs for help. I was so angry that I did not learn about scn earlier. I was angry that no one told me about it.
I serendipituously learned about Dianetics from a TV commercial on the day I was about to commit suicide in 97.
First time I heard the commercial too.
If there were that many students there that wanted to know about scn, I get the idea that they are looking for something, or need help, or something along that line.
I am a bit surprised at the number of students that showed up.
That says something. Probably something different to each one.
Did you cover enough ground, give out enough info to cover all bases or all points of interest or what ever, to get to those who may need it the most and are least able?
Dio
Asbjørn told the audience about the FreeZone and that there are many practicing Scientology outside the church. I wasn’t selling any Scientology – only giving my story and what it had done for me.
also… I told them that I use whatever works in life – be it Scientology, Yoga, a hammer, a piece of software or knowledge on whatever. I posted before that I am Not a Scientologist – so I am not limited by it or anything else.
Dio, take heart. I don’t think Geir could have done a better job of “selling” Scientology than by not selling it. He probably would have looked like he was trying to convert them to his religion and you know how people usually respond to that – they consider it to be a matter of “beliefs” 😉 and that wouldn’t have been at all as effective, not even close. And don’t forget – actions speak louder than words. Can’t you just picture him bouncing around the stage and demonstrating what Scientology can do for a person (or at least that it can’t hurt too much, LOL).
Marildi,
You do have a bit of a point there ( but not that much) , on not selling his “religion”.
Actually two points: “selling” and “religion”.
In re to selling, the students were there for something. They asked Geir, Geir did not knock on their door.
Why did they ask him to come and talk about scn?
They evidently wanted to know something about scn, in order to ask him to come and speak about his experience with scn, and there were a fair lot of students there.
And each student had their own reasons to be there.
Scientology is publicly known as a religion.
So there would not be much of a problem “selling his religion” there, especially if it was done softly and tactfully. I am sure that Geir could “sell” without making it distasteful.
On another aspect ( this (scn) is such a complex and convoluted subject) :
In re to “religion”, well that is a problem word. (It is a can or worms.)
Religion is a charged word in many cases.
( But the students were there to listen to something about “religion”, so I can’t imagine there being much of problem “selling” “religion”, if done the right way, and as I said before there is a right way and wrong way to do everything. I expect they wanted to be sold. People are used to being sold as everything is “sold” today. )
On another aspect:
Religion also means different things to people.
Then again there is a right way and a wrong way to do religion.
And at the same time……..
scn could be said to NOT BE a religion and some would say or argue that it is a religion.
So religion is a bad and problematic word.
At the same time scientology covers a lot of ground, it overlaps into psychology, psychiatry, religion and more.
So people often slip under the most convenient area for argument and protection, and often depending on which way the wind is blowing.
That makes it a perpetual source of perpetual arguments.
(And like I said before the truth is not determined by argument or by who wins an argument. The truth is the truth and the truth is determined by how well a datum works. The most workable datum is the truth of the problem at hand. )
(At the same time in many cases or and many areas, scn is a cognitive set up, a mind construction, or mind constructions, ( fabrications) that does contain well hidden lies or false and limiting data, which is and most likely will be defended to death.
Just watch Tom Cruise and the others, how they argue to protect the sins of COS management. Their words are full of lies, some truth mixed with a lot of lies and denials and they will argue to their death, if need be. Similar issues arise in the fz too. )
Next, and also quite important:
To understand how scn got to be called a religion we have to go back to the 50s and get into Hubbard’s mind as much as possible, to why he called it a religion.
At the same time, there are different stories floating around.
( Scn has got to be such an anomaly and there are so many facets and incidents and it is such a huge subject, with many tentacles and aberrations, and no one knows all the stories, or happenings, so it is practically impossible for one person to understand all what went on.
( Hubbard sure did not have a boring life, I doubt even for a moment.)
Quite a few yrs ago I read a story somewhere that Hubbard at first or at one point in time, had no intention of making a religion out of it, and was even against it.
From what I recollect, on this story, Hubbard was in Phoenix doing the Phoenix lectures, when word came that someone in California started up a Scientology religion group, or something to that effect.
This made Hubbard boil over, so Hubbard quickly scrambled ( to put out that fire) to get control of that idea, and ( longer story short ) registered Scientology as religion.
I forget the details of what I read.
Then at the same time there were probably more than one beneficial reason to call Scn a religion.
In those days scn was basically a therapy, psychological therapy.
Hubbard was threading on the status quo of psychology and psychiatry, and they were not happy about that, as most people now know.
Then there was the money and tax problem.
So being that a “religion” is a good sanctuary or safe haven, ( a cover) to get protection from a lot of things like that, the line of least resistance was to run for shelter under the cover umbrella of a “religion”.
( I get the idea that Hubbard did a very quick assessment of all what was going on at the time and decided that getting scn registered as a religion was the lessor of all the evils. )
But as most people know, that was and still is a title or label that is hard to make stick and continuously being challenged in the courts in several countries.
Also: Being that scntology is such a powerful psychological tool, it makes the person who knows it and knows how to use it , a formidable foe to deal with and can manipulate and I am certain that Hubbard did psychologically manipulate the law makers and law enforcers and judges to bend to his (Hubbard’s) will.
Everyone was pretty much his slave in his sphere of influence.
Now to summize, I don’t see any problem in Geir selling his religion if he did it right, because the students were there to be sold, whether the say so or agree or not.
Dio
Dio, the point you have missed is that Scientology is no longer Geir’s religion. And his viewpoint about it (or anything) is to convey the simple truth as well as possible and let others decide what they wish. IMO, that is all Scientology needs. 😉
Well; he didn’t sell it 🙂
Applause! I don’t know how you could have done a better job. Also, your description of the students and others was uplifting. 🙂
Thanks Geir for the info.
I like what you said; “basically told my story into, in and out of Scientology. My main message was that even though I had seen much craziness over the years, my positive gains from Scientology out-weighed it by a large factor…
that
“I had spent lots of money on Scientology, and that I would spend it all again or even double amount to get the same gains.”
I too feel the same way I have not wasted my time, my life or money. Nothing could keep me back… nothing.
Ahh… Well Done for doing this, Geir!
I wish I could have been there despite the language barrier.
I would love to do something like this myself – candid, off-the-cuff, and simply putting the subject out there in a straight forward, truthful manner.
Questions & answers are always great rather than the usual canned presentation the COS puts out. It allows for reasonable heads to discuss & discover.
Well Done!
Geir, you say : ” It was fun, good laughs, inspiring. A great audience. We ended the evening off in the nice student bar with interesting discussions about Scientology, new religious movements, copyrights, patents and free information.” To me it looks like you received a lot of respect and admiration for your honesty on the topic at hand. Even if eventually the CoS don´t make it and have success, there still will remain the future option of new religious movements based on basic workable scientology but diferent organizational guidelines. About patents check the data about the new e-meter:
The Theta Meter Nano, Smallest E-Meter in the World ,http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=7634
About copyrights please check those found at: FREE Independent Scientology Training Checksheets Released!,http://freezone-tech.info/
About free information lets see what the top freezone auditors can create. I see here a best game with more future than that of follow a death CoS.
Interesting….
Interesting, indeed…
Excellent. I like it.
I would like to have been there.
Me too.
Just reading your post blew some charge for me about all the times when I had to try to make things look acceptable to outsiders. I am sure that your honesty did way more to encourage finding out than all the PR in the world. I think most people can feel that. Well well done.
I have been around Geir on numerous occasions when we speaks about Scientology. I will say when he speaks about Scientology he is very direct, honest, and unapologetic about his views. It is refreshing and it has blown charge for me listening to him speak so frankly.
I’m trying to find a way to productively express my views on this, to this particular audience. This approach will not work on some of you, but for others who are less fixed in their viewpoints, I think it may.
If an eminent psychiatrist, who had studied Scientology, had been asked to speak at this conference – what would he have to say about Scientology to the young people assembled there?
Would he be against it, for it, or neutral on it?
Would he have criticisms of it? If so, what would be his exact criticisms of it?
Can you duplicate what his criticisms would be without making those criticisms seem absurd or ridiculous? Can you just duplicate and understand them?
Who would like to take this challenge?
Anyone?
If he were a sensible, truth-loving guy who had intellectual honesty and no axe to grind, a psychiatrist would probably first tell what Scn is at various levels, including the OT III stuff. He would say what is good and what is bad and include in the good the fact that psychology and psychiatry have adopted some of Scn’s tech (such as “traumatic incident reduction”). In the bad he would include how it gradually became more and more cult-like in its operations, and if he were well informed he would also describe how the tech itself got altered.
I believe all of the above was covered by Geir, except maybe for the cult part, which he didn’t mention directly in his blog post, although it was implied, and the other speaker may have already done so.
Marildi; we both covered the cult-part.
I assumed so – you probably know more about it than a scholar of religion would and could give your own personal accounts, even more valuable,
A scholar of religion would know more about other religions, and their differences and similarities than anyone who has merely studied Scientology and few other religions.
The value of a religious scholar is that he can place scientology in its proper context among other religious and spiritual paths, and can compare and contrast its beliefs and practices in a way that can give a person a wider and more grounded understanding of Scientology.
Knowing only Scientology, without a grounding in its proper context, leads to malformed and even wrong ideas about it, such as how Scientology is compatible with Christianity, Islamic and even Buddhist teachings. Sure Scientologists believe this, but in too many cases they also are seeing Scientology and Christianity and Islam and Buddhism too much from Hubbard’s teachings – most of which are wrong on these other subjects and Scientology’s relation to them.
If there was ever a guy who could be said to be guilty of “over-selling” Scientology, it was L Ron Hubbard.
I’m not saying that Geir’s viewpoint has no value. I am saying that a religious scholar’s viewpoint has a lot of value to people – much more than you seem to be giving it here, Marildi.
I was referring to the specifics of the cult aspects of Scn and the fact that Geir would have been a direct witness of some of that, which would have great value as such. I’m not at all discounting the value of a religious scholar in being able to make authoritative comparisons with other religions, on various levels, which Geir might not have the background for.
All right.
Just checking.
Alanzo, it may be true that a religious scholar is in a better position to COMPARE various religious, and in fact, that is the effort of the department of religious studies in most colleges, but you are not a religious scholar and your assertion that Scientology is or is not compatible with various other religions is highly questionable. The fact is that Scientology cannot be compatible with certain sects of Islam, which tolerate no deviance from that faith system and cannot be compatible with many Christian sects with similar demands of fidelity just to name a couple of faith based religious that require 100% devotion to a particular creed. In many religions, no other belief systems of any kind are tolerated among the faithful. As far as Buddhism goes, you have barely scratched the surface of Buddhism, and seem to refuse the 8-fold path and its edicts in the area of right speech at least.
Factually, there are many similarities between Christianity and Buddhism, but they are NOT THE SAME. Nor are they compatible at least from the viewpoint of particular sects of either one. And there are many SIMILARITIES between Christianity and Scientology and Buddhism and Scientology. SIMILARITIES. Not the SAME. i.e. IDENTICAL. None of them are identical. That is why they DIFFERENT religions.
What they all have in common is best expressed by renowned religious scholar, Irving Hexham, whose definition of religion is featured in The Concise Dictionary of Religion (Downers Grove, InterVarsity Press, 1993:186-187):
“Hundreds of different definitions of religion exist each reflecting either a scholarly or a dogmatic bias depending in the last resort on the presuppositions of the person making the definition. Religion clearly contains intellectual, ritual, social and ethical elements, bound together by an explicit or implicit belief in the reality of an unseen world, whether this belief be expressed in super naturalistic or idealistic terms.”
Now, add to this definition, the full scope of religious studies, which encompasses a range of factors, shown below:
“Source of Authority: Life Experience vs. Heritage/Tradition
Temporal Orientation: Non-Ordinary (Cyclic/Timeless) vs. Ordinary (Linear) Time
Inner/Outer Focus: Knowledge/Understanding vs. Action/Conduct”
Please review the diagram: http://www.darc.org/connelly/religion1.html
To round this out, there are many definitions of religion on this page from various religious scholars:
http://people.ucalgary.ca/~nurelweb/concise/def.html
As far as I am concerned, your opinion of whether Scientology is compatible or comparable to any other religions is largely based on your preference for biased information on both Scientology and religions in general, biased information that supports your adversarial stance against Scientology in general. i.e. you cherry pick. I know that you do, because I got the link with the various definitions of religion above from the scnforum.org — it was posted there. Either you did not read the material or you cherry picked or you do not consider the work of religious scholars to be of any value either.
The fact is that Scientology could be compatible with any other religion were it not for certain and specific policies of the CHURCH of Scientology that require an individual to practice ONLY Scientology while undergoing training or processing at more advanced levels and the CHURCH of Scientology’s insistence that one BECOME a Scientologist and ONLY a Scientologist, contrary to statements to the effect that Scientology is non-denominational.
Maria,
Interesting, this paragraph you mention: ” The fact is that Scientology could be compatible with any other religion were it not for certain and specific policies of the CHURCH of Scientology that require an individual to practice ONLY Scientology while undergoing training or processing at more advanced levels and the CHURCH of Scientology’s insistence that one BECOME a Scientologist and ONLY a Scientologist, contrary to statements to the effect that Scientology is non-denominational. ”
When I first got in, there were many of my friends I was on course with who were members of other faiths: Judaism, B’hai, IAm, Buddhists, etc.
We were NOT made to switch or adhere to a Scientology only religion. We were free to practice whatever, and it was even promoted that Scientology would ‘enhance’ one’s own religion.
Times have changed …
Oh. I see that I didn’t post the image URL in my post above — here it is:
Dennis says: “When I first got in, there were many of my friends I was on course with who were members of other faiths: Judaism, B’hai, IAm, Buddhists, etc.
We were NOT made to switch or adhere to a Scientology only religion. We were free to practice whatever, and it was even promoted that Scientology would ‘enhance’ one’s own religion.”
Yes Dennis, that’s how it was for me too. Circa mid 1970s. By the 1990s that was no longer the way it was in the Church of Scientology. It became “our way” or the highway.
Would he mention that the therapy part of Scientology, with concepts like the reactive mind, the somatic mind, and the analytical mind, have no basis in science at all, and are more of an ideology than any kind of established, tested, and workable foundation for therapy?
Would he mention Scientology’s danger for people who have serious mental illness, especially in the way Sciejntologists believe, and teach, without any tested evidence at all, that they are the most effective mental technology on Earth, and can effectively treat any mental illness?
Would he go into case histories, such as Lisa McPherson, Noah Lottick and Jeremy Perkins, where Scientologists actually blocked psychiatric treatment for individuals who were seriously mentally ill, and much death and tragedy resulted?
Positioning Scientology as a religious destination to spiritual seekers I would think would be fine for this psychiatrist, but advertising Scientology as having the only workable and effective mental technology on Earth would be a major criticism of his – from a public health and safety perspective.
I would think.
Wouldn’t you, Marildi?
Al, just a couple days ago you tried to say that the tone scale has no basis is science and I posted a link indicating that science has indeed proved its validity – decades after LRH wrote about it, incidentally. (You didn’t bother to even acknowledge that post, btw.) As for the therapy part of Scn and its descriptions of the mind, I would venture to guess that there in fact is scientific evidence of that too – maybe not expressed in the same metaphors as LRH did, but that would take a non-literal mind to grasp. 😉
On your point about the danger for people with serious mental illness, if our level-headed psychiatrist were, as I said, well informed he would note that the tech explicitly prohibits accepting those pcs. And he probably would go into the case histories you mentioned and point out that those were instances where the tech was violated – and also point out that those were examples of how Scn turned into a radical cult which is at great variance with the original philosophy.
And yes, he could rightfully point out the questionable notion that Scn is the only workable technology, although I doubt he would try to defend another one as more workable.
Marildi wrote:
Al, just a couple days ago you tried to say that the tone scale has no basis is science and I posted a link indicating that science has indeed proved its validity – decades after LRH wrote about it, incidentally. (You didn’t bother to even acknowledge that post, btw.)
Wow, that’s very exciting that “science has indeed proved” the validity of LRH’s Emotional Tone Scale! I didn’t see that.
Could you repost that link for me?
As for the therapy part of Scn and its descriptions of the mind, I would venture to guess that there in fact is scientific evidence of that too – maybe not expressed in the same metaphors as LRH did, but that would take a non-literal mind to grasp.
An ad hom with a smiley face is still an ad hom. :>
On your point about the danger for people with serious mental illness, if our level-headed psychiatrist were, as I said, well informed he would note that the tech explicitly prohibits accepting those pcs. And he probably would go into the case histories you mentioned and point out that those were instances where the tech was violated – and also point out that those were examples of how Scn turned into a radical cult which is at great variance with the original philosophy.
Do you know about the cases of Lisa McPherson, Jeremy Perkins and Noah Lottick?
Tell me: if Scientology does it, didn’t Scientology do it?
I realize that there is this “escape hatch” for all Scientologists when Scientology does not work – it was not applied correctly!
But didn’t LRH teach that Scn is the most effective mental technology on the planet, far superior to anything psychiatry has? And didn’t he teach that psychiatrists are simply “outright murderers”? And since Lisa McPherson had no psych history, why would you say that the illegal pcs PL applied to her?
Wasn’t her case just a matter of Scientologists being completely inept and incompetent and unable to see serious mental illness when it is right there in front of them?
And the same for Jeremy Perkins and Noah Lottick?
And yes, he could rightfully point out the questionable notion that Scn is the only workable technology, although I doubt he would try to defend another one as more workable.
Why wouldn’t he?
Don’t you think psychiatry has better results at treating serious mental illness than Scientology?
What is the basis for your view?
Ah – Al is preaching for the lurkers 😉
Al is raising the serious public health issue that Scientology presents to people with its sales pitch. It is an issue which I don’t think anyone mentioned to these kids at your conference.
Or was this danger discussed and I just didn’t see mention of it?
I am beginning to question your hearing 😉
So you did make the distinction that for spiritual seekers, Scientology is has its pluspoints and its outpoints, but if you feel you have mental illness issues that you should stay well away from it?
I repeat; I can only vouch for my own experience in Scientology. I cannot vouch for any scientific claims, any claims of it being generally positive or generally negative for others or any group of others’ers. I cannot claim to know that it can be beneficial for another or harmful for another. I know what it has done for me – good and bad – and I stick to that… as opposed to others who may claim to know how it will affect other people, especially based on heresy, bloated or deflated PR.
I like your approach because it warns a person to retain their critical thinking skills while they come in contact with Scientology. This is a very important point to make. Well done on making it.
But I really am pointing out a very real and very specific public health danger that Scientology presents. I am sorry that I did not think of it in your previous post when you asked for issues to consider discussing. It was only after I read your write up of what was discussed that this occurred to me.
I couldn’t have raised that point at the event any more than I could claim that it will do someone the same good as it did me. Sorry.
Well, the point is that Scientology has a very bad track record of treating serious mental illness.
That point can be made very safely without worrying that you are “overselling” anything.
Your writing, what is, the very proof of that ..….your unhappiness rumbles- reverberates right across the universe..
You don’t know that for sure. You know about cases. You don’t have the intimated details of all the cases, nor do you have access to sound statistics regarding mentally ill people having been treated in Scientology. It’s anecdotal at best. And you know that.
So, I refrain from pointing to anecdotal cases or heresy or Al.
Pointing to “heresy” is the same as pointing to Al! (:>)
Over the last few years, I’ve been auditing a lot of courses in psychology on the internet. Present day criticisms of psycho-analysis, for instance, are based upon real world scientific research in neuroscience, which has exploded over the last 20 to 25 years, utilizing discoveries of the functions of the brain and other neurological anatomy that simply were not available to Freud or to Hubbard.
Modern day critiques of psychoanalysis from this perspective are completely devastating. Freud, and by extension, Hubbard, have been proven totally wrong in many different ways.
For anyone to still be banging the drum for Scientology as a way to treat serious mental illness means that they are simply in the dark ages, relative to where actual science has taken us today.
Here is the story of how The Psychiatrist Cured the Scientologist
And here is Dr. Stephen Wiseman, a “psych” who is a very detailed critic of Scientology and its dangers for people who are told by them that they can treat serious mental illness.
Really.
If a Scientologist really cares about treating serious illnesses of the mind and helping people mentally, come up to present time.
Scientology should not be recommended or even hinted as a way to handle mental illness. It is too dangerous.
Al, there may be a lot of good things going on in the world of mental health and you may be well informed about it. The fact remains that no scientific study has compared Scn successes and failures with those of other practices and there are no statistics on this. I think that’s Geir’s point. (Btw, a lot of people mix up the spellings of “hearsay” and “heresy” and I’m not sure which Geir intended when he wrote “heresy”.
Al, why do you insist on repeating the horrors of the Cult of Scientology? No one here is denying all that! You seem to refuse to accept that there is more than one definition of Scientology – there is the written material and there is the MIS-practice.
As for LRH’s remarks about psychiatry, the field has changed a lot since his time – specifically, LRH referred to electro shock and the like, things most psychiatrists no longer have anything to do with.
I don’t know the answer to whether psychiatry has better results at treating serious mental illness than Scientology, and I doubt that you have enough data either. You seem to know exclusively about the cases that clearly were not handled per HCOB. Here’s a reference:
“The ‘insane’ pc is given absolute rest, a secure environment and any needful medical treatment (but never shock or surgery of the brain or nerves, of course, since that’s only depersonalization treatment)…
“To undertake to audit an ‘insane’ pc to sanity without complete attention to the above paragraphs is adventurous in our experience. But with these things given attention, the ‘insane’ pc often responds amazingly.” (HCO B 28 Jun 1969RA. Rev 26 JUL 1978, Re-Rev 21 Sept 1978)
Also, when I said that I doubted the psychiatrist would try to defend another tech as more workable, I wasn’t referring to a tech for the insane (like psychiatry is) – that isn’t what Scn tech is specifically for. And psychiatry doesn’t have a tech comparable to Scn – so why would a psychiatrist even get into the subject of a more workable tech than that of Scn? That would be out of his field of expertise if he did.
Here’s the post about tone levels that I was referring to, posted on the previous thread, “Talk on Scientology”:
Al, the following statement is just what LRH said about emotions 60 years ago. It’s copied from the website pasted below it, which also has some neat Kirlian photographs you should check out. Not just trying to make you wrong, really, I wanted to share this stuff with you.
“Emotions have unique vibrations just like colors and physical objects do. These emotional vibrations also go from higher/faster to lower/slower. When you are laughing and having fun, your body’s vibrations are lighter (higher and faster). When you are tired and sick your vibrations are heavier (slower and lower). You know how when you are in love, you feel “energized”, “high”, like you’re “walking on a cloud?” That’s because your emotions are literally adding voltage and power, lightening your body. And when you’re negative and depressed, you feel sluggish, “feeling low,” “heavy”. “I’m down today.” Your emotional vibrations are giving your body a slower, lower vibration. This is not speaking metaphorically. This is scientifically measurable. (Molecules of Emotion by Dr. Candace Pert and HMI http://www.heartmath.org )”
http://www.themagicofquantum.com/review.php
Thanks for the links, Marildi.
You know, Al, sometimes it’s a real pleasure doing business with ya. 🙂
We are parts of the society, and we are not in harmony with each other.
http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/khtk-8a-the-god-inconsistency/#comment-2142
The fact that Scientology emphasizes freedom, while it doesn’t focus on harmony among thetans is the basic inconsistency that I see.
My comment is inspired by Elizabeth’s remark.
.
Vinay, in my opinion, this lack of focus on harmony is a symptom of abandon in the consciousness advance originally postulated in the grade chart ( may be coincident with the abandon of the original OT levels ? ). Here I see pertinent a good definition for this key word: Consciousness is
awareness of
connection to the whole
def. from Phyllis Kirk, the magic of quantum.org, chapter # 6.
That definition of Consciousness struck me too! “awareness of connection to the whole”. The author gave good examples too:
“For example, healthy cells are conscious because they communicate with the whole body and know their function within that whole. Cancer cells aren’t conscious because they don’t know their connection to the whole. They have walled themselves off into a false community, the proliferation of which kills the host. A person who litters is unconscious because they are fowling their own nest. They don’t understand their connection to the whole community. And a person who has been knocked unconscious with a blow to the head is unaware of their connection to their body, their physical surroundings, etc.”
I’m curious, Rafael, did you go to this site when I posted the link or did you find it apart from that and if so how did that come about? (I found it after googling something but I forget what.)
marildi, I went to this site when you posted the link, I owe you an ack due to your worthwhile contribution.About the examples on the definition of Consciousness I find them pretty good and are some I would agree completly. Don´t know how you see the info in this site but in my view, this material and some of the cognitive disonance and reduction could be used to align the technical, ethical and administrative aspects of scientology ( in the free zone of course ).
Okay, thanks, Rafael. I was curious if people in our “circle” had already discovered the site too. But it’s probably not for real physics buffs, as she puts physics in simple, everyday terms for the total novice.
Yes, I agree that different areas of Scientology could be aligned with the definition of “Consciousness”. But you know me ;), I wouldn’t doubt that an alignment would be found to already exist for the most part in the various areas of Scn, which have simply been misinterpreted and misapplied (not to say ALL). However, this author could contribute more specifics on the physics aspects to thought and emotion. Here’s a small part of the chapter summary:
A. Consciousness is awareness of connection to the whole
B. Unified Field Theory – Nassim Haramein:
i. Consciousness is the force that unifies gravity and ELM
ii. There is no weak nuclear force nor strong nuclear force
http://www.themagicofquantum.com/chapter05.php
marildi, you quote from the web site: ” Consciousness is the force that unifies gravity and ELM “, Here I guess that the so called God particle ( the Higgs boson ) is the basic Consciousness unit, giving mass and form to the cosmos. I hope that eventually the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland can prove their existence. About scientology been misinterpreted and misapplied, well, I don´t want to fight any more on this with you. As you may know, it is my opinion that there are certain policy letters by LRH blocking the proper workability in the interpretation and aplication of scientology and that my chosen route to handle this situation is from an evolution coming thru the free zone scientology persons and groups.
Right, several of us have been saying pretty much that in different ways (about Consciousness) since the “Theory of Everything” thread. But when this author, Phyllis Kirk, straight out says that particles themselves are conscious – whoa, that took me aback.
You know, that fight we were having was strictly academic anyway. It doesn’t matter whether LRH policy was misinterpreted or was unworkable in the first place – whichever the case, it will need to be straightened out as to how to correctly apply it or revise it or toss it. And I’m glad you aren’t still talking about what the CoS is or isn’t doing – that doesn’t matter either (in this context). The future of Scn doesn’t depend on them
marildi, there is a physics theory stating that the cosmos is just like an hologram, a projection from an apparent 2 dimentional inner plane, of a cosmic bubble which is in fact, from the outside a 4 dimentional bubble. This projection is done over the Higgs field and so the universes within are formed. I like this concept because in this way you can think about two universes colliding and creating a big bang like effect, which is in fact just an illusion created from outside the cosmos. The Consciousness of these particles, thus, would be just the inner illusion coming from the creative reality on the outside as a kind of fractal. About the future of Scn., I think it depends on the very nature of human life itself who will react accordingly to the fruits of any group using some part of it ( CoS, indies, freezoners, non scientologists ). It seems that these scientology related groups will last a long time cohabitating together before a ban or any major action could be seen ( if any ).
Rafael, I like your prognosis for Scientology.
Here’s a physicist whose theory is not unlike the holograph theory, in a way. He says the physical universe is a simulated, digital reality and that the “computer” is Consciousness. It makes so much sense to me. Let me know what you think.
marildi, this interview with Mr. Tom Cambell is interesting because he says there is a creator of this computer but refuses to speculate more on it. He touches as well the double slit experiment and says that the wave collapses to follow ( correct ) the predetermined rules for the virtual reality. His concept of the cosmos is very much positioned with computing, processes, virtual reality and accesing the larger ” consciousness” system ( like when hacking the universes´s computer). I can understand why his virtual reality theory clasifies him as a digital physicist.
Ha ha, Rafael, good way to describe paranormal events – hacking the universe computer. And this guy should know – he experimented personally with the paranormal for 35 years, applying his training as a scientist all the while.
Like you, I also appreciate his refusal to speculate. His model has only two assumptions, both almost self-evident – Consciousness and evolution – while string theory, for example, has well over a dozen assumptions, from what he described. Thanks for sharing this interest with me. 🙂
marildi, it seems that when a person reaches Consciousness on a certain matter then the para-normal comes to be just normal and so, science, instead of faith. May be the evolution of such Consciousness leads to that kind of revelations 😉 . About the string theory (along with the dark mater and energy theory and the multiverse theory ) these are the most recent and popular theories but their basic assumptions will be modified as lab testing evolves on these areas but by now are almost just faith in the same order of magnitud as that of a creator God.
Rafael, agreed on every point you made. Did you know that there have been experiments that showed the double-slit phenomenon is not simply a result of the act of observation or even of the measurement – although both of those are necessarily involved. It’s actually the fact of the information about the results now being available data in the “computer” (otherwise known as the physical universe). http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5333
I was reading Campbell’s forum last night where he posts a comment about the experiments (going back to the earliest years of quantum physics) which prove that conclusion, but which have been suppressed in the field of physics as they are not explainable (“Shut up and calculate.”). Science is not so open-minded, it seems. And in Campbell’s post is a link for a recent experiment of the same kind. Here’s part of the post:
“As it turns out my history of the double slit experiment was right on target — no changes are necessary — if anything, I could strengthen my claims a bit. SS’s links show that indeed the experiment in question in my first post [is it interaction with the apparatus (environment) or the creation of information about the particle that destroys the diffraction pattern created by a nonphysical virtual particle (probability distribution) passing through two slits at once] has already been done many times by the same top physicists who invented quantum mechanics (QM). And the clear result is that the existence of a physical particle depends entirely information brought into PMR [physical matter reality] and has nothing to do with any interaction with the environment. Here is a recently done experiment that explicitly proves this assertion: http://grad.physics.sunysb.edu/~amarch/ Because it removes any interaction with the environment – the “which way” measurement (measurement to determine which slit the particle goes through) is performed without “touching” the particle (no environment ever interacts or couples with the particle) yet the result is the same.”
http://www.my-big-toe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5333
If you go to the forum link, you’ll see that the exchange starts between him and another physicist who at first convinces Campbell that there never were any experiments that proved this idea of “available information”, but later in the exchange it turns out Campbell was right about it.
marildi, interesting additional info on the double slit experiment, thanks.
Good points: “They have walled themselves off into a false community, the proliferation of which kills the host”
= human race.
Marildi wrote:
Al, why do you insist on repeating the horrors of the Cult of Scientology? No one here is denying all that! You seem to refuse to accept that there is more than one definition of Scientology – there is the written material and there is the MIS-practice.
The compartmentalized nature of your statement above shows that you are blocking out the failures of Scientology. You are showing that you are compartmentalizing the failures from what you call the “Cult of Scientology” away from some idealized and pure Scientology that exists only in books and HCOBs.
If Scientology worked, the Church would not be a cult run by a violent psychotic and no one like Lisa McPherson, Noah Lottick, and Jeremy Perkins’ mom would be dead. These are the results of the actual practice of Scientology in the real world. You can’t look away from them and pretend they don’t exist, and say “that’s not Scientology”.
The presence of these at the least means that the Scientology in those books and HCOBs is incapable of being taught to people.
But because of the central teaching that Scientology must be applied exactly as Hubbard wrote it with no alterations, the presence of so many catastrophic failures of Scientology in the area if mental illness is proof that Scientology does not work with regard to mental illness.
If you really care about helping people with serious mental illness, then you must be able to see when your help does not work. At the least so you can change it to keep it from continuing to harm people.
I’ll keep this simple and quote Geir: A hammer can be a useful tool – and it can be used to smash.
So I can use a hammer to make mashed potatoes?
OK, I”ll bite. Yes.
I see!
So Scientology can be used to help people!
Atta boy! I knew you could do it.
Now, on the outside chance that you’re serious, get this. I may have just discovered what’s going on with the likes of you and me. I was just reading about a system in the brain called the Reticular Activation System. You gotta check this out:
“The way the RAS works is simple. It screens all the information coming in to the brain. Our five senses give us thousands of bits of information every second. This much input would overwhelm us, so the brain screens most of it out. Less than 1% of this sensate information actually gets through to our consciousness. Good system. But what decides which information gets through?
“The RAS lets through only that information which agrees with our beliefs. The information that does not match our beliefs doesn’t make the cut…
“Paradigm is another word for a pattern of belief. Joel Barker is well known for his groundbreaking work with paradigms. His books and corporate training videos are excellent. (See Paradigms, Paradigm Pioneers and Future Edge) His research shows just how strong the effect of the RAS is. His work is further proof that only that material that agrees with what we already think gets through. Said differently, we literally do not see, hear or receive information that does not agree with our beliefs. If I believe the earth is flat, I will not receive any information to the contrary. If I believe Republicans are good and Democrats are bad, my RAS will only admit information that supports that. If I hate Moslems (or Christians or Jews), then my RAS will only give me facts that justify my hatred. If I believe the world is a frightening violent place, that’s the information I will continue to get . . . unless I reprogram my RAS.” http://www.themagicofquantum.com/chapter05.php
.
What do you think???
I understand “belief” as being synonymous with “stable datum”. This may also be closely related to or the same as “fixed idea”.
This info about the RAS implies that the RAS is somehow programmable, in this sense: If a person changes what he believes, the RAS will filter data in a different way in accordance with his new belief. So if he changes his view of Republicans vs. Democrats, his RAS will filter incoming data differently.
So it would seem we are back to “considerations(ideas, thoughts) take rank over the mechanics”, as the RAS is just a mechanical filtering system. So it all gets back to who or what programs the RAS?
Exactly how I saw it, Val. It gets back to considerations and consciousness and free will. Here’s another great quote from the same book chapter at that site:
“ And there is always choice. You always have the free will to decide how you will react to what happens to you. Always.
“For those who disagree, read Man’s Search for Meaning by Victor Frankl. In the hell of a Nazi concentration camp, Frankl maintained his heart, his humanity and his life. Even surrounded by death and dehumanization, we can choose how we meet it “
I read the above and then saw that Marty quoted Victor Frankl too today.
Correction – same book at the same website but that Frankl quote was in a different chapter (3):
http://www.themagicofquantum.com/chapter03.php
Marildi, it is not true that “psychiatry has largely given up ECT(electroshock treatments)”. By their own stats, about 100,000 people a year are given ECT in the United States alone, and the number has stayed pretty constant for several years. It is true that there have been changes since, say, 1950 or 1960. These changes have come about for a couple of reasons: 1. the development of pharmaceuticals that can substitute for ECT in someways, and 2.
a great deal of activism by “ECT survivors” and their families starting in the1960s-1970s which has resulted in higher requirements for public disclosure and informed consent. But ECT remains a psychiatric staple. And there are people who request it after doing their due diligence on it.
Nowadays at some University research centers there is research into “Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation” of the brain, which is not yet FDA approved as far as I know. There are some studies that seem to show this works for some few sufferers of “major depression”.
The magnetic stimulation is much milder than ECT, but seems to do a little of the same kind of thing – it creates a small current in the brain of the subject.
Wow, 100,000 a year is still a lot. But yes, I thought all the activism had made a big difference. And maybe CCHR helped (I ask gingerly)? Possibly it was brain “surgery” that I read is not much practiced anymore. Do you know?
I wonder if magnetic stimulation is really comparable to ECT. Just the words “magnetic stimulation” don’t necessaryily sound bad.
Al sez: “Well, the point is that Scientology has a very bad track record of treating serious mental illness.”
Uhhhh, DOX PLOX. What do you have to back up this statement?
Al, do you deny that you are literal-minded?
Marildi — Thanks for the excellent resource on RAS! For anyone who wants the read the whole book, chapter 1 starts here: http://www.themagicofquantum.com/chapter01.php
Big smile here, Maria! I was thinking you would check out this site and appreciate it too, like has happened before (both flows). As you probably already got, it relates quantum mechanics to everyday life and that’s just what I was interested in. Here’s another interesting quote for you, from chapter 4:
VII. The Magic of Quantum
A. I affect my reality: the observer is the observed
B. Photons, basic elements of ELM [electromagnetic] energy, are conscious.
They know what we are expecting or choosing and they become that.
C. End of the age of victim hood
D. Your life is your making
http://www.themagicofquantum.com/chapter4.php
By the way, Marildi, well done on taking up the challenge.
You did very well, even with your qualifications of this psychiatrist’s “ethics”.
You have shown, once again, that you are a good critical thinker, and you have a lot of intellectual honesty.
You’re not all that bad yourself. 🙂
Alonzo: ” Would he be against it, for it, or neutral on it? ”
**************************************************
I don’t think this is necessarily the way to look at it … it was a discussion and a Q & A session.
Informative of both good & bad.
Right & wrong is up to the individual after getting his questions answered.
What better way than to give one’s opinion & experiences on their own journey.
Let the audience decide where to go from there.
It doesn’t always have to be in agreement or adversarial.
All right, Dennis.
Do you think this proposed psychiatrist would have criticisms of Scientology?
From his perspective, what would they be?
Also – to your point – if he did have criticisms, would these necessarily make his views “adversarial” to Scientology?
Al: Do you think this proposed psychiatrist would have criticisms of Scientology?
Who cares. I think Geir presented it very well
I’m not sure why you try to make this so adversarial, Al.
Why not look at it as it was – a simple discussion.
As Geir put it: ” The whole event was very balanced, open, intellectually honest and direct. From everyone involved. ”
Is this so foreign to you that people can have a difference of viewpoint and sanely discuss it without having an agenda, or having to go on some warpath?
I see above that you have tried to move this thread to a ‘right/wrong’ scenario, but it looks like you haven’t gotten a lot of traction.
It’s like having a discussion about cigarettes, and talking about how they smell good to some people and not others, that they can make you cough sometimes, and that some brands can even make it hard for you to quit.
But the discussion failed to mention that – despite the advertising that cigarette makers put out that says it makes you very healthy to smoke – cigarette smoking actually causes cancer, emphyzema, and cardiovascular disease.
So yes. It was a nice pleasant discussion. A good time was had by all.
I think it’s great. I’m happy for Geir and everyone who attended.
It seems that your point about Scientology and mental illness is a classic Straw Man. Who exactly is beating the drum for treating people with serious mental illness with Scientology?
L Ron Hubbard.
And to Geir:
Were there criticisms of Scientology expressed at this conference to these young people?
What were they?
Of course it was. Obviously.
Everything from physical abuse in the church to the whole Xenu story to the doctrine about Suppressive Persons and how ex-members are treated, about the business aspect of Scientology, about inflated PR, the purpose of front groups, recruitment of celebrities and more that doesn’t come to mind just now.
The whole event was very balanced, open, intellectually honest and direct. From everyone involved. Asbjørn was excellent in presenting it from an academic view.
Very interesting. If you were a college student sitting in that audience, with no experience with Scientology yourself, what impression of Scientology would you have come away with?
Al – Idk; But if you haven’t scared them away just yet, we may get one of them to answer right here.
Btw; I was not there to Create any kind of effect or move the attendees in any direction. I purposefully did the talk completely “winged” with no purpose for the talk whatsoever.
I’m not suggesting that you were there disseminating Scientology, G.
I am saying that there are actual dangers to Scientology which were not mentioned to them.
But what the hey – as long as the data was presented in an atmosphere of critical thinking and “let’s use the Internet and all other resources to research this before we lay down our $400,000 for our Bridge to Total Freedom!” then I think it represents a good way to inform people about Scientology.
My presence would have made it even better, of course.
As always.
It wouldn’t – because you would be selling a viewpoint to try to make a specific effect. I think you would have been as intellectually honest as someone trying to sell them Scientology.
Actually, no.
Someone trying to sell Scientology would hide and not disclose that information about Lisa McPherson, Noah Lottick and Jeremy Perkins in order to make the case to the audience that Scientology is the most advanced mental therapy Man has, way better than psychiatry.
I do not hide information about the good things in Scientology.
I expose the information that Scientoloigy and Scientologists try to hide so that people can make informed decisions about their involvement in Scientology.
You keep trying to make me equivalent to a fervent Churchie. But that is your particular slant of overselling itself.
You “oversell”, too, Geir.
Remember?
Sorry Al, but your presence would have slanted the whole event where a neutral discussion was what happened and really, really well received.
Al sez: I do not hide information about the good things in Scientology.
ROFLMAO! You just chronically minimize them to the vanishing point.
And Al sez: So yes. It was a nice pleasant discussion. A good time was had by all.
I think it’s great. I’m happy for Geir and everyone who attended.
ROFLMAO! Such “sincerity”! Can’t you just hear Al choking as he writes this? I have it on good authority Al had to go and barf after posting this. Talk about being in Treason to one’s self.
As for treating mental illness with scientology I first studied dianetics and scientology when I was working in a mental hospital, and it was very obvious to me that many aspects of the basic philosophy and procedures would be very helpful in treating people with mental/emotional conditions. There have been psychiatrists who recognized this, too. Ever heard of Sarge Gerbode or Eric Berne?
Marildi,
This is a bit tangential, and harks back to other posts, about “normative psychology”, the psychological schools involved in trying to make people adjust to the expectations of others, rather than to developing their own goals potentials. But here it is. It speaks to what at least some psychologists and psychiatrists are up to these days:
http://www.change.org/petitions/massachusetts-representatives-please-stop-painful-electric-shocks-on-students-at-jrc-in-massachusetts
This is a “school” for developmentally and/or emotionally disadvantaged(“mentally ill”) folks in Massachusetts. It operates entirely on principles of “behaviorism”, a school of psychology. From wikipedia, here is some information about the JRC:
“The center was founded as the Behavior Research Institute in 1971 by Matthew L. Israel, a psychologist who trained with B. F. Skinner.[4] In 1994 the center changed its name to the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center “to honor the memory of the judge [who] helped to preserve [the] program from extinction at the hands of state licensing officials in the 1980’s.”[4] It has 900 employees and annual revenues exceeding $56 million, charging $220,000 a year for each student.[5]
The Judge Rotenberg Center treatment goals include a near-zero rejection/expulsion policy, active treatment with a behavioral approach directed exclusively towards normalization, frequent use of behavioral rewards and punishment, video monitoring of staff and the option to use aversives, the most controversial of which is the use of electric shocks.[4] The final item provoked considerable controversy and led to calls from several disability rights groups to call for human protection from Aversion therapy approaches.”
Notice this “school” charges $220,000/year per inmate, for the privilege of having them tortured and shocked with instruments similar to electric cattle prods, which are much more powerful than police stun guns.
For those who like to think of “psychology” and “psychiatry” as all-benign subjects that, unlike “scientology” do not pose any dangers to the public, here is the entire Wikipedia article on this “therapy center”:
It seems to me, looking at this center as an example, one could easily conclude that “Psychiatry and psychology are DANGEROUS!”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judge_Rotenberg_Educational_Center
Gee, i hope I didn’t upset anyone’s stable data.
And yes, Marildi, there has definitely been a big decrease in the use of surgeries on the brain, lobotomies and the like, as psychiatric treatment.
Last I heard, lobotomies were still done in Cuba on those crazy enough to oppose or question the leaders of that country, who were trying so hard to create the “people’s paradise on Earth” on that island nation.
Val, I researched a bit because that figure you were given of 100,000 ECT treatments yearly in the US didn’t seem right from what I’ve read. This is the concluding paragraph to an article about the decline in its use in the large state of California (where I live):
“Psychiatrists often say that ECT is given annually to 100,000 people in the United States. ECT is subject to large regional variations, so it is impossible to extrapolate from one state to the country as a whole, but the figures from California do suggest that the 100,000 figure should be regarded with caution. Another claim that is often made for ECT is that it is making a comeback; again the Californian figures do not support this assertion.”
http://ectstatistics.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/ect-in-california-a-significant-decline-in-use/
p.s. Here’s one other quote about ECT stats:
“You may notice that there aren’t many statistics here, especially from the USA. Sadly, this is because statistics are only kept in a few states. There is no federal reporting system, and nearly all 50 states don’t require record keeping either. Dentistry is more regulated than ECT!!! This is one reason that the research on ECT is so shoddy, and at the very least, hospitals should be required to report the numbers to a federal agency. Please take the time to write your legislators and the FDA and ask that a new law be enacted to require federal reporting. Both the American Psychiatric Association and the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill are on record saying they oppose reporting. The only reason I can think of is that they’re afraid it will reveal some truths they do not want made public. What reason would *anyone* have to not want to know the actual number of ECTs being performed each year?”
http://www.ect.org/resources/stats.html
.
I get the idea that psychiatrists (or some of them) want to make ECT look like it’s still commonly done. That stat of 100,000you read or got wherever seems to false. And good on posting that one flagrant example. Maybe Alanzo will get the point that isolated stats don’t prove anything.
There’s a pretty good article on Wikipedia if you have the patience to read it. It’s fairly long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy
By the way, I didn’t say there were 100,000 treatments per year given – it’s treatments given to 100.000 people per year. Big difference, because on average 6 – 12 treatments are given to each person, and some people come in for “maintenance” treatments every month or 2.
OK, so it’s moot. We don’t know how many people are treated annually. Perhaps it’s down to only 70,000 per year since 1980. Or 60,000. We might hope so…..
Do the states that don’t have any reporting requirements give fewer shock treatments? Or more, because no-one is keeping track?
It is possible that the 100,000 figure is psychiatric propaganda, like Miscavige’s growth of scientology line, to make it seem commonplace, like “everyone is doing it”…. “ECT? Sure lot’s of people get it, it must be a good thing….”
And it is common at University hospitals, contrary to what the article says about it largely being used at private hospitals.
Here in Michigan, the State hospitals long since abandoned using it, but the University of Michigan hospital still does administer it, even to an occassional child in the recent past(1990s).
But if it’s only 50,000 people per year who receive ECT nationwide, that would be in the realm of 300,000 to 600,000+ treatments per year, right? At 6-12 treatments per person…..
It’s big industry.
CNN report from 2011:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/26/electroshock.therapy/index.html
The University of Michigan Hospital’s site:
http://www.depressioncenter.org/treatments/ected.asp
From Minnesota:
http://twincities.indymedia.org/2011/feb/minnesota-woman-forced-undergo-outpatient-electroconvulsive-therapy-against-her-will
From India, 2007:
http://www.issuesinmedicalethics.org/154oa157.html
Valkov – thank you for all the research you’ve done on this. I definitely had the impression that ECT was on the list of past practices, rather than current and ongoing practices. And the use of ECT in behavior modification at that school is downright repugnant and abusive. It will be interesting to see what the courts determine about that.
+1 on each point
Maria, (and everyone else)
I realized that I have created some misunderstanding about that treatment center in Massachussetts. They may or may not use ECT as such, but what the petition is about is that they are routinely using “stun guns” that are much more powerful than those used by the police.
These are used in a form of “aversive conditioning” – the infliction of pain and suffering in attempts to permanently change behavior. It is obviously the implanting of engrams.
I am sorry I created this confusion by not making the distinction clear in my original post.
About ECT, I thought I had posted one more link last night, but here it is. I think it’s important to be aware of it because it approves of the use of ECT on some children who have certain kinds of problems. It is apparently a heartfelt blogspot post by someone with anecdotal experience with it:
http://whoelsewantstoliveinmyhouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/children-of-ect.html
This was meant to be in line with the other ECT links I posted. I thought I had hit Post Comment but I guess not.
Valkov, thanks for the additional data.
Do you know much about what CCHR has done and is doing in this area? I probably could go to their site but I wouldn’t be sure what I could believe, since they are under the CoS whether they admit it or not. But you might have some sort of inside scoop. Anyway, it’s good that there are activist groups including CCHR.
CCHR did some good work in it’s early days. It did encourage the formation of “mental health services consumer groups” and promoted their activism, like helping them testify before Congress around 1970. CCHR facilitated things like that. What they’ve done in the more recent past I don’t know, and think it’s not much actually, because Miscavige essentially emasculated the organization, at least partly by never giving them any grant money to speak of.
Got it. Well, I’m sure the day will come when people will have trouble believing things like ECT were accepted. Even those cattle-prod type uses of electric shock are really just a type of beating the way I see it, but I guess less effort is needed for the one doing the beating. Modern barbarism.
It’s worth noting that consumer groups like The Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, which is comprised totally of people who have had ECT, do not necessarily oppose ECT completely or seek it’s ban.
What they decry is psychiatry’s lack of honest disclosure of the facts and actual effects of ECT. And in fact the activity of such groups has led, over the past 30 years, to a great deal of reform in the area of “informed consent” requirements in the USA.
But, many “ECT survivors” will say that ECT provided them relief from mental/emotional distress nothing else psychiatry/psychology provides, handled, however imperfectly.
ECT often provides some relief from their suffering, but at an irreversible cost of various cognitive impairments.
That is why the use of ECT remains pretty constant – the people who opt for it have tried everything else offered them to no avail.
Here is a link to the testimony of Linda Andre, Director of the Committee for Truth in Psychiatry, before the New York State Assembly in 2001:
http://www.ect.org/news/newyork/andretest.html
For a lot of good links about ECT, Google – Committee for Truth in Psychiatry.
For a more positive slant I’m reposting this link because it explains why ECT has supporters and is not going away any time soon:
http://whoelsewantstoliveinmyhouse.blogspot.com/2011/01/children-of-ect.html
Of course, the author of this post did not receive and experience ECT herself, but is reporting on the apparent improvement in the children she knows of who had ECT for some severe developmental disabilities that possibly had a physical basis.
Yes, someday the day will come when ECT is seen as a primitive and unnecessary treatment. But I think it will be awhile. They have no incentive to do much research into better methods as long as they have something that “works”, even if at a severe cost to the person treated with it.
Of course the use of electric stun guns as a “treatment modality” is nothing but a front for sadism and has no real justification. This is the kind of scene that CCHR was so good at exposing and putting an end to; here again is the link to the Petition and video exposing this “treatment center”:
http://www.change.org/petitions/massachusetts-representatives-please-stop-painful-electric-shocks-on-students-at-jrc-in-massachusetts
I can’t imagine anyone abstaining from signing this petition, but you never know what a person will think……
Disturbing to my placid little world.
Valkov wrote in his own ad-hom style:
Al, do you deny that you are literal-minded?
As I’ve said, I think the “literal-minded” label is used in Scientology to look away from the craziness of some of Hubbard’s writings, and to ad hom anyone who questions Hubbard’s craziness.
In fact this is a pretty big subject and may be a good subject for a conversation itself.
Here are my thoughts on this ad-hom, make-wrong, service fac Scientology label in a nutshell:
1. “Literal-minded” as opposed to what? Being able to think metaphorically? Being able to recognize an analogy? Able to think with similes?
http://www.ereadingworksheets.com/figurative-language/figurative-language-examples/
When Hubbard wrote that people 2.0 and below on the tone scale should have “no civil rights of any kind”, for instance, you can look and look for metaphors, analogies, and similes in that phrase and find none.
If Hubbard had written, “like a rabid dog, they should be taken out and shot” then I could see the possibility that one should not take that “literally” because it is not written literally.
But he did not write “no civil rights of any kind” figuratively.
So why should it be taken that way?
2. When Hubbard writes that Scientology works 100% of the time when applied correctly, should that be taken literally? What should be taken literally and what should be taken figuratively?
So far, it is clear that whatever Hubbard wrote that is embarrassing or completely insane should be taken figuratively, and whatever seems fairly competent should be applied with no misunderstoods, no false data, put into clay and applied 100% as written with no alteration.
Am I right?
3. In a subject like Scientology, where it only works if it is applied exactly as Hubbard wrote it and without alteration, and all instances of bad results are because it has been altered from exactly and only what Hubbard wrote, then why the hell is a label like being “literal-minded” a bad thing to a Scientologist?
It appears that the only way to be a 100% standard Scientologist is to be “literal-minded”.
Am I right?
Please address all three points above, Valkov, or I’ll think up my own ad-hom label for you, too.
Valkov will be back tonight. Meanwhile, I’ll fill in a bit just to give the lurkers the data you either intentionally or obtusely ignore.
You said: “When Hubbard wrote that people 2.0 and below on the tone scale should have ‘no civil rights of any kind’, for instance, you can look and look for metaphors, analogies, and similes in that phrase and find none.”
You’ve now jumped to a different LRH quote from the first one you used to try to make a similar point – the one where I replied and quoted the full paragraph, which indicated it was not meant literally, as you were interpreting it and trying to push off on others.
As for your implication now, regarding “no civil rights of any kind”, this one you’ve blatantly taken out of context, part of which includes:
“This does not propose that depriving such persons of their civil rights should obtain any
longer than is necessary to bring them up the tone scale to a point where their ethics render them fit company for their fellows.” (Science of Survival)
You also asked, “What should be taken literally and what should be taken figuratively?”
There is no rote answer to this, much as a literal-minded person would like there to be. Try to conceive of the following: “There is no substitute for understanding”. If you really got that you wouldn’t have to ask the above question, either sincerely or as an attempt to persuade.
Marildi quoted Hubbard:
“This does not propose that depriving such persons of their civil rights should obtain any
longer than is necessary to bring them up the tone scale to a point where their ethics render them fit company for their fellows.” (Science of Survival)
This proves that Hubbard sought to deprive people of their civil rights based on their position on his emotional tone scale, and that he did not mean this figuratively.
He meant it literally.
Thank you, Marildi.
Al, you didn’t duplicate my comment. I wasn’t saying that the LRH quote you were now taking up wasn’t meant literally – that was my point on the previous LRH quote you gave. On this one, I said you were taking it out of context. The similarity I was referring to in your bringing up both quotes is your attempt to put LRH in a certain light, of having a cynical attitude.
Al, our society does this anyway, and always has. The USA has perhaps the largest per capital population in prisons than any other country, and anyone convictedof a felony automatically loses some civil rights in most states.
Any society does this and has always done this. LRH simply tried to put in some rational guidelines for how to judge who needs attention and who doesn’t.
Your earlier example of rounding up and incarcerating anyone who is crying is absurd and a complete misrepresentation of what LRH wrote. It is basically a lie on your part.
be
Sadness and crying can be an entirely appropriate response, as can fear or anger The issue is how to handle a person who is chronically stuck in an emotional set, especially one that makes him/her a potential danger to society. I’m sure you can think of examples for yourself? (Or maybe not…..)
It’s not really your literalness that’s the problem I have with some of your posts, it’s your lying and twisting of facts, and your off-the-wall interpretations. In fact, I’d bet much of what LRH wrote could be taken literally and looked at in context, might be found to be perfectly aligned with common sense and the normal thinking of our society.
In an earlier comment to Marildi, you “accused” her of “compartmentalizing”. How is that different from “differentiating”? If you don’t “compartmentalize”, is that because you cant’ or don’t “differentiate” one thing from another, one situation from another? It certainly seems that way at times, as in how you apparently can’t tell the difference between things LRH wrote or said, and what the CoS does in practice.
You seem like an archetypal “responsible for condition” case as described in The Book of Case Remedies – a person who claims that some book or lecture is responsible for whatever he does or whatever happens, completely absolving himself of any responsibility for consequences – “I was only following Hubbard’s orders!” – the discredited Nuremburg Defense.
Anyway, my point is I disagree with your fundamental orientation and assumptions on these kind of things – it seems to breed and enable irresponsibilty.
“responsible for condition”
That data is also on the PL about sources of trouble. Type D: “…Review of these cases show that they were in the same or worse condition long before auditing, that they are using a planned campaign to obtain auditing for nothing, that they are not as bad off as they claim and that their antagonism extends to anyone who seeks to help them, even their own families. Establish the rights of the matter and decide accordingly.”
Thanks Marildi, good find.
Al is in fact a self admitted attention sponge, and if he is still banned from ESMB, has no other venue for getting much attention, other than here and on The Scientology Forum. Attention is basic to “auditing” after all. Thus his provocative posting behavior, it insures he gets lots of attention. Just look at his posting history on The Scientology Forum. He has said more than once that he wants his post count to be higher than anyone else’s. That’s the “stat” he goes for.
It is what psychologists and psychiatrists call “acting out behavior”. Negative attention is better than no attention at all. Plus it keeps the door open to someday getting some real help.
The “planned campaign” idea fits him perfectly.
I think he is still hoping someone along the line will understand what he really needs/wants and help him out.
Maybe he should have allowed us to be that someone.. He must know that we basically have good will toward him.
(Radical, though I may be :))
Rather than beat around the bush anymore, Al, let me just ask you : Why are you running motivators on scientology and LRH all the time?
Al, you did not answer my question: Do you deny that you are literal-minded?
Instead, it apparently triggered a long-winded dissertation on how any suggestion that you are literal minded, or even a question about whether you are or not, from your own reality of yourself, is a scientological attack of some kind upon you?
Why not take it as a simple, answerable question? Why take it and spin it as an attempt to invalidate you? Are you feeling paranoid about the evaluations of you?
paranoid [ˈpærəˌnɔɪd]
adj
1. (Psychiatry) of, characterized by, or resembling paranoia
2. (Psychiatry) Informal exhibiting undue suspicion, fear of persecution, etc.
It is clear that you are very “sensitive” to being evaluated by others. One might say you are fearful and suspicious of things said to or about you, and often spin them that way.
In fact, it is appropriate to take some things people say literally. And it is true that some people who are fond of Scientology or LRH become defensive quite easily, just in the same way you do, when they feel you might be invalidating or attacking their stable data, just as you reacted defensively to my question.
Objectivity is easily lost on both sides, and the “discussion” devolves into one of “much heat, little light”.
Don’t you agree? Or do you feel paranoid about being asked whether or not you agree?
I could understand that, as “agreement” is a button heavily pushed by some so-called “Scientologists”.
I think you really need to look at how your exposure to some of those people affected you, and still affects you. There is no doubt in my mind that your exposure to some people you have identified as “Scientologists” has affected you in your RAS filtering system.
Has anyone else noticed that Al has ignored my request for DOX on his assertion that Scientology has a “very bad track record” treating mental illness, and instead zeroed right in on what he perceived as my “ad hom” question to him, and launched into what he believes is a very thorough discrediting of my thinking and posting.
Possibly he thinks that having done so, he will never need to post any DOX in response to my requests for it.
Yes, I noticed. And it’s things like that that make you wonder what is really going on. It seems that there is no real intention to get at the facts. Rather, there is some kind of hell-bent drive to make things appear a certain way, period. There could be many different things going on, I suppose, but the display of dishonesty at times, like evading your request for dox, makes you wonder. After all this time, it’s hard to believe there wouldn’t have been some evolution in tactics. But you’ve known him longer and maybe you’ve seen such?
Back on the Scientology Forum, Al used to say he was “on a Mission from God” about informing or alerting people to the potential dangers of Scientology and LRH.
He does have that single-minded fervor.
He is mellower now, most of the time, because he likes Geir and wants Geir to like him. He has branched off a little into Plato, logic, Buddhism, Christian history. etc.
But that anti-scientology fervor remains. I thought his post there in the Scientology Conference thread was hilarious partly because it did capture the gleeful insanity of the CoS as it apparently is today. Ii though the picture of Geir taking him to the conference on a leash, as a captive Sea Org member was priceless! Playing the part of a SO member was Al’s idea, after all…..
In fact, Al makes a lot of good observations and comments and does some good thinking but then makes roadkill of himself by his overkill, by going waaay over the top. If he were a student in school he would probably turn in good papers that were chewed by the dog with ketchup stains on them, so the teacher would frown and downgrade him. It’s almost as though he just can’t have simple success. Too boring, I guess?
If he could learn to be more understated he would impinge better. But he too often goes for the overwhelm. Then we end up piling on. But by then he deserves it, because he doesn’t acknowledge our valid points very often. He just latches on to what are to him “buzzwords” in our posts, and off he goes at a full gallop like Attila the Hun. (Pardon me, Elizabeth).
Oh, i have mallowed a bit by now, must have been the auditing, the horses are missing too, but most of all that magnificent open space, those valleys, the never stopping wind and the nights where one could touch the stars, and Valkov those storms….can you recall those storms? the earth trembled…and self did not exist…
I noticed that.
Al thinks he has all the facts and his mission now is to convey them to others. Along with his conclusions which he feels are based on the facts.
In other words, his goal is to to get his point of view accepted, not to get any more facts. The only facts he’s interested in acquiring are those which support the conclusions he’s already formed.
He’s got his story and he’s sticking to it, no matter what anyone else says or presents.
The odd part about his “mission” is that besides not enhancing his own viewpoint about Scn (because he is closed to that) he doesn’t seem to be having much of any wins convincing anybody of anything, and yet he fervently and fanatically keeps at it. You would think that if he isn’t getting much in return, he would have turned his energies to something else by now.
Al is posting for the lurkers, not for us. There is no way to evaluate what he is getting in return; he is planting seeds without any hope or need for immediate return. He wants to make sure people are aware there maybe more to the truth about “scientology” than they are hearing; however, he has made his own mind up on the subject and thus seems to be trying to push his own conclusions off on people. Ie, evaluating for others.
Right, I have trouble remembering that point about posting for the lurkers. But you are more certain than I am that he’s doing it because “he wants to make sure people are aware there maybe more to the truth about ‘scientology’ than they are hearing”. Thing is, his take is made to look so misguided so consistently that I find it hard to believe that it escapes him.
His viewpoint – that all of Scientology is/was a vast conspiracy by LRH to pull the wool over the eyes of the world is and always has been promoted heavily and reinforced by some of the senior “gurus” on ESMB and he was one of their leading proteges. Whether he actually believes all the spin he spouts, only the Shadow knows.
It is an incredible stretch – even for a conspiracy theory… something that I believe Asbjørn knows more than anyone in Norway about 🙂
I heard someone speaking on the topic of consipiracies and he was saying that the reason they are so prolific is they can be made to explain anything – and they relieve the conspiracy theorists of having to take any further responsibility for understanding.
I see Al as a “true believer” personality. He was 100% gungho on the positive side as regards scientology in his first years; then he flipped over to being 100% gung ho on the negative side.
This is how he resolved the inconsistencies he saw between the ideals and the practices of the CoS. Al does not like ambiguity and ambivalence. It needs to be all white. If it’s not all white, then it’s all black. If it’s all black, it was designed to be that way by LRH in it’s fundamentals.
Although he has expressed a theory that LRH changed the direction and intent of “scientology” in the mid to late 1960s, when LRH created the Sea Org, so Al has said he thinks there are “2 scientologies”, one being the original “good idealistic scientology” and the later “bad dangerous lying brainwashing rip-off sack of sh*t” scientology.
That’s my Reader’s Digest version, I’m sure Al would be glad to expand on these themes for you.
“I’m sure Al would be glad to expand on these themes for you.”
LOL – literally. 😀
In any case, Al has tried in various ways to account for the “inconsistencies” he saw in Scientology. He has a personal stake in it because he did disseminate scientology and got people into it including various members of his family. And look at what the CoS is now. It’s got to weigh heavily on anyone with a conscience, to have gotten people into that.
I see it as similar to getting people who trusted you into a Multi-level marketing scam, or into a Ponzi scheme.
Being literal-minded is not necessarily a bad thing. See my other post about this, somewhere in this reply thread, posted a couple of days ago. It’s in here somewhere.
It’s quite possible there are things LRH said that I take quite literally, but/and understand differently from other posters here. That’s OK.
I notice this on Marty’s blog, too. My take is not necessarily the same as anyone else’s. That’s OK.
It is not necessarily wrong to read something literally. What may be wrong is to take something literally but5 out of context. That can lead to wild misinterpretations.
Alanzo: It appears that the only way to be a 100% standard Scientologist is to be “literal-minded”.
No, you are not right about this. As usual, you ignore any materials to the effect that one must make up one’s own mind about all this. You also ignore all later materials that mitigate or make changes to earlier works. There are hundreds of such references and statements made by Hubbard about making up one’s own mind, evaluating information for oneself, and the many changes that the subject went through throughout the 50 years of written works. You cherry pick and challenge based on only that. This is a straw man tactic – cherry pick for quotations that support your adversarial stance and then demand answers to that. It is also exactly why I do not support the CHURCH of Scientology any more, because they do exactly what you do, but from the opposite side.
This is a deliberately confining and limiting way of posing questions about a subject on a blog that is devoted to exploration and the pursuit of greater knowledge and understanding. And your repetitive insistence that people on this blog can be characterized by your straw man pronouncements gets old. Really old. Please start addressing your sermons to the lurkers instead of to the blog participants, who have responded to your tirades far too many times already. The actual participants are obviously a little tired of the same old rah rah rah repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…
Maria,
I agree with your letter to Alonzo.
I particularly like your mention that Hubbard did say many times in many ways for people to think for themselves. The large % of people did and do not get that point, there for they run into a multitude of problems.
Like I said before, scn ( and I would say all religions) are traps for fools and gold mines of knowledge and freedom for the wise.
Scn is basically what you make of it.
Thanks for posting so.
I think it was Dennis and Valkov who made similar complaints to Alonzo.
Much the same applies to Vinaire.
They are evidently too low on the scale of intellectual evolution to have meaningful discussion with on any subject, never mind an argument.
Dio
Dio wrote:
They are evidently too low on the scale of intellectual evolution to have meaningful discussion with on any subject, never mind an argument.
It’s the same old arrogant, ad hom argument that so many Scientologist employ to keep from having to face the problems in Scientology.
You complain because you can not confront someone who disagrees with your viewpoint on Scientology, not because you are able to address what they say and show that it is wrong.
That’s okay though, Dio. I have faith in you. You will get better at it.
Keep trying.
Alanzo
“… ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
So Al, you just ad hom him right back, don’t you?
“That’s okay though, Dio. I have faith in you. You will get better at it.”
Condescend much?
DIO,
“They are evidently too low on the scale of intellectual evolution to have meaningful discussion with on any subject, never mind an argument.”
What made you decide that because their view points are not the same as yours that they are not on the same level as you? Viewpoints are just that: viewpoints. You don’t walk front of any one, you are not on higher level than anyone having different view points don’t make you better than anyone!!!
You are here on this Planet and we are here because we all have the same and similar implants.
Where the Hell did you get the idea that yours are superior in content? Are you joking again? I do not know Alanzo at all and I don’t agree with his views on that subject which is so strongly holds on too, but that do not make him a lesser being than I. And that old bossy pussy cat Vin, I am very fond of so don’t step on his toes please he too is where he is need to be in order to learn.
You talk of knowing scientology than why not practice it too. In my reality if you really would know scientology you would not talk down to anyone. We walk side by side, we are on the level from which we need to learn from and simple as that so go back and clean up your MU’s galore since those are your next step in learning.
Or your learning level at the present time is “I am superior, and I am above all othere?” Very funny, have few hundred hours of auditing on that subject, that will blow that mass for sure..auditing do works you know on any subject..
Elizabeth, you ended your post just beautifully – saying that you yourself audited a few hundred hours on the subject of “I am superior”. That put all your other comments to Dio in perspective and showed you do not in fact condemn him.
This was also very good: “In my reality if you really would know scientology you would not talk down to anyone.”
That is the subject we all seem to still be working out – just exactly what talking down to someone entails.
Not only “Superior” but every related wording better -bigger, famous, legendary, nicer, above, sophisticated, higher, more advanced, chic, refined, cultured etc… But first I had to solo out feeling so low, so small, so inferior, nothing, nobody, valueless, unknown etc..etc..etc.. until one really gets down to the basic-basic one do not have reality how we think of our self.
In my reality one wants to feel superior because deep inside feels so little, so valueless, so nothing, so they put up of front… I am superior to you in every way, and I know you are a mosquito on the back side of the elephant…in reality they are the mosquito in their own senses. My solo sessions have not been fruitless and yet I know I am just starting out..…Long as i have any additudes i wont give up or give in..
Elizabeth: “In my reality one wants to feel superior because deep inside feels so little, so valueless, so nothing, so they put up of front… ”
Chris: This is such a good quote. I will try to remember and live this.
Marildi,,
“Most thetans have a dreadfully bad opinion of their capabilities compared to what they actually are. Hardly any thetan believes himself capable of what he is really capable of accomplishing.”
Good one… by now I dont dare to talk of what I can do, what are my abilities, would cause great doubt.. You see My friend because here things need to be agreed on in order to exist. And that consideration should be audited out in the very first session.
To talk or not to talk. Hmmm… Maybe the country wisdom applies:
You got to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em,
Know when to walk away and know when to run.
You never count your money when you’re sittin’ at the table.
There’ll be time enough for countin’ when the dealin’s done.
Ev’ry gambler knows that the secret to survivin’
Is knowin’ what to throw away and knowing what to keep.
‘Cause ev’ry hand’s a winner and ev’ry hand’s a loser,
And the best that you can hope for is to die in your sleep.”
🙂 love it! thanks! 🙂
Chris, be nothing, be “no one” is the only way to fly free. Being somebody is the very weight on your invisible wings.
Elizabeth,
There is no truth to your post.
We are each on a path of spiritual evolution, each on his /her own place and path (if we so choose to do),
and I choose not to go down the tone scale.
We are not all on the same level or all have the same implants.
and ….
We can go up the bridge or down the bridge.
Like fruit on a tree, not all ripen at the same time, and some fall of the tree before ripening.
It is also true that we become effect of our environment.
I choose not to become effect of such environment as Alonzo and Vinaire, and now yours.
It is time for me to disconnect.
They will evolve on their own time on their own volition, if they so chose.
So will you.
Your description or implication of me as superior, etc. is nonsense.
I don’t go into areas of entheta or communicate at any length with entheta, unless they want help ( and that is if I can help) or I have an intent to heal or raise the Being there up, if I can’t help or find common ground, on my terms, I leave.
I won’t wallow in the muck, mire, bank babble, circuit babble, and insanity with such low life forms, because if I do, I find that I get drawn into that muck or that some of the muck tends to stick to me.
Then I have a few bad days, trying to get rid of it, like a dog who has to clean himself after getting sprayed with a skunk.
I find that communicating with them pulls me into their muck and mire, (entheta). Even being on the same forum as they, tends to draw me into the crap, or I get some fumes stuck on me.
It may not be crap to them, or even to some others, but it is crap to me.
A skunk likes it’s own smell.
I will not compromise my reality with theirs.
For me getting into comm with them is like getting into a pissing contest with a skunk.
Fools will always confound the wise.
To me scn is what I make of it.
I glean and hang on to what is desirable to me, based on my own standards. I do the same with other religions.
I now tend to see good purpose in Hubbard’s madness.
I recognize it for what it is.
I don’t spend much time getting distracted by it.
I have nothing to discuss with Alonzo and Vinaire.
Their subject matter is not on my list of needs to discuss.
I have sorted that out and made my mind up on such matters a long time ago.
I have a hard enough time keeping my head above entheta and getting sucked into the effects of mest , without their drawing me in.
No more discussion necessary on that issue.
I was given a tape by Mark Jones before he passed on, ( Mark founded the Free Spirit Journal) which was a rare tape by Hubbard on his (Hubbard’s ) last days, his voice evidently in a weak state of trembling despair and sorrow.
To the best of my recall, there were not many words on that tape, and I only recall it as Hubbard’s last words to the “world” or to those who knew him:
And those words were:
Quote:
“When you help the insane, you go insane.”
I think those were the last words on the tape .
I get the idea that he died shortly after.
I have to think that is what Hubbard actually learned in all his yrs.
The point is:
Any idea, any verbage, any beliefs, are only as good as they work.
The truth is not determined by who wins an argument, or who can shoot someone down the best, or the like, or who can be the most PTS, or by who wins pissing contests, or by opinions and beliefs or authority.
I did not “put” myself in a superior position.
I just said they are too low on the scale of intellectual evolution to have a meaningful discussion with, never mind an argument.
They are not my type of terminals. I do not spend time with such terminals any more than I hang out in bars.
The more I evaluate it , the more I realize that your commentary was nothing more than a low toned PTS opportunistic shot at me, to lash out on me, to crap on me, disguised or implied or posited as some sort of intelligence or wisdom.
I get the picture ( the vibes) from your words ( and from some experience) that you are a specialist at that. You are clever at pulling people into your low slot on the tone scale. Similar to Alonzo and Vinaire.
You are evidently very much still PTS after all these yrs.
I do not walk side by side with anyone unless I decide to and they are of comparable magnitude.
I do not compromise my reality with anyone.
I do not agree with any of your dogma and doctrine, as stated in your post. To me it is all nonsense.
Like I posted when this thread started: I made the mistake of throwing pearls in front of swine.
I made the mistake of stumbling into the skunk pit.
I regret that I unwittingly continued to make the same mistake since.
I operate on the data, I do, not because I decided to be superior, or it is my opinion, but because I found from yrs of experience, it has been proven to be most workable.
All the best,
Dio
Dio, I’m curious – do you consider your approach to be either Scientological or Christian? Or do you feel it conficts with either of those. Iit seems to me it would, but I am sincerely interested in what you have to say.
Marildi,
I do not see any conflict between the truth of any and all religions and philosophies. Truth is truth.
Truth can not be in conflict.
In some cases two opposing datums can both be true in different circumstances. Some situations can get to be quite complex.
To me the real bridge or complete bridge is laced into and in between the aberrations ( faults or short comings) of all religions and philosophies.
All have similar goals and all have shortcomings.
Or in other words, the pieces of the puzzle of the complete ridge is contained ( more like hidden) within all the religions and philosophies of the world.
That is primarily what Hubbard did to come up with what he did.
Just look at the introduction to 8-0-0-8.
That is also in alignment with what Hubbard meant in his article ( of which there are several versions floating around): “How to Study a Science”.
It could also be titled: “How to complete the bridge or how to make a better bridge.”
Dio
Dio, I agree that truth is truth and have used the same phrase, myself. However, IMO truth can be expressed in different metaphors and thus sound different – it depends on the frame of reference, as you said too in so many words. However, I don’t know of any of the great philosophies that take a viewpoint of looking at others disdainfully in comparison to oneself, and expressing that viewpoint outright. They emphasize compassion and say things like “Love thy neighbor as thyself”. And they say the kind of thing LRH said in the article, “What is Greatness?”. You may be committing the same error that I’ve seen anti-Scientologists do, which is to hurt their own cause by going overboard or missing the boat in some way. This would be true even if your own cause is simply yourself, IMHO.
“Happiness and strength endure only in the absence of hate. To hate alone is the road to disaster. To love is the road to strength. To love in spite of all is the secret of greatness. And may very well be the greatest secret in this universe.”
(“What is Greatness?” L. Ron Hubbard)
Truth can be in conflict with truth. Best example: Gödel’s incompleteness theorems.
Oh wow, maybe that is what Dio is expressing when he finds things missing (incomplete) in every philosophy. If it were complete, it would be inconsistent.
Yes – and that is the answer even to the God paradox (if God is Almighty, he should be able to create something he cannot destroy… or be able to sit in his own lap, etc.). I believe Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems is one of the very basic truths.
Geir, of course Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorems are some of the very basic truths, after all, God created them, paradoxes and Gödel.
“Pat answers.” Good. We could use some discussing the “God Inconsistency”
http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/khtk-8a-the-god-inconsistency/
hu, Pat Thompson ?, yeah, why not, let me read that article and comments and then will give my opinion there.:-)
cool.
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem fits with the whole universe, as you have said. In my words, if the universe were consistent to the degree that it is fully predictable, then it would be incomplete – and the incompleteness would have to involve something not pre-determined or pre-determinable, logically. But if the universe is complete, then there has to be some non–pre-determined/pre-determinable aspect as well as the determined. Either way seems to infer the existence of a non-determinism – and what else could that be but a self-determinism.
I remember that in your “On Will” article you showed determinism can’t be true, but a HyperList could also be made as a direct proof of free will as well, couldn’t it? Or do you think the two approaches amount to the same thing?
I feel that a body of data such as a religion, whether true or false or somewhere in between, has no volition of its own and hence no conflict — No harmony nor disharmony. However, what beings do with the ideas represented by religions can create harmony or disharmony. That harmony or lack shows up first of all in our minds. After this it seems to me that I speak or write about it and after this I begin to act out about it, turning my words into a shared reality.
In my universe of infinite possibilities, “truth” represents for me a consistency of my thoughts to myself. My truth may be or not be consistent with another’s truth. I am trying to remember to feel tolerant toward other’s truths, especially when those truths don’t attempt to repress my own truths.
Chris, what you write had my agreement too.
Here is my reality what is and I was going to post this for Dio. But who cares, right?
Your post triggered off something and here it is. A cog? and who caresagain? lets just share. Truth is if there is a agreement collected… More agreement something gets more truth there is for those who agree. But in reality is it really the truth? Or just a agreement? Bloody Hell, I finally figured out what people insist is the truth, they want your agreement that it is the “only way to fly”![Mr. Magoo said that!] So more agreement more solidly that idea becomes, gains permenency in the history..agreements are the truth nothing buth the truth so help me god.. Now if you dont agrreeeeeee with this I will put you on the stake.love ya!.
This was for Dio.
Dio, you mention in your comments many times the word “Truth”, in my reality if something is observed =looked at as in its original form as it was created which was not altered in any way [Not lied about] than when one looks at that concept= thought that thought just vanishes… like never existed..
Only something stays-remains as in thought form as considerations-agreements if they have been altered, changed transformed made into something different.
Problems remain, ARCb’s remain, upsets remain because they are not been looked at as-is and what they real are…
The truth has no substance, the truth is not real, that word is just a consideration which expresses: something fits in with the realities or not…
haha yes exactly. There may be a Truth but it has little relevance to MEST. I think it’s best to use that word “sparingly.”
Elizabeth,
How would you recognize truth, if you happened to find it?
What would the truth be if you found it?
Dio
Dear Dio, What is real to me? The cognitions are, that understanding what is…
Elizabeth,
Your explanation of truth to me is somewhere between nonsensical and ambiguous.
As far as I can tell, you wouldn’t recognize truth if you fell into lagoon of it.
I do not see any evidence to the contrary.
Please define and explain clearly so that there is no ambiguity or misunderstanding.
Explain it so a child can clearly understand, and even Alonzo and Vinaire.
Dio
any one who had auditing knows what are cognitions, and i dont have the must, the need or being compelled by your challanging tone to explain anything to you.
Dear Elizabeth,
Your reply does not ring true to me.
And it is also not consistent with your normal attitude and comm, which is usually challenging, testy, PTS and rambunctious.
so I see it as an excuse to avoid the question, because you do not know.
That is the energy message that comes with the words.
And….
You can’t take what you give out?
This is fair game.
So I will give you another chance.
Word clear the word “truth”.
Clay demo the word “truth”.
Give me an example of a truth:
Thank you dear…
Dio
ram·bunc·tious
[ram-buhngk-shuhs]
adjective
1.
difficult to control or handle; wildly boisterous: a rambunctious child, or adult
2.
turbulently active and noisy: a social gathering that became rambunctious and out of hand.
Dio, sorry my late replly i just found your hot communication, we still walk side by side that is my reality and will remain. But keep it in mind, what you write how you see others and how you describes others is you, since those are your thoughts those thoughts live exist in your universe. Simply your creation, nothing more.Be well,
PS that noodle dish was not so good, I may put to much garlic into it.
Elizabeth,
There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything, including pasta and sweet pea sauce.
If I made it, it would knock your socks off and maybe even more than just socks.
Dio,
Maria,
Your words:
This would be true even if your own cause is simply yourself, IMHO.
How many times do I have to tell you, that the truth is not determined by opinions, and that goes for humble opinions too.
The truth is only determined by how well some datum works.
And: I did not look at anyone disdainfully. And I also did not say I do not love them, or hate them.
I love them, as long as they walk on the opposite side of the street that I am on.
Or better still on the next street over.
They just do not know anything that I want to know or discuss.
Absence makes the heart grow fonder.
God, please help me to love the unlovable.
Amen.
Dio
Dio, the key thing about “IMHO” is the word “humble”. 😉
Thanks for clarifying your viewpoint. And you should at least be given credit for following your Code of Honor.
Dio,
To paraphrase LRH, might not one say that “Lovableness and unlovableness are alike considerations and have no other basis than opinion”?
Valkov,
Get with the program.
My comment was loaded with more smart ass, sarcasm than anything else.
Dio
Dio, I had to go out but here I am back…
I am here in this blog not to collect acknowledgement by agreement on what I write but I am collecting disagreements or ” different reality” since only from those I can learn from.
I have learned a great deal since I started to participate posting here, for that opportunity I am grateful for Geir having this blog since here and being allowed walking on a PATH side by side with other, and getting to know the members brought lot of pleasure, laughter, fun etc.. but most of all expended my own reality.
When I am challenged and many occasion I do wish that to happen more often, I looked at that challenge and I examine it and see just how much apply in my universe. I don’t feel insulted since in my reality none was given. I only received communication which was created by others who have their own view points.
Being called names is totally OK by me… One of the most favorite things while being in scientology was part of the communication course Bullbaiting. I simply loved it. I have re-done that course 7 times… What fun.. Bullbaiting has given me huge wins. The two way communication of course, being bull baited was a experience which I will never forget. At first my reactions: outrage, anger, fear, shame etc.. My heart was pounding because my partner’s words hit everything right and that churned up Hell.
Lets go back to your writing: Skunk… not a insult since in my universe animals of any kind are superior and I don’t feel I am superior to the on the contrarily!
About Muck and such, well, the body has large amount in it, so we are all full of it… decomposing matter smells foul …hehehe…[but of course only apply to you if you too have meat body] But that matter is also part of our experiences… it is only a consideration… that it is bad…
Totally OK to see my view points on anything what I write is “nonsense”. Those thoughts are a momentarily creations than they are gone, all vanished. But it is how I see things, and by the way I also know I am not a “scholarly” person I can’t quote from works of others, I read their work but I don’t retain, I don’t have memory. I have trouble collecting enough words to make a sentence! Best Elizabeth.
Maria wrote:
This is a deliberately confining and limiting way of posing questions about a subject on a blog that is devoted to exploration and the pursuit of greater knowledge and understanding. And your repetitive insistence that people on this blog can be characterized by your straw man pronouncements gets old. Really old. Please start addressing your sermons to the lurkers instead of to the blog participants, who have responded to your tirades far too many times already. The actual participants are obviously a little tired of the same old rah rah rah repeated over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over…
I was called “literal-minded” by Valkov, Maria.
And my post was addressed to him and his challenge to me. This “literal-minded” label often is a tactic Scientologists employ to not confront Hubbard’s craziest writings. And so I addressed his label and his challenge to me.
If you are sick of having to think about the questions I raise, which I find to be legitimate questions, then you should ignore my posts. As I often do to yours, but without the condescension and annoyance that you show to me with your post above.
If we are to be polite to each other while exploring the issues we find important to greater knowledge and understanding, then your post above would be a violation of that, I would think.
Alanzo
Al; While your original questions on this blog have been of value, it would be great if you could evolve and start exploring new ones. Please.
Maria wrote:
Alanzo: It appears that the only way to be a 100% standard Scientologist is to be “literal-minded”.
No, you are not right about this. As usual, you ignore any materials to the effect that one must make up one’s own mind about all this. You also ignore all later materials that mitigate or make changes to earlier works. There are hundreds of such references and statements made by Hubbard about making up one’s own mind, evaluating information for oneself, and the many changes that the subject went through throughout the 50 years of written works. You cherry pick and challenge based on only that. This is a straw man tactic – cherry pick for quotations that support your adversarial stance and then demand answers to that. It is also exactly why I do not support the CHURCH of Scientology any more, because they do exactly what you do, but from the opposite side.
Have you read the KSW Series? The Keeping Admin Working PL?
Squirreling (going off into weird practices or altering Scientology) only
comes about from non-comprehension. Usually the non-comprehension is not of
Scientology but some earlier contact with an off-beat humanoid practice which
in its turn was not understood.
When people can’t get results from what they think is standard practice,
they can be counted upon to squirrel to some degree. The most trouble in the
past two years came from orgs where an executive in each could not assimilate
straight Scientology. Under Instruction in Scientology they were unable to
define terms or demonstrate examples of principles. And the orgs where they
were got into plenty of trouble. And worse, it could not be straightened out
easily because neither one of these people could or would duplicate
instructions. Hence, a debacle resulted in two places, directly traced to
failures of instruction earlier. So proper instruction is vital. The D of T
and his Instructors and all Scientology Instructors must be merciless in
getting Four, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten into effective action. That one
student, dumb and impossible though he may seem and of no use to anyone, may
yet some day be the cause of untold upset because nobody was interested enough
to make sure Scientology got home to him.
With what we know now, there is no student we enrol who cannot be properly
trained. As an Instructor, one should be very alert to slow progress and
should turn the sluggards inside out personally. No system will do it, only
you or me with our sleeves rolled up can crack the back of bad studenting and
we can only do it on an individual student, never on a whole class only. He’s
slow = something is awful wrong. Take fast action to correct it. Don’t wait
until next week. By then he’s got other messes stuck to him. If you can’t
graduate them with their good sense appealed to and wisdom shining, graduate
them in such a state of shock they’ll have nightmares if they contemplate
squirreling. Then experience will gradually bring about Three in them and
they’ll know better than to chase butterflies when they should be auditing.
When somebody enrols, consider he or she has joined up for the duration
of the universe — never permit an “open-minded” approach. If they’re going to
quit let them quit fast. If they enrolled, they’re aboard, and if they’re
aboard, they’re here on the same terms as the rest of us — win or die in the
attempt. Never let them be half-minded about being Scientologists. The finest
organizations in history have been tough, dedicated organizations. Not one
namby-pamby bunch of panty-waist dilettantes have ever made anything. It’s a
tough universe. The social veneer makes it seem mild. But only the tigers
survive — and even they have a hard time. We’ll survive because we are tough
and are dedicated. When we do instruct somebody properly he becomes more and
more tiger. When we instruct half-mindedly and are afraid to offend, scared to
enforce, we don’t make students into good Scientologists and that lets
everybody down. When Mrs. Pattycake comes to us to be taught, turn that
wandering doubt in her eye into a fixed, dedicated glare and she’ll win and
we’ll all win. Humor her and we all die a little. The proper instruction
attitude is, “You’re here so you’re a Scientologist. Now we’re going to make
you into an expert auditor no matter what happens. We’d rather have you dead
than incapable.”
Have you ever had a “disagreement check” on a passage from L Ron Hubbard, false data stripping, or done clay demos on passages from L Ron Hubbard?
Have you heard the Class 8 tapes where Hubbard screams about standard tech, and is clearly insane?
Yes, Hubbard did write things about how you have to use judgement, but he also wrote the things above.
He wrote BOTH.
So which is true?
Both?
Both. The standard technology aspect of it has to do with the how-to of auditing. The “standard” policy side of it has to do with the policies that apply to CHURCHES of Scientology. The remaining bulk of the work is neither technology or policy.
But you know this already. And you prefer to not acknowledge it. It does not serve your purpose.
And BTW — this is at least the 10th time I have answered these questions, some answers have been in great detail. WHY are you asking me again when you know very well that I have PERSONALLY answered these questions in detail many times before in response to your questions as stated above? What is wrong here? Do you not remember that I have answered these questions before and at length in many cases?
I have had the same experience, Al. Do you remember the times I have asked if you even read my posts? You come off sounding like a circuit sometimes, rather than being someone in a 2-way comm cycle.
Alanzo: “If you are sick of having to think about the questions I raise, which I find to be legitimate questions, then you should ignore my posts. As I often do to yours, but without the condescension and annoyance that you show to me with your post above.”
No. I am sick of you asking the same questions over and over again, and ignoring all responses and then asking them again as if no one has ever responded.
As regards “politeness,” your posts often drip with sarcasm, with insulting slurs and inferences that the participants on this blog are incapable of thinking for themselves. I have been unceasingly polite in the face of this type of post and and even in the face of your complete refusal to even read any other material or consider any other points of view.
You expect others to respond to your questions. Only rarely do you respond to theirs. And Alanzo, I can cut and paste from postings you made on the scnforum two years ago and they are the same questions asked of the same people.
As far as being annoyed. No. I am not annoyed, but I do feel that you have become so repetitive that you can only be seen to be conversing with people who are NOT participating on this blog — i.e. lurkers. And that, my friend, is just plain rude.
I fully concur.
Al; Please evolve. Please.
All right.
It’s your blog, Geir. Your definition of “evolve” is not my own. And I have no reason to accept your definition over my own.
I can definitely understand people wanting to get away from discussing Scientology. If you feel the questions I raise are not appropriate, then there are plenty of other places to raise them.
You have a great blog here, and I hope everyone does well in their evolution out of Scientology.
Good luck.
Alanzo
Al, nobody is trying to get away from DISCUSSING Scn – and we would like to do just that, with you too.
Here’s part of the quote I pasted in a comment to you above (which you never replied to, btw):
“The RAS lets through only that information which agrees with our beliefs. The information that does not match our beliefs doesn’t make the cut…only that material that agrees with what we already think gets through. Said differently, we literally do not see, hear or receive information that does not agree with our beliefs. If I believe the earth is flat, I will not receive any information to the contrary. . . . unless I reprogram my RAS.”
http://www.themagicofquantum.com/chapter05.php
We are all in need of reprogramming our RAS sometimes, and I think that is what everybody is trying to tell you. This isn’t the time to take your ball and go home. I’ve seen you rise to the occasion much better than that and I’m sure you gained from it.
Marildi, this word got my attaintion “reprogramming”.. fantastic word. Since I have one track mind i only focus in one direction, I see that auditing questios-sessions and of course cognitions Reprograms-changes ones view points. Thank you.
It was too late to call you last night so here it is what I wanted to share with you. Is there any reference in what LRH ever said about regain power and what is? If there is you can quote if for me please. [ I know what is power but don’t know what his view point was].
When in session the person recalls let say he was a general or artist, whatever… When in session in recall one experience that confronted energy than that energy plus that knowledge what that energy was connected with IS REAGAINED in totality.
The interesting thing is example: painter-artist: if one is willing to go further into that life as in session one can regain all knowledge from the beginning till the bodies end cycle.. So total recall is there available on every life-experience. But of course that session-life time in which we want to dwell into in its every detail needs lots of sessions. The power-knowledge is gained with each session. which are the expended view points and havingness too. I hope I am clear here if not ask question please..
.
I’m sure there are a ton of references on power. The definition comes to mind: “the ability to maintain a position in space”.
Here’s one reference that includes “knowledge”, as in the KRC triangle:
“Most thetans have a dreadfully bad opinion of their capabilities compared to what they actually are. Hardly any thetan believes himself capable of what he is really capable of accomplishing.
“By inching up each corner of the KRC triangle bit by bit, ignoring the losses and making the wins firm, a being at length discovers his power and command of life.
“The second triangle of the symbol of Scientology is well worth knowing.
It interacts best when used with high ARC. Thus the triangles interlock.” (HCOPL 18 Feb 1972 The Top Triangle)
Also, at one time I think the Grade Chart (Bridge) at the top just below “Total Freedom”, it said “Power on All Eight Dynamics.”.
Marildi,Thanks, very interesting view point and valid ” “the ability to maintain a position in space”.I can see with that we still talking and experiencing Game conditios as in MEST
To boost the spiritual power is impassible, because than one would be working with ‘’’’something’’’’, making something bigger-better, having: that would be MEST =energy.
To regain ones true power is by not attaining power, but giving up which we have believed was power.
To achieve such a state is by erasing all the thoughts, considerations we have agreed to while we are in the MEST Universe, since those thoughts-considerations and the agreements since those are the barriers our attitudes are our limitation. AND WHY WERE WE IN THE MEST UNIVERSE and think our self as powerless: Simply because we had agreed to all the thoughts and consideration: Those do render us powerless.
The true power and ability of the being only available if the barriers are erased.. That power is unmesurable, cant be comprehended but we have a glimpse of that power in our keyed out state.
Elizabeth: “To boost the spiritual power is impassible, because than one would be working with ‘’’’something’’’’, making something bigger-better, having: that would be MEST =energy. To regain ones true power is by not attaining power, but giving up which we have believed was power. To achieve such a state is by erasing all the thoughts, considerations we have agreed to while we are in the MEST Universe, since those thoughts-considerations and the agreements since those are the barriers our attitudes are our limitation. AND WHY WERE WE IN THE MEST UNIVERSE and think our self as powerless: Simply because we had agreed to all the thoughts and consideration: Those do render us powerless. The true power and ability of the being only available if the barriers are erased.. That power is unmesurable, cant be comprehended but we have a glimpse of that power in our keyed out state.”
Chris: Huge post.
Yes Marildi — I am on a quest myself of expanding my RAS! It has been the project of a lifetime and it has “opened my eyes” in so many different ways that I am often overjoyed. I experiment with my own beliefs and wow, it is quite the experience sometimes. I have been caught by surprise by finding myself in an entirely different “way” of “seeing.” Right now I have been noticing that the whole world we call this world is tangible. It is a “touch” or “tactile” universe. These are translated after receipt into the 5 senses — vision, hearing, touch, smell, taste. The body field (which is made of particles in standing or persisting wave patterns right down to the cellular level and small even) receives and transmits only “photons” with a matching vibration and then after they are received, they are translated into senses which produce a “vision” of what we see, taste, smell, etc. Particles and or waves enter the field, they are translated, and they go out as particles / waves. They resonate or collide or match up and if they don’t find any receptors they just sail by. An elaborate filter system that can indeed be reprogrammed or set up as a new set of receptors. Of course, there might not be a language correspondence and maybe there isn’t even a way of sending it back out other than to other fields that do resonate or correspond or conflict in some way. Awesome!
I know, Maria – awesome! I’ve come around to seeing the Universe as nothing but energy. Both the so-called physical universe as well as the “universe” of thought – all one energy system, not even two.
Also, as you indicated, nothing but photons is involved in our perceptions. From there any meaning given to them is completely a result of the interpretation of the being AND his/her extant energy patterns – which determine the filters scientifically known as the RAS (Reticular Activating System in the brain). There was an interesting example of RAS in action – a story in the book (The Magic of Quantum) about some explorer of the New World whose ship was not “seen” at first by the natives – they literally couldn’t see it. There was nothing in their programming (i.e. their energy patterns) that it resonated with.
But yes, the good news is that a conscious decision can be made that will alter those programmed-in patterns. And it doesn’t really seem to be a hard thing to learn to do – I think you can “sense” when you’ve hit up against that kind of wall. Anyway, I agree with you – great quest!
Next thing I started thinking about is how the energies in each of our individual universes (or banks) interact with all the other individual universes – which may in fact comprise the concensus universe. In other words, on the simple basis of the interactions of energy waves and patterns may lie the answer to how in fact we create a consensus universe. And probably the fabric of space-time works into this theory too. We should get Geir to do a whole blog post again on a Theory of Everything. 🙂 (Meanwhile, I’m going to have to learn more physics, LOL.)
Marildi — the explorer of the new world was Darwin.
Wow – cool allusion. He indicated the direction, didn’t he? 🙂
And some people still can’t see Darwin’s ship.
Yep, that’s a good one.
Hi Maria. I have assumed that what I want is to transcend my RAS, otherwise pretty much letting it be what it is. Awareness of awareness. My RAS can be an awareness I am aware of, but not bound by. I hope.
Ah Valkov — you have tickled my funny bone — and was chuckling as I read your post! 🙂 My funny bone is a RAS I have not been able to identify in the swirl of particles but experience as a wild vibration of agitation that bursts out of my mouth in smiles.
I also assume I am working on transcending my RAS but along the way I realized that I could have a great deal of fun with such a thing as a RAS or RASses and see what’s what with all that. For a long time I avoided RASses as a plague but then one day I thought, well, they are just RASses after all and they seem to be part and parcel of all this RASsing. So like a little fox shapeshifter kind of RAS I have been RASsing deliberately and as it turns out it seems to have a beneficial effect at least for me it reduces the unaware aspect of it which may turn out to be an element of transcendence. I hope!
eh, transcendence? . . . or smartRASses? hehe You guys crack me up.
I love being a straight man to all the comedians on this blog! Good thing too as I guess my post did sound pretty damn serious.
Oh no Valkov. I wasn’t trying to make fun of what you said at all! But something about the way you worded it just struck my funny bone and next thing you know I was off to the races. I see Chris probably had the same thing happen and made his SmartRas comment. So no, really, you did not seem too serious to me at all, its just the word RAS that set me off – didn’t mean to harRASs you and damn… there it goes again! I have a new word for the conglomerate of perceptions based on “body” and such — its my RAS! Its just the best word ever! 🙂
You better watch yeRAS!
hehe
In apology Valkov, I offer a wonderful song that speaks to me of you. The lyrics of course remind with the references to Holy Mother Russia, but that`s just the icing – it is the passion and fire and beauty and poignancy of the song that reminds me of you:
Maria, I feel you have nothing to apologize for. I am in fact a “straight man” to the comedians of the world. I grew up serious. If I make others smile, I am happy. When I see myself in the mirror, sometimes what I see makes me smile. At other times, I burst out laughing!
Great song indeed. Thanks. Russians have been through a lot in their(our) history.
Al, what the heck are we discussing here, if not scientology?????
Al: ” You have a great blog here, and I hope everyone does well in their evolution out of Scientology. ”
LOL – Hilarious Al … another valiant attempt 🙂
I call it begging the question. 😉
Maria –
Scientology is a complex, contradictory mess. You can hold up passages from Hubbard where he says to use judgement, and I can hold up the opposite with all his writings on “squirreling”.
Why is this relevant?
Because the main charge against David Miscavige and the Church of Scientology is that it is “squirreling”, and that David Miscavige is a “squirrel”.
Maybe David Miscavige is just using his own judgement, following the writings by L Ron Hubbard that you are holding up?
And maybe Scientology, as the contradictory mess that it is, fundamentally does not work and produces catastrophe after catastrophe which creates lawsuits and dead Lisa McPhersons, Noah Lotticks and Jeremy Perkins tragedies. Maybe DM’s whole “Ideal Org” scheme is a way to “keep the stats up” and keep making money while avoiding the legal liabilities of delivering a technology that does not do what it says it does, and that often drives people insane.
Have you ever considered this?
Go back to the scnforum and read my earlier answers. Go back on this blog and read my earlier answers. I am NOT answering again. You go and look them up. I’ve gone to a lot of trouble to answer most, if not all of your questions with great sincerity, authenticity and with a great deal of thought and care. How about returning the favor and not acting as if I have never replied?
Your answer have changed over the years, Maria.
And that is all good.
See you around.
Alanzo
This is for the lurkers:
Most contributors on this blog is commenting here in an effort to explore truth and find new avenues to its discovery. I post about topics that interest me and that occupy my mind – many of the posts are reflecting my own changing views toward what I hope is closer to truth. You will find very, very seldom that anyone is trying to “sell” Scientology on this blog. There is however one person who will use any occasion to sell the opposite – to sell “how bad” Scientology is. He comments to posts that are about Scientology and almost never to posts on any other subject. And he posts pretty much the same angles, same questions, same. Alanzo.
This is a special blog on the Net – the only blog taking up Scientology and receiving hundreds of comments, sometimes more than thousand and where nothing is censored and where the discussions reign free with both positive and negative views on the subject. In order to keep such a place civilized (as opposed to many forums on the subject), I sometimes have to intervene and take a stand against a person posting rude, blatant logical fallacies or consistently slanted or sarcastic posts. You will notice on this thread that I attempt to correct Alanzo for getting into a rut of negative selling. He often post just for You – the lurker – and Maria has called him out on this in this very thread. And this same old, same old is keeping the discussions anchored in the past, in already covered ground. The points he raises may be new for you, but it is well covered ground for others – and for me. I am on a quest for truth. I want to have my viewpoints shaped and molded by others pointing out new ways or avenues for discovering something new.
I encourage you to help me change my viewpoints about life, the universe and everything by commenting on blog pots I offer. I will ensure you are treated with respect and politeness.
Just FYI.
Amen.
Hi there Chris, I am thrilled that my reality on power what is, have resonated some of your bells. By now you know how I love to paint with words. I do gained new ability in recent past and I would like to share that with you. Here goes: when writing, when I compose when want to compose, first there is a picture [like a photo, terrain, bird all depends on what I want to write about, what I have postulated into existence] appears than the letters come. The letters are secondary. But the underlying energy flow of the composition which I can call the “mood” the reason I write that energy is the base, from where the postulated pictures emerge from.
So this boils down to that what one create is in the new unit of time.
Great cog, E. Good for all writers to know, even comment posters. Thanks for sharing. 🙂
🙂 glad to be here, thanks.:)
I’ve always been reading you from this point of view that you just described. Your energy flow — I call it “carrier wave” always carries the ideas. I am barely aware of the words that you use.
yes there are beings who has the ability to “read” energy flows, Chris words are the lowest form of communication, I mean by that they were the last addition.
The wonders of the universe spreads around one when silence moves in. You see voice, sounds are heavy anchor points they pull the being in, make one concentrate on their source.
“If you want your children to be intelligent, read them fairy tales. If you want them to be more intelligent, read them more fairy tales.”
― Albert Einstein
Each time I feel my admiration for Albert Einstein has reached saturation, I find another pinnacle of his to admire.
I posted this up to Elizabeth’s comment because she does the most to keep my vivid OT dreams alive.