Prompted by a discussion on a recent blog post, and inspired by a recent comment.
I don’t think it’s easy to agree on a clear definition of “brainwashing”, but I will offer my own indicator for when a person is brainwashed:
“You may suspect a person is brainwashed in an area when he habitually rationalizes and justifies wrongs.”
According to this – was I brainwashed when I was in the Church of Scientology?
Yep.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Me, too, Geir.
Me, too.
Alanzo
Geir: “You may suspect a person is brainwashed in an area when he habitually rationalizes and justifies wrongs.”
This is an interesting area, as just about anyone in the world could be considered to be ‘brainwashed’ to some extent.
Rationalization and justification of one’s actions, whether harmful or not, resulting from post-hypnotic suggestion is invariably rationalized and justified by the subject. The crucial factor is apparently a person’s basic belief that s/he always ‘has a reason’ for his/her actions; if anaction appears irrational, it must be justified. Any other consideration somehow violates a person’s basic sense of rightness.
However, what about nationalism or other forms of parochialism? Capitalism, Communism, Al Qaeda, etc etc ?
In WWII, both German and English/American soldiers believed that “God is with us”. How can this be? Were they all “brainwashed”? What about the intense slaughters and attempted genocides that have occurred and still occur around the world? One might well think, “Is everyone crazy?” (To some extent?) “Is everyone ‘brainwashed’?” (To some extent?)
Its a thorny tangle.
Valkov: “Its a thorny tangle.”
Chris: “Agreed . . . we can say the world is crazy and we can also see the violence (energetic reactions) of the universe as a whole. Maybe its only a thorny tangle if we disagree with it being as it is?”
Chris, perhaps so. What healthy red-blooded American boy doesn’t sometimes dream of taking his AK47 to the Mall or to his school? Or growing up to hijack an airliner? Is that agreement enough?
Valkov: “. . . Is that agreement enough?”
Chris: “I’m not sure what you just did – sarcasm, I think. Not sure if I am discussing with you or batting back and forth. My point had to do with understanding.”
Chris, it might be sarcasm, but my point is there is a shore that Understanding cannot land upon, that comprehension cannot comprehend.
There is the existence of the incomprehensible. Only not-understanding and non-comprehension can take one there. From Dante’s Inferno, the inscription that greets Dante as he is about to enter Hell
“Abandon all hope ye who enter here.” There are 9 levels of Hell:
The nine circles of Hell
1 First Circle (Limbo)
2 Second Circle (Lust)
3 Third Circle (Gluttony)
4 Fourth Circle (Greed)
5 Fifth Circle (Anger)
6 Sixth Circle (Heresy)
7 Seventh Circle (Violence)
8 Eighth Circle (Fraud)
9 Ninth Circle (Treachery)
Somethings I can in some sense ‘understand’, but that does not make me feel any better about them.
At bottom, any act is an unmotivated act. That could be me, hijacking a plane or whatever.
Valkov: ” . . .but my point is there is a shore that Understanding cannot land upon, that comprehension cannot comprehend.”
Chris: Okay. I understand the words of your post but help me with context. There are things which are so insane that we can’t understand them? A Judas betraying Christ – maybe?
Yeah that’s the idea, But those two at least knew each other. Today, people are sometimes killed en masse, anonymously. The killers don’t even know who they are killing.
By the way, Elaine Pagels wrote a book about the “Gospel of Judas”. There actually is such a document.
Valkov: the “Gospel of Judas”.
Chris: Interesting. I have someone in mind to buy that for…
I haven’t read “judas”, but I often recommend her book “Beyond Belief: the Secret Gospel of Thomas”. She is a fabulous historian of early Christianity, really brings it to life. I think this book can help anyone understand what happened to the CoS, based on what happened to Christianity.
Al liked this book.
What took 500 years back then, the CoS recapitulated in 50 years, because of modern communications technology.
It is available as a free PDF download here:
http://ebookee.org/Beyond-Belief-The-Secret-Gospel-of-Thomas_322357.html
From the article “Brainwashing”
The Rehabilitation Project Force was implemented by L Ron Hubbard on Scientologists in his Sea Org, modeled after his “Mudbox Brigade” and his “Rehabilitation Unit” which date back to the earliest days of the Sea Org.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehabilitation_Project_Force#Development
The Rehabilitation Project Force was an element of brainwashing that Hubbard developed from the earliest days of the Sea Organization, where he had total control of all members of the Sea Project and the Sea Org, 24/7.
This is a classical brainwashing technique, put into Scientology personally by L Ron Hubbard to be used on Scientologists.
It is still used on them to this day.
Alanzo
From the article “Brainwashing”
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brainwashing1.htm
In Scientology, you are told “You are not a body”.
As a new recruit comes into Scientology, the target of all the teachings are to move the person from his own self identity – who the person grew up telling himself he was, to a “thetan”, an immortal spiritual being, defined solely by L Ron Hubbard.
Once a person adopts the udea that he is a “thetan”, he must look to the writings of L Ron Hubbard to find out what i is identity is.
Hubbard also said that “All auditing addresses valences”.
The target was always your self-identity – who you told yourself you were. The task was to change who you told yourself you were into something that was more definable by Hubbard, whose goals were the organizations goals and were able to be more controlled by Scientology.
This is another form of classical brainwashing placed into Scientology and used by L Ron Hubbard to brainwash Scientologists.
Alanzo
I wasn’t necessarily hoping to create Al’s soap box here.
Sorry.
I’ll slow down and let others catch up.
It’s just that I’m all fired up after talking to Valkov! He’s really got me inspired!!!
Alanzo
Geir: “I wasn’t necessarily hoping to create Al’s soap box here.”
Chris: Dude, that genie’s out of the bottle! hahaha
Good grief Alanzo, pretty much every religion has something like a thetan. You know, spirit or soul. When you die it goes to heaven and all that. Millions of children say this prayer before they go to bed: Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the Lord my soul to keep…
The concept of a soul is not a concept that is strange to most people throughout the world. And many do think they are a soul or spirit or at least something that will leave when the body dies. The only change Hubbard made was to say it wasn’t something you carry around like a handbag.
Beyond that plenty of people think they have past life memories quite outside of anything Hubbard ever wrote. Like MILLIONS of people — the Hindu religion, Buddhism, and many, many New Age groups.
Are you saying that all of these people are brainwashed?
I’m saying that, in Scientology, the target is your self-identity – who you tell yourself you are. An the immortal thetan idea, which definition you must learn very thoroughly, is the basis for all the rest of the brainwashing in Scientology.
Once you decide that you are not a body, but a thetan, the hook has been set for L Ron Hubbard. The line and the sinker follow closely behind.
In no other religion that you mention does the idea of thetan get piled on by very invasive hypno-therapeutic techniques which are presented in a way to deliberately cause false memories to fill your memory banks with new incidents to form a new identity – one easier controlled by the organization.
No other religion has hours and hours of repetitive drilling designed specifically for indoctrination of the religion’s self-identity re-molding.
Just think back to the self-identity you had prior to contacting Scientology. Who did you tell yourself you were then? Did who you told yourself you were change as you did more Scientology?
Is that degree of change really the same with the other religions you mentioned?
In none of the other religions you listed above does your self identity change as drastically as in Scientology. And it changes almost the same for everyone who adopts the synthetic personality of “Scientologist”.
Since we are social animals – our learning and socialization processes do contain similarities to brainwashing. But the key difference in Scientology brainwashing is the deliberate targeting of the self-identity of the recruit, and to target that self-identity to change and adopt goals that served the organization over his own self-interests.
Alanzo
Alanzo: In no other religion. . .
Chris: It doesn’t make sense to give other religions a pass in this argument of yours. As soon as I was old enough to ask a question, my parents began filling my head with religious tenants. With no other world views to compare that to, I was a goner.
But thanks for the reminder as you’ve helped me realize that Scientology was not the first brainwashing that I worked my way out of.
Yep, I had the same thing. It started before I could even walk. I was taught that I was a child of God, not of this world at all, and my body was a vessel that would eventually return to ashes. If I had faith, was a good girl, and said my prayers then I would go to heaven. If I failed to be a good Christian then I ran the risk of not going to heaven. I learned these lessons very thoroughly BEFORE I started going to school, while completely dependent and with no possibility of learning any other information to the contrary. It wasn’t until my teen years that I even thought of questioning what I had been raised with.
Maria: It wasn’t until my teen years that I even thought of questioning what I had been raised with.
Chris: This willingness and ability on the part of some people to “buck the system” needs a closer look. Who “thinks for themself?” and Why would they? in the presence of many reasons not to.
Chris, my mother told me that this was a perfectly normal state of affairs, this questioning process in the teenage years, and the very thing that needed to happen for an individual to become a fully fledged adult capable of independent thought and judgment. She didn’t try to stop it and in fact would spend hours arguing with me and telling me I had to learn to make up my own mind. Perhaps how someone’s parent addresses that time period has a great bearing on how they will act in their later years?
Maria: Perhaps how someone’s parent addresses that time period has a great bearing on how they will act in their later years?
Chris: I can see that parenting in the way you describe worked out very well; predictably well in you. I didn’t have that experience. My youth was not harsh at all, but was full of doctrine and inconsistent modeling from my folks. My first critical thinking was on the way to church one Sunday. I was young enough and short enough to stand in the middle of the bench seat next to my father. My mother didn’t go and the reason from my father was that she didn’t feel well. Later I would come to realize that she didn’t feel well toward church though she didn’t clearly express this to me. As I was riding and standing next to my father and ruminating over things I had been taught, a question about human nature came to me and I asked my father, “How can anyone not believe in Jesus? (when the reward was so great and the punishment for not believing so severe).” My father’s vague answer was unmemorable except for its vagueness. He basically told me that some people wouldn’t listen to God and accept his Son to wash away our sins. This answer puzzled me and infected me. Though I filed my question and this answer away, it would slowly fester and it would take another 20 years for the splinter of dogma to form a “mental boil” and to erupt through the skin of my consciousness.
I can see how that both our examples can be rationalized to incept the iterations that could somehow have become the people we have become today, but not predictably so. It surely is not a straight line from then to now. I have three siblings and we are very different in our mental philosophies, though each of us glow from the embers of that upbringing. That lack of predictable results from parenting seems to have a mathematical model in A NEW KIND OF SCIENCE by Wolfram. Simple rules, when repeatedly iterated by powers of 10 result in both predictable and randomly unpredictable results. Parenting seems to incept in this way as well — both predictable and unpredictable outcomes. On a bell curve of “successful parenting,” I would say the argument for good parenting is easy to see. It’s just not specifically predictable. The broken and dysfunctional ghetto upbringing will yet have its great leaders and intellects. Also, the upper class privileged upbringing will produce its dysfunctional and homeless; just not predictably so.
Maria: “Chris, my mother told me that this was a perfectly normal state of affairs, this questioning process in the teenage years, . . .”
Chris: My own poor mother did not. She had difficulties with my three older siblings and an unhappy relationship with my father. She faced my adolescence and teen years in (mostly) quiet horror and worry of bad things to come. Her own upbringing was as an orphaned child raised in various foster care. Uneducated and poor, my folks yet did remarkably well. They were honest and fair in their dealings with others. Paid their bills promptly. Lived within their means. My father, a blustery personality, had the predisposition for religion while my quiet mother seemed more at ease with her own studies and her own thoughts.
Maria: “Perhaps how someone’s parent addresses that time period has a great bearing on how they will act in their later years?”
Chris: “Undoubtedly, generally so. But on the individual basis not easily predictably so.”
Chris
When you write about yourself and your family, it always warms my heart. Every bit of an honest-innocent look into and communication about “deep” issues, like “family” touches the Heart.
So there is more love in the world…..
Thank you Marianne. I’m happy it has that effect. I hope the things that I write are not too morbid and I don’t mean to be a complainer — I am trying to sort things out in the open. Fresh air and all, you know?
Well said Chris!
Alanzo: But the key difference in Scientology brainwashing is the deliberate targeting of the self-identity of the recruit, and to target that self-identity to change and adopt goals that served the organization over his own self-interests.
Chris: I don’t think this is a key difference or different at all. I was taught that I was born with a sin nature and doomed to burn in hell unless I accepted the blood of Christ and was baptized. And this was before pre-school. It was the only data I had. Really, how did I dig out of that one? Why did I?
OK. My point is not that no other religion or organization on earth has ever engaged in brainwashing except Scientology. Of course they have.
However, very few organizations were developed SOLELY to brainwash people as relentlessly (and as obviously – once you know the technology of brainwashing) as Scientology.
VERY FEW.
And yes, there are religions and organizations which have belief systems that are ripe for abuse. For instance, Buddhism’s concept of NO-SELF (anatta) has probably been abused to the point of brainwashing on more people than Scientology ever will be able to contact, let alone get their hooks into.
But as a very unique case – similar to very few organizations on earth – Scientology ethics, tech, and admin was deliberately created and maintained as a set of brainwashing tools by L Ron Hubbard and his disciple David Miscavige.
It is not good enough to say “Yes, of course Scientology brainwashes people – ALL organizations do!” That is just dispersing the focus away from what could be a very valuable set of lessons.
And yes, you should be educated and on the lookout for people and organizations who employ socially coercive influence techniques to replace your goals with their own so as to get you to work against your own self-interests.
THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT.
By studying the brainwashing tools in Scientology particularly, you can get a VERY GOOD education as to how it is done.
No where else, except for perhaps a Maoist reconditioning camp, or a Soviet Gulag, or the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, are you going to get a clearer and more stark education in brainwashing than by Scientology for its brainwashing tools particularly.
Alanzo
“No where else, except for perhaps a Maoist reconditioning camp, or a Soviet Gulag, or the US prison at Guantanamo Bay, are you going to get a clearer and more stark education in brainwashing than by Scientology for its brainwashing tools particularly.”
This applies to the Sea Org and in particular to the RPF.
I simply do not agree with you that every element in Scientology is brainwashing. That is your particular slant and it has been your slant all along. As far as I am concerned it is the very black and white type thinking that all brainwashing is formed from. I am not interested in black and white thinking and I have never cared for it.
Fact is, I don’t really care what the C of S or orthodox Scientology does any more. I am interested in extricating what is useful and liberating in Scientology and using that in useful and liberating ways. That’s what I was interested in the first place, and it is what I am still interested in. The rest of it can be archived and as Phil Spickler suggests, put in a bin labeled: Things that shouldn’t be used. I have a very large bin like that and it doesn’t just have Scientology materials in it!
As far as the identity issue and other things you see as brainwashing, on the basis that it caused me to shift my identity — NO SUCH THING HAPPENED TO ME. I already thought I was a spiritual being having a human experience. I still think that I am a spiritual being having a human experience. And I thought that BEFORE I ever stepped foot in a Scientology organization.
Now, years after exiting Scientology, I still think I am a spiritual being having a human experience! I consider efforts to disabuse me of that to be brainwashing efforts.
I think that Geir has the right idea of creating something like U-ology and certainly the elements I find liberating in Scientology would work very well in that environment and setting. I also think that the freezoners and independents have the right idea — they have dropped the brainwashing elements of Scientology and pretty much divorced themselves from all of that. I see no problem with that. On that basis, it becomes comparable to a vast array of counseling, meditative, tantric, consulting, human potential methods that are now proliferating throughout the western world. This is a good thing. Not a bad thing.
Maria wrote:
I simply do not agree with you that every element in Scientology is brainwashing. That is your particular slant and it has been your slant all along. As far as I am concerned it is the very black and white type thinking that all brainwashing is formed from.
No where have I ever said that everything in Scientology is brainwashing.
Ever.
This is the black and white thinking that you are ascribing to me.
That is not my thinking.
And I have never said that.
Alanzo
Maria: This is a good thing. Not a bad thing.
Chris: I think so too. I don’t know where my mind-spelunking will lead but cementing new mental constructs to protect myself probably won’t help.
To the degree that Alanzo is admonishing me to be mindful, I agree. But more durable orotective constructs, if that is where he is going, not as much. Also, both you and he seem way more familiar with the concepts of brainwashing — this is kind of new to me. If sodium pentothal is not involved, then it must not be brainwashing… I’ve seen those old movies.
Yep. I know. I just wanted you to say it.
Alanzo: By studying the brainwashing tools in Scientology particularly, you can get a VERY GOOD education as to how it is done.
Chris: Alright, I see better what you are getting at. This brainwashing slant is new for me to think about. Somehow, as badly I have seen people treated and as badly as I have been treated, I thought brainwashing had to be done with a DC hand-crank generator hooked to my penis while being peed on and strapped to a naked bed spring. Just sayin’.
lol …. whatever .. long as it works.. !! 🙂 Scared people will do anything and scaring somebody has same effects as brainwashing.. since it is just that….if you dont do what I tell you to do, I rip your liver out and feed it to the dogs, so move! hehehe.. think about it…
As soon as the “love-bombing” phase for the raw meat public is over, a new Scientologist is introduced to ethics, and how important it is to remain “ethical” by Scientology’s standards.
Well Al, I have seen you use all 4 of these tactics in your posts to me and others right here on this blog, and on Geir’s Forum. I noted a couple of examples in the Trust vs.Distrust thread, here is my comment: https://isene.me/2013/03/08/trust-vs-distrust/#comment-33107.
The description of the 4 main elements of the North Korean method is in a previous post slightly upstream of it, here: https://isene.me/2013/03/08/trust-vs-distrust/#comment-33079.
They are virtually identical to the 4 elements you posted here. You use some or all of them in many of your posts, and you feel free to do so because if I point it out, you can cry “Ad hom!” Well, I think I can analyze your posts from now on using the 4 points as a model, and point out any statements in your posts, which follow the ‘brainwashing’ principles you have posted. Or the omission of statements that would falsify my theory, such as positive statements concerning the personal experiences of value gained from Scientology. Thank you!
Evidently you think “the end justifies the means”; thus using the same tactics as brainwashers do, is OK because you are against “brainwashing”.
That may play in Peoria, but on this blog, I don’t think so.
For anyone interested, this is a link to the book written by the author that invented the term brainwashing in 1951 – Edward Hunter. The book is entitled Brainwashing and the Men who Defied It.
Not only does Hunter describe brainwashing very thoroughly, he also examines what anyone can do to proof themselves up against any but the most physically invasive methods of brainwashing. I think the chapter on what to do to prevent brainwashing contains very valuable information, especially since our society often uses one or more of elements of brainwashing in common indoctrination practices.
[http://archive.org/stream/brainwashingstor00huntrich#page/n7/mode/2up]
Maria wrote:
I think the chapter on what to do to prevent brainwashing contains very valuable information, especially since our society often uses one or more of elements of brainwashing in common indoctrination practices.
I don’t think you can use the term “brainwashing” for “socialization” or “education”, can you?
Isn’t this a little… over the top?
Or can you give specific instances which defend your use of the term and describe your point a little better?
Alanzo
Really? I thought I was really very conservative in my statement — all I said was that one or more ELEMENTS of brainwashing…
I thought it would be helpful for people from all walks of life to understand this subject and more importantly to learn what they can do and cultivate as attitudes and skills that can successfully counter any such efforts. That is covered in the last chapter — how to defeat it. Good info for parents to have. Good info for anyone to have, really.
As far as brainwashing being used in society, this is a pretty mainstream idea these days!
I guess you missed the Macleans Magazine article entitled: Why are schools brainwashing our children?
[http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/31/why-are-schools-brainwashing-our-children/]
Or how about this impassioned diatribe against the public school system:
[http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/brainwashing-is-the-job-of-parents-not-schools/]
How about the military? Are American Soldiers and Marines Brainwashed? … You Bet!
[http://www.james-glaser.com/2004/p20040428.html]
Judge rules father brainwashed son into hating mother
[http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing60.html]
And here is a terrific article on how parents can more effectively brainwash their children:
[http://www.gentleapocalypse.com/p/how-to-brainwash-your-children.html]
Oh yes, this term brainwashing is indeed used to describe indoctrination in schools, families, religions, military and even in propaganda and advertising. No doubt about it.
From page 270, Brainwashing — the story of men who defied it:
“The elements that gave a man moral strength were just as definable as those which gave him physical strength. Out of the experience of all these brainwashed persons came a practical and satisfying pattern for survival against mental pressures…
…Faith, convictions, clarity of mind, a closed mind, purpose, keeping one’s mind busy, confidence, deceit, high jinks, adaptability, crusading spirit, group feelings, being yourself…
…Each requires a detailed description.”
And that entire chapter describes each one of these elements so they make sense.
Nice!
I figured out a more general definition too!
Data that you have command over are education. Data that have command over you are brainwashing.
-SP 😛 😛 😛
Man, for all his abilities, is yet in a stupid state. As George Carlin said, “the average person is stupid. Now get the idea that half of everyone is stupider than that.”
I’m only going to mention L Ron Hubbard’s reactive mind as a reference because I don’t need to bash the bloodied Scientology to find cannon fodder for a thread on brainwashing. Anyways, the reactive mind was Hubbard’s solution to man’s stupidity. That and a few more things like misunderstood words, etc.,.
But we look at ourselves and from time to time say, “Boy, I am so dumb.” And we wonder at the ideas we come up with and the sometimes weird solutions that we devise. And I’ve been looking at myself since I am the most available dumb person for me to examine and I’ve seen that I’ve got a hunger to know things; and I abhor not knowing. Delaying gratification of knowing is really hard for me. Putting me in a vacuum of knowledge for any period of time puts me in the vulnerable position of being more suggestable than I normally would be if I were in a social environment with an easy give and take of social strokes.
And so looking at this I thought what around me has a distaste for being alone and gloms onto any datum in its vicinity and I came up with the process of accretion . Accretion is a build up of layers of matter due to gravity and is the process by which planets and other heavenly astronomical bodies are formed. Accretion goes on until all the material in a vicinity has been exhausted. Stars are thus formed and when the accretion has reached a certain large tipping point, the gravity becomes so great that a nuclear fire is ignited and the star begins to burn brightly.
Do our personalities have magnetism? Romantic lore tells us that we they do. Endless writing about one’s attraction to another fills book shelves. We all know that birds of a feather flock together, but is it gravity at work? Or better yet, what about electrostatic force? I shy from gravity because I’m thinking that this is a component of space-time rather than of electrical charge plus I don’t know of any “anti-gravity” and I’m going there next.
Are our personalities charged? And are they charged on a type of dynamic scale where our personalities are more and less charged and possibly neutrally charged and possibly oppositely charged? And does this charge and consequential accretion of thoughts make any of us more prone somehow to brainwashing? And if it does, what mechanism could we; or do we naturally use to ward off this brainwashing? And can this charge be under our own limited free will?
Anyway, thinking about the OP, I thought of this alternative or possible supplement if you will to Hubbard’s reactive mind.
Chris: Swarm Intelligence?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence]
Swarm Iintelligence systems are typically made up of a population of simple agents or boids interacting locally with one another and with their environment. The inspiration often comes from nature, especially biological systems. The agents follow very simple rules, and although there is no centralized control structure dictating how individual agents should behave, local, and to a certain degree random, interactions between such agents lead to the emergence of “intelligent” global behavior, unknown to the individual agents. Natural examples of SI include ant colonies, bird flocking, animal herding, bacterial growth, and fish schooling.
The concept of the wisdom (or irrationality) of crowds is a type of swarm intelligence.
From Wikipedia — crowd wisdom is based on these conjectures:
— It is possible to describe how people in a group think as a whole.
— In some cases, groups are remarkably intelligent and are often smarter than the smartest people in them.
— The three conditions for a group to be intelligent are diversity, independence, and decentralization.
— The best decisions are a product of disagreement and contest.
— Too much communication can make the group as a whole less intelligent.
— Information aggregation functionality is needed.
— The right information needs to be delivered to the right people in the right place, at the right time, and in the right way.
— There is no need to chase the expert.
These four key criteria separate wise crowds from irrational ones:
1. Diversity of opinion: Each person should have private information even if it’s just an eccentric interpretation of the known facts.
2. Independence: People’s opinions aren’t determined by the opinions of those around them.
3. Decentralization: People are able to specialize and draw on local knowledge.
4. Aggregation: Some mechanism exists for turning private judgments into a collective decision.
Surowiecki studies situations (such as rational bubbles) in which the crowd produces very bad judgment, and argues that in these types of situations their cognition or cooperation failed because (in one way or another) the members of the crowd were too conscious of the opinions of others and began to emulate each other and conform rather than think differently. Although he gives experimental details of crowds collectively swayed by a persuasive speaker, he says that the main reason that groups of people intellectually conform is that the system for making decisions has a systematic flaw.
These factors make crowds irrational:
Homogeneity (no diversity)
Centralization (hierarchical bureaucracy closed to lower, middle info)
Division (info held by one division not accessible to another)
Imitation (decision makers copying past decisions)
Emotionality ( feeling of belonging, can lead to peer pressure, herd instinct, and in extreme cases collective hysteria.)
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds]
Maria: Swarm Intelligence?
Chris: The fast once over shows me I want to know more. You are some kind of goddamn genius or something and there is no way I am ever going to catch up; however, I will try… LOL
Physically, having to do with charge and then again mathematically, having to do with randomity; self-similar reproduction; through recursive iteration — all show me there are possibilities to actually get our minds around these impossible subjects — that there is true understanding yet waiting for the patient and diligent researchers within the universe. (or maybe not, yet I hope.)
I’m keeping your post as new so I can easily re-read it tomorrow.
I think whatever brainwashing happened, it is characterized by:
1. Invalidation and denigration of outsiders
2. Targeting of dissent and criticism as enemies, criminals and SPs
3. Flawed internal correction systems
4. Elitism
5. Centralization of authority
6. Knowledge report system (reporting on one another)
7. Closed knowledge and learning system
8. Threat of expulsion and disconnection
9. Isolation (from families, friends, and in extreme in the RPF)
11. Total control of the living, eating and sleeping arrangements.
12. Overwork & not enough sleep
13. Uniforms, status symbols and authoritarianism
14. Gang bang sec checking
15. Shaming
The first eight can be found in the lower organizations, and some even in the Independent Scientology community.
The last seven are mainly found in the Sea Org. The effects of the Sea Org practices have spread like a virus into the lower organizations as threats, authoritarianism, fear, and fanatical group think.
I am simply not seeing the brainwashing effect in the freezone, Ron’s Org people or in most of the Independent Scientology community.
Yes, they have changed their beliefs but really, that could have happened if they decided to meditate or take up yoga or study Hinduism. And lots of people have religious conversions without any of the items on the list above happening to them. They are free to come and go and no one makes an issue of it. It was once that way at the Mission I went to.
I was too.
MostlyLurker… 🙂 And I dont blame you for being mostly lurker: Just look at your-self: you are purple have 5 eyes two fangs only 4 fingers on each armes and they are tread thin and i dont even know what is that thing top of your head, is it a single horn or from a baseball bat ?.. and I wont even mention your legs since I dont want to insult you! So which Planet you are from?…….. hehehe……. Hi! How are you? 🙂
Elizabeth
Ps: I love the expression.. mostly lurker!
🙂
Hello MostlyLurker!
Are you the MostlyLurker which I have known for many years now?
Alanzo
The SCN that I have experienced in self and most of others is too many considerations about things –especially people. They (you, me…former me 😛 ) claim they know the truth (these considerations) but the truth is not a bunch considerations,
You see a person being upset, you quickly label him ‘low toned’. You see a poor person and you know he is a downstat. You know about all those right and wrong things of a society that is not rigged to serve it’s people. Yet, like a psychologist, you insist that one ought to harmonicaly adopt to it, no? I’m not talking about Hubbard now. I know he said don’t adopt. I’m talking about an average SCNist.
Things persist because of lies –considerations alike. The lie can be that you think that you know something that you don’t know. You read a book, you discuss it with your friends, and you think you know everybody. This ‘truth’ is in itself alteration, so it persist. So you plant ideas inside you about what is truth and reality. So, you brainwash yourself. Before one can observe the obvious, he should stop dubbing ‘truth’ ideas onto it. 🙂
that was hell of a lot of considerations… hehehe are there any truth to it?
“This isn’t happening to me, I’m just observing it happening to others”
LOL a hell of a charge. This concludes my messages about Scientology. Thank you 🙂
love your honesty.. I do…. I do.. 🙂
on the long run there is not much to say.. I am looking forward to the day when I no longer have anything to say Now that will be a win and I will not have to write it up, write it down, tell any one.. it will be a quiet win therefore the perfect one.
I know you grasp what I say, and I cannot lie to you about any isness 😛
Yes, a very welcome win, the one you described. I had a huge one recently –the best ever. I’ll let you know. 😉 😉
Lookinfg forward to read It.. very much so…
🙂 I’ll tell you but in private because I don’t want to have to explain to Alanzo how what I experience or not is indeed what I experience or not, and then have to defend the nothing and make it a solid something and analyse it and so on 😛
Yes, that was a bundle of considerations too! 😛 😛
you know where i live!!
LOL
Since you know that I know you live, you know about my ‘win’ too 🙂
Spyros
……………………………………………………………………………..
Marianne
— 😛
(Still I cannot get rid of the 😛 )
Spyros wrote:
So, you brainwash yourself. Before one can observe the obvious, he should stop dubbing ‘truth’ ideas onto it.
That is correct, you do brainwash yourself.
And yes, you should stop dubbing-in the label “truth” onto things you are given by others to think with. You should develop critical thinking skills and never swallow anything as the truth until it has been worked over very well with logic and testing and critical thinking, before you decide anything is the “truth”.
In Scientology, you had help. Lots and lots of help to take over your self-identity – who you told yourself you were. And you were given decoys for brainwashing like “PDH”, while the actual tools were being applied to you, And you were given decoys for critical thinking and logic like “The Data Series”. And you were taught not to question, lest you had an MU, not to talk about your “case” lest your were “banky”, not to “natter” lest you had an overt, and not to resist orders and control, lest you were “out-ethics” or an “SP”.
Yes, you had lots of help in Scientology to brainwash yourself.
All you have to do to stop the process of someone else brainwashing you with their own goals – which go against your own self-interests – is to start thinking with your own self-interests again. Learn the skills of critical thinking, start weeding out other peoples’ goals from your mind and life, and start the process of brainwashing yourself based on your own goals and your own self interests.
Waking up from Scientology is the process of exhuming your own self-identity, dusting off all your own goals, and taking back over the reins of your own “brainwashing” process based on those, rather than on L Ron Hubbard’s.
Alanzo
Now that’s more like it! This I agree with.
Alanzo lays crumpled on the floor, hands covering his face, pleading…
“It’s all I’ve ever been saying…”
Alanzo
LOL! Yes, but I like it when you say it in your own words instead of making sweeping pronouncements. I just hate sweeping pronouncements. It what I hate the most in the Scientology materials — sweeping pronouncements. Arrgh! They make me crazy and fill me with horror! I feel compelled to do something about sweeping pronouncements. So don’t cry, I can’t stand to see you cry. It worries me! 😀
LOL! Arrgh!
Alanzo: “It’s all I’ve ever been saying…”
Chris: It’s all I ever really got from your posts. Sometimes I wondered what the hub·bub was all about. But the pendulum swings and in discussion we sometimes apply more enthusiasm than normal to get it to swing back and it never lands on dead center but swings on by — again.
I’ve often wondered what the hub bub was about, too.
Alanzo I did experience much of the stuff you mentioned.
Is PDH the PDC? It is the most worthwhile thing I have read in SCN (it’s not a thing really, just 72 tapes 😛 ) and I didn’t read it in the Church.
But for now, in ordert to get out of SCN, I have to get in first! I’m not in! 😛
PDH is “Pain Drug Hypnosis” a made up decoy LRH gave to Scientologists to tell them what brainwashing was so they could not identify the real tech of brainwashing as he was using it on them.
He used the same tactic when he misdefined hypnosis for Scientologists – so they would not recognize when he was putting them into hypnotic trances.
Hubbard used misdirection a lot in this way.
Alanzo
Oh that PDH. Well, I made up my own word i guess when I said ‘brainwashing’ then. what I meant was fixed thoughts –seemingly beyond one’s control.
Alanzo: “Learn the skills of critical thinking, start weeding out other peoples’ goals from your mind and life, . . . ”
Chris: This a really helpful post — many of yours have been.
hehehehe the truth is I am a lie myself
hehehehe the truth is I am a lie myself
That is not the truth.
You are not a lie.
L Ron Hubbard only told you that to get you to more easily lie for him.
Alanzo
No, I’m not a lie. But one can lie about what he is and then more easily lie about what he perceives…it makes things persist.
Things will persist whether you lie about them, or tell the truth about them etc.
You can recall every incident you supposedly “as-ised” in auditing. They are all still there, persisting. It has nothing to do with whether you have told them without any distortions or lies.
A common problem in hypnosis for the hypnotist is what to tell the client to do with the incident so it “disappears” for them and no longer bothers them. This was Hubbard’s built in solution for his hypno-therapy.
“As-ising” is not real. It is a gimmick that Scientologists believe without inspection.
Alanzo
Alanzo: You can recall every incident you supposedly “as-ised” in auditing.
Spyros: You can re-create something -or not- at will. As-is meant that it doesn’t seem to get created out of your control.
Alanzo: They are all still there, persisting
Spyros: Where?
Examine what you are saying to me:
You can re-create something -or not- at will.
Aren’t you just substituting “re-create” for “recall” in order to bolster your belief in as-isness?
In each case, the incident is not erased, as the definition of as-is says it would be.
As-is meant that it doesn’t seem to get created out of your control.
Where did LRH say that?
It is possible to reduce the amount of trauma on an incident, so that the same old emotions don’t arise in you when you think about it again. But this is something completely different from the apparatus that LRH got you to accept when he made up “as-isness” for you to dispose of your incidents during his hypnotherapy.
Alanzo
Spyros: Where?
Chris: haha well, whatever you remember is persisting and you don’t know anything at all about the things you’ve forgotten.
Alanzo: “Aren’t you just substituting “re-create” for “recall” in order to bolster your belief in as-isness?
As-is meant that it doesn’t seem to get created out of your control.
Where did LRH say that?”
Spyros: No. By ‘creation’ I meant that which was described in the ‘fundamentals of thought’ chapter ‘the cycle of action’. I didn’t say recall or memory or thought or mental MEST or fascimile because ‘creation’ is a general term that can mean any of the things I just mentioned, or anything at all. It doesn’t necessarily pertain to the past. In this case of a memory, recall, fascimile, call it how you want, is a creation of a past exprience. It is, for as long as you create it. What you ‘take out’ when you run and ‘erase’ it, is the alter/not-isness. You never ‘lose’ the memory, but you don’t have to have it, either –it is potential memory. It is not located in any storage called a mind. The minds were not located in any brain. Also, Dianetics was way before SCN. Hubbard said over and over in lectures how it was stone age in comparison to SCN, and he corrected many things he had said before. It doesn’t help to use Dianetics to point out inconsistencies in Scientology. Better treat them as seperate subjects. That’s a reason why the Dianetics Foundations got seperated –they didn’t agree with the latter stuff.
All I tell you Alanzo, is what I have read here and there by LRH. I do that since we talk about SCN materials. What I believe or not is beside the point, and I can talk about that too. But since you say that you talk about SCN materials, I do the same too. Don’t identify me with what I say.
Spyros: “Don’t identify me with what I say.”
Chris: “How else would I do it?”
Spyros: Where?
Chris: haha well, whatever you remember is persisting and you don’t know anything at all about the things you’ve forgotten.
Spyros: You can create (mock up) a forgotten memory. You would perceive the forgetting it, but not the contents of the memory. But that doesn’t have to exist. Just imagine one creating all the experiences he ever had in a single moment…he wouldn’t take it! Memories are potential, imo.
Spyros: “Just imagine one creating all the experiences he ever had in a single moment…he wouldn’t take it!”
Chris: Your example is what I understand best about what is “engramic.” Compressed time. Input faster than we can process.
Chris: Your example is what I understand best about what is “engramic.” Compressed time. Input faster than we can process.
Spyros: What you wrote rang a bell. I have read it before. In the beginning is sounded like a brain theory, then it reminded me of GPM talk (I havent read much off the SHSBC).
I think this mechanism with time that you described can exist. But still, if it exists, it doesn’t create itself…
That’s all I can figure out for the moment…
“You may suspect a person is brainwashed in an area when he habitually rationalizes and justifies wrongs.”
The problem with this statement is that people habitually rationalize and justify wrongs even when they have had no brainwashing type encounters other than the typical family, religious, and school “brainwashing” techniques applied.
– a politician who opposes prostitution but is caught with a high-priced call girl (“oh, a call girl isn’t really a prostitute”),
– in the people who predict the end of the world but who, fortunately, turn out to be wrong (“our prediction was accurate; we just used numbers from the wrong chapter of the Bible”).
– Gay men who decide to stay in the church focusing on the shortcomings of the minister; for example, they say, “It’s not my religion that promotes this prejudice—it’s the bigotry of this particular preacher” (Pitt, 2010).
– Immigrant children who love their parents but have learned different values in school and no longer embrace their parents values
– Family members routinely rationalize and justify wrongs – its called co-dependent
– Classic case – inquisition was rationalized and justified
– Slavery was rationalized and justified
– Circumcision is rationalized and justified
– People continue to buy goods that are cheap even though they know that they are cheap because they were produced by children and people working for a pittance in substandard working conditions
It goes on and on. Newscasts bring evidence of wrongs in an avalanche of information coming from one’s country, state, locality, government, groups, etc. We pretty much have to rationalize and justify these things because there is nothing we can do about most of them.
So you get the apologetic American, the apoplectic Islamist, the ever faithful Roman Catholic stunned by criminal prosecutions, the fight for and against gay marriage, the large recreational and illegal drug industry…
I thought Zimbardo summed it up pretty well. He suggested that what needed to be cultivated was individual courage, and heroism — that even a few heroic individuals in society could stem the tide — for in his studies, even one individual saying no could shift the direction of an entire group. The article I read on swarm intelligence could be the underlying principle, rather than right or wrong or brainwashing or victimology.
“Ignorance is Strength”
and …“Freedom is Slavery”
“Think for yourself” –> Thougthcrime
One of the problems were the CONTRADICTIONS – increasing steadily with the years in and the amount of study and craziness experienced (contradictions of the scriptures in themselves, -from earlier with later writings, -between what really happened and what was PR, -of writings and behavior). DICHOTOMIES! I tried to sort it out in my mind for years. No chance! It leads to cognitive dissonance, a kind of schizophrenic limbo. The more you try to reason, the more you get sucked in the vortex (if you don’t shut mentally down). A mental tied rope walk.
The worst part of it was that you could not freely communicate about it (“Communication the universal solvent”? And all this talk about A-R-C (= Understanding). The understanding we had was that if we really communicated freely, we would be in trouble.
Result: suppressed communication! Suppressed thought!
Freedom of speech, freedom of thought? More like “thought crime” if you did.
When I was out, I had to kind of relearn to voice my opinions without every time thinking about the “consequences”.
PS: Geir, what happened with the black background, why the change?
I received a complaint – and I found this theme to be more “discussion friendly”
I like the theme.
It’s like we’re on fluffy clouds in heaven.
And it is more discussion friendly. Which, with some people, makes it seem like we’re in hell.
Alanzo
Whenever I see somebody using Scientology references or phraseology to explain or justify something, I know they are trapped.
The Scientology ideology has certain logic pathways which must be followed. One thought is based on another thought is based on another and another – and I know that person is never going to make it out of that labyrinth.
In order to be able to get out of the trap of the Scientology mindset, you have to quit using Scientology to think with. You have to start evaluating Scientology with NON-Scientology ideas. You have to stop using its terms and start finding new ways to explain or justify the things you experience.
The Scientology mindset is a trap. It stultifies your thinking and traps you into thinking up the same solutions over and over again to problems that don’t even apply.
So I have a challenge for the people here who still call themselves Scientologists: see if for one day you can stop using Scientologese to think with or to express yourself. If you find yourself using a Scientology principle or expression, stop, and think of a common English alternative.
Your mind starts opening up right away. And you start seeing things in new ways. You start to move out of fixed conditions, and you start gaining the ability to do new things with your life.
It’s like going Clear!
Alanzo
Al: “Whenever I see somebody using Scientology references or phraseology to explain or justify something, I know they are trapped.”
and therefore Big Al, the Minister of Thought Control, to the ‘rescue’.
This is the ultimate in A=A, unthinking, prejudiced profiling. Big Brother wants to eliminate certain words from the language so people will not be able to think ‘those kind of thoughts’.
Although I feel it’s kind of like pissing into the wind, I’ll post my take on ‘brainwashing’, starting with what I consider to be some ‘facts’. I’ll post some references to back up what I say.
1. ‘Brainwashing’ as I see it is serious stuff, not a term to be used lightly. There are perhaps shades of grey involved.
2. The US and Canadian governments were heavily involved in brainwashing experiments, chiefly at McGill University in Canada. This was before and after 1950, when Dianetics was published.
3. These experiments were initiated by the CIA, and many were carried out by Dr. Ewen Cameron at McGill Universiity.
4. The experiments consisted of drugging people with various drugs, and then electroshocking their brains excessively, in attempts to wipe out their memories and personalities.
5. This was done to hundreds of people. Some of these sued the CIA in the 1980s and eventually won some settlements from the Canadian government, although I believe the US government and the CIA stonewalled it and never conceded owing anything to anyone.
6. Apropos of LRH’s feelings about psychiatry, folks need to know that Dr. Ewen Cameron was THE ‘opinion leader’ of psychiatry in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s , world-wide, as detailed by Wikipedia:
“Cameron served as President of the Canadian, American and World Psychiatric Associations, the American Psychopathological Association and the Society of Biological Psychiatry during the 1950s. Notwithstanding a career of honors, and leadership in early 1950s psychiatric circles, he has been heavily criticized in some circles for his administration without patient consent of disproportionately-intense electroshock therapy and experimental drugs, including LSD, which caused some patients to become permanently comatose.”
7. Well, Al, you brought up ‘PDH’. There are your PDH studies, sponsored by the US and Canadian governments, via the CIA.
8. I suggest Googling for ‘Dr Ewen Cameron’. You will find a wealth of links. Also note these experiments were not even particularly secret.
9. Here is a link a PDFof a couple of newspaper articles referring to the lawsuits:
Click to access artclCanadaBrainwashingCompnsn.pdf
10. There has been more than one book written about all this. One is titled “In the Sleep Room: The Story of the CIA Brainwashing Experiments in Canada.” The author is Anne Collins. It is available through Amazon, as are several related books.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797): “Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.”
From How Brainwashing Works, (continued)
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brainwashing1.htm
Scientology auditing sessions are designed to create this breaking point, in large and small doses. When this breaking point is established in a pc during auditing, all the pc has to grab onto is more Scientology.
It’s why it is often noted that “Scientology begets more Scientology”.
Alanzo
LRH’s tech of “Confusion and the Stable Datum” is a basic of Scientology brainwashing technology.
Confusion and the Stable Datum is also the basis of Scientology Healing Technology, and Scientology Enlightenment Technology as well. It could be the basis of a lot of related technologies. As I have already noted, they can be technologies developed and used for good or ill.
The choice of how to use any of them is yours. Will you harm people with them, or help people with them?
I can honestly say I never experienced such a thing during any auditing experience. I never felt shamed, never felt an identity crisis, never experienced anything that could be called a nervous breakdown, never felt lost and alone. What auditing process were you doing when this happened to you?
What auditing process were you doing when this happened to you?
The False Purpose Rundown, which is probably LRH’s highest achievement in terms of a brainwashing rundown. In it, he used almost all of the tech he had developed from the BC on “SOP Goals”, “GPMs”, OW’s, and the “prior confusion”.
Most SO and Org staff members receive huge doses of FPRD, if they ever get any auditing at all.
But you should not overlook the use of “restimulation” in an auditing session. It is a little mini-crises, intentionally caused in the pc, which sometimes includes a crises of identity – a confusion which is resolved by picking up a new stable datum.
Alanzo
Oh I see. I only ever had FPRD for a short amount of auditing. And really as far as restimulation in an auditing session, I didn’t experience what came up for me as a mini-crisis. It was an adventure for me. Pure adventure. I certainly didn’t get any stable data in my auditing from LRH or anyone else for that matter. Those were ALL mine and mine alone, regardless of the process being run. Maybe I was just lucky and had really great auditors?
It really makes me wonder what other people were experiencing in their auditing, because this is just completely foreign to me.
Pretty much everything I encountered that I would term brainwashing happened as a result of the group pushing and crowding in the Scientology version of policy and ethics on a demanded basis. That was obnoxious and definitely unwanted.
I don’t doubt this is true, that all Stoogists today get a lot of FPRD instead of Bridge auditing. This has been attested more than once on Marty’s blog. Like you, these people were overrun on it and it did them harm. It just goes to show how far off it’s original purpose the CoS has gone. The purpose of the Church having been to get people up the Bridge. FPRD doesn’t do that. Excessive amounts of FPRD may well prevent Bridge progress.
As for ‘scientology begets more scientology’, it appears that just the opposite is true, as most people who have been introduced to scientology have not stayed with it. Probably 95% have not pursued it past their initial service or two. Geir has pointed this out; haven’t you also, Al?
This may explain my friend, who finally told me he felt like his mind “broke” when he was on staff. He told me that he knew then that he had to leave. It came up when I was helping him to exit the Church. The only auditing he ever got in 25 years was FPRD and sec checks. Nothing else at all.
Maria, ‘windhorse’, one of the Buddhists over on Marty’s blog relates her mind ‘breaking’ as a result of OTVIII. I think I have posted links to her post(s) on Geir’s blog fairly recently in relation to OTVIII. I think it may be on the “OTVIII Revealed” thread over there.
I don’t know what she had in the way of FPRD. I had an aquaintance, a public scientologist here years age, who was getting apparently endless FPRD auditing. Once I heard him remark, “FPRD is about all I get anymore”. He was a Dianetic Clear as I recall, and I believe he was, but in practice his vibes were rather unsympathetic. I don’t know how/where he is now.
Maria: “The only auditing he ever got in 25 years was FPRD and sec checks. Nothing else at all.”
Chris: I had hundreds of hours of FPRD and it was quite unmemorable. For what reason, I don’t remember! haha (No really, I don’t remember why it doesn’t bring up anything memorable)
Yes Al, the deliberate use of ‘restimulation’ has also been noted on Marty’s blog, with personal accounts by people who were very nearly driven to kill themselves by it. Over there it is called “black dianetics” or ‘reverse scientology’.
Its pretty obvious that knowledge of how a mind works can be used for good or ill. Like trained psychiatrists and clinical psychologists working for intelligence agencies to develop more effective yet ‘legal’ ways torture people…..
Also, one more thing about my FPRD delivery.
My false purpose rundown auditing was delivered by 2 auditors, both Class 8s.
The first Class 8 to deliver the FPRD to me was George Seidler. George’s first certificate is a HUBBARD DIANETIC AUDITOR certificate, dated June of 1950, and sign by L Ron Hubbard personally.
George, who turned 90 years old a few weeks ago, was one of the first auditors on the planet, and worked with Hubbard on and off to develop auditing throughout the 1950’s. George did the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course under Hubbard at Saint Hill, and he did his Class 8 course on the ship with Hubbard.
My C/S for the FPRD that George delivered was Andy Seidler, a Class 8 C/S, and George’s son.
My second auditor for the FPRD was Melanie Seidler Murray, George’s daughter, who worked with Hubbard and others in the late 70’s and early 80’s at Int Base, and she helped to develop the FPRD with L Ron Hubbard and under Hubbard’s instructions.
My C/S for the FPRD with Melanie was a Class 9 C/S, Barbara Rubio.
So if you want to say that the FPRD I got was “GAT” or “Miscavige squirreled”, and that the REAL FPRD, Ron’s version, would not have been brainwashing, then you are going to have trouble with the facts.
But that’s never stopped a Scientologist before, has it?
Alanzo
No problem.
1. How would you characterize your FPRD auditing?
2. Did you like it?
3. Get a lot of ‘gain’ out of it?
4. What did it do for you?
5. Would you want others to get that kind of auditing?
and,
1. Why were you getting FPRD instead of going up the Bridge?
I’m sure those of us who haven’t had it would like to know what your experience of it was like.
Or, do all these posts about ‘brainwashing’ actually reflect your FPRD experience?
“Facts” never stopped you either, Al.
Alanzo: “It’s why it is often noted that “Scientology begets more Scientology”.
Chris: And yet with us, eventually it hasn’t. You and Maria have been doing a good job of recapping how brainwashing is done. How is it un-done? By re-establishing the identity a bit at a time in the reverse of how it was removed or changed? I mentioned that my oldest daughter’s mother is still IN. And her parents are still IN the Southern Baptist Convention. They even hired deprogrammers to kidnap and deprogram their daughter and grandaughter (my ex- and my daughter). Then they all excommunicated one another. Regardless of the mess that this became, I still can laugh at the irony. My daughter and I are OUT. Hubbard charted “susceptibility to suggestion” on his SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL. Is there any truth to any of this?
Chris, this article, which unfortunately is no longer available for free online is the best data I have read about what Hypnosis and Suggestibility actually are. There are tests for suggestibility, done by real scientists and not LRH.
The Scientific American, “The Truth and the Hype of Hypnosis.” Michael Nash, July 17, 2001
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-truth-and-the-hype-of
Alanzo
Here is another Scientific American article on hypnosis and memory, that is available for free online. It talks about the suggestibility scale!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hypnosis-memory-brain
Alanzo (:>
All well and good. The discussion of ‘implicit’ and’explicit’ memory parallels the discussions in DMSMH about some memories being ‘below the level of awareness of the person’, and influencing his actions or behavior precisely for that reason. Auditing was supposed to then move those pictures from ‘implicit’ storage to ‘explicit’ storage, where presumably the person now had more choice about how he acted.
So, whether you call it ‘reactive mind’ or ‘implicit memories’, ‘a rose by any other name……still smells the same’. Because the map is not the territory, and the name is not the thing.
A very nice validation of Dianetics, 63 years later!
For basic information about ‘hypnotism’ I recommend a book titled simply “Hypnotism” by George Esatabrooks, written around 1946. It is still easily available.
This would be the understanding of hypnotism that LRH would have been familiar with.
Estabrooks worked as a hypnotist for the military during WWII, developing, essentially, a ‘manchurian candidate’ or double agent, a spy who could not be detected or broken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Estabrooks
These are good and helpful references Val. I saw a hypnotist at the state fair, once. That was the extent of my knowing exposure to hypnotism.
Here’s another one that I have:
“The Story of Hypnotism” by Robert W Marks copyright 1947.
http://books.google.com/books?id=ptjyzsF7tkgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
In this one, Marks goes through the complete history of hypnosis with a very revealing chapter on Mesmer and the Tom Cruise of his day, Wolfgang Mozart. Mozart was the first “celebrity Scientologist” for Mesmer, and gained him lots of fame and recruits.
Reading and studying these books, which were certainly around when Hubbard was studying and practicing hypnosis on people, makes it pretty clear that Hubbard was lying about hypnosis when he told Scientologists that auditing was the “opposite” of hypnosis, that hypnosis made you more unconscious and that auditing “woke you up”.
It could mean that Hubbard didn’t understand what he was reading about hypnosis, but when you look at other patterns he used on Scientologists, I go for lying.
Alanzo
It was quite clear to me from the beginning that ‘auditing’ was intended to be the process of deleting post-hypnotic suggestions,(ie, contacting ‘implicit memories’ and making them ‘explicit’.) This is entirely analogous to Freud’s overall goal of ‘making the unconscious, conscious’.
How you manage to turn it around 180 degrees is completely beyond me. You make statements like, “Reading and studying these books, which were certainly around when Hubbard was studying and practicing hypnosis on people, makes it pretty clear that Hubbard was lying about hypnosis when he told Scientologists that auditing was the “opposite” of hypnosis,…..”
But you never give a concrete example of what ‘these books’ say, or how they demonstrate your conclusion. But if someone doesn’t get what you’re saying, you dismiss it as being ‘hard for a scientologist to confront’!
So when Hubbard said ‘auditing was the opposite of hypnosis’, was he lying about hypnosis, or about auditing?
I’m sorry, but this is buffoonery! And don’t complain about ‘adhom’! When you post coherently, you don’t get adhommed, even by me.
Valkov,
“Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument.”
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#hominem
Marildi: “Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument.”
Chris: ” ‘Buffoonery’ Marildi, really?”
Valkov: I’m sorry, but this is buffoonery!
Chris: Context Valkov. I don’t know about gulags in Siberia, but I know about Sea Org life in California. This thread about brainwashing being more than sinister Peter Lorre movies has been enlightening for me. Alanzo may be passionate but I don’t see your buffoonery. Maybe for those who didn’t live it, the brainwashing aspect seems severe. I dunno about that – I guess I can see that.
Chris, context, YES EXACTLY. To the best of my knowledge, Al is not writing about a Sea Org context. He is writing about a generalized “All Scientology is a cesspool of spiritual deception” context. He is including ALL of Hubbard’s materials all the way back to DMSMH, which it should be clear, is what I was referring to. The discussions of hypnotism go back to DMSMH. “Implicit” and “explicit” memories parallel the ideas in DMSMH. That is my context, and what Al posted in that context is buffoonery, no less. And he doesn’t want to discuss it.
It has nothing to do with the Sea Org, which for all I know, did turn into that “cesspool of spiritual deception” he referred to. Or was that, from the beginning. Only I don’t even think that. I think it had a higher purpose, at it’s inception.
Al’s outstanding characteristic in posting about ‘scientology’ is he draws absolutely no distinctions between its various parts. Oh, he used to at times. He had some very good posts back on the Forum; now in his posts he lumps it all together as that “cesspool”. That’s why I call him a moron and Santa Claus says he will bring Al only lumps of coal for Christmas from now on.
It has to do with Al’s pretentious blathering about he read this book about hypnotism and that article about it, and therefore Hubbard lied about auditing being the opposite of hypnotism. or some such buffoonery. Al never met a not-understood word he didn’t like, because he could then spin it to support whatever conclusion he wants to push. Even if it doesn’t apply to 95% or more of his readers.
What’s evident to me is, Al needs to read DMSMH and see what it really says in there. Or even the little precursor book, Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science, which is available online as a free PDF download. In this book Hubbard actually describes how he initially used hypnotism in his research of the mind, and some of his results.
As for hypnotism, anyone can learn a lot about it through Youtube, which is replete with hypnotism videos. Instructional vidoes, how to induce hypnotic trances, hypnotism for entertainment, demonstrations of stage hypnotism, its all over Youtube. Very popular subject there. Any search will yield lots of results.
Chris
“How is it un-done? By re-establishing the identity a bit at a time….” The identity is based on the ‘ I ” concept…..”look for” it……does it exist? Chris….the Flow is real….no “cultural” “indoctrinated” concepts…if the “Flow” meets one, it knows it is not true. e.g. I am not a “mother”…I do certain activities of a mother….but not as an identity, no concept of it, no energy put into it. The “energy” is free flowing….See it?
Chris :listen very carefully, pay attantion; you need that lesson. 🙂 otherwise, without it you remain a stupid idiot for eternity hehehe which is good than we can play uninterapted game of hide and seek?
Elizabeth: :Chris :listen very carefully, pay attantion; you need that lesson. :)”
Chris: “I always do!”
Marianne: “I am not a “mother”…I do certain activities of a mother….but not as an identity, no concept of it, no energy put into it.”
Chris: I easily see what you are saying. Do you want me to realize something? Or have I made a comment that you want me to reconsider?
Unfortunately, this is a subject who turn me back in time…First of all, brainwashing is an entire process, not a sudden action. Of course, if it’s something medical induced, you’re fucked up in a moment, but I think in this article the definition mean the process, not the action. Your definition, Geir, is theoretically correct, but your definition is just the effect, not the cause. For instance, you can rationalize, act or justify wrong not because you’re brainwashed…Imagine a situation in which you simply cannot catch the clue, you simply rationalize wrong because you don’t see the good option (which almost always is just nearby you). You can judge a situation in a wrong way only and only because you’ve done it like this since the beginning. No normal person will consider you to be brainwashed.
But if something or someone will influence you in a way that you will loose your living values (family, belief, ethics, moraIity, patriotism) and most of all you will think that IT HAS TO BE LIKE THAT, well, my friend…you are brainwashed, that’s correct.
In my opinion, considering that scientifical proof that neurons will never recover, you are not a good example of a brainwashed person. Scientology was just an “anesthetic” for your brain. It attacked and blocked your normality, but didn’t destroyed it. You wake up just in time:) This blog, this effervescence of ideas is the proof that you’re normal. You have to consider Scientology a step in your life, an experience (even maybe traumatic) who made you stronger than before. And that strength relay more or less in your muscles, but definitely in your brain. You were not born Scientologist, you just became one of them when you’re an adult person, so they cannot destroy the good roots of your personality. It’s much more dangerous with children, they can be influenced much more easy.
If you want my advice, just consider it a bad dream and that’s all. From now on, live your life as you feel it’s better for you 🙂
Dragos: “From now on, live your life as you feel it’s better for you :)”
Chris: “This is all I have ever done. And doing so lead me into and out of Scientology. It’s still good advice — in my Tautological Universe! I’ve still got to get back to Valkov with an explanation of that.
But Geir ‘woke up’ after doing the entire Bridge. If the whole thing is really such a thorough ‘brainwashing process’, I would think that by the time Geir got through OTVIII he would have been so thoroughly brainwashed he would have been ready to go down to Texas to harass Marty and Mosey, wearing a camera on his head?
Right. Why didn’t Geir don a helmet and harass Marty? Or go run Oslo org?
Geir was it because you had been working on the Internet for the Church and had read dissenting information?
Maria: ” . . . had read dissenting information?
Chris: “And yet, others read that same dissenting information and are unmoved by it. What do you suppose makes that difference?”
Over time, pretty much anyone who has been involved in Scientology is moved by dissenting information. You can’t live in that bubble forever. It takes a lot of effort to keep ignoring things, reducing the importance of things, and looking away from things.
After a while, you realize the cost/benefit of keeping your head in the sand just doesn’t add up.
Best to stay away from dissenting information all together. That way Scientology makes perfect sense forever.
Alanzo
Chris: Because we get dissenting information constantly. For anyone born 1945 or later, pretty much from the day we are born. I am pretty sure it comes from the barrage of advertising and news reports that we are subjected to, all vying for our attention and trying to establish primacy in our minds. We learn to tune it out.
In mainstream religions, we learn that Church is a Sunday only behavior activity with little bearing on what is done on weekdays. We are taught mountains of information in school, we learn to remember long enough to pass a test. We learn to tune out teachers and ministers in school and in Church as we sit for thousands of hours expected to listen and absorb all kinds of information. We don’t. We tune out.
News exposes come and go at dizzying speeds in 30 to 60 minute segments, full of bombastic claims and speculation. The latest greatest medical and science claims come and go — eggs are bad, eggs are good, broccoli will kill you, the President is a liar and thief. The FBI is watching you, the CIA sells us down the river and deliberately foments wars. Newspapers are a study in illogics and fallacies, quickly scanned and forgotten.
My mailbox fills with junk mail. I don’t even look at it. I pull out my real mail and toss the rest without looking. Billboards and signage assault our senses as we drive down the road. We ignore them.
T.V. shows feature all kinds of dissenting ideas, movies push political agendas and all kinds of dissenting messages. Spirits are angels, no, they are deadly sneaky dread creatures from the depths of hell, possession is a threat, vampires are real. Soldiers are brave and courageous, soldiers are vicious felons with a license to kill. Blood and gore and guts and everybody knows that cougars want to get laid by gorgeous young men. We just ignore MOST of it or ride on the vicarious thrill and then forget about it.
It came up as a phenomena in the early days on the web. Businesses would make banner ads and pop up ads, etc. and for the first time they could actually monitor how often people clicked on them. They learned that people IGNORE ads. They just tune them out. So they made them flash on and off, popped windows, made them bigger, moving etc. People still IGNORED them and installed software to shut them off when they couldn’t ignore them. People ignored puff pieces, obvious sales sites and propaganda sites and just clicked off to another site. On forums and chats people learned to ignore dissenting opinions, drive-by posts, trolls and obnoxious individuals. Eventually the search engines developed algorithms to detect “sales” or “spam” sites. and email software detected spam emails.
We don’t expect our news sources or even our opinion sources to be consistent. We know that they are not consistent by experience. Priests are pedophiles. Right. Policemen sell drugs. Right. Mothers shake their babies to death. Right. 50% of all women will be sexually assaulted. Right. 20-30% of women will be raped at least once. Right. Blow-jobs are not sex. Right. Your nice next door neighbor could be a serial killer. Right. Your psychiatrist could be a serial killer. Right. Road rage could kill you. Right. Iran is our ally, Iran is our enemy. Right. Politicians lie. Right. Violent crime is all around, violent crime stats have been falling for five years. Right. The brain doesn’t grow, the brain is neuroplastic. Right.
It goes on and on and on and on, dissenting voice, contradictory data, false data, wrong data, exaggerated data, flashing, demanding data, bombastic and over the top presentations. Really, its a wonder anyone learns anything at all!
Maria: “Really, its a wonder anyone learns anything at all!”
Chris: Now Maria, there’s no reason to be reticent . . . we’re all friends here, just say what you really think! LOL
Here is another view of this sort of thing. Just read the paragraph below at a normal speed and attention level.
“Why should anyone want to know anything about the human mind? And, for that matter, why should anyone believe that knowledge of the human mind is either unobtainable or undesirable? Why should men ostensibly seeking answers to the mind stray so far from it as to examine rats and entirely avoid looking at human beings? And why should anyone pretending to treat the mind stray so far afield as electric shock?”
Now before you have time to think about it at all, note what you got out of it and how you handled the information in terms of attention. Write a comment below it to describe what happened.
I tuned out of that barrage of seemingly unrelated questions.
Maria “Now before you have time to think about it at all, note what you got out of it and how you handled the information in terms of attention. Write a comment below it to describe what happened”
I couldn´t follow the logic but I kept going, hoping it would eventually make sense; I forgot everything.
One more thing surfaced 1/2 hour after reading that paragraph: It was Ron.
I got that right off the bat. Ron alluding to priests and psychs.
It pretty much left me blank. Like Valkov, I tuned it out.
I was trying to demonstrate that information is often simply tuned out when no value is seen in it or it is phrased in questions that cannot be answered.
And yes, it was LRH, the opening paragraph to Chapter 1 in Dianetics 55!
But it’s kind of unfair not to include the paragraph that follows, which clears up what he was getting at:
“The answers are relatively simple. Anyone who knows the structure, function, and dynamics of the human mind is very difficult to control. The only way a mind can be controlled is by enforcing upon it ignorance of itself. As far as study and treatment is concerned, a mind which has been made ignorant of itself would have to have restored to it awareness of its fundamentals before it could be considered to be recovered. And when one restores full awareness to a mind one is no longer able to victimize it. And a profession or a society would have to move out of slave orientation into action by freedom and consent, were it to be effective.” (DN 55)
Hubbard: “The only way a mind can be controlled is by enforcing upon it ignorance of itself.”
Chris: Sir, I’m confused over this point of mind being ignorant of itself. I thought the mind was a tool of the thetan, the aware of awareness unit. Is the mind self-aware as well?
Hubbard: dont confuse me son, I been dead without the body for sometime now… so I dont see clearly, in fact I dont even know if i am coming or going, but one think i know that you have a brain and it is soft and if it dont work it is your problem.. but dont bother me after all I am dead and if you want to know something. you know the drill: recall the time when you knew it!
Hubbard from the Great Beyond: ” . . . you know the drill: recall the time when you knew it!”
Chris: “Ok sir, sorry to be a bother when you are trying to rest in peace.”
OK but it’s not about fairness, it’s about what effect that glob of questions has on a reader. I tuned out. It had kind a an MU type effect on me. Why? I don’t know. Partly I didn’t know the answers to the questions. The next paragraph, of course is one of my favorites.
So was it a literary device on Hubbard’s part? I don’t think so. Was it some kind of use of the First and Second postulate data? It was before he gave those lectures, but it could have been an instinctive use. I still don’t know. I’ve never really re-visited those questions and don’t even want to, but the following paragraph stuck with me.
Valkov, literary device was my thought and I don’t think it’s an uncommon one. That type of thing may be one of the reasons LRH stated in the Study Tapes that sometimes you have to “cruise” (I remember that word being used :)) down the page a bit to get what the author intends to say. (Btw, this is one of those pieces of study tech that are ignored by those who are rote about always looking before the confusion, as in Method 3.)
I wasn’t trying to be fair or unfair or even critical. It was just a perfect sample that demonstrates what happens i.e. this question of how people manage to ignore information, not notice, or even really pay any attention.
Okay, Maria, got your point and it’s a good one. I think it’s the same idea Phil Spickler talks about in this video:
Maria: ” . . . how people manage to ignore information, not notice, or even really pay any attention.”
Chris: You’re right. I tried to play but couldn’t knuckle down to expend the effort to figure out what the hell – busy thinking about other stuff.
Actually, the paragraph that follows doesn’t clear anything up. It makes a number of assertions, that’s all. Both paragraphs are curiously like newspaper articles without any substance at all. They are claims. Strangely, the entire first two chapters of Dianetics 55! are one long PR/Propaganda media type rant defending Dianetics against possible criticisms and denouncing those who would criticize.
He poses a very scary scenario in the first couple of chapters of the book that there are people who are deliberately and maliciously preventing the REAL science of the mind, Dianetics, from being learned so they can continue to carry out an agenda to enslave and victimize everyone. And because of that, it is CRITICAL to learn this information to prevent oneself from being enslaved and victimized. Further if someone says its crackpot or poor science, its not because there is any kind of problem with it (or anything to do with the kind of accusations he is making) but because they are evil people. And Dianetics is the savior from that evil.
Not exactly how to win friends and influence people!
In fact, I have to wonder why he spent so much verbiage on that onslaught, it serves no useful purpose at all and is very inflammatory to those he considers to be ill intended because they are critical of his work.
Just so you know, I am trying to figure out how I failed to notice how downright invalidative and dismissive LRH actually is of any would be competitor to Dianetics when I first read this book. Reviewing it, what is clear to me is that I glossed over it because I dismissed it as a PR rant, and scanned forward looking for information I could actually use.
Maria: “He poses a very scary scenario in the first couple of chapters of the book that there are people who are deliberately and maliciously preventing the REAL science of the mind, Dianetics, from being learned so they can continue to carry out an agenda to enslave and victimize everyone.”
I remembered a post you wrote on a thread a while back that presented supported data for what was indeed a very scary scenario. Did I misunderstand what you were expressing here:
https://isene.me/2013/03/13/brainwashed#comment-33567
Oops, wrong link. Here’s the one I meant:
https://isene.me/2012/08/25/culture/#comment-22530
Maria: “Reviewing it, what is clear to me is that I glossed over it because I dismissed it as a PR rant, and scanned forward looking for information I could actually use.”
Chris: I got that as well and wondered the very same thing . . . Looking back at my behaviors and attitudes, I wonder if I am currently poka-yoked against mental conditioning at all or to what degree?
At 23 years old, living far from home, uneducated, making new friends, I probably fit the profile of someone susceptible to cult indoctrination, especially this one. Offering me promises of a complete and workable and scientific structure of knowing everything, Scientology filled the void left in my construct which had very recently been vacated by other religions. Plus, I was expecting to fill that void with religion . . . I had nothing on the idea of doing that. I was a reader of coffee table books from Baba Ram Das, to Krisnamurti, to Carlos Castaneda and the study of social and mental interactions looked to me as big as that field truly is. I wanted structure. Scientology totally delivers on structure.
Yes, Marildi, there is no doubt that there were mind control operations such as MK Ultra. But that is not how LRH presents it in the book. He presents that ANY criticism of Dianetics is the result of an evil intention to enslave and victimize.
What he does is exactly what he complains about — he generalizes and black PRs criticism. Instead of opening the possibility of gaining allies, he antagonizes any questioning or dissenting voice. Two chapters of it, on and on he goes.
But my interest is in WHY did I not notice it and comprehend that when I first read it? The answer is I dismissed it as posturing and PR and gave it NO credence whatsoever.
You really like Phil Spickler right? It seems that he too experienced this phenomena:
A couple of months ago, I decided I would look into some of the propaganda related to World War II, in particular I read Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto for the first time. Chilled me to the bone. There it was in black and white, the exact intentions laid out by Hitler and by Marx and Engels.
In an article I read recently, the author commented:
“In Mein Kampf, dictated by Adolph Hitler to Rudolph Hess during his 18 month imprisonment after his failed coup against the German Republic , a detailed plan for a future greater Germany was laid out. Included were plans for overcoming the limitations on the German military mandated by the Treaty of Versailles, a plan to dismember neighboring countries to expand the borders of Germany , the elimination of Jews from German territory, and the establishment of German hegemony over all of Europe .
When Hitler achieved political dominance, he promptly began the process of implementing those plans laid out in his book. The world, and in particular Europe , chose to view Mein Kampf as propaganda, meant to further Hitler’s political career. His rearmament program was ignored. The militarization of the Rhineland was ignored. The increasing segregation and marginalization of German Jews was ignored. His demands for the partition of Czechoslovakia , and the subsequent loss of that countries independence, were agreed to in a policy of appeasement. It took the outright invasion of Poland , with the assistance of the Soviet Union, before democratic Europe woke to the perils of a Nazi Germany. The most surprising aspect of this sequence of events is that so many people in positions of authority did not seem to be aware of the coming storm. Hitler had written exactly what he was going to do, yet the elite of Europe were surprised when he did it.”
So it seems that Phil and I are in very good company when it comes to simply not seeing this type of thing and interpreting it as PR or propaganda or puffery.
It seems very clear to me that LRH flipped sometime in the early 1960s, Phil seems to think it was in 1961. But reading those first couple of chapters of Dianetics 55! he was already enroute to a very us versus them kind of world.
Did he take it as encouragement that no one said anything? Could he have been curbed by those who cared about him upon noticing such an enormous departure from the creed of the Church and its underlying principles?
I don’t know. I do know that it slipped right past me as something I just didn’t take seriously and considered to be a bunch of fancy pronouncements to scan over and ignore.
Maria: “He presents that ANY criticism of Dianetics is the result of an evil intention to enslave and victimize…Instead of opening the possibility of gaining allies, he antagonizes any questioning or dissenting voice. Two chapters of it, on and on he goes.”
I just quickly reviewed the first chapter and do not see that he is doing what you say above. Can you give specific quotes?
My understanding of the general idea he is trying to get across is that IF someone did want to enslave people they would attack Dianetics as it can prevent such enslavement. He also talks about some very real situations, such as in this paragraph:
“Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health was written into a world where atomic fission was yet in its early stages. But „Dianetics 55!“ is being written in a world where bombs exist of such fury that a continent could be laid waste. The recent declaration of the Secretary of War of the United States of America that such weapons exist, and are capable of being used, and his assumption that men exist with such insufficiency of humanity that they would use such weapons, tells us that it is time someone, somewhere, took a hand in this game.”
Maybe you are right but please give some specifics.
Marildi: “My understanding of the general idea he is trying to get across is that IF someone did want to enslave people they would attack Dianetics as it can prevent such enslavement. ”
Chris: And yet Dianetics did not prevent mental enslavement, but formed up its own brand of it.
Hubbard’s speech is full of the sparkling generalities that he precisely says are the trademarks of the suppressive person. In your quoted paragraph Hubbard says, “The recent declaration of the Secretary of War of the United States of America that such weapons exist, and are capable of being used, and his assumption that men exist with such insufficiency of humanity that they would use such weapons, tells us that it is time someone, somewhere, took a hand in this game.”
And yet there was no “secretary of war” in 1955 and he avoids saying what he means by “recent declaration” or naming the person he quotes or the quote itself. Was there in fact such a “declaration?” Maybe. But the point being that Hubbard’s literary devices as you call them are rank inflammatory manipulations.
The fallacious logic in “. . . someone, somewhere, took a hand in this game” is a BIG finger pointing directly from Hubbard to Hubbard as the logical conclusion of who should do this and be backed up in doing this.
Possibly someone will now argue that I am refuting the negative political climate of the time. I am not. I am pointing to the precise language of a self-purported man of science who must be taken at his precise word. I am analyzing it and the intent of it. However, your explanations of literary devices, etc., rationalize it. Your arguments seem to begin with “Because the Tech is mostly right, we don’t need to challenge his fallacious comments, but only to ‘understand it better’ to get its good meaning.”
Chris: “And yet there was no “secretary of war” in 1955…”
You write that as if it you know it as a fact and yet a quick google search indicates that there was a Secretary of War in 1955.
Chris: “But the point being that Hubbard’s literary devices as you call them are rank inflammatory manipulations…your explanations of literary devices, etc., rationalize it.”
I only mentioned ONE literary device, so your pluralizing it is a generality, as is “your explanations”.
Honestly, Chris, I wish you would watch the generalities. I would be much more willing to have discussions with you.
Marildi: “. . . yet a quick google search indicates that there was a Secretary of War in 1955.”
Chris: Granted, I could be wrong. Since you don’t deal in generalities, who was it?
Marildi: “Honestly, Chris, I wish you would watch the generalities. I would be much more willing to have discussions with you.”
Chris: “When you didn’t answer ‘who was this secretary of war that Hubbard mentioned’ I looked it up myself — again. The last secretary of war was Kenneth Royal under Harry Truman in 1947. Was it Kenneth Royal that Hubbard was quoting in Dn55, was that the ‘recent’ declaration in 1947 — 8 years before he published DN55? Or was his reference to the Secretary of War only a literary device? Or was he simply lying? So did you find another reference which would back up Hubbard?
Here’s a link I came up with right away when I googled “Secretary of war 1955”:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Great_Lakes_connecting_channels.html?id=otUDAAAAMAAJ
Marildi: Here’s a link I came up. . .
Chris: I see what you mean. Something to do with a Corps of Engineers report on the Great Lakes connecting channels — it is a letter from the ” ‘Secretary of War’ Transmitting a Letter from the Chief of Engineers, United States Army,” but it is dated February 20, 1946. So on closer inspection, there is no Secretary of War since 1947 and still no Secretary of War in 1953. So we can now wonder why he wrote that. Before the information age, this tiny little research project of ours would hardly be possible — certainly not not in “.3 seconds.” We used to be able to be or say whatever we wanted with a certain anonymity, but no more. Do you suppose that Hubbard used this inability of people to check up on his declarations in 1953 to get away with stretching the truth?
Almost everyone who has ever existed doesn’t care what Hubbard said or thought, and we don’t have to either. It seems one overarching question is, “Should we?” I’m willing to be convinced either way. Are you? Because if you are not, then that is the root reason that these discussions can go nowhere and it would be forthright of you to say either way.
Okay, but even if he got the Secretary title wrong, I found something that seems to support his actual point. Here’s a link to some history of 1954 (and realize that Dn 55 was actually published in 1954): http://www.fsmitha.com/h2/ch24t5.htm
Obviously, I didn’t look closely at that first link. Or even the one above to any extent. Why not? The Honey Badger don’t give a shit. 😀
The “macrohistory” gives a terrific overview of the rampant insanity of those times, and of some of the dorks who were opinion leaders back then.
Marildi: Why not? The Honey Badger don’t give a shit.
Chris: Now we are beginning to communicate.
Hey Chris, I meant to ask you – did you ever watch that video all the way through? I thought you would find it hilarious.
Marildi: “Hey Chris, I meant to ask you – did you ever watch that video all the way through? I thought you would find it hilarious.
Chris: Oh yeah! My kids showed that to me ever so long ago and I almost gave myself a hernia laughing at it… something in the juxtaposition of the narrators effeminate delivery and the barely related and random film strip of the honey badger tearing up stuff… Wasn’t that snake bite just the most amazing?
Marildi: Why not? The Honey Badger don’t give a shit. Chris: Now we are beginning to communicate.
Chris: And speaking of videos, here is Tom Cruise and Cuba Gooding Jr. at their very best and also one that expresses my comment about communicating. Cuba says to Tom, “You think we are fighting and I think we are finally talking!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1B1_jQnlFk
Marildi: Hey Chris, I meant to ask you – did you ever watch that video all the way through?
Chris: Also, speaking of which, did you read my comment to you regarding tolerance? What was your take on it?
p.s. You know what’s interesting, Chris? Some of us, like me and Valkov and others, like to look at and find ways that LRH and Scn are right. While you, Geir, Alanzo and others like to look for ways that LRH and Scn are wrong. You ever notice that? It seems that each “group” sees the other as fixed and biased. I bet it’s more comparable than we think.
Marildi: p.s. You know what’s interesting, Chris?
Chris: To me, your comment is neither that interesting nor that accurate. I have not “made” Hubbard anything even one time. Hubbard has done that for himself. People like you and me gave up everything that we were and everything that we had to go follow L. Ron Hubbard in order to save the world. Would you dispute that? In light of that motivation and in light of the failure of Scientology to start and in light of the physical and mental abuse that we and our families have suffered for that goal; I think it is fair to know the truth about Scientology and about L. Ron Hubbard.
Distilled to its essence, I see one argument between you and me and it is argumentum contextus an argument of context. If you’ve understood anything I’ve written then you understand that because of the way that I see the “Basic Nature and Construct of the Universe” that I claim that Hubbard’s works are consistent within the bubble of Scientology. The reason that they are consistent within that construct is because Hubbard’s works are the root source and definition of the construct of that bubble known as Scientology. This is the tautology that I wanted to describe to Valkov.
Each of us have thoughts. These thoughts are consistent to us within the framework; the bubble of our own thoughts until the moment when they become inconsistent to us. Outside that bubble, others may view our logic and actions as inconsistent even while our own view of ourselves is consistent to ourselves. This is the reason that our own “problems” are not so apparent to ourselves as to others and vice versa.
Scientology is a World View. It set out to be and it is. Our difference on this subject is that you think Scientology is a Universal World View and I think Scientology is a Scientology World View. If each of us can embrace this an explosion of tolerance will occur.
This is an example of how I have understood and come to apply Heisenberg and Gödel socially.
Profound.
Thank you Geir. Not just for the nice compliment but for the place, the people, the tolerance and the opportunity to search and come closer to an understanding of myself in all its facets.
Marildi: …. like to look at and find ways that LRH and Scn are right. While you, Geir, Alanzo and others like to look for ways that LRH and Scn are wrong. You ever notice that? …
Dee: I spent way too many years studying, reading and believing it All to be right. I think it’s only fair to put in years to look at what’s wrong since apparently there is. Thus be able to differentiate and find out the why and see it as it really is!
Fair enough, Dee. I guess for me it doesn’t need years. I’ve seen enough to know that LRH wasn’t perfect and that Scientology can be and has been used in very harmful ways. And I find it mystifying as to why people need to go way past that same conclusion – which they obviously have come to – and continue to chew on the wrongnesses endlessly.
Sure, more and more analysis could be made but what I see is mostly a lot of repetition and wandering off into tangents. And I think we know enough now to concentrate on how to make the best of what, as far as I know, is the best technology that exists. Nevertheless, to each his own.
Besides, it’s St Patrick’s Day and I’m about to go off to enjoy some corned beef and cabbage and Irish coffee. 😉
Marildi: “I’ve seen enough to know that LRH wasn’t perfect and that Scientology can be . . . “
Marildi: And I find it mystifying as to why people need to go way past that same conclusion – which they obviously have come to – and continue to chew on the wrongnesses endlessly.
I find that someone chews on the rightnesses endlessly to make others wrong instead of just stating what you “believe” is mystifying. Please don’t ask for examples, there are more than enough on threads.
Happy St. Patrick’s Day! Mine was exceptional and hope yours was too.
Shelley made us a delicious corned beef and I bbq’d chicken with sweet bbq sauce. We had the grandparents over and all kids except my oldest daughter were here. Really good afternoon and evening. 🙂
No Marildi, I am not going to go through and excerpt every bit of it. Here’s a few that set the tone:
“When Dianetics was born every free thinker Man had known had long since been burned or poisoned or dust-binned into the curriculums of „universities.“ It was an age where renown awaited only the manufacturer – not the inventor – of the new can opener, where sanity was adjusted with electrodes and philosophy was made with Univacs.” (my comment: so what are all the people who are also involved in the thinking professions supposed to make of this? Are they supposed to say, oh yes, Hubbard is right, we do not have any free thinking going on and I am a slave of who?)
“The only elements in a society which would combat, or contest, or dispute an effort to attain such a science would be those interests which desired, by ignorance, to maintain their control of a slavery.” (my comment: This is not true, especially when he makes pronouncements like this one)
“This is Man’s one saving grace, and because Dianetics is such an impulse, and because its basic purpose, from the moment of its conception, have been dedicated unswervably
to the attainment of even greater freedom it cannot perish – a fact which will become doubtlessly more annoying to the slave-masters as the years roll on.” (So anyone who is annoyed by this needling that he engages in is a slave-master? No, this is false data and he is creating the enemies by saying such things)
This type of commentary is interspersed with bombastic claims for Dianetics, very rah rah, and going on about the fearsome threat of atomic war and stupidity and so on.
You know, I am not saying that what he says has NO merit, I am saying that how he presents the information is highly exaggerated, almost guaranteed to produce enemies even where there might not have enemies in the first place and very, very puffed up aggrandized, bombastic claims of how great Dianetics and how everything else is pretty much worthless in comparison.
You know, this is NOT comfortable for me to confront, however, it is what it is. And I am done with apologizing for LRH. He has excellent materials but he had a BIG MOUTH and a nasty habit of putting others down and aggrandizing his own work. And it is a theme that runs throughout his materials, even technical bulletins!
Maria: “…bombastic claims of how great Dianetics and how everything else is pretty much worthless in comparison.”
I can certainly go along with his claims coming across as “bombastic” but I haven’t seen in any of your quotes where he goes so far as to say “everything else is pretty much worthless in comparison.”
You wrote: “‘The only elements in a society which would combat, or contest, or dispute an effort to attain such a science would be those interests which desired, by ignorance, to maintain their control of a slavery.’ (my comment: This is not true, especially when he makes pronouncements like this one)”
The LRH sentence you quoted seems true enough to me – what other elements would combat an effort to attain such a science?
You also wrote: “‘This is Man’s one saving grace, and because Dianetics is such an impulse, and because its basic purpose, from the moment of its conception, have been dedicated unswervably to the attainment of even greater freedom it cannot perish – a fact which will become doubtlessly more annoying to the slave-masters as the years roll on.’ (So anyone who is annoyed by this needling that he engages in is a slave-master? No, this is false data and he is creating the enemies by saying such things)”
To me, other than the bombastic “Man’s one saving grace” all he is saying there is that the purpose of Dianetics would annoy slave masters. So who exactly are you saying would be “needled” by that statement (other than perhaps actual slave masters)? And where does he even say that anyone who is being needled is a slave-master?
I’m not unwilling to criticize LRH and for a while now I have done so where I see the criticism is deserved, especially as regards his “inversion” (as Spickler put it) in the later decades, but in this case I honestly don’t read into his words the same things you do.
I’m not going to play Hubbard’s advocate, but to speak my honest opinion here, when I read criticism against Hubbard on the web, it’s either by people that say they have had personal experience with him, or closely associate/identify the COS with him, or identify the tech in it’s current state with him, or even misinterpret this tech and associate/identify it with him.
I’m particularly WTFed at people that deliver his tech or his altered tech and are still critical of him and/or his tech (example: Mayo).
And I see the consideration that in order for a SCNist to proove that he is not brainwashed by Hubbard, he ought to criticise him.
Hubbard never did anything to me. It was all done by high-status idiots who did things in his name. And the more I go back in SCN timetrack, the more his tech makes sense to me.
I am partially very highly critical of the current tech. But I don’t know anything about his ‘older’ tech to be critical of. Whenever I see a critical point made by a critic about that old tech, I can easily intercept it both with logic and experience.
And since people reffered to the FPRD, may I point out that there are auditors/CSes that don’t deliver it, because they consider it to be the COSes creation.
Thanks for your take, Spyros. The only thing I can see that you and I might disagree about has to do with some of the policies put out in the later years of his life. I don’t think we can just assume they weren’t written by him and those policies opened the door for the changes that occurred in the CoS – no matter what LRH’s actual intention was for them. Basically, I think he made some bad estimations of effort (the use of too much force) that he thought was needed to protect Scientology from true enemies and to protect the tech from being altered.
Do me a favor and watch this video:
Hey Marildi, I’m going to watch his video. But to make something clear about what I said. When I reffer to ‘his tech’ I mean auditing tech. If one if not in a Church, doesn’t need to apply any HCOPLs. Those were addressed to specific posts during specific times. And I don’t consider them important as the essense of SCN was auditing. I wouldn’t need to apply any HCOPL to apply auditing tech. Also, it is obvious for me how many people tried and still try and actually have ceased control of SCN just for the purpose of dominating it. From that point of view, some strict HCOPLs can make sense. Still I don’t have any thorough knowledge of policies, so I don’t want to say big words.
Spyros, then you and I seem to be 100% in agreement, even if you are a little devil. 😛
Looking forward to what you think of the video. I’m going to check first thing in the morning for what you have to say. 😉
Nighty-night. 🙂
M: Spyros, then you and I seem to be 100% in agreement, even if you are a little devil. 😛
S: As Darth Sidious said, one needs to have understanding of both sides of the force 😛 Too bad he got stuck on one side himself.
M: Looking forward to what you think of the video. I’m going to check first thing in the morning for what you have to say. 😉
S: Yes, there are some things he talks about that I don’t know, but I agree with the things he talked about, and I know. My only little disagreement was the description of as-ising as letting go and putting it back to the world. I know he didn’t mean it exactly like that. But consider that ‘the world’ is an isness, and can be as-ised in the same fashion.
Spyros: “My only little disagreement was the description of as-ising as letting go and putting it back to the world. I know he didn’t mean it exactly like that. But consider that ‘the world’ is an isness, and can be as-ised in the same fashion.”
I get what you mean. But I think Marty may have explained it better in this exchange I had with him, starting at the link below and going down to his comment that starts out with “The parallel is…”:
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-tao-of-scientology/#comment-258789
p.s. I will be out for a while but hope to get back before your body forces you into dreamland. 😛
Hey, I checked Marty’s blog, and I found that part you mentioned and I don’t remember getting a clear answer, but I will try again as body keeps telling me how sleepy it is over and over. Thanks for info. 🙂 Goodnight to me –all 100000000000000000000000000000000 mes :p
Goodnight, Spyros, from just me. The eternal me. 😉 😛
M: Goodnight, Spyros, from just me. The eternal me. 😉 😛
S: Morning Marildi. You may disregard what I said about the many MEs. I was reffering to being 7th Dynamic (you can read about being all Dynamics in the ‘Route to Infinity’ lecture pack).
But since you reffered to the eternal me, please consider this: Eternity=endless time. Time is the primary lie. All persistence is the effect of lies. Is the basic me a lie? Also from the Factors: Potential (8th dynamic) is making (‘made’ would reffer to a past time tense –a lie) the decision ‘to be’. To be what?
“Spyros: “…the decision ‘to be’. To be what?”
Me: To be an awareness unit that can take a viewpoint, i.e. a point from which to view. That is to say, an awareness-of-awareness unit can take a point (or points) to view from and to be aware from.
It also seems (to me) that this awareness-of-awareness can relinquish, “step away from”, its point of view and go into a dimension where it has no view-point, no point from which it is viewing. But even in that state this individual awareness unit still exists and is able, as desired, to again take on a point or points to view from. And thus “it” exists – forever. 😛
As regards the semantics of the “eternal me”, how about ‘the never-ending me” or “the immortal me”?
Forever yours,
Me 😛 🙂
Hey 🙂 thanks for taking the time to describe and I agree. But my question was rhetorical. Later on I read it, and it didn’t look that rhetorical, so sorry to put you into the trouble. I only meant that ‘me’ doesn’t persist in time, so ‘eternal’ wouldn’t make sense. And it’s something (‘eternal’) I have heard by SCNists, and it annoys me now, because I believed it too. I believe that I would forever be into something, no matter what happened.
Neverending, immortal, and eternal have some differences. Because they resemble each other, are suitable for good implanties.
Ah sorry for being rude. G-night 😛 🙂
The most idiotic thing I have seen in SCN, is people delivering OT levels while they insist that an OT -as defined by LRH, not just in some dictionary but in his books, lectures and HCOBs- cannot exist. They admit they cannot make an OT, yet they are there being ‘right’. They admit the tech is unworkable, yet they deliver it. WTF?? And after all this contradiction they even use logic to point out to you why an OT cannot exist.
Maria: You know, this is NOT comfortable for me to confront, however, it is what it is. And I am done with apologizing for LRH. He has excellent materials but he had a BIG MOUTH and a nasty habit of putting others down and aggrandizing his own work. And it is a theme that runs throughout his materials, even technical bulletins!
Dee: Your writing about this book helped me clear up so much. I did all the basic books awhile back, as an internet courses, after having read or studied them over 30 years ago. I flew right through them until I did the ’55 one. I had many answers flunked and took me more time to get this one than others. Didn’t realize why I couldn’t get or like this book until now.
Then in listening to lectures I was getting annoyed with his 1.1 attitude. So thanks for this write up and I agree with you, since it makes sense. 🙂
Oh, and I should add that at this time, 1955, he was not under attack by any government agency. In fact, in 1957 the IRS granted tax exemption to the Church of Scientology of California.
Maria, I must say I read it much as marildi does. And the ‘bombastic’ tone of news in the 1950s, you have noted yourself when you posted a newsclip from that era.
We were in Japan in the early 1950s and I wanted to see “the War of the Worlds” movie when it was released(1953-54?); my grandfather said NO, it’s just a movie about Communism vs.the Free World, not for kids. (He knew it was ‘fantasy’ and was actually against it for that reason), but the reason he gave was indicative of the times. This was the milieu of McCarthism and HUAC, it was right after the Korean War, with it’s returning ‘brainwashed’ POWs. The “Manchurian Candidate”, was a real fear, one of the bogeymen of the times, whether it was a real threat or not. I
It was as you recently pointed out, a time of extreme conformity. Hubbard spoke to the times, is my view. Positioning Dianetics as an antidote to brainwashing was, I think, right on, a good attempt at igniting a grassroots interest in it.
Just a few years later, there were Soviet missiles in Cuba just off the Florida coast….
To me it simply reads like “the 1950s”
And although the tax exemption came coming, I’m sure Hubbard was well aware of the MK Ultra type programs and the attacks were coming from that quarter, not from government agencies. Would he have gotten the exemption at all,if he had not taken a strong anti-communist, anti- brainwashing stance? The government is not a monolith, after all.
I do see it ideological, but I do not see it as ‘fluff”. Coming from my background, it was one of the most meaningful things I read, later, when I came across it. I think he tapped right into the zeitgeist of those times.
Brilliant! Thanks for your knowledgeable input, Val.
Valkov: “I think he tapped right into the zeitgeist of those times.”
Chris: Your post is good and it is with reluctance that I pick on your last line. Hubbard perpetually studied the zeitgeist of all times and carefully as he could, wrote the playbook of Scientologist to conform with his perception of the zeitgeist of those times. It is this very preoccupation on making his public relations as liquid as possible so that people were being told just what they wanted to hear until they were hooked in at which time he could introduce them to ethics and really put them under his thumb.
I am not really picking on your post as I enjoyed your descriptions and I could easily resurrect the memories of duck and cover at school, etc., from the Cuban Missile crisis… I’m not trying to refute that McCarthy environment but only saying that my opinion is that Hubbard may have been exploiting rather than helping.
And more ultimately, I’m not asserting that Hubbard was Xenu. His language, syntax, and emotion was WWII old school and reminded me of my own father’s language especially when I listen to recordings of his voice and delivery. I don’t assert that he didn’t believe his claims. Sometimes, I think he may just have been powerfully wrong to create the world that he created. It didn’t unmock the world he disagreed with but rather created another layer of construct over the existing one.
Yes, he was an acute observer of the times, and much of what he said/wrote were attempts to position Dianetics by exploiting prevailing fears and attitudes.
Valkov, it is really weird. I don’t talk about it but LRH’s voice, Western accent, timber, even listening to him smoke and the way his voice changes as he exhales and talks with a chest full of smoke is eerily similar to my father’s. I kind of never mention it because I don’t want to get all Freudian and such and wouldn’t even know how to any way… But his voice is soothing to me partly due to this reason.
marildi
Thanks for putting the video “The Tao of Scientology” by Marty here. Very interesting. What he misses is that the “Tao” is a “Flow”. In essence it is….No Path, no method and no “walking the walk”. What he says about the female-male energy part of the Bridge for me is a WOW! I had a huge cognition of the real “why” I was interested in Scientology, my “part” in it and why it finished.
Glad you liked the video, Marianne! Here’s one of Marty’s comments on the thread of that OP where he posted the video;
“When one ceases reacting to the apparent plus/minus dichotomies that seem to hold the universe together she sees all – and all of its components – as an harmonious whole. It is like seeing a dimension that otherwise is invisible to those locked into the plus/minus game.”
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-tao-of-scientology/#comment-258728
And another comment of his on that thread:
Angela, Thanks. I wouldn’t resist the dreams either. Scientology is the most powerful technology – in my opinion – in raising cognitive consciousness (or what some traditions call ‘gross consciousness’, in-present-timeness with ultra-alert attention). But, a number of Eastern traditions also recognize value in two other states of consciousness that are always available to anyone – dream or ‘subtle’ (which includes your reveries, daydreaming, vital creative consciousness states) and, causal (or achievement of awarness of interconnectivity, or oneness, or the Tao, or maybe even the theta universe – or what I just started referring to as the 4th dimension). The latter two are frowned upon in Scientology (dream/subtle and causal)- even with warnings to take the B1 to suppress them. But, try not resisting them and see what happens. A whole new universe may open up to you.
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-tao-of-scientology/#comment-258734
Yep Valkov, I have examined this evolution from every possible angle and it is true that 1950s were, well, bombastic. Give me credit. I am the individual that pointed this out on this very blog and I did the work on researching that. I am also the individual that did the research on Montalk et al. It was a lot of work. I did not do this work so I could apologize for LRH. I did this work so I could understand how Scientology went from a rather benign subject to a bristling military organization with a drop off rate of 95% and a long history of disconnection and abuse. What the hell?
In this evolution, what I was trying to figure out was a) how did I come to read this material and just ignore it, given that it is composed in very sweeping and derogatory terms, and b) how did the subject manage to draw so much antagonism (which it clearly did,) c) how did the creed of the Church fall into a status of being unimportant, and d) At what point did this notion that there are evil beings afoot in a category of SP types come into play — types that warrant activities such as disconnection, fair game, declares, etc. e) where does this bristling attack mode come from other than HCO PLs
a) I dismissed it because I recognized it as PR and marketing efforts and so I simply tuned it out.
b) While Marildi may agree with what LRH said in these quotations, I sincerely doubt that Martys father-in-law would have been thrilled and pleased with statements such as are made by LRH in this book, more likely offended. It is collapsed into a book that teaches the technology in a way that is difficult to separate from the technology.
c) This concept that only slavemasters would speak out against Dianetics is not in keeping with the creed, to my mind it denies the concept that man is basically good and is seeking to survive and an effort to stop a dissenting voice by positioning all such efforts as aligned with practices that are physically destructive.
d) I was surprised to find these statements when I reviewed this material, I had long maintained that LRH became vehement in the face of attacks. Yet no attacks had yet occurred that are on record. Yes, there were definitely problems in society, but there have always been problems in society.
e) The first two chapters of Dianetics 55! are devoted to extolling the virtues of Dianetics and dismissing those who would critique or question it.
I find it hypocritical to accuse critics of phrasing their criticisms in generalities, while doing exactly that same thing oneself.
I note with interest that In Marildis response to me, she is perfectly willing to accept generalities and offensive criticisms from LRH, from Phil Spickler and from Marty. But she will read the blatant generalities stated by LRH and find nothing wrong with that. Totally okay. She just read it differently than I did. Okay, so how come she does not do the same with what I wrote?
And I also note with interest that if I bring up the more unlovely characteristics of LRH or the subject, I am suddenly a critic — a bad critic that is. I have tested this. If I argue in one direction then I am suddenly dear friends with vile critics, if I argue in the other direction then I am suddenly an apologist or pro-tech. In fact, I am always seeking to wipe the cobwebs out of my eyes and shake off the excuses, justifications, rationalizations, inferences, and PR propaganda in either direction and just look at what it is for what it is from as many different points of view as I can.
Marty makes a good point in his video. Scientology is indeed polarized on yang. And that is because LRH himself was polarized on yang.
I am not interested in being polarized. I am interested in sorting out what is what and if that is uncomfortable well, so be it.
Amen.
Maria: “While Marildi may agree with what LRH said in these quotations…”
I was disagreeing with your INTERPRETATIONS of them and gave specific examples that to me showed you had added meaning that wasn’t there. I also feel you were doing some cherry picking. For example, you posted a quote without including the first half of that same paragraph. Here’s the first half:
“Dianetics is an effort towards the attainment by Man of a level of freedom where decency and happiness can prevail, and where knowledge of the mind itself would prevent the unscrupulous use of the mechanisms of slavery. Dianetics can be contested, it can be vilified, its founder and practitioners can be publicly pilloried, but Dianetics cannot be ignored. It could neither be drowned in praise, nor burned in some purge to its total eradication, for it is a wonderfully observable fact that the one impulse in Man which cannot be erased is his impulse towards freedom, his impulse towards sanity, towards higher levels of attainment in all of his endeavors…”
You quoted only the second half of that paragraph, as follows:
“‘…This is Man’s one saving grace, and because Dianetics is such an impulse, and because its basic purpose, from the moment of its conception, have been dedicated unswervably to the attainment of even greater freedom it cannot perish – a fact which will become doubtlessly more annoying to the slave-masters as the years roll on.”
By quoting only that part, the reader doesn’t know what LRH meant by “Man’s one saving grace” – namely, Man’s “impulse towards freedom” – and thus be able to understand what LRH meant when he said “Dianetics is such an impulse.”
You also wrote: “I was surprised to find these statements when I reviewed this material, I had long maintained that LRH became vehement in the face of attacks. Yet no attacks had yet occurred that are on record.”
Perhaps not direct “attacks”, I don’t know for sure, but I do know that LRH noted very early on that he had tried to give his Dianetics discoveries to the medical community and they were outright rejected, and it would make sense that THIS was where he was coming from in his statements in Dn 55.
That said, in reply to your last comment, I’m not really interested in taking this discussion further as it’s a big subject and we no doubt would keep countering each other’s arguments with contrasting data and viewpoints. And I think such a subject can go on too long with no real resolution other than – there are different points of view and interpretations.
The most important point I wanted to say in this reply concerns what you said here: “In fact, I am always seeking to wipe the cobwebs out of my eyes and shake off the excuses, justifications, rationalizations, inferences, and PR propaganda in either direction and just look at what it is for what it is from as many different points of view as I can.”
Although I don’t always agree with you, Maria, I absolutely do see you doing the above and I commend you for it.
Hubbard via Marildi: ” . . . for it is a wonderfully observable fact that the one impulse in Man which cannot be erased is his impulse towards freedom, his impulse towards sanity, towards higher levels of attainment in all of his endeavors…”
Chris: In this we see a good example of Hubbard’s own textbook public relations “positioning.” He positions Dianetics together with freedom, sanity, and accomplishment. This is an excellent example.
Marildi: “. . . LRH noted very early on that he had tried to give his Dianetics discoveries to the medical community and they were outright rejected, . . . ”
Chris: There are two sides to each of these stories. What do you suppose actually happened; what do you suppose it means that he “tried to give Dianetics to the medical community?” This is another excellent example of how he spoon-fed us his own out-rudiments in life and we either swallowed or ignored but either way, we kept on being assimilated.
Maria: “I am not interested in being polarized. I am interested in sorting out what is what and if that is uncomfortable well, so be it.”
Chris: “Me neither and I wish all these bits were as organized in my mind as they seem to be in yours. Both rabid critics and pro-Scnsts would do well to understand what you’ve just written. Your post gives me hope that an improved evolution of man is possible. One that resembles beautiful words that Hubbard laced throughout his better pieces on Scientology such as the Code of Honor and the Aims of Scientology and the Creed of the Church. I still get misty reading these.”
Maria: In this evolution, what I was trying to figure out was a) how did I come to read this material and just ignore it, given that it is composed in very sweeping and derogatory terms, and b) how did the subject manage to draw so much antagonism (which it clearly did,) c) how did the creed of the Church fall into a status of being unimportant, and d) At what point did this notion that there are evil beings afoot in a category of SP types come into play —
Dee: What a fine job you have done and are doing. We all know what we read and believed and the wins we had. So what went wrong and when? I think that someone looking for that is commendable as they want to know why. I like to read the out points, since I know the plus points already. They satisfy my own wonderment and help me understand. Otherwise I may as well still be in, trapped in body and mind as a controlled slave.
Lets see Marildi.
You ask me for specific quotations. I give them to you. When I do, you tell me this is cherry picking. EXCUSE ME!????
I give you quotations from LRH that contain generalities. You ignore those generalities, because you agree with them. But if I make a conclusion that you do not like, you accuse me of using generalities as you just have done.
When you cannot defend the specific quotations, you switch to overall interpretation to demonstrate that the specific quotations do not say what they are saying so of course they are not a generality.
Meanwhile, like I said, it is perfectly okay with you if Phil Spickler reports his own interpretation of events, if Marty does, and if LRH does. They are not using generalities, of course. They are not interpreting events and realities, of course.
I can’t even think with this.
Maria: “You ask me for specific quotations. I give them to you. When I do, you tell me this is cherry picking. EXCUSE ME!????”
Cherry picking may not been quite the right word for the example I gave. To be more precise – you took it out of context, thus giving it an altogether different slant.
Maria: “I give you quotations from LRH that contain generalities. You ignore those generalities, because you agree with them. But if I make a conclusion that you do not like, you accuse me of using generalities as you just have done.”
No, that’s Straw Man. I never accused you of generalities, nor was I particularly concerned about that. I only asked you for some specifics for the conclusions you had drawn, as I myself had not come to those conclusions. And I did so politely without using such inflammatory rhetoric as you did in the reply above with “EXCUSE ME!????” We could also call that HE&R – or even bombast.
Then, when you did give a few quotations, I questioned where in each of those quotes LRH was saying what you claimed he was (in your comments that followed each). You apparently had no answers to those queries and I see that you still don’t speak to them.
Maria: “When you cannot defend the specific quotations, you switch to overall interpretation to demonstrate that the specific quotations do not say what they are saying so of course they are not a generality.”
More Straw Man. Where did I “switch to overall interpretation”? As I just wrote above, I spoke specifically to each of the examples you gave.
Maria: “Meanwhile, like I said, it is perfectly okay with you if Phil Spickler reports his own interpretation of events, if Marty does, and if LRH does. They are not using generalities, of course. They are not interpreting events and realities, of course.”
I repeat, you were making assertions about specific written materials. I questioned those assertions – that’s all. And in your response I saw no real support for your claims (unlike Phil, Marty and LRH) other than the one about LRH being bombastic. I know that’s a big deal in your book, but in mine its relatively minor considering he was constricted by the rules of the game and the context of that era. HIs being bombastic is even more minor when you considerf the huge contributions he factually made – just in the book Dianetics 55 alone.
I will also repeat that I agree LRH made mistakes. But if you’re going to talk about his mistakes you should make your case a little better than you did this one. And the fact that you are committing Straw Man fallacies as well as getting all huffy just worsens your case.
Maria: “I can’t even think with this.”
My sentiments exactly. We come from two different frames of reference.
Marildi: ” . . .And in your response I saw no real support for your claims. . .”
Chris: This might be more of an issue with your seeing what is there rather than what is there. I am seeing many people make good arguments back and forth in support of evidence of Scientology brainwashing and also that it is not brainwashing. Treating this like a contest may not be the way to go. There is after all only our understanding to be gained — nothing more than that to be won.
When one wants to “save” the world, one is in the mind-set of Fear. One sees the world as a “dangerous” place. And will fuel one’s own energy into that direction. One’s actions will not be the proper to the situation actions. Example: a doctor can save the life of another just by observing what there is in actuality and doing what is necessary.
MT
“”””When one wants to “save” the world, one is in the mind-set of Fear”””
E.. good one , you can bet your last Forint on that and you would win!.
Just think my dear who has a pistol under his pillow, or gun is his house, pepper spray in her hand bag, knife under his belt etc,,, triple lock an the doors, alarm set even on the night pot.. hehehe.. fear is the glue, even preferences are connected to fear. One must choose the winning way because what would happen if one wont win? the Must to do even as in ‘winning’ there is fear: what if I lose? But of course there are many other sides one can consider: why one must win, why winning is preference to losing. Game.
Valkov: “But Geir ‘woke up’ after doing the entire Bridge.”
Chris: This is fascinating to me and is precisely what I am exploring at the moment. Your referenced article in “Scientific American” gave me to understand that people with certain brain conditions are more susceptible to brain washing than others without this condition. It was a little unsatisfying and a little tautological, but to be fair I only gave it the once over and I am not a particularly quick-study.
Geir should pipe up and give his opinion of why this was so.
This is fascinating to me for another reason having to do with our personal experience being exclusively personal and inaccessible to another person. It’s one of the points that Marildi and I spar over. “How close to another’s experience can we experience?“
Chris
“How close to another’s experience can we experience?” 100%. Suppose you are “pure awareness”, you see “another” who is in the core “pure awareness” too…but is not aware of it…the “person” “creates” ….you perceive the process of creation (perfect duplicate) and thus you have both the experience and the core…what remains though is the Core. Makes SENSE?
Marianne: “Makes SENSE?”
Chris: I do understand your words. It’s just that I think there’s: 1. a little bit further than that to go; 2. by the time there is an experience, there is a self; 3. I get what you are getting at, but for me, it’s not laid out just that way; 4. Partly it’s the language and words… if you can get inside my experience you can see then what I mean; 5. I don’t have that view of your experience.
Ohhh….what a fight 🙂 I think my post above was the last one on this blog…I’ve just expressed an opinion, never intented to throw Geir in wolf’s mouth…He was always such a nice host, I don’t want my comments (or others) to harm him…I think I will stay on his drawing work. His drawings are really beautiful and most of all, harmless..:)
dragos, my post was actually a response to something Al posted, but I did not email notifications on and so it ended up far below his post.
dragos
HaHaHa….just “throw him in wolf’s mouth”…HE won’t be harmed! Very wise guy, you know him (better than me as I never met him). All his posts are very tricky…even this one! Though, I would welcome a little less “politeness” from him (cultural ? as you earlier wrote about kids’ education in school)…but it’s fine…I prefer “raw” energy and plain truth if you see what I mean…a fight can be really nice….
Chris suggested that I read “The Light in the Forest” by Conrad Richter.
Here’s the cliff notes version: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/light-in-the-forest.html
I just finished it. It is an excellent book. It shows very clearly how we are social animals, and how we see the world through the cultures we have come to identify with.
This is not a book about brainwashing, but it is a book about our social nature, upon which all brainwashing is based.
Thanks, Chris. This was really a great book.
Alanzo
Alanzo: Thanks, Chris. This was really a great book.
Chris: You are welcome of course. I feel very validated that it had a good effect, thank you.
What I really liked was True Son’s questioning his elders about killing white children at the end of the book, after he had done the same with his white parents about their support of killing Indian children.
There is a point where a person can not really be part of any culture whole-heartedly, especially when that culture values war and other inhumanities, as almost all do.
This situation that True Son was in, was one that I was in when I first got involved in Scientology. Reagan had just declared the Soviet Union “the Evil Empire” and was whipping up everyone into anti-communist fervor.
After Viet Nam and Nixon, I had no more faith in my country. Scientology, with its pitch of a “civilization without war crime or insanity, where honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights”, was just the kind of lie I needed to believe in at the time.
Alanzo
Alanzo: Scientology, with its pitch of a “civilization without war crime or insanity, where honest beings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights”, was just the kind of lie I needed to believe in at the time.
Chris: I LOVED that stuff… made me feel like I had chosen the right team and was a real part of something good in the annals of history.
Spyros (2013-03-13 at 23:30): “Yes, a very welcome win, the one you described. I had a huge one recently –the best ever. I’ll let you know. 😉 ;)”
EH (2013-03-14 at 00:30): “Lookinfg forward to read It.. very much so…”
Spyros (2013-03-14 at 08:01): “:) I’ll tell you but in private because I don’t want to have to explain to Alanzo how what I experience or not is indeed what I experience or not, and then have to defend the nothing and make it a solid something and analyse it and so on :P”
When people write this kind of things (above) in a blog, the blog has become quite useless.
☞ http://tinyurl.com/Xing-Ahead-jpg
☞ http://tinyurl.com/That-Is-The-Question-jpg
☜ http://tinyurl.com/Frustrated-jpg
☜ http://tinyurl.com/In-Heaven-jpg
This is the “Brainwashed!” thread, after all.
Alanzo
Ferenc: When people write this kind of things (above) in a blog, the blog has become quite useless.
“Say it and you’re wrong.”
“Dont say it, and youre wrong again.”
“Either way, you are wrong”
Ferenc, I need your approval…plz?
Alanzo: This is the “Brainwashed!” thread, after all.
Spyros: Indeed
and following your sense of logic, I could easily prove that I’m The Great Spaghetti Monster myself. Because all your ideas are ‘facts’…mine too. What’s wrong idiot, have nothing to say about your criticising something you don’t understand, and started trolling instead? Go fuck yourself, little cunt.
Wow.
What I meant by that is that if your ideas can stand up to scrutiny then you should be proud.
But if a few questions make you have that kind of reaction, maybe they aren’t “facts” that you are discussing after all, but beliefs.
And if that is the case, then I can certainly understand your reaction to me and my comment.
So are the ideas you are discussing here on this blog really facts, or are they your beliefs?
Alanzo
I’m not going to try to see through your viewpoint, to understand wtf sense you’re trying to make.
No, I never talked about ‘facts’. It was a joke. I either say my opinion or I quote others.
You are granted the space to speak your mind freely and nobody stops you. It doesn’t mean people will sit and let you call them ‘brainwashed’ over and over. You are brainwashed and a brainwasher yourself.
I never called you “brainwshed” Spyros.
I said this is the brainwashed thread, where beliefs are challenged.
Clearly, you don’t like your beliefs challenged.
That does not make me a “brainwasher”. It only justifies for you your TRs going out and calling me a “cunt”.
Which I actually think is pretty funny. How many hours of TRs have you done?
How’s that going for you?
Alanzo
Listen Alanzo, I let you think what you think about SCN and LRH and me too! I know english is not my native, but I didn’t see you implying what you said that you did. And I still can’t see it.
If you want to know what I know about myself, is that I am among those people that are glad to realise that they were stupid and laugh at their stupidity –because I like to be stupidity-free. You cannot challenge my beliefs, I am glad to realise stuff. I long for it!!
Also, I don’t use TRs since I can’t remember when.
Also, stop trying to make me wrong with your ‘facts’. I’m not buying this. Try to convince others.
Spyros
“Either way, you are wrong”…..read my comment to Ferenc. Words, ideas, thoughts are only parts of the picture…they come as dichotomies as you know. You, Life, can never be wrong….never……YOUR WIN – SMILING AGAIN?
Marianne, I think a little anger or other ‘negative’ emotions are OK sometimes. they may not be OK if you stick on them and be unable to go away 😛
I’m fine. Now the cycle is over. 😉 🙂
Hi Spyros 😛
I just skimmed this thread and maybe got a different understanding than you did of what Ferenc meant when he said “When people write this kind of things (above) in a blog, the blog has become quite useless.”
Before that he had quoted you as saying: “I’ll tell you but in private because I don’t want to have to explain to Alanzo how what I experience or not is indeed what I experience or not, and then have to defend the nothing and make it a solid something and analyse it and so on.”
My understanding ofwhat he meant was that when someone gets to the point, like you did, of choosing not to say something on a blog because he would then have to explain and defend it to some troll, that is when the blog becomes useless.
Is that how you understood him? 😛 😉
M: My understanding ofwhat he meant was that when someone gets to the point, like you did, of choosing not to say something on a blog because he would then have to explain and defend it to some troll, that is when the blog becomes useless.
S: Hey Marildi. I didn’t understand it that way. If that’s what he meant, I apologise.
🙂
Oh yeah, Spypros, I’m sure that’s how he meant it. He’s one of the good guys and knows a good guy when he sees one. 🙂 😛
Here’s a definition I think you’ll like:
M: Oh yeah, Spypros, I’m sure that’s how he meant it. He’s one of the good guys and knows a good guy when he sees one. 🙂 😛
Spypros: Well, I wait for him to speak. If it is so, I will apologise and mop his floor. 😛
oops, here’s the definition:
Trolling: Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it’s the internet and, hey, you can.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling
😀 😛
Marildiv [2013-03-14 at 19:54]: “My understanding of what he meant was that when someone gets to the point, like you did, of choosing not to say something on a blog because he would then have to explain and defend it to some troll, that is when the blog becomes useless.”
Marildiv,
The above is what I meant. Your semantics skills are so good! Maybe this is why some people are arguing so many times with you: because your semantics skills are so far ahead of theirs.
OMG, Ferenc, that is such a nice compliment! I happen to think semantics skills are important and usually do try my best – but would like to get a lot better! As for why some people argue with me so many times, well…there might be some different theories than yours (LOL :D). Anyway, thanks, sweetie! 😉
Spyros [2013-03-13 at 23:30]: “Say it and you’re wrong. Don’t say it, and you’re wrong again. Either way, you are wrong. Ferenc, I need your approval…plz?”
Dear Spyros,
I’m sorry, I wasn’t clear enough (English is not our first language).
What I meant (as Marildiv [2013-03-14 at 19:54] interpreted it) is that people, and I’m sure you are not the only one, don’t want to write about something good and nice that happened to them because they know that somebody else is going to troll.
(Troll: One who hides under the bridges of topics, eagerly waiting to pounce individuals and shower them with opposing opinions or ideas – generally derogatorily -. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090428064657AAAOaBC)
It is completely OK when somebody doesn’t want to write something publicly because (s)he feels it is private. In this case (s)he may write in a comment that (s)he will send it via private e-mail.
BUT, when people don’t want to write about something good and nice that happened to them because somebody else is going to troll them, that is a bad situation.
Ferenc: I wasn’t clear enough (English is not our first language).
Spyros: Sorry then. It seems I went down that cycle that starts with an MU and ends up where it ends up.
I’m gonna write down my O/Ws now and send them to my nearest Church (that would be cool!) then mop your floor 😛
Ferenc: BUT, when people don’t want to write about something good and nice that happened to them because somebody else is going to troll them, that is a bad situation.
Spyros: Yes, I agree. But it’s the nature of the blog to have arguements, and I didn’t feel like argueing about that matter. So, I thought I should better not.
Spyros,
I hope you will be singing and dancing while you mop my floor. 🙂
http://tinyurl.com/Singing-jpg
http://tinyurl.com/Dancing-jpg
But, please don’t open my closet. 🙂
http://tinyurl.com/Do-Not-Open-My-Closet-jpg
Ferenc: I hope you will be singing and dancing while you mop my floor. 🙂
Spyros: Where do you find all these pictures? 😛
Spyros: “Where do you find all these pictures? :P”
Google (or Bing, etc) Image Search
Spyros: What’s wrong idiot, have nothing to say about your criticising something you don’t understand, and started trolling instead? Go fuck yourself, little cunt.
Chris: We are enjoying your enthusiasm for writing Spyros, but be warned – this language won’t be used between writers on this blog. Though we may disagree and get snarky at times, we respect one another and also you too much to write to one another like this. Try to be mindful of the OP and please don’t focus on your feelings about the individuals leaving their comments.
Sorry Chris, I didn’t feel much respected either at the time I wrote it. But now I agreed with Alonzo that I will go through my liability condition, and we’ll be alright.
liability condition? you mean to say that Chris’s reality is yours ? That you are in some kind of condition because Chris reality is not the same as yours?
Are you out of your greek mind?
Dont mind Chris, since he just reached the state where he become aware the existance Stupidity and he is confronting stupidity…
Of course I’m out of my mind. Now, I have 100000000000000000000000000000000000000 more minds to ‘get out’ of. Part of my reality regarding this, is the reality of Chris too. But I think I have said all I had to say about SCN. Why make more considerations? I only want to fool around now 😛
SP… I am thrilled that you are out of that ”mind” .. not a good place to be.. but that expression sounds so gooooood. 🙂
You mean the expression with the many 0s? hehehehe yes, I multiply like mad 😛
Spyros: “Sorry Chris, . . ”
Chris: Glad you understand. On other blogs, comments are moderated and censored. I would take quite a loss if this one had to go that way because we couldn’t discuss civilly. Thank you for making nice and all is forgiven. Looking forward to your enthusiasm.
Chris: Glad you understand. On other blogs, comments are moderated and censored
Spyros: Chris I can take it if someone doesn’t want sexual mockeries in his blog. However, this doesn’t mean that all other insults that are said are civilized –and I read many. Since I don’t get into that game, I dont take them personally but I could…
I only apologised because my comment was a product of a misunderstanding. I would rather leave than have remorse to show somebody what he does by reflecting it back at him.
Spyros: Chris I can take it if someone doesn’t want sexual mockeries in his blog. . . However, this doesn’t mean that all other insults that are said are civilized –and I read many.
Chris: You are right that we often lash out at one another and that is not right either. However, my chide was not directed at any “sexual” mockery but at the violence of your reaction. I do understand getting angry when we discuss our deeply seated feelings and opinions. I find that my own fights are not with others but with myself. If I can remain mindful of this then the discussion can go somewhere and if not then it doesn’t. Though I didn’t mention it, I don’t expect any kind of remorse from you or feeling bad or mopping floors. Only to try to stay on topic; try not to let us get you riled up. Oh, and no one wants you to leave at all. Least of all Alanzo, I’m sure of that.
Chris: my chide was not directed at any “sexual” mockery but at the violence of your reaction. I do understand getting angry when we discuss our deeply seated feelings and opinions.
Spyros: Chris, I thought he implied that my ‘win’ I was talking about with Elizabeth was due to being brainwashed. I considered it enough of a reason to act like I did.
Chris: I find that my own fights are not with others but with myself.
Spyros: Me too. When I find it out, I no longer fight. I always find it out in the end. Sometimes I know it beforehand but I put it aside, to have something to say. It’s partially what I meant before with ‘as-isness’.
Know that I had it under control all the time. I dont have any strange impulse to act angry, but I can act angry and happy and sad and various stuff. I thought to show Alonso (as in other times) what I thought that he did at that time. I know I didn’t bring about any cognition, but I didn’t intend to.
Chris and others, I think it’s basic to allow another to have his point of view. And yes that doesn’t mean to not express your arguement. But if the arguement is on the basis of ‘You are wrong’, you press the other down, you don’t help him see your arguement. You know, if you call somebody a over and over he may wind up believing it in the end, although he may not know why.
SCN is no exception. Most of us have something here have something against SCN in one way or another. And most think that we have some workable spiritual path too –SCN or other. I think that should be respected. Explain your arguement (not you Chris 😛 ) but without reducing the other. This way you don’t have war.
Spyros: “I think that should be respected. Explain your arguement , , , but without reducing the other. This way you don’t have war.
Chris: Sage advice! I will try to take it!
S: You know, if you call somebody a over and over he may wind up believing it in the end
S: I meant if you call him something ‘bad’ 😛
S: I meant if you call him something ‘bad’ Chris: Ah! Yet another good reason not to label one another.
S: I meant if you call him something ‘bad’
Chris: Ah! Yet another good reason not to label one another.
S: Yes indeed. Look, the way I see it, it depends on what kind of a conversation ‘you’ want to have. What rules you set. I am willing and usually let people think and say what they want and be what they want. If they don’t let me though, I can get myself ‘restimulated’ and act in a similar manner. It is unffair to give the other that freedom, and not be granted the same. Of course, the ‘unffair’ is an idea too. But yeah, I like to be fair sometimes.
Generally, no harm done to me.
🙂
SP: If they don’t let me though, I can get myself ‘restimulated’ and act in a similar manner.
Sp: Not really, you usually act in a much worse manner!
SP: True story…
CH..
”but be warned – this language won’t be used between writers on this blog.””
No Chris, not all writers say that word but they know it very well and in reality it is a body part which every male is very much acquainted with and it was the door trough this body of mine [anchor,] and so was yours : quizzed through entering this here Planet.. and having a female body I have one so is every female on this Planet… Billions of them around!!! Just think Billions!!!
Not in every persons mind that image is filthy…. Warning–warning? you did that too to me once… Are you the guardian of good manners? Where you elected to patrol the Blog and weed out what you consider is bad?
Elizabeth
Like it when you are humorous (many times)!
Love ya.. my dear..
One of the most humorous comments I read on Brendan’s blog by Isene. “Thinking is out-rated”.
MT: Very true, not only out-rated but over-rated as a communication tool. Never gets one out, but gets one deeper into the MEST U.
That’s quite some scientific explanation of the term I used 😛
For some reason I can’t explain I keep laughing on and on during my stay here nowdays. But I think that since the messages persist, they can read totally different from time to time, and give various impressions. I was angry when I wrote that message, but not anymore. But the persisting message doesn’t show that.
Anyway, I will be honest. I don’t have the slightest intention to have a serious conversation about SCN anymore, although I did it. And I think that can get in conflict with the intention of others, because some would like to seriously discuss.
So, Geir thanks so much for hosting my comments here, and of course you may delete something if it’s inappropriate 🙂
SP….
people here want to know about the beginning of the universe, they want to know every little detail, they want to know abouth every little atom, throwing around big scientific words, quote sages and idiots but cant accept the word being used which is the part of female body and thinking it is fithy expression.:
Something is wrong than… very wrong… only little minds, narrow reality want to hold back communication just because in one fiery moment one puts fort something different.
So how narrow minded reality could understand the scope of the Universe where there are billions of reality existing and created continualy?
Elizabeth, it turns out you are ALMOST as devilish as I am. I can’t let you take my sceptre. You just got me in a sleepy mood 😛
bah… i used to eat people like you for snacks.. but i have given up meat so you are safe… 🙂
By the way what is 😛 means..? I am clue-less
😛 is a variable of silliness. It could mean that something is funny, looney, immature (I particularly like this one), crazy etc. It is my signature-smiley (proud of it) 😀
Elizabeth: Where you elected to patrol the Blog and weed out what you consider is bad?
Chris: Yes ma’am, and I will cut out your tongue, roast it with onions and potatoes on shish kabob and eat it in front of you if you dare say any naughty word ever ever ever again!!! (I don’t like your meat tenderizing under the saddle – anyways tongue is already tender and tasty)
Ch….. it is your than, I will it to you in my Last Will and Tasty-ment.. And I thought I was the only canibal around here….. how wrong I can be?
Eliz: “. . . how wrong I can be?”
Chris: Mmmmm – tongue! I used to think I wouldn’t like it until you got me to try it! hahaha
and we like it it that way…
Elizabeth!: “. . .and we like it it that way…”
Chris: LOL – who pulled your chain?!?! hahaha
Ferenc
No, the blog will never be useless! When you read another’s “comment”, you probably feel the “flow”, the “tone”, the “energy” of the “person” behind it. “Realized”, “enlightened” beings also speak, write (with a pure, free flow of Life energy). Spyros had a “big win” – I felt the “clear no-space” and a “pure flow”. I know, that you were joking with the pictures. Also, like whenever you put pictures here – very much! Yes, his “win” broke…..of course….so as to get “more stable” next time. Also, he produced a different kind of flow….anger. A lot of people read the blog….the anger flow can lift one up who is reading him from fear or apathy….so, one can never be wrong….only right. This is the nature of the “web-energy of life. Your experience?
thank you, and you are right of course, so sorry to put something in your space which has no value… but what is value? what you write?
Awesome Ferenc! 🙂 🙂
The next stage of brainwashing from the article “How Brainwashing Works”
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/brainwashing2.htm
This has also been referred to as “The Stockholm Syndrome”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome
LRH’s daughter Suzette has been quoted as saying that the emeter was a device used to create Stockholm Syndrome.
After you have been “held captive” in an auditing session many dozens of times, intentionally restimulated into the most traumatic areas you have experienced, and/or imagined, and forced to confess the most intimate details of your life, and your most horrible sins, it can be a huge relief when your auditor and everyone at the org DO NOTHING to you.
It can make you a Scientologist, rabidly defending the indefensible, for life.
Alanzo
Yeah well, I guess this was what happened to you on the FPRD and sec checking: In a state of breakdown resulting from an endless psychological attack.
I did not experience an endless psychological attack in any of the auditing I had. There were no attacks at all. And I never entered a state of breakdown either. Therefore this leniency notion is absurd for me. No one offered me leniency after a session! There was nothing to be lenient about.
Maria –
Maybe you are not necessarily seeing all this in its context.
Any time a human being – a social animal – is faced with confessing his sins and risking the deep shame and guilt which comes from our social nature, it is traumatic to him. You remember the first time you had to get off an overt in session, right?
It was not pleasant, most likely.
Confession is emotionally disruptive and deals with the most vulnerable part of a human psyche – whether his fellows believe he is ethical and moral or not.
Hubbard completely glossed over all this and made everyone “thetans” who “withhold themselves” and thereby “shrink their spaces.” So confessing was therapeutic and increased your reach!
But what if this is not necessarily true in all cases, and what if there is something else going on when you look at human beings as social animals?
Why is confession part of every totalitarian brainwashing regime?
Scientology is a brainwashing onslaught, heavily disguised, with false facts and misdirections and all kinds of labyrinthine traps.
You have to step outside of the “explanations” Hubbard gave for what his technology was actually doing and look at them from other perspectives.
Social science is a great place to start.
Alanzo
I do not give a shit what LRH said. Not at all. And I don’t care how he explained auditing or what I was experiencing. His explanation means NOTHING to me. NOTHING. I am talking about MY experience. Not some textbook theory, Scientology theory or your theory. I had lots of auditing, and MY EXPERIENCE does not align with what you have been describing. So you can stop telling me that I am going with what LRH said. I am so far beyond that now that this is laughable. In fact, I am so far beyond all this brainwashing and yap yap that about all it is now for me is trying to get an understanding on what OTHERS have PERSONALLY experienced, not what some school of thought CLAIMS is the case.
What you call brainwashing is ABUSE. That’s all it is. I personally did not experience ABUSE at the hands of any auditor. I avoided the group that you belonged to (Sea Org and many staff members) because they were ABUSIVE. And LRH himself was ABUSIVE by report. So address the ABUSE. Otherwise no one should be talking to anyone about any subjective state or what they should and should not be or do in their lives. That includes you.
Again, Maria –
I am not telling you anything about your subjective state or what you should do with your life.
This is another of your emotional reactions/accusations which twists what is being said to you and accuses someone of saying or doing something they did not do or say.
Alanzo
I looked through what I wrote and saw that I tried to use an example for you about the first time you got auditing and had to confess an overt.
I can see why you would say that I am trying to say something about your subjective because of that example.
Sorry.
It was just an example. And I said “most likely” because I worked in a mission and saw many people experiencing auditing for the first time and what they had to say about it.
For you this was obviously different. You loved getting off your overts and withholds for the first time.
Alanzo
Well I was probably used to confession in the regular Church so I can’t say I really thought much about it. The pain associated with overts and withholds comes from others shaming and punishing an individual for what they have done. You see, I really thought I was talking to a minister/priest, who would never ever hold what I said against me. But that was me.
Maria: “But that was me.”
Chris: A funny anecdote, still a public Scientologist, I was sold a couple thousand dollars worth of the first FPRD auditing that came out and I traveled to ASHO to do it. After a particularly nerve wracking session I was taking a break and wandering the halls and wandered into a darkened room where they were showing a “movie.” The room held 2 or 3 dozen students who were intently watching a demonstration of FPRD auditing. Imagine my surprise when I looked at the screen over the top of the emeter and saw that it was MY OWN FACE looking back at me from a session earlier that day. So much for “Confidential Priest/Penitent Confessional Formulary,” eh? hahaha. Oh wait, it really wasn’t that funny to me. I had told bad things about myself that I would not have said out loud at a seminar, but there I was…
Later, when I was being handled in Ethics for my upset with the scene, I was told it was alright because of my educational contribution to further clearing the planet. I bought it (as though I had a choice) partly because that genie was out of the bottle and probably because I was going home to Texas (at the time) so maybe no one would know it was me.
Wow Chris, “MY OWN FACE looking back at me from a session earlier that day”
I heard about this happening but never heard one experiencing it. I would’ve been outraged too and do understand how you “bought it.” That’s what we had to do to survive for the time being in.
deE: “MY OWN FACE looking back at me from a session earlier that day”
Chris: I so suppressed thinking about that — relating it to you made my face hot again.
Chris: Handled in ethics for your upset?
Right. (fury and disgust at the staff who did this to you)
I was reminded of a decision I made after the grade chart changed in the late 70s. I decided that I was going to ignore all new rundowns and all changes, wait at least a year to see what shook out because I damned well wasn’t going to pay huge fees for being a guinea pig. So I missed the KTL, the LOC, the HRD, the FPRD, the new auditor training courses, and a number of others I have long since forgotten. I also decided to ignore all blanket orders. I found it amazing how quickly these new actions would disappear as “blanket CSes.”
I also decided that I had one registrar. He was a very cool guy, left the SO in 2006. No surprise that he left, given what I’ve learned about the series of events happening at Int level. I refused to speak to anyone else about doing courses or auditing and told anyone else that they needed to call him if they wanted information. I knew very well that those staff members had no respect for anyone’s private or confidential information. What I didn’t know was how deep the disrespect and contempt went. Not until I started reading up on the Internet on what happened to people and what kind of actions the Church was involved with over the years.
Maria: “What I didn’t know was how deep the disrespect and contempt went. Not until I started reading up on the Internet on what happened to people and what kind of actions the Church was involved with over the years.”
Dee: I can relate to that too. Also when they changed the charts in the 70s. All it accomplished was holding me back, seems I was never going to get where I wanted and planned because of those couple changes. I also was studying and auditing as much and fast as I could, while paying for my bridge as a public. If it wasn’t one thing it was another, yoi! Very suppressive to me, I realized much later.
Maria: What I didn’t know was how deep the disrespect and contempt went.
Chris: Most recently, even though declared suppressive, my name found its way to various call in lists and I’ve been regged by telephone. Wise to this I stopped answering. As recently as Christmas I got a call at 10:15 PM and also unable to reach me by telephone, someone took it upon themself to “track me down” and did so through the City water utility – You see, I moved and the only thing linking my personal name to my home was the water bill. Additionally, I do not receive mail, not even that water bill at my home. Getting that letter from “addresso” made my face burn to realize how deep they were probing to come up with good addresses for ex-Scientologists.
Actually Maria, it is not just a generic “abuse”.
That is not a helpful or useful way to confront and categorize this.
It is brainwashing, its target is to create a personality or identity shift. It is abusive, yes, but it is a very exact thing, not just “abuse”.
Alanzo
“”It is brainwashing, its target is to create a personality”
and your personality- presence is a very good example what is a totally negative personality is.
Look over this tread… since your energy-personality dominates it, it is heavy one ugly tread. you have sucked the life out of it.
What hungarians say about negative persons like you ” even the grass dies out where he steps”
You can tell me anything after this.. go for it….. get the venom out, you might become a bit happier person.
How many years have you been auditing yourself now, Elizabeth?
Alanzo… where you at: believing you are nothing but a meat body that you are not a entity because of that it would be totaly pointless telling you where I am at, what is my reality.
Alanzo: “. . . its target is to create a personality or identity shift.”
Chris: “I did experience this on a daily basis. I stayed safe and untouchable until my boss got into a pissing match with DM and I don’t need to tell you who lost that argument. However, as my boss went down he took out several others of us with ethics conditions, danger assignments, confessionals, C/S’ing from his admin desk, heads on pikes, etc.,.
I was in the Sea Org by my own decision to help Ron clear the planet. I was preserving LRH Original Standard Technology for all time by building archival storage and production and berthing and mess areas for other Sea Org to do just that. I was motivated and way ahead of the general curve of motivated Sea Org members to be up and at ’em, I always rose an hour or more before anyone else and just got busy doing stuff for Ron.
In a sane Sea Organization, that would have been welcomed, but in the one I was in, it wasn’t enough and when I was pushed to become different, to follow orders, hell, to NEED orders, I became disaffected with the routine and though still a true-believer, I quit.
I’m maundering a bit because of wondering why or what happened to push me to quit. It wasn’t poor living conditions or food or pay because I didn’t care too much about those with something important like clearing the planet playing the best game in the universe. In my situation, rather than make that final “no other fish to fry decision,” I had a governing value senior to clearing the planet and that was to protect my family and my own sanity. I am curious how many possible other ways that could’ve played out.
Well technically Alanzo you are correct. It should be called torture.
It is not particularly exact, just read Hunter’s book. It’s a real eye opener to read what actually was done that he referred to as brainwashing and why he coined the term brainwashing. It will also explain what the brainwashing meaning of confession actually is. Believe me, it bears no resemblance to the auditing anyone got in the Church, except perhaps the screaming group confessions demanding a couple of Execs confess to being gay.
The Chinese had absolutely no interest in anything except extracting military secrets and extorting false confessions that served their propaganda. They did not take anything to a floating needle! The classic confession was the false confession made by a service man that he had conducted germ warfare against communist countries. The rest was all just to get the prisoners to give up secrets and get them to forswear allegiance to their own country so they could parade it around in the media and in their own country. This was for publishing purposes and counter-intelligence purposes.
“American military and intelligence officers, looking for better ways to interrogate prisoners in the war on terror, went combing through government files (in 2002.) They found that the best institutional memory lay in the interrogation experiences of American P.O.W.’s in Korea. They reprinted a 1957 chart describing death threats, degradation, sleep deprivation — and worse — inflicted by Chinese captors. And they made it part of a new handbook for interrogators at Guantánamo.
The irony is that the original author of that chart, Albert D. Biderman, a social scientist who had distilled interviews with 235 Air Force P.O.W.’s, wrote that the Communists’ techniques mainly served to “extort false confessions.” And they were the same methods that “inquisitors had employed for centuries.” They had done nothing that ‘was not common practice to police and intelligence interrogators of other times and nations.’
Brainwashing was bunk: no secret weapon to control the human mind existed, America’s best experts concluded in the 1960s.”
Quote from: Remembering Brainwashing by TIM WEINER
Published: July 6, 2008
Maria (quoting book): Brainwashing was bunk: no secret weapon to control the human mind existed, America’s best experts concluded in the 1960s.”
Chris: And yet it continues. Heavy. My own experience seems more like brain washing since the thrust and purpose of getting me to “fry no other fish” removed my will to be human anymore. To remove my family, friends, and to turn staff not so much against one another but “for no one” so that any accusation of guilt such as a comm ev immediately cancelled that staff members credibility and status.
Alonzo: “It was not pleasant, most likely.”
Maria: “What you call brainwashing is ABUSE.”
Chris: “I am getting a tremendous lift and being flooded with perspectives that I never had because of this tête-à-tête between you two. I read one and say to myself, “wow!” then I read the other and say, “wow!” again. Now I’m agreeing with both of you and wondering if I should feel guilty. LOL. The articles are great – more information on this subject than I ever had. These floating bubbles of consciousness are fractal, contextual, conditioned and impermanent “truth.” I am so loving it and just want to tell you. Thank you both.
Chris: “I am so loving it and just want to tell you. Thank you both.”
Me too!
deE: “Me too!”
Chris: “A lonely voice of reason echos through the canyons of this damn thread! Thank you Dee!
Ch.. “A lonely voice of reason echos through the canyons of this damn thread! ”
love to be down-graded to the subasement…..I knew all along that my comments were totaly valuless…. I am proved finally right… heheheh what a fun..
Sorry Ference these comments are truly wortless, there is no value in them what so ever.. so your daily quota of smart has to be harvested someplace else.. 🙂
Eliz: “love to be down-graded to the subasement…..I knew all along that my comments were totaly valuless…. I am proved finally right… heheheh what a fun..
Sorry Ference these comments are truly wortless, there is no value in them what so ever.. so your daily quota of smart has to be harvested someplace else.. :)”
Dee: hehe what fun, truly said. There’s way more fun on the spiritual side eh?
Liz you truly warm the cockles of my heart. Also put a snap into the snapdragons, put gel in aloe plants, a wind to the sail, turn light to darkness and add glitter to stars. 🙂
Oh… Beautiful One…. that is a fantastic compliment…. the best kind…. I really thank you..
Spiritual side.. is it more fun? we all are here, but some dont realize it and they believe that they are some semi solid liquid like thingy walking about. hehehe
deE: Liz you truly warm the cockles of my heart. Also put a snap into the snapdragons, put gel in aloe plants, a wind to the sail, turn light to darkness and add glitter to stars. 🙂
Chris: What?!? A few pretty words from this little old gray haired lady and you’re ready to run off and get married? She’s the serial killer next door! hahahaha (gel in the Aloe – truly never heard that one before – Dee, you need to write greeting cards!)
Chris: What?!? A few pretty words from this little old gray haired lady and you’re ready to run off and get married? She’s the serial killer next door! hahahaha (gel in the Aloe – truly never heard that one before – Dee, you need to write greeting cards!)
Thanks dear. Eliz is very inspiring and helps me ethereally.
deE: Thanks dear. Eliz is very inspiring and helps me ethereally.
Chris: Don’t be tricked by that soft veneer. Or was that Vinaire? oh heck I forget …
Eliz: love to be down-graded to the subasement
Chris: LOL! You are in fine form! Must have eaten Wheaties.
Maria: “I did not experience an endless psychological attack in any of the auditing I had. There were no attacks at all. And I never entered a state of breakdown either. Therefore this leniency notion is absurd for me. No one offered me leniency after a session! There was nothing to be lenient about.”
Chris: That is a healthy attitude but it was not mine. I seemed to have enough guilt to have had both a Jewish parent and a Catholic parent! I didn’t but I was taught (where on that indoctrination line does taught become brainwashing?) that God was closely monitoring my every thought and those thoughts as well as actions needed to tow the party line. Scientology ethics was, well applied to me by like-minded guilty people and it all just dovetailed. “Rewards and Penances?” — natural as waking up in the morning. But even more natural for my natural-born Southern Baptist wife. She really took rewards and penances to heart, especially penances and continues to do so.
Besides I’m pretty sure that when that article discusses psychological attacks, it is talking about this list:
[http://www.psychologicalharassment.com/psychological_manipulation.htm]
Its very comprehensive and a hell of lot more helpful that this article you keep extracting from. You should read it. Maybe you will get a better perspective on what these people are actually talking about when they talk about attacks.
Honestly Alanzo, it is ridiculous for you to continually assert that what you had happening in your sessions is what happened to everyone else too. If you prefaced this with “this is what I experienced,” then it would be accurate. Otherwise you are presuming to know what happened in my subjective states, something you clearly DO NOT KNOW, and probably will never know in any sense of the kind of realness it has to me.
Maria –
I’m not presuming to know anything about your subjective states.
I am providing a different context, a different “bin” to place auditing and ethics and “PTS/SPs” and other Scn tech in.
This list I am using comes from prisoners of war, and how they were treated in order to break them down and to create a personality or identity shift in them.
I am saying that Hubbard borrowed heavily from this technology and used it throughout Scientology to gain compliance to his orders, and to create fanatics that would work and fight for him for free, and to defend him against those who knew what he was doing to people.
It’s another way to look at it, another way to categorize the things really don’t make sense in Scientology when you really examine it. This different categorization explains many things that are not explainable otherwise.
I am not telling you what you experienced. I am not even telling you want I experienced. I am providing the technology of brainwashing and comparing much of the Scientology experience to it.
I am not the first to do this. Remember, almost every book on brainwashing cults written since the 60’s has a chapter on Scientology.
There is a reason for that.
And it isn’t “SPs”.
Alanzo
PDH vs Actual Brainwashing.
Many Indies decry Miscavige’s Church as a cult which engages in brainwashing. Right here in this thread people have pointed out that the FPRD, as used by Miscavige, is a tool of brainwashing.
Yet LRH said that brainwashing was accomplished using pain-drug-hypnosis.
Even Miscavige does not give pcs drugs, hook them up to a shock machine or inflict some other kind of pain during his FPRD auditing. PCs are totally awake and aware, well fed and rested during their auditing sessions and his auditors are using TRs to make sure the pc does not “fall into hypnotic states”.
So, given Hubbard’s definition of brainwashing, how can Miscavige use of the FPRD to brainwash anyone?
Isn’t this a squirrel definition of brainwashing?
Or is there another form of brainwashing that LRH never told you about besides “PDH”?
Q.E.D.
Alanzo
Well it would help if you didn’t cherry pick the article you are quoting from. In the introduction it makes the following statement:
“Because brainwashing is such an invasive form of influence, it requires the complete isolation and dependency of the subject, which is why you mostly hear of brainwashing occurring in prison camps or totalist cults. The agent (the brainwasher) must have complete control over the target (the brainwashee) so that sleep patterns, eating, using the bathroom and the fulfillment of other basic human needs depend on the will of the agent. In the brainwashing process, the agent systematically breaks down the target’s identity to the point that it doesn’t work anymore. The agent then replaces it with another set of behaviors, attitudes and beliefs that work in the target’s current environment.”
This is critical information even in this article you have been quoting from. Why did you think it was okay to leave that out?
In an earlier post in an earlier thread, I said “even with the caveats in the article”, referring to the caveats in the article. And I have been providing links to the article for others to read the whole article throughout the thread.
I could not publish the whole article here in this thread. That’s why I continually put links here as encouragement for others to go there and read the whole thing themselves.
I have also mentioned how this article was particularly referring to a war time prisoner of war situation, but that its principles can be applied in a non-war situation as well – as they were when LRH applied them to Scientology.
Why? Are you implying that I am trying to lie about the article or somehow be intellectual dishonest about it?
Alanzo
I am saying you are cherry picking. Confirmation bias.
All right, Maria.
So do you believe that L Ron Hubbard used NO brainwashing or even socially coercive techniques in Dn and Scn?
Do you think all this talk of “brainwashing” in Scn – even though Scientology is known as a brainwashing cult literally throughout the world, and appears in many books on brainwashing and cult mind control – is completely without merit?
If there is any merit to it this idea, where is that merit?
Alanzo
Certainly, when abusive practices enter in that qualify as brainwashing, yep. I consider the descriptions of the RTCs hole to be brainwashing — I already wrote up my list of what I saw that could be considered to either be brainwashing or getting damned closed to it, too close to it for it to be valuable for anyone to participate in.
But you ignored that write up and did not respond to it at all.
I will point out that you also left out the preface to the different stages of brainwashing in that article — and this is critical information in understanding those stages AS brainwashing techniques.
********************************
“Each of these stages TAKES PLACE IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF of isolation, meaning all “normal” social reference points are unavailable, and mind-clouding techniques like sleep deprivation and malnutrition are typically part of the process. There is often the presence or constant threat of physical harm, which adds to the target’s difficulty in thinking critically and independently.”
*******************************
Read the paragraph again, for it is the context in which the brainwashing described in the article takes place, causing to be elevated to the status of brainwashing.
I don’t know what you did at your Mission when you were E.D. but hopefully it did not include making all normal social reference points unavailable, and sometimes sleep deprivation, malnutrition, and constant threat of physical harm. Neither the Mission I went to or the local org near it did anything remotely like this.
But certainly we get reports of this sort of thing in the RTC’s hole, although I don’t think they starved anybody.
Not even my ex Sea Org friends report these types of conditions in the regular PAC Base RPF with the possible exception of sleep deprivation.
This is cherry picking Alanzo, especially when you are seeking to make your point, as you have been on this thread. No two ways about it.
And when called on it, you get all defensive about it. No need. Just acknowledge it and move on.
The ultimate Brainwashing Suppression’s has happened on the Track when spiritual entities were made to believe that they are nothing but a Body and that Brainwashing=Implant tech its content was that one is solid, has the body, and one is inside that body, one needs to be born into the body in order to have a life and when the body stops working: dies one is no more: so we only live when we have there body because we are just that: powerless and usless and very small.
Of course this is my reality, from outside of the box.
Maria: (quoting Alanzo’s ref): “Each of these stages TAKES PLACE IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF of isolation, meaning all “normal” social reference points are unavailable, and mind-clouding techniques like sleep deprivation and malnutrition are typically part of the process. There is often the presence or constant threat of physical harm, which adds to the target’s difficulty in thinking critically and independently.”
Chris: “Four days after Hubbard died, The Challenger exploded on take off. It was another 4 months later when I finally heard of that happening and I only picked up on it because I had taken a truck off-base to go pick up some lumber and was tuning in some radio while I drove. Most people in America can probably remember where they were when they heard that news and so can I — just months after the fact — I was isolated, sleep deprived, (food was fine), I was doing dangerous work under a cloud of secrecy and intrigue.
For me, this was totally a brainwashing scenario per this reference.”
Yes indeed that is a brainwashing scenario, but only if you are then subjected to interrogation and propaganda on a constant basis. Like I told Alanzo, it is in the Sea Org that those conditions are found. I am not disputing the Sea Org practices as brainwashing. Especially the conditions you describe and as described for the hole and at least some of the RPFs.
But these conditions certainly did not exist in the Mission I went to, nor my local org. Public Scientologists are not subjected to such conditions, quite the opposite — if you want to get auditing you must have enough sleep, be well fed and have the means to pay for the auditing — ergo you cannot be isolated because you must work to earn enough money to even buy auditing.
Maria: Yes indeed that is a brainwashing scenario, but only if you are then subjected to interrogation and propaganda on a constant basis.
Chris: Only every day. 10 hours of micromanaged work – the CO’s communicator with her clip board. Crystallized targets by the minute and hour. 2-1/2 hours of indoctrination into Hubbard’s SO every night – Staff Statuses All nighters to finish all important unnecessary somethings because “the CO needs it.” – and on it went without respite.
Chris: – and on it went without respite…
Yes, what you describe surely does qualify as brainwashing practices.
You know, as a public Scientologist and a staff member in a 1970s Mission, I had the hardest time trying to figure out what was going on with the Sea Org staff who showed up in my vicinity with an incredibly arrogant, demanding, and fixed persona and operating basis. I had no idea what they going through. None at all. I thought we had a shared experience. Not!
Maria: “Yes, what you describe surely does qualify as brainwashing practices.”
Chris: And then we have to wonder also whether or not the person applying these coercive techniques is even aware on any level at the detrimental manipulations that he is performing? Someone trying to get someone to “get their stats up” isn’t thinking anything; focusing on particularly anything devious toward the people they are “handling,” are they?
Like the “awareness of being aware” circle. Is there a moment or a point or a situation where the SO member is aware of and deliberately “brainwashing” someone? My own CO, between me and DM, was pretty evil at times. He once told me that it was his main qualification for his job — his asshole-ish disposition. He was hand-picked by DM for this quality and brought directly from the RPF at Int to be the commanding officer of CST.
I wonder how it works in the hive or ant hill. Are there whip-crackers there as well? Do ants and worker bees need to be “product-officered” (motivated) to do their jobs? Or are ants and bees self-motivated self-starters who are appreciated for this quality because of the highly developed and advanced intellect of the swarm?
I’ve often related my experiences in the Sea Organization to Gene Rodenberry’s “BORG.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMt3SzAH_i0
So Al, are you saying that PDH, as described in my earlier post here – https://isene.me/2013/03/13/brainwashed/#comment-33237
is not ‘actual brainwashing’?
OK, you refer to “Hubbard’s definition of brainwashing”. What would that be? Are you referring to PDH? Where did Hubbard equate PDH with brainwashing, if he did?
I’m just asking for some references, some clarification, here, nothing more.
Val, from Science of Survival:
“Pain-drug-hypnosis is a wicked extension of narco-synthesis, the drug hypnosis used in America only during and since the last war.
“Hypnotism has the virtue, at first at least, of requiring the consent of the hypnotic subject before the hypnotism is done. Further, hypnotism has an additional virtue over drug hypnosis and over pain-drug-hypnosis, in that an individual in a hypnotic trance will rarely perform an immoral act even though commanded to do so by the hypnotist, unless that individual would normally perform such acts.
“Drug hypnotism does not have to be done with the individual’s consent. An individual who is drugged can receive and will obey hypnotic commands given to him by the doctor or operator and will continue to obey these commands after waking from the drugged sleep. By using the method of dropping a heavy sedative such as chloral hydrate into an individual’s drink, by suddenly muzzling him with a silk scarf from behind and injecting morphine into his arm, or by discovering the individual when he is drunk or shortly after he has been operated upon or during an operation, or during the administration of electric shock or sedation in an insane asylum, drug hypnosis can be induced. Thereafter, the operator works much as in ordinary hypnotism. Drug hypnosis can be administered with such wording that the patient will not only forget what he has been told and yet perform it, but will also forget that he has ever been given drug hypnosis, if that command is included, and he may even be given data to account for the time during which he was given the hypnosis. Drug hypnotism, then, can be done without the consent of the subject and is commonly so done even by doctors in the normal course of practice. There is nothing new or strange about drug hypnosis. It occasionally fails to work as the operator intends, and it does not usually strike against the individual’s normal moral tone save that, of course, it inevitably lowers him on the tone scale, thus bringing about a tendency to generally lowered morals. But pain-drug-hypnosis, due mainly to the intent of the operator, is a much more vicious procedure.
“It has been discovered that a drugged individual when beaten and given orders would almost invariably obey those orders regardless of the degree to which they flouted his moral tone or his position or his best interests in life.
“Before Dianetics, the widespread use of the use of this practice was unsuspected, simply because there was no means by which one could even detect the existence of pain-drug-hypnosis…”
.
The above was on pp. 218 and 219 at the following link, where you can read more from that point or search elsewhere in the book for “pain-drug-hypnosis” (without the quotes):
Click to access Hubbard_-_Science_of_Survival._Prediction_of_Human_Behavior.pdf
p.s The word “brainwash” or variations of it do not appear in the book Science of Survival.
Axiom 1: When justifying or avoiding responsibility or knowledge of a belief in Scientology, the Scientologist’s mind is infinitely malleable.
That’s why we call her “Infinitely Malleable Marildi”!
Al, you do realize that that sentence you have labeled as “Axiom 1” makes no sense in the English language?
I can see why this thread is upsetting for anyone who has been connected to Scientology. It is the ultimate in “entheta”, and its implications can give you the feeling that everything you experienced in Scientology, all the good feelings you felt, were actually a part of a horrific prisoner of war camp experience or something, when you thought it was all just you going to church!
I don’t know a better way to say this. The embattled way that I am presenting it is probably not the best way for a Scientologist to learn about it.
I do not know what else to do.
I actually feel that I have a duty to at least present it for your consideration. And to give you the links where you can study it and more on your own.
But I don’t need to “correct” anyone’s understanding if they should reject it and get upset.
So I am sorry for that.
The bad feelings and the attacks and all the other bullshit that understandably arises when this information is laid out are not pleasant. But that does not mean it is false. Sometimes the truth absolutely sucks and does not feel good at all. And sometimes the truth is not delivered in the best way that it could be, either.
So I’ve said enough in this thread. And there are enough resources here now that if anyone wishes to learn more, they certainly can.
But I just want to say one thing: I did not put the brainwashing into Scientology, L Ron Hubbard did.
And I am not brainwashing anybody by making this information available in this thread.
Alanzo
I have no problem with the links you have posted. Many good informative links there. I simply disagree with your conclusions that the links are supposed to support. The links don’t actually support your overall conclusions, that’s all. And I feel the illogic needs to be pointed out.
You lie Alanzo. And you need to snap out of your Sea Orgish valence. Not all of us wanted to rule the world through the Sea Org. Not all of us believed in discipline, and weird ideas about keeping TRs. Not all of us got suppressed nor suppressed others, in the name of ethics. This is 2013 and we are not Churchies. Some use SCN, others some SCN others other things. Who are your messages addressed to? You lie about me like you know me. what do you know? I was pissed at guys like you when I was in SCN. Who you are to tell me what to do with ‘my’ TRs and this and that? And although you are not in SCN anymore, you still say it. Snap out of that valence…then preach about brainwashing identities into people. Allow people to have their thoughts before you preach to them about getting braiwashed with thoughts. I think you are being a wall Alanzo and you shut the door to receiving communication –too much RTC TRs? You are yourself what you accuse in other people. Your ideas are more solid than bricks, and thus you cannot as-is anything. This doesn’t mean that nobody can. Some people can change their thoughts.
Spyros wrote to Alanzo:
“What’s wrong idiot, have nothing to say about your criticising something you don’t understand, and started trolling instead? Go fuck yourself, little cunt.”
And so after I apologize for upsetting people here with this information about their religion, or spiritual practice, you tell me that I am in a Sea Org valence, that I am a liar and brainwasher, and that I am brainwashed, that I am being a “wall” and that my ideas are solid bricks and thus I can not as-is anything.
Did you ever once consider that you might be a major hypocrit, Spyros, whose auditing and training in Scientology has not done one thing to actually improve your communication style and the way you handle others?
Just asking here. Has this occurred to you at all, or no?
Alanzo
I didn’t intend to communicate nicely. If I became a professional auditor I might want to have better public relations. But that’s not likely to happen.
I don’t like to communicate un-nicely. I flooded you with evaluations/invalidations on purpose, to match your attitude. It was ugly. But are you aware that you do that to others? I consider it fair to do it when another does it. It doesn’t solve anything, I know. But maybe you will see what you do yourself somehow…I hope.
Although I have fierce arguements regarding ‘Standard Tech’, ethics, and some SCNists myself, I don’t believe in all your claimed ‘facts’ about myself and SCN. But if I did, it wouldn’t be nice for me and certainly not of any help.
I think in order to make some criticism for the purpose of helping, you should try to understand the viewpoint of the other too. That would be good start, and might help you achieve your purpose.
Invalidating all wins of another is gross. And you ought to be careful that you know what you say before you say it.
I am more critical of myself that you in your messages, but understand that when you don’t allow another to be and to think you F I G H T. It doesn’t matter whether you have a good purpose or not.
Spyros wrote:
Invalidating all wins of another is gross.
You know you are not the first person to accuse me of this. Maybe it is a Body Thetan of mine that takes me over and I am completely unaware of it, but where, exactly, did I invalidate all wins of another?
Like I said you are not the first Scientologist – or not Scientologist…uhhh… one who gets their wins from Scientology… – to say that I do this.
It’s astounding to me how often I get it.
It seems that if you contest or dispute any part of Scientology to a …person like yourself…. they feel, or think, that everything about them and all their wins, as well as all of scientology, has been invalidated.
How does that work, Spyros, do you think?
Alanzo
Alanzo, for me SCN is past tense. You think I get gains from it maybe because I dont invalidate all about it. But I don’t use it anymore. I just agree with Hubbard over many things that we talk about here.
Al: where, exactly, did I invalidate all wins of another?
SP: I dont remember everything you have said because my body thetan wont let me. But all SCN auditing tech revolves around as-isness and the rest of the SCN axioms. Saying that as-ising is impossible means that all SCN is invalid.
Spyros wrote:
I dont remember everything you have said because my body thetan wont let me. But all SCN auditing tech revolves around as-isness and the rest of the SCN axioms. Saying that as-ising is impossible means that all SCN is invalid.
Thank you for your answer.
Did you check whether you can still recall incidents that have supposedly been “as-ised”?
Because if you can still recall them, then they are not “as-ised”. They do not cease to exist. They are still there.
But for you, this one factual problem with Hubbard’s theory invalidates all your wins in Scientology. I had no idea that this was how you would interpret my pointing out this factual problem in Scientology to you.
It is your interpretation, though.
I did not invalidate all your wins in Scientology.
You did!
And then you accused me of doing it.
I run in to this all the time. People blame me for the factual problems in Hubbard’s theories. They target me as a suppressive when their worldview falls apart on one simple fact.
AXIOM 2: A low-toned, Suppressive Person in a Sea Org Valence is one who mentions a fact which, upon observation, decimates a Scientology belief for a Scientologist.
Alanzo
A: Did you check whether you can still recall incidents that have supposedly been “as-ised”?
Because if you can still recall them, then they are not “as-ised”. They do not cease to exist. They are still there.
S: In short, you don’t fully understand the SCN axioms, which is very common. It took me some years to grasp them too. They’re not popular in the COS. If something ‘disappears’, it is because you don’t create it. It doesn’t mean you cannot create it. You can check that chapter in the fundamentals of thought you that I told you. And like I said before, don’t compare DN with SCN. Hubbard once called DN ‘American Psychology’. He didn’t have it in great esteem.
I don’t consider myself sensitive to case invalidation anymore. Those were hard times back in the days. But I still consider others sensitive 😛
A: AXIOM 2: A low-toned, Suppressive Person in a Sea Org Valence is one who mentions a fact which, upon observation, decimates a Scientology belief for a Scientologist.
s: Yeah, I wonder who that Scientologist is 😛
Al, when you post definitions like “Scientology is a cesspool of spiritual deception”, there is atleast a strong inference that there is nothing of value coming from scientology.
This of course is an invalidation, by implication, of any statement of a positive result, such as Geir reports having gotten from going up the Bridge. How could anything good come out of “a cesspool of spiritual deception”, after all?
Beyond that, when people do mention some positive result, you minimize or dismiss with your invalidative rationalizations about the person is ‘brainwashed’ in some way, fooled, deluded, or that the apparent ‘gains’ are a temporary ‘feel good’ reaction which won’t last, a ‘euphoria’ which will wear off, etc etc etc.
I’ve been reading this stuff from you for 4 years. It’s evaluative garbage from my viewpoint. And you wonder why people get angry at you and reject your conclusions? Get a clue!
It’s because they are not necessarily true for anyone but you, and it is arrogant of you to claim they are globally valid universal truths. Oh, you don’t do that? Right, considering you just made up a couple of “Axioms” belittling people who disagreed with you.
“How to lose friends and drive people away”, by Alonzo Moron.
Al, before you go after other’s ‘communication styles’ you might consider why it is you get so many rejecting responses to your comments.
By the way, I’m not where I used to be and I don’t have beliefs. I ‘have’ some thoughts alright, but not beliefs the way you meant it. I don’t need to defend any SCN. I just didn’t want others to believe you, so I kept on answering to your comments untill I saw that implication about brainwashing…
In any case, I’m not going to play a bodyguard or anything anymore. If I misunderstood your ‘brainwashing’ comment, sorry for being that hard and foul mouthed. And you may call me names too.
Thanks, Spyros.
No worries.
Alanzo
Alanzo: “And I am not brainwashing anybody by making this information available in this thread.”
Chris: “Nope, nor abusing anyone. It has been very enlightening for me. Not just your contributions but the replies and opinions of others especially – Maria – have been enlightening for me as well.”
Isene
What you are writing about can be viewed from different aspects. One of them:
You say YOU are pretty much issueless. I am Me. Harmony. Not unwanted by me thoughts…I am responsible for my own emotions. I totally get it.
The word “rationalize” has a definition: to devise self-satisfying but incorrect reasons for one’s behaviour. The SELF – for me is like a “living” construct of all beings…with considerations, emotions, basically “energy”, more than your, that is per the definition, one’s energy as a “separate” being (me). As the AM in the I AM me is expanding, reaching out, perceiving, it senses the SELF. As one is doing that, starts to behave in a certain way – satisfying (as Life cannot be mistaken) LIFE in the big SELF itself. The outcome, one’s behaviour, can look “strange” because one doesn’t know the real reason of that behaviour ( one’s mind gives an incorrect one). So the ” I ” (given there is still the sense of it) will “evaluate” the behaviour as “wrong” and will equally devaluate oneself (the I ). And will then justify…..Yes, one (the me) creates one’s life…but one is not a separate being in the totality of Life (the web, whose source may be the same for all manifested beings)….this can be one explanation to one”s occasional “ups-and-downs”….one cannot possibly know “all the reasons” in the SELF…
The core concept in the mind is the ” I “. As long as it is there, one can be indoctrinated in different areas of life. The joke is, however, there is NO ” I ” . When one realizes that, LIFE really becomes a co-operative game….Life will RIGHTfully devaluate the ” I ” , because it is a lie….
Here is a musical interlude –
Bitter-sweet country wisdom. Thanks, Val. I always enjoy your music interludes. 🙂
Thanks mar. Too much C&W music sounds like reiterated salad of the same 4-5 songs reshuffled, but this one is a gem and one of my all-time favorites.
Of course there are and have been a lot of exceptional artists in C&W but since radio has to have something new every week, like TV sitcoms, to me they all tend to blend together after awhile.
You know what’s interesting? I really can’t get into current country but still love the Classic country music.
Here is an example of transcendental philosophy in classic country:
Wow. I never heard Highwayman before. Awesome!
Willie and Ray Charles sang what to me is the ultimate tearjerker. Have some kleenex on hand when you listen to this one!
Tears and chills! Loved that!
Willie is probably my all-time favorite country singer – even now as an old man. It’s not his voice that’s so superior but he can really get across a feeling. One song I absolutely love of Ray Charles is “America the Beautiful”. But here’s a change of vibe a bit more upbeat:
Not bad. Willie is an amazing singer. Oddly enough, I wear a lot of bandannas and with my beard passengers would ask if I was any relation. This was when I was driving cab. So I’d tell them I was Willie’s younger brother Billy hiding out up here in Michigan because I was “just a good ole boy, never meanin’ no harm, been in trouble with the law since the day I was born…….”
Here’s some upbeat for ya – and a good philosophical antidote to “Yang on steroids”
Here’s the”good ole boy”reference
Love that persona. And I can see it in you. 😉
I know there are definitions and explanations for the term ‘brainwashing’. But, since I don’t intend to be right in terms of language, I can make up my own definition.
In want to make a classification of brainwashing. One would be enforced brainwashing and the other would be inhibitive brainwashing.
Enforced brainwashing would be when somebody is forced to accept something as true. It could be anything at all.
Inhibitive brainwashing would be when somebody is inhibited from considering that something is true. It could be anything at all as well.
I’m am being too light and lazy to figure out nice examples now. Care to join?
LOL, I think there’s been enough posting about brainwashing. It’s a loaded term. Thought control is a better term, for me, for what I see happening in Scn and in the world at large. How many ads are you bombarded with per hour of TV? Not to mention the “content” of the programming – haha yes they even call it programming…
LOL! Yes they do call it programming!
freebeing: haha yes they even call it programming…
Chris: LOL!
freebeeing …. hi…. long time no talk.. I see you soing well!
”IMPLANT STATION: where we are programed at first and it is Brainwashing.
The Source is Mother, in this life ones source is Mother, She has given life, nurtured the body from the first day on it was conceived.
One receives the genes plus every though she ever head and what she have heard from communication with others while One is inside her body in that ”cradle” which is her womb and that is our mold we have come out of and in that cradle one’s invisible – intangible education have started: where the basic personality is imprinted stamped established into us the Spiritual Beings.
After given birth, she is the one who starts the “Offspring’s” education in new unit of time.
Her knowledge, her reality all her believes becomes child’s: and that is: One- the Self is a body which have just come out of hers, therefore that One is that body and we believe it is true because she believes in that too!
This is part of a post from my blog…
Chris: I so suppressed thinking about that — relating it to you made my face hot again.
Good on you for relating. You know how it works.
deE: Good on you for relating. You know how it works.
Chris: Thanks Dee. I’m wondering to what degree I’m “proofed” against brainwashing, and the rest . . . am I mindful enough to see what’s coming when it’s coming?
I think you probably are. I find it unlikely that you would ever voluntarily allow yourself to be put in a position where you were completely isolated, sleep deprived, half-starved and worked to death while being forced to be schooled in any pre-selected system of thought.
Even if that happened, you could always focus on what Hunter found was effective proofing against the erosion of your own integrity. I suggest hi-jinks would be very effective for you, you have a great sense of humor.
deE: I suggest hi-jinks would be very effective for you, you have a great sense of humor.
Chris: Ah, you do know me. Jokers and Degraders Anonymous.
But the scary part is that I totally get; I totally understand and can see myself in the shoes of the suicide murderers. Give me the same set of circumstances as they have, I won’t delineate just take an example of someone living in some third-world shithole without the necessities of life and I can see myself strapping on the bombs.
Not iterating from where I am this moment, no. But iterating from the coordinates and seed iteration as they are beginning from and I don’t see how I could say, “That would never be me.”
Yep. I think all too often we sit in our comfortable arm chairs and say, not me. Easy to do from an arm chair. Real life scenario? All bets are off.
You poor boy… you have regained the freedom.. hehehe terrible thing to have hehehe, the reality that we can experience it all, what we look at, what we see, what we sense
All that we know is what we can experience…
Elizabeth: “All that we know is what we can experience…”
Chris: This is golden. The kind a person can really keep.
You old goat.. you cant have this body !!….. 🙂
I will make a general comment on the thread above where Maria presents a case for Hubbard creating the enemies he later complained were attacking his work.
I believe Maria hit the nail there. And the ensuing discussion seems to validate the OP neatly in that it shows how one can rationalize and justify what an author writes as long as one is in agreement with that author on beforehand. I believe many could justify Hitler’s Main Kampf in just the same way.
It is very clear from the paragraphs quoted by Maria that Hubbard was dismissing all other thinkers and methodologies, and such dismissal must surely have served to generate antagonism in many camps that then criticized and later attacked his work and organizations.
It is very clear to me that Hubbard had great overts against psychiatry, psychology, philosophy, several of the humanist sciences and also religion(s). I have seldom seen an author criticizing so generally whole fields like Hubbard did. Especially when you read his later writings. I was quite shocked when I read some paragraphs in the OT 6 materials back in 2002/3. He was so venomous when referred to psychs that I remember thinking “was he drunk when he wrote that”.
And so I believe the sequence is something like this:
1. Hubbard wrote books about the mind and life
2. He knew he would be dismissed in Academia due to no credentials
3. His solution was to elevate his own work by putting down any and all competition
4. He generated criticism, opposition and enemies this way
5. He complained that he was “under attack”
6. The attacks seemed to justify his earlier statements from 1955 (as quoted by Maria)
And this sequence is precisely the mechanism Hubbard describes in HCOB 7 Sept 64 II: “when somebody has committed an overt, he has to claim the existence of motivators”.
Geir, in a tape he said that one would assume that because he protested against psychiatry, it meant that he had been a psychiatrist himself. And then he said that actually he had been one.
In my opinion, it can pertain to all kinds of considerations that if one considers it to be true, he can be rational about it. That’s why one’s truth is to be ‘found’ by cognitions, not by rationalism. Example: It can make perfect sense to one that as-isness cannot occur. And it can make perfect sense to another that it can occur.
I just saw this. Good summary!
In support of your second point, consider the following:
Just prior to Dianetics 55! he discussed having Scientology students acquire degrees as “Freudian Psycho-analysts.” He also set out a schema of Bachelor of Scientology, Doctor of Scientology, and Doctor of Divinity, laying out what should be studied to obtain those degrees. Its very well documented in the tech volumes.
The Anderson commission focused on his degrees in 1965, questioning their authenticity.
On March 8, 1966, LRH ran the following announcement in the New York Times: I, L. Ron Hubbard of Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, having reviewed the damage being done in our society with nuclear physics and psychiatry by persons calling themselves ‘Doctor’, do hereby resign in protest my university degree as a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.), anticipating an early public outcry against anyone called ‘Doctor’; and although not in any way connected with bombs or ‘psychiatric treatment’ or treatment of the sick, and interested only and always in philosophy and the total freedom of the human spirit, I wish no association of any kind with these persons and do so publicly declare, and request my friends and the public not to refer to me in any way with this title.
This is further corroborated by his 1966 PL where he resigns his degrees, declaring that he will no longer be referred to as a Doctor of Divinity.
It is also notable that just prior to Dianetics 55! he crafted what he calls a Basic Course in Scientology. For the first time we see the Code of a Scientologist, outlined in PAB 41 December 1954.
The first item in the Code is: 1. To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public, or preclears concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science.
PAB 41 also notes: The Code of a Scientologist was evolved to safeguard Scientologists in general, and is subscribed to by leading Scientologists. The Committee of Examinations,
Certifications and Services of the HASI has accepted it as an enforceable code.
From mid-March 1955, A Manual on Dissemination of Material:
“There are several things we would like the general public to say to the general
public about Scientology. The first of these is that we would like the general public,
when it sees an individual or group problem, to be quite certain that the proper thing to
do is for that individual or group to consult a Scientologist. For instance, if somebody
is having headaches, we would like his friends to come to the obvious solution that this
person should see a Scientologist or should join a group undergoing processing.
The next on this communication line is that Scientology does not pose any threat,
that Scientologists are good citizens, and that they can be trusted with problems of a
private and confidential nature, or with problems dangerous to other people, such as the
problem of criminality. Another frame of mind we would like to see the public have and
register is that people attacking Scientologists have something wrong with them (and if
you could meet any such people personally you would see that this is no more than
truth)…”
[…]
“As a subdivision of general public to general public we have the problem of the
professions which might consider Scientology to be antipathetic to them, amongst these
would be psychologists and medical doctors as well as psychiatrists. These persons are
entirely in error when they express the opinion that Scientologists are against them.
Scientology does not consider them sufficiently important to be against. Flour-pills or
any incantation or system will produce in 22% of the public, benefit. Therefore, any
practice or art can always achieve 22% recovery in their patients. It is when we better
this 22% that we are being efficient. We have no more quarrel with a psychologist than
we would have with an Australian witch doctor. We have no quarrel with a psychiatrist
any more than we should quarrel with a barbarian because he had never heard of
nuclear physics.”
[…]
“America was civilized by a militant ministry, and when that ministry ceased to be
militant we saw on every hand the decay and decline of civil government. We saw a
rise of crime and a lowering of public morals. Most churches in Western civilization
hold that civil government has been convened and authorized by a Divine Source, and
that civil government only exists by reason of that source, and that civil government is
only valid because of Divine Source, and that the members of these congregations
follow civil government only so long as it does not controvert any part of the words of
Jesus Christ as declared in the New Testament. In other words, these churches
conceive themselves to be a higher entity than civil government. We do not declare this
for Scientology, only insofar as it is the custom of religious organizations, but we do
declare that the Scientologist, having a purer intent, has a better right to the use of civil
government processes than those who exist for more base purposes.”
My reality if one cant get away from a subject even when it has died was grawed to death some times back, than that person is sitting in the middle of somekind of earlier similar experience when the origin of the brainwash started which is dramatized.
But again this is my nickle…
Elizabeth
yes…and it is true for “mother” as an “implant station” too….( ? )
yes,, that is my reality, since a mother is a concept, a doingness, a role ones plays while one has a female body..
Elizabeth
In your experience, while auditing, did you experience thought as having an electro-magnetic component in it?
yes lol there is nothing more to this universe than energy -mass and when the particles colide, or move away or get condenced they emanate different flows have different caracter to them: pull, push, explode etc.. but in reality they are the same energy mass but their movement-behaviour is labeled differently, but the labeling started when identity, individuality, segregation occurred.. so the naming labeling, measuring describing is a very new … I cant find a right word for this act? ….
Yes lol, there is nothing more to this universe than energy -mass and when the particles collide, or move away or get condensed they emanate different flows have different character to them: pull, push, explode etc.. But in reality they are the same energy mass but their movement-behaviour is labeled differently, but the labeling started when identity, individuality, segregation occurred.. so the naming labeling, measuring describing is a very new … I can’t find a right word for this act? ….
LOL! This is what I am interested in! “the same energy mass”…never saw it….you see, I way less “experienced and see” than you….but it’s on the way….it is the “hot stuff”….the “labelling, describing, measuring very new….”….so you mean you want to find the origin of the WORD (the first label) ?
I have found it years back.. it has evolved.
Maria
I always read what you write and I am amazed how much information you know. What makes you interested in knowing so much “background” information? If you don’t mind me asking that.
Its really not background information. It is pertinent information.
And the key to why is the word information.
Inform literally means: in – into, and form – “form, contour, figure, shape; appearance, looks, model, pattern, design; sort, kind, condition.”
We inform and we are informed.
Inform: to train, instruct or educate.
Train: to form a retinue or procession, draw out and manipulate in order to bring to a desired form. (Like you train a plant to grow in a certain direction)
Educate: literally means to lead out, bring out.
Instruct: literally to build, erect. In – “on” and struere “to pile, build.” Structure: from PIE *stere- “to spread, extend, stretch out” (cf. Sanskrit strnoti “strews, throws down;” Avestan star- “to spread out, stretch out.”
As we inform and are informed, so is our reality shaped. We make our choices and we see our options based on our information. When information is distorted or downright false, the entire process is skewed, including what we think we can and cannot do, can and cannot be, and can and cannot have. And so our reality, our existence is directly and very intimately affected.
It is clear to me that the quality of life in this shared world depends on isolating the most truthful information possible. Isolating the most truthful information possible includes examining information and shedding false or misleading information that blocks or obscures or prevents that process.
I bring what I think is pertinent information to this blog because the individuals here can and do share in this process in ways that have greatly enhanced and expanded my insight and clarified a tremendous amount of information.
I have been very puzzled as to what exactly happened with Scientology, for example. It was a fine idea and an endeavor that I was at one time completely willing to lay down my entire life for. But now I am in receipt of information that tells me that my trust and my willingness was heavily betrayed and people who should not have harmed were harmed. My dearest friend, my wonderful, beautiful friend was decimated in the Sea Org.
I once thought it was simple misinterpretation, a failure of people to understand Scientology and apply it correctly, and I thought that until I really started looking at the practices and methods used to shift people from their own goals and purposes, subordinating them to those of the group of Scientology. Currently I am on a track of pulling that thread of insanity that festered into the misery of the hole, the RPF, blighted dreams and disconnection.
I am in good company.
Thank you, Maria. I understand now.
Interesting what you write. Anything in the OT 6 about the electric component of thought and how to deal with it?
Nope
I asked this question because for me the question of “brainwashing” and its solution lies in that “electromagnetic” component of thought. A purely mechanical question. Looking at it right now to be able to put it into words.
It looks to me as experience at this point that “we” as “beings” create the Higgs as 2x described it. There is a kind of “pure energy” around the Higgs…it “flows” through it…as the Higgs is a “construct” of “overlapping” spaces, a certain “electric” particle is “born”, which is “reaching” out as “leaving” the Higgs and “hits” a “layer” which is “right” under the Higgs….the “electric-magnetic layer” of “thought”…..the pure energy is there, and also this “electric” line “coming down” to construct the “body” and the ” I ” concept associated with it…(the body is of vibrating energy)….when the “me” here “cuts” the line, no “thought” ever can have an “effect” on “me”….that “pure energy” is pouring down….”using” it like in “blowing by inspection” no “thought” can function as “indoctrination”…..the “glue (EM)” gone…just “words” as they appear….will put it down better later…..
“There is nothing more to this universe than an energy mass…..in reality it’s the same energy mass….particles collide, or move away or condense….they emanate different flows…pull, push. explode…” (quoted from Elizabeth, above).
From another aspect:
Perhaps it is not the thought directly influenced. I don’t know. What I experience is 1. that pure energy I have written about (life force?) is the best ever “protective” flow because it “clears” the body, the chakras and the “fields called aura”….2. the body is of “particles”, “flows” 3. for me it looks that “bodies” “fields around them” are “connected” 4. the body’s energy can be influenced by outside stimulus 5. the being is “responsible for/protects” the body (as in Matrix, Morpheus in the “chair” scene, conscious,no-mind he survived). 6. anything that happens to the body can get attached to the ” I ” thought if it is not blown by inspection right in that instant, can thus reactivate or generate a consideration. Which is in itself harmless….but when one “follows” it, “listens to it”, “believes in it”, then one is influenced from “outside”……yes, I can totally agree that ultimately one is responsible for all situations one gets into…..also, one is responsible for the ONE consciousness and this “energy mass” as a whole….the “journey” is to Realize (be and live ) that….until then, it is allowing the Flow to flow and observe anything that gets its way without resistance. This is how I see it now.
Marianne 🙂 I can let you do whatever you like to do and I don’t have any problem with it. I will only tell you what I know, and I will say it with no intention of being judgemental nor pushy towards you. Actually, unless I perceive enforcement from another, I don’t force myself…just saying.
I have had some really hard time with the body’s energy flows that you described.
To get some reality with you, I will point out a couple of things that I know from SCN, since you agree with some things: The chakras are identified as ‘the seven entities’ by LRH. They are considered to be implanted entities. Aura is a subject that is dealt with on the OT levels. It is also considered case. The life of the body and the energy of that case, is not the same thing. If you want a refference, you can check ‘the secrets of the mest universe’, technique 88.
Spyros
I would very much be interested in your experiences that you feel like telling about!
As for what you write (implanted entities, aura case) could be so….I don’t KNOW. I pretty much rely on my EXPERIENCE without any kind of outside reference or expectation what to look at/for….for some time even that is not necessary. What I know for sure (now) is that I and my body are much more “well” than what I see in case of some Clear or OT people….that is of course now.
M: I would very much be interested in your experiences that you feel like telling about!
S: Well, the purpose of this kind of case is to make you think that you are it. And so it was in my occasion too. It multiplied my case by many times. And it made me think that I cannot be exterior. I became so much ‘at one’ with this case, that I wound up perceiving through it. Only when I took my original point of awareness I could as-is again, easily.
Also I had a very wild restimulations through them. I don’t want to describe them right now. I’m feeling too well for that 😛
I never had any major issues with my body. Sometimes some pains but nothing serious or something that lasted for long.
Nothing can really harm you, ever. But yeah it didn’t serve my purpose of seeking truth. Actually it very much perplexed me. Clear and OT are SCN case levels. And they don’t necessarily describe a spirit and it’s infinite potential 🙂
S……………”Clear and OT are SCN case levels. And they don’t necessarily describe a spirit and it’s infinite potential :)””
You have a MU. They dont represent case levels, they are not case levels, they are indicator what one is studies. Levels of learning: like grades 1 2 3 4 etc..
One cant be judged or gains measured what one realises while one is auditing-soloing on any of those levels. That is strictly personal-spiritual gain. One has to find out for self what is infinite potential means to one and that one can not learn in class by reading some description of it., Learning the words, concepts will not give any one reality of the experience.
PS: With the ideas that I ‘have’ I would probably need an introspection RD according to modern SCN 😛 You see whenever I talk about ‘old’ SCN with ‘new’ SCNists, some wonder what the hell I’m talking about, and some what my degree of insanity is. Actually, I take it as a compliment, as I consider normality to be a very sick thing 😛
hehehe when you are normal than you are really a sick puppy…. that is the time to get a pistol and use it on your normal head.
E: hehehe when you are normal than you are really a sick puppy…. that is the time to get a pistol and use it on your normal head.
S: Yes, a nice process 😛 Setting the bird free!
I believe that LRH says in many ways and in many references that there is an electromagnetic component of thought, such as when writing about implants, Or even consider his description of fascimiles and the “charge” in them, as well the definition of a concept: “a high wave thought” (8-80). All these things are energies. Here’s a general quote about electronics (basically meaning electromagnetism):
“ELECTRONICS: Lower and cruder manifestations of the same order of actuality as thought.” (Scn 8-8008)
Aren’t the books Scn 8-80 and Scn 8-8008 part of the OT VI materials?
No. 8-8008 is part of the Solo Course – which in turn is duplicated as OT 6A. But nothing specific along these lines in the confidential part of OT 6 (named OT 6B – while OT 6C is the internship before one starts on 7)
In the Fundamentals of Thought at the very beginning Ron says that the person must find something in the subject that s/he has affinity for and agree with it…then again something….and do so until one has affinity for the whole subject itself as such…only then can studying or auditing start…
OP: “ ’You may suspect a person is brainwashed in an area when he habitually rationalizes and justifies wrongs.’
According to this – was I brainwashed when I was in the Church of Scientology?
Yep.”
Did anybody notice that the above is a logical fallacy?
I wonder why nobody pointed the logical fallacy.
Probably, some people overlooked the fallacy because they agree with the conclusion, some people didn’t notice the fallacy because their logical skills are not high enough, and some people noticed the fallacy but they didn’t bother to pointing it out.
I’m not questioning the conclusion. I’m wondering why nobody pointed out the logical fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_undistributed_middle
Pattern of the fallacy of the undistributed middle:
1. All Z is B
2. Y is B
3. Therefore, Y is Z
Z = people brainwashed in an area
B = habitually rationalizes and justifies wrongs
Y = Isene while in the Co$
You missed the word “suspect”.
Even with the word “suspect”, the answer of “Yep” to the question of whether you were brainwashed is still illogical. A logical answer would have been “Maybe”.
Nope. According to the OP, one may suspect I was brainwashed. I admit I was. It has nothing to do with one statement logically following another. It’s not like I had to have been brainwashed because of the paragraph before. It is simply me admitting I was indeed brainwashed.
Admitting that is a relief.
You made a statement about the type of behavior in which brainwashing could be SUSPECTED, i.e. such behavior may or may not have any connection with brainwashing. Then you implied that you yourself had had that type of behavior – which, to repeat, may or may not have had to do with brainwashing. So for you to answer the question of whether you were brainwashed with an unqualified “Yep” wasn’t logical.That was the only point.
I don’t disagree that a type of brainwashing did occur as that happens to be what occurs in the cult type of environment that you and many of us were in. And I certainly don’t disagree or begrudge that your admitting it was a relief for you. Actually, I imagine that it was not only “true for you” but true, period.
As I said, it had nothing to do with logic.
It’s akin to: “people who wear big jackets may do so because they are cold. Was I cold? Yep”
Hard to understand? Not likely.
Just for old times’ sake, I’ll spar with you a bit more.
Earlier you said, “It has nothing to do with one statement logically following another. It’s not like I had to have been brainwashed because of the paragraph before.”
Actually, weren’t you the one who made it a matter of one statement logically following another? That is to say, you first made the statement of what may be suspected, and right after that you said “According to this…” , which prefaced the question of whether you were brainwashed. So, “according to” the *possibility* of brainwashing, the only logical answer is one expressing possibility.
As for “people who wear big jackets may do so because they are cold. Was I cold? Yep”- that much is fine. But if you had then said, similar to the above, that the fact that you were cold proves you were wearing a big jacket, that would not be logical.
Hard to understand? Not likely 🙂
OP: “ ’You may suspect a person is brainwashed in an area when he habitually rationalizes and justifies wrongs.’
According to this – was I [Isene] brainwashed when I was in the Church of Scientology?
Yep.”
Isene (2013-03-17 at 01:57): “It’s akin to: ‘people who wear big jackets may do so because they are cold. Was I cold? Yep’ ”
The OP is akin to: “people who wear big jackets may do so because they are cold. According to this, was I cold? Yep”
Which of course is a logical fallacy.
Geir: “Admitting that is a relief.”
Chris: “Sweet.”
Marildi: A logical answer would have been “Maybe”.
Dee: You really made me LOL on that one = no certainty? 🙂
I oversimplified the logical fallacy, however I didn’t miss the word “suspect”.
▪ OP: “ ’You may suspect a person is brainwashed in an area when he habitually rationalizes and justifies wrongs.’
According to this – was I [Isene] brainwashed when I was in the Church of Scientology?
Yep.”
P = person
Z = brainwashed in an area
B = habitually rationalizes and justifies wrongs
Y = Isene while in the Co$
▪ Logical fallacy:
1. You may suspect P Z when P B
2. Y was P B
3. From (1) & (2): Therefore Y was P Z
▪ Non logical fallacy:
1. You may suspect P Z when P B
P B Then maybe P Z is true xor maybe P Z is false
P B Then maybe P Z xor maybe Not P Z
2. Y was P B
3. From (1) & (2): Therefore, maybe Y was P Z xor maybe Y was not P Z
“ ’You may suspect a person is brainwashed in an area when he habitually rationalizes and justifies wrongs.’
According to this – was I [Isene] brainwashed when I was in the Church of Scientology?”
Maybe yes, maybe not.
It looks like the “If and only if” symbol was deleted by WordPress.
The above (2013-03-17 at 02:25) should read:
1. You may suspect P Z when P B
If and only if: P B Then maybe P Z is true xor maybe P Z is false
If and only if: P B Then maybe P Z xor maybe Not P Z
2. Y was P B
3. From (1) & (2): Therefore, maybe Y was P Z xor maybe Y was not P Z
To blow all the knit-picking out of this thread: Try replacing “According to” with “Related to”.
As for something more severe than a possible wrong choice of word; See LRH caught in a blatant lie elsewhere on this thread.
Geir: “To blow all the knit-picking out of this thread: Try replacing ‘According to’ with ‘Related to’.”
I thought we would at least get a “Point taken” out of you on this one, especially if you consider it mere nit-picking – which should have made it an easy thing to concede. Well, at least you came close.
What’s interesting is that if LRH had made such a logical error, you would have certain people immediately jumping on it, even if it did amount to sheer nit-picking to do so. Whereas, “Geir’s true believers” wouldn’t even see any illogic, or if they did would rationalize it. Sound familiar? 😉
I squarely admit I was wrong here. I used the wrong phrase. I should have used the phrase “In relation to the above” or similar – and I wrongly used “According to” as I believed that phrase had a definition similar to the one I should have used.
I do not change the OP as this would render this sub-thread impossible to understand – and so my error stands, and it stands corrected by this thread.
Wow, Geir, that was an honest-to-goodness “Point taken”. I really felt it as pure, nothing added.
This gives me an opportunity to tell you something I’ve been meaning to since I watched that video Marty posted a few days ago on his blog post “The Tao of Scientology”. One of the things that occurred to me was that he made both of us right.
On the one hand, he stated that Scn tech is his “mainline” practice, and he made it very clear that it is best tech that exists and that he has not altered it at all. On the other hand, he has come to realize that Scientology tech used alone will create a deleterious imbalance of yin and yang in people – namely, making them too yang. Thus, along with standard tech he recommends the study of such things as the Tao Te Ching by Lao-tzu as well as quantum physics.
The thing that gives a lot of credence to his viewpoint is that it’s based on direct observation. He now has several years’ experience as an Independent Scn practitioner, auditing all kinds of pcs – from those who are brand new to Scn to those who had gone all the way up the Bridge. And the resulting word of mouth keeps him busier than he would actually like to be.
His experience is pretty much what I envisioned and wrote about in a post just a few days ago, where I said I felt the key to the future of Scn would be word of mouth, the main factor that would determine whether Standard Tech, alone or with improvements to it, would succeed and carry Scn forward. (You may remember that post.)
Likewise, to your credit I see more clearly that one of the main things you’ve been saying corresponds in essence to what Marty discovered about Scn making a person too yang (I hope that way of expressing it seems correct to you). And I just wanted to tell you that you’ve no doubt been right about a number of things, and I sincerely acknowledge that. 🙂
Marildi
Wow! What can be more beautiful than the Flow of truth? Geir started it, you are flowing with it and it has arrived here!
I watched that video too! I commented earlier that what Marty misses is that the Tao, in essence, Is a Flow (Life “flow). I started to experience it at a point, “described” it, THEN checked it on the Net! Bingo! Another interesting thing: it’s no method, no road. Earlier, while I was in scientology many years ago, one of my workmates died. When I heard the news, I jumped up from sitting. There she was, as a “spirit” in front of me. She communicated to me “no path”. That was it. (she was interested in Taoism). Next day, out of the blue, another workmate read a poem for us. The same message.
Marty is right in mentioning that yang aspect. The mind, its mechanics look yang for me too.
Actually, I had a cognition while listening to Marty. My father, who was a mechanical engineer, had died some years before I started scientology. I was “stuck” partly in “his” mind-universe, also missed some part of it (if you see what I mean). With his death, I became more feminine and some yang part was missing. Studying in scientology was a kind of “compensation” besides me being very curious in its findings.
Yes..the basics of scientology are priceless, yet ” Mind”. The mid-air around the Bridge is….hm.hm., also quantum physics….I don’t want to “advertise” him but ….Adyashanti. I will write about his final awakening, in which he describes what may be called a full-recall Clear, and also, as Geir said earlier, the viewpoints have a big role in that, also, closing all the games of past lives….
Marianne: “I commented earlier that what Marty misses is that the Tao, in essence, Is a Flow (Life “flow)”
Firstly, thanks for the ack on my post! I should have known that if anybody commented on it, it would be you.
Secondly, whenever you use the word “flow”, as in the above quote, it sounds like you are talking about energy since that is what energy does – it flows. But I don’t think you mean energy – and I do realize that it’s very hard to put non–physical-universe things into words, but maybe you could say more about this “Life ‘flow” that you often refer to. Is it another way of saying theta? Or the Higgs field? Or…?
Btw, as regards Marty’s views of the Tao, did you see my other post to you where I quoted a couple of his comments? I think you can click on this: 2013-03-16 at 20:35 or if that doesn’t work click on this: https://isene.me/2013/03/13/brainwashed/#comment-33627
What I promised. In the written part, at about two-third of it, you will find his words about his final awakening. The interview is a little long but way too many questions are answered in it. So if you are interested and make some time for reading it…well, you will see.
http://nhne-pulse.org/adyashanti/
Thanks for that, Marianne.
In return, here is something LRH said about the Tao, which is in agreement with what you say about it not being a path:
“And if we took the Tao just as written, and knowing what we know in Scientology, simply set out to practice the Tao, I don’t know but what we wouldn’t get a Theta Clear. (Theta Clear: An individual who, as a being, is certain of his identity apart from that of the body, and who habitually operates the body from outside, or exteriorized.) Actually the Tao is merely a set of directions on how you would go down this way which itself has no path and no distance. In other words it teaches you that you had better get out of space and get away from objects if you’re going to achieve any consciousness of beingness, or to know things as they are, and it tells you that if you could do this then you’d know the whole answer and you’d be all set. And this is exactly what we are doing in Scientology.” (The Phoenix Lectures book, Chapter 2)
It seems from that and from other writings, LRH initially did intend to include both the yang and the yin in Scientology.
Hubbard: Theta Clear: An individual who, as a being, is certain of his identity apart from that of the body, and who habitually operates the body from outside, or exteriorized
Chris: Then take a look another level deeper than this and tell me what you see.
Chris, can you point out any comment you have ever made to another poster besides myself where you address them in this sort of didactic way?
It’s a put off. Can you see why that would be?
Marildi: It’s a put off. Can you see why that would be?
Chris: You mean like your question? Yes.
My query is to Hubbard which is allowed. Waiting for an answer from the cleared-theta-cleared clear…
Okay, my mistake. I missed that the query was to Hubbard. So let me rephrase: Do you reply to anybody else’s comments this way, by asking Hubbard a question?
Marildi: Do you reply to anybody else’s comments this way, by asking Hubbard a question?
Chris: I was replying to Hubbard’s comment. . .
Yes, that’s what I mean. So do you do that sort of thing to anyone else?
Marildi: “Yes, that’s what I mean. So do you do that sort of thing to anyone else?”
Chris: I’m not following your question. Hubbard said, “Theta Clear: An individual who, as a being, is certain of his identity apart from that of the body, and who habitually operates the body from outside, or exteriorized.”
My opinion is that this state falls short of what is possible and of how the mechanics of the individual works. I told him to take a look deeper. Maybe you are right and I was didactic with him. Maybe I should’ve said the individual is part of the mechanic which dissolves and there is an underpinning to that which is not individual but is there none the less. Still seems a little bit didactic.
Did you have an opinion on that?
“Maybe I should’ve said the individual is part of the mechanic which dissolves and there is an underpinning to that which is not individual but is there none the less.”
Chris, I think I get the first part (maybe) but I don’t really get what you mean by “there is an underpinning to that which is not individual but is there none the less.” I could try to make some guesses but it’s just too abstract for me to really know what you’re saying. I’m like Valkov – at least when you speak in metaphors, it communicates because it’s down to earth and concrete. Otherwise, I often get the words but have no idea what they specifically refer to and it comes across as bafflement. That said, I also got that you did intend to communicate and if that is there, then there’s always a good chance that we can have a comm cycle.
Marildi: “I think I get the first part (maybe) but I don’t really get what you mean by “there is an underpinning to that which is not individual but is there none the less.””
Chris: What I express badly is that my current reality is that the Self is sort of like just so much puppet on a string. The puppet master is like an unseen underpinning to the puppet. If you refer back to Geir’s dream of making up little wind-up people and giving them a bit of will and turning them loose and then after that point, they were no longer under his control, then that dream is a metaphor for how I see it as well. Then add to that Vinaire’s donut hole metaphor, my TV snow, and I think you get the picture!
If you wanted a metaphor, all you had to do was ask!
Marildi: I think I get the first part (maybe) but I don’t really get what you mean by “there is an underpinning to that which is not individual but is there none the less.”
Chris: But if I tell you that this Self comprises most of what we identify with and that its importance; the need to confront what is this Self? I cannot overemphasize how important pairing it down is to seeing things as they really are. (Sorry to revert to bafflement – did you really baffle with bullshit? Cause I’m pretty sure that’s what Valkov means!)
Chris: But if I tell you that this Self comprises most of what we identify with
Spyros: hihihihihihihihi
Chris, judging but what I read, I see that Hubbard knew about this. But you cannot go around telling people that they are not a thing. They won’t understand it. There is nothing to understand. So he spoke with alterations to approximate people’s considerations concerning what they are.
“You are a thetan!” That sounds like something. “I am a something. I am here and now…” That sounded more real. Nevertheless, it was not truth. But he knew it.
“AXIOM 43. TIME IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF UNTRUTH.
AXIOM 44. THETA (THE STATIC) HAS NO LOCATION IN MATTER, ENERGY,
SPACE OR TIME. IT IS CAPABLE OF CONSIDERATIONS.
AXIOM 45. THETA CAN CONSIDER ITSELF TO BE PLACED, AT WHICH MOMENT
IT BECOMES PLACED, AND TO THAT DEGREE A PROBLEM.”
Dianetics was a bunch of alterations too. But he knew it too. People believed in brains and minds and the subconscious way before Hubbard told them about it. And the difference was that Hubbard -unlike some other guys- told them that they could resolve that problem.
It isnt that within 1,5-2 years after Dianetics, Hubbard suddently had a cognition and invented Scientology. He knew much Scientology beforehand, in my opinion. That research was for refinement and for proof to others –as they demanded proof. People were going out of the dark ages of religion, and they wouldn’t believe anything without evidence and proof. So a thetan was sort of prooved to exist. But that was a lie. You cannot proove yourself. It’s the one thing that cannot be shown, as it is the creator of things.
Marildi
It’s not easy to put into words what the “Flow” is….it certainly has a “pure energy flow” part, also a kind of “no-mind” knowingness…that is without thinking you do the “right” action. There is no sense of a “me” doing it. No ” noise” in the mind. There is a mistaken belief that thoughts don’t appear…but they are “not believed”, there is no energy connection. If there is, the energy part can be “viewed” and has no effect.
What Ron writes is not a good description “if we took the Tao just as written”…the Tao cannot be written down. “If we…..set out to practice it…” it cannot be “practiced”…Taoism can be practiced but the Tao cannot….it’s like Life itself…it kind of “informs” me what to do…I am many times surprised when I do something, say something which just “comes”…like how to “teach/show” handling energy to a singer (as one example, never learnt it).
It also has other “qualities” (e.g. great affinity, love, intuively ethical, selfless….) but I hope I could put it down in a way that you get what I meant.
Marildi
Thanks for the Marty links. I read what he said. I like the term he used “gross consciousness”. I had some “similar” “experiences” he is writing about much earlier. Now it’s simple….just simple awareness. Now. There can also be like “perceiving” very “far”…different “sensations”. No better way for me to describe it. No secret. It’s just different.
Marianne, thanks for these last two posts. I understand better now!
I thought you might also be interested in this other exchange from “The Tao of Scientology” thread.
martyrathbun09 | March 15, 2013 at 9:00 am | Reply
Or you could be having glimpses of the fourth dimension as outlined in the Tao, maybe?
oraclemysticism | March 15, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Reply
I’ll go have a look at that.
martyrathbun09 | March 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm |Reply
It isn’t ‘in’ it. It is it. I entered in the term ’4th dimension.’ When one ceases reacting to the apparent plus/minus dichotomies that seem to hold the universe together she sees all – and all of its components – as an harmonious whole. It is like seeing a dimension that otherwise is invisible to those locked into the plus/minus game. It was a compliment.
oraclemysticism | March 15, 2013 at 3:00 pm |Reply
Oh, I get it. Thank you!
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-tao-of-scientology/#comment-258733
The spacing on that exchange I posted was odd. Here’s how it should have looked:
martyrathbun09 | March 15, 2013 at 9:00 am | Reply
Or you could be having glimpses of the fourth dimension as outlined in the Tao, maybe?
oraclemysticism | March 15, 2013 at 2:03 pm | Reply
I’ll go have a look at that.
martyrathbun09 | March 15, 2013 at 2:15 pm |Reply
It isn’t ‘in’ it. It is it. I entered in the term ’4th dimension.’ When one ceases reacting to the apparent plus/minus dichotomies that seem to hold the universe together she sees all – and all of its components – as an harmonious whole. It is like seeing a dimension that otherwise is invisible to those locked into the plus/minus game. It was a compliment.
oraclemysticism | March 15, 2013 at 3:00 pm |Reply
Oh, I get it. Thank you!
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/03/13/the-tao-of-scientology/#comment-258733
Some interesting quotes that indicate Hubbard was indeed creating antagonism and subsequently enemies:
“Now, not to scare you but to inform you, psychiatry has armed itself with several new drugs. One of these, LSD, has the total goal of driving persons insane for 15 to 25 hours—JUST long enough to convince people that your auditing spun the preclear. When you see a process solve a case, and then the case spins, don’t even bother to look for the needle mark on the pc.” (30 September 1955, “PSYCHIATRISTS”)
“This is true—
1. We have created the permanent stable clear.
2. In creating him we have a homo novis in the full sense, not just an Operating Thetan.
3. We now know more than life. An oddity indeed!
4. We now know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists. We can brainwash faster than the Russians (20 secs to total amnesia against three years to slightly confused loyalty).
5. We can undo whatever psychiatrists do, even the tougher grade from away back. We can therefore undo a brainwash in 25 to 75 hours.
6. We can create something better than that outlined and promised in Book One.”
(TECHNICAL BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1956)
“VACUUMS
A vacuum is a super-cold object which if brought in contact with bank, drinks 504bank. Objects at 25°F or less have high electrical capacitance, low resistance. This was psychiatry billions of years ago. Shocks, ether, can act similarly. This is how one mechanically forgets past. He depends on pictures, loses pictures to a vacuum incident. Vacuums restimulate and drink up pc’s havingness. They are just incidents. This is brainwashing. You encounter these running solids. Opponents, individualities, more solids, problems, undo them.”
(BRIEFING BULLETIN, GAMES CONGRESS, SHOREHAM HOTEL, 31 August—3 September 1956)
Are there Scientologists who read this and go “OK”?
The second quote above is an outright and blatant lie.
Anyone up for justifying and rationalizing the above?
Not me, said my reality is what he said 90% should have been shraded or even more..
Eliz: Not me, said my reality is what he said 90% should have been shraded or even more..
Dee: Good answer. My would’ve been pure snark, but I held the shark back, by a bat to the head.
Dee, I dont call LRH a lier, I have no reason to since what I understood was not a lie because I could use it and it worked as he said it would.. and I have achieved everything and what was layed out on the Bridge and far more.
The 90% I talked of, that part I can not call lie becasuse I never studied it and what I have read about it and seen did not belong on the Path where one seeks personal, universal knowledge.
Eliz: The 90% I talked of, that part I can not call lie becasuse I never studied it and what I have read about it and seen did not belong on the Path where one seeks personal, universal knowledge.
That makes sense and glad you were not effected by it. You had a nice pure goal it seems and that was good. You persisted in attainment of it without being stuck in the organization or into the scripture, other than your own auditing. 🙂
Geir, what does “drinks 504 bank” mean?
Sorry, copy-paste error. Drop the “504” – it’s the page number of the Red Vol I found the quote in.
Not me either.
Maraldi or Valkov: I was hoping you would try to make sense of this specific quote:
“This is true—
1. We have created the permanent stable clear.
2. In creating him we have a homo novis in the full sense, not just an Operating Thetan.
3. We now know more than life. An oddity indeed!
4. We now know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists. We can brainwash faster than the Russians (20 secs to total amnesia against three years to slightly confused loyalty).
5. We can undo whatever psychiatrists do, even the tougher grade from away back. We can therefore undo a brainwash in 25 to 75 hours.
6. We can create something better than that outlined and promised in Book One.”
(TECHNICAL BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1956)
He is here referring to the original Book 1 definition of Clear – that he in 1956 proclaims they have indeed made – a stable one. He then proclaims he can brainwash someone into TOTAL amnesia in 20 seconds.
Anyone else finds this outrageous? Until someone rationalizes this for me, I will remain somewhat shell shocked.
“4. We now know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists. We can brainwash faster than the Russians (20 secs to total amnesia against three years to slightly confused loyalty).”
Probably to restimulate electronic incidents of severe force…
Do you believe this is true?
…of course it didn’t take me 20 seconds to restimulate so hard. But the spirituality itself aimed there. I was aware of black spirituality back then too, and I was digging to see whether that one was black or not. I found it out the hard way 😛
Anyway, after I did that practice over and over, the effect was overwhelming and it would take less than 20 seconds, if surrendered to it.
I will sound very dogmatic but for me, generally, any spirituality that assigns cause to anything else than yourself, is black and is meant to put you under control.
Because I fooled with black spirituality other than RTCology in the past, I can tell that for me it was possible to do something of the sort with restimulation alone.
…but because I did it to myself, I couldn’t go all the way, of course. I would never return, unless somebody picked me up 😛 But I could perceive a mockery of ‘nothingness’, an inability to think and a total loss of identity.
It was a mockery of 8th dynamic along with that ‘white light’ that appears to unrestimulate you, by inhibiting you from thinking.
Geir
ROTFWL…..point 3….yes, “an oddity indeed”…..no comment on “we now KNOW more than life”…can’t stop laughing….heeeeelp
But let me give him a credit point just for the sake of balance…he is right in saying that when two persons of different wavelenght meet, they generate energy….me being intuitive, emotional and aesthetic is continuously pulling in the analytical….no matter how “I ” try, I fail to be completely that….this failure admitted and “they” admitting being diferent from me always brings about energy and change…however, there is rarely a complete understanding of each other, ARC, which shows that there is some problem with that, as you pointed out earlier….NOT KNOWING completely what the other is like keeps up curiousity….a continuous LIFE experience….a journey…..
Marianne, where LRH says, “We now know more than life” I think he’s referring to the idea that the basis of Scientology – theta – is the knowingness superset that lies above life and livingness, which is a subset . I looked at it that way because I remembered this quote:
“Scientology is a science of life. It is the one thing senior to life because it handles all the factors of life.” (from The Auditor magazine Issue 27)
Geir: “Until someone rationalizes this for me, I will remain somewhat shell shocked.”
Chris: Socially, Gödel’s math theories helps me understand the context of things. To understand your challenge, I understand first that Hubbard’s thoughts and words are consistent to him within the context; the set of his own mind. Next I understand that there are true believers around him who only need him to have uttered any words at all to know he spoke truth. For this reason, Hubbard’s words are consistent because of true belief. These true believers are not critically analyzing anything he has said but only seeking to learn and understand and apply fully what he has said. Outside that set we have Scientologists like as Maria said “tune out” bombastic and other outrageous statements in order to get to the heart of any bits of useful materials. Outside this set we have people who care less and less what Hubbard iterated and so on it goes and in ratio to all the people on earth, almost no one even knows who L. Ron Hubbard is or anything at all anything he ever did or said.
Sets seem to create consistency and consistency seems to create sets. Socially, maybe we could make this tautology into a theory or give it a name, something like “The Theory of Decreasing Relevancy,” or something and understand that distancing oneself from any given set decreases the relevancy of that set to that which is outside that set. Or maybe it could be viewed as a corollary to one of the great one’s theories. Does any of this jive with your challenge to rationalize Hubbard’s inconsistencies?
I have been working this for a while and especially have Valkov, Marildi, and Vinaire to thank for their help to force my reasoning to stretch and you, Vinaire, and Maria to thank for pointing toward options in thinking.
Does not quite jive. Because this is the most blatant lie I have seen from Hubbard. Within or outside any frame of reference. To be honest – up until I came across this one, I never thought I would see such a bare-faced lie from him. Thus the shell shock.
I think Hubbard was not so much lying, more that he was clueless on the topic.
The man never really understood physics or science or electronics at all. The bulletin you quote from reveals the depth of his ignorance – where the hell does he gets that crap about electrical characteristics of a body at slightly less than 25F? It’s nonsense; he sounds like a smart-alec that learned some buzzwords while hanging around with those who DO know what they are talking about. Two memes come to mind:
“Bullshit baffles brains.” (i.e. bedazzle his audience)
“Don’t ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity.”
As to what he says about the subject and practice of Scientology itself, well there he could easily be flat-out lying.
Alan
Alan…………..so you think you are smarter than he was and your reality has value and his reality was shit., now in my reality, you are not smarter than him, your view points has no more value than his: what you have IS Different reality on the same subject..
After when one gives up judgeing one realizes that one entity is same as the other but expressing what they experienced in a totally different manner, after all what is good or bad is a personal viewpoint.
When one believes that one is better, smarter that is ego’s reality: pure undiluted s……
E: “so you think you are smarter than he was and your reality has value and his reality was shit., ”
Alan: I don’t know what to make of this. I looked at some data, formed my own opinions, checked that they checked out and then posted my conclusions. I’m not out to prove anything, just saying what I think.
Apparently you think I was being judgemental, and your response is … to be judgemental about me?
I don’t get it.
Alan……. your reality is yours and it is not better than his, when you conluded that something is not good, not right, or fantastic perfect in every way: you arrive to that conclusion which is based on your reality how you see it..
E: They dont represent case levels, they are not case levels, they are indicator what one is studies. Levels of learning: like grades 1 2 3 4 etc..
S: I didn’t know that…
E: One cant be judged or gains measured what one realises while one is auditing-soloing on any of those levels. That is strictly personal-spiritual gain
S: I never argued with this. Actually I pointed it out 😛 By ‘case level’ I meant that — classification of case ….and not some sort of spiritual classification 🙂 Why would I do such a thing anyway, am I SCNist? 😛
S…………I have no idea what a scientologist is or look like maybe have purple body a trunk, bump on his head and cross eyed?
I only know some persons who debate the dogma and I cant even say that they debate the same dogma because they never seen it the same way when they have studied the oroginal item… so in fact every one is debating their very own reality which is based on the original..
E: I have no idea what a scientologist is or look like maybe have purple body a trunk, bump on his head and cross eyed?
S: I don’t know. Last time I checked, one told me that not comforming to society is unethical, so I figured out he some sort of an alternative psychologist, indeed.
E: so in fact every one is debating their very own reality which is based on the original..
S: True, though there can be agreement, with some good will. And with some good conviction, there can be bank agreement.
S…………. agreement is a delightful item, it has more side than a well cut diamond and they basicly boil down to what you said… no crazy person has membership to any group..since they are individuals…
E: agreement is a delightful item, it has more side than a well cut diamond
S: Yes, good one.
E no crazy person has membership to any group..since they are individuals…
S Needless to say it’s been the least favourite dynamic for me. All that domination etc… Nevertheless there can be a light group made of crazy people (I always look for a solution, no matter the odds 😛 )
Splog: As to what he says about the subject and practice of Scientology itself, well there he could easily be flat-out lying.
Dee: Absolutely. He deliberately presented it as being true. Also I believe it was meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Dee: Absolutely. He deliberately presented it as being true. Also I believe it was meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Alan: I’m still not convinced. Infinity valued logic applies, as foes shades of gery (same thing really…).
My pre-teen kids “lie” to me all the time, like when they forget to flush the loo and pinch cookies from the jar. Innocent enough stuff from kids being caught out.
Martha Stewart lied. Apparently she got caught up in something that got away from her.
Al Capone lied through his teeth to the cops and in court (as portrayed in the movies).
Where on this spectrum do Ron’s lies fit in? I’d say somewhere in the middle, near Martha Stewart. Much like how the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Alan
Splog: Where on this spectrum do Ron’s lies fit in?
Dee: deliberately presented it as being true, meant to deceive or give a wrong impression. I think they fit in and of the definition. Not every thing he has said, but these are, and comparing is justifying or making them less or more. Just are! IMO
Geir: “To be honest – up until I came across this one, I never thought I would see such a bare-faced lie from him.”
Chris: We lie, cheat and steal. We obsess over money and power and we are greedy. Though this iteration is more pronounced in some and less than others. What we do makes sense to us; it is consistent within the framework; the context even if only for the moment. We rob liquor stores and ejaculate in fertile unmarried girls and make unnecessary babies and blame others.
Agreed that it is shocking to find out that a revered and pedestal-ed Holy Man like Hubbard lies. And yet, without excuse or justification, and in my present frame of mind, I’m not sure why Hubbard would “rise above” this bank to a greater degree than others. I don’t think the bank is laid out like he said. The reason that a Hubbard or a Jim Jones or a David Koresh (I pick out religious cults rather than political cults such as Stalin-ism or Nazi-ism to separate out the ones which were more ideological and their power not captured by violent social upheaval) to show that people will willingly give up their own self-determinism without needing to be prodded by violence. These people cannot get traction or a foothold or position of leadership if you and I do not willingly give them that power. To quote a recent Alanzo post, we shouldn’t let ideologies do our thinking for us.
I’m not proposing to have discovered any ultimate truth. This is only a way of thinking about these things that allows my sensibilities to not be shocked when stable data that I’ve invested in others dissolves.
Chris: This is only a way of thinking about these things that allows my sensibilities to not be shocked when stable data that I’ve invested in others dissolves.
Dee: Innocent good people trust others, until they learn not too. Sometimes it takes awhile and sometimes it’s fast.
Dee: Innocent good people trust others, until they learn not too. Sometimes it takes awhile and sometimes it’s fast.
Chris: Yes, I can see that. I’m suggesting that both a naive innocence and also the jaded distrust of others are non-optimum for our own well being. I’m suggesting that understanding other’s realities through ideas like “theory of diminishing relevance” put together with other understandings can result in a greater inner peace and tolerance in us for our fellows. Not because others deserve this. It’s not like that. But because if we want to experience peace and harmony then we probably need to understand better what is causing the disharmony. I’m not suggesting to allow ourselves to be abused. This is more of a twist on and the polar opposite of W.C Field’s justification that, “You can’t cheat an honest man.” I’m suggesting that we be that honest man. As you say, “Sometimes it takes a while.” I think that what I’m suggesting is in harmony with Viktor Frankl’s works.
Chris: “The Theory of Decreasing Relevancy,”
Yes, something like that.
The rest of that bulletin is pretty wild. Maybe I should post the whole thing for public discussion?
What do you guys think? Interest?
yes, if you feel like (but also some U-logy)
Isene: Interest?
Dee: Yes
“Billy Jack” is based on a true story. When Tom Laughlin wanted to marry his wife, she took him to meet her parents….she lived on an Indian reservation in Winner, South Dakota. Laughlin was appalled by the racism and bigotry towards the Indians by the white people. He wrote down everything that happened that weekend with one difference, he created the Billy Jack character to defend the Indians. He was so outraged by what he saw that he decided to make a film about it. He moved to Hollywood and made the movie. He was also the first independent film maker in Hollywood skirting the studios and producing Billy Jack himself.
Listen, children, to a story
That was written long ago,
‘Bout a kingdom on a mountain
And the valley-folk below.
On the mountain was a treasure
Buried deep beneath the stone,
And the valley-people swore
They’d have it for their very own.
So the people of the valley
Sent a message up the hill,
Asking for the buried treasure,
Tons of gold for which they’d kill.
Came an answer from the kingdom,
“With our brothers we will share
All the secrets of our mountain,
All the riches buried there.”
Now the valley cried with anger,
“Mount your horses! Draw your sword!”
And they killed the mountain-people,
So they won their just reward.
Now they stood beside the treasure,
On the mountain, dark and red.
Turned the stone and looked beneath it…
“Peace on Earth” was all it said.
Go ahead and hate your neighbor,
Go ahead and cheat a friend.
Do it in the name of Heaven,
You can justify it in the end.
There won’t be any trumpets blowing
Come the judgement day,
On the bloody morning after….
One tin soldier rides away.
These are the elements of brainwashing as documented by Edward Hunter upon interviewing POW in Korea and China. It is the original meaning of the term when he coined it.
The first part of the brainwashing effort is to produce a dazed or fogged state in which the individual is incapable of reasoning or focusing. These are the elements used to induce that state.
– Hunger, ranging from outright starvation to planned malnutrition.
– Fatigue, sleep deprivation, interrupted sleep
– Tenseness, from having no idea what to expect, and no idea what is expected
– Threats, direct and indirect
– Violence, physical beatings, torture
– Isolation, from the outside world to solitary confinement
– Powerlessness, survival entirely at the whim of the captor
– Omniscience, inmates report on each other, stoolies, guards, surveillance
– Hopelessness, no one will be coming to save you, there is no way out
Learning and confession are enforced over top of this induced state.
In brainwashing, confession actually means submission. It is similar to the Latin rite of confession from the middle ages, to confess meant to agree with the sum total of the dogma presented to me.
By demanding confession, accusing an individual of the need to confess, and forcing him to self-criticize and confess to anything at all many, many hours, the individual is forced into a state of completely giving up, going along with whatever the operator requires, no matter how false or true. Confession is complete when the individual will admit to anything, and will accept whatever information or dogma is presented and confess to it no matter how often it is changed or how absurd it is.
Learning is redefined and is enforced, materials are chanted in unison over and over again, individuals are made to write essay after essay explaining the material, hours and hours of “group discussion,” which go over the dogma in minute detail, rewritten over and over in one’s own words.
Submission and capitulation is rewarded with better food or some other reward.
It is a combination of torture, classical conditioning, and operant conditioning.
It has only one objective: total submission, characterized by unthinking acceptance of whatever the state says the truth is, unquestioning obedience to superiors, enforcement of the same on others by spying, reporting, and carrying out procedures on others and total surrender of self to the needs or demands of the state.
From the Free Dictionary:
Brainwashing:
1. Intensive, forcible indoctrination, usually political or religious, aimed at destroying a person’s basic convictions and attitudes and replacing them with an alternative set of fixed beliefs.
2. The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation.
These two definitions are very watered down versions of the original POW brainwashing methods used in Korea and China.
From the New World Encyclopedia:
“There seems to be little to no accord among specialists on the existence of brainwashing, although many have theorized that torture, sleep deprivation, and other such techniques may alter a person’s state of mind. However, a distinction must be made between the modifying of beliefs versus the modifying of behavior. The changing of a person’s behavior through coercive persuasion is possible, but it is not necessarily brainwashing. Only when this change in behavior stems from a core change in beliefs can it be referred to as brainwashing. Acting to avoid pain or some other kind of discomfort is not mind manipulation, it is simply an act of self preservation. Brainwashing as a deliberate practice, though, still remains undefined and unproven.”
[http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Brainwashing]
Behavior Modification:
“In the last few years some writers have used the term behavior modification to refer to almost any practice that alters human behavior. But this is not the case. More specifically, behavior modification is not brainwashing or mind control, and behavior modifiers do not use psychosurgery or electroshock therapy and only occasionally use drugs as a temporary adjunct to a change procedure. Rather, behavior modification is structured learning in which new skills and other behaviors are learned, undesired reactions and habits are reduced, and the client becomes more motivated for the desired changes.”
[http://uwf.edu/wmikulas/Webpage/behavior/chapterone.htm]
Have I been brainwashed in Scientology:
POW Brainwashing: No
Free Dictionary Definition 1: No
Free Dictionary Definition 2: Yes
Behavior Modification: Yes
Free Dictionary Definition 2: Only with regard to beliefs about the group, its trustworthiness and its effectiveness. Overall, my personal belief systems remained intact and are the reason that I disassociated from the group over time, finally exiting the group.
Behavior Modification: Many of the modifications were made with my full knowledge, consent and personal motivation.
Alanzoooooo
Where is that guy?
Alanzo, I don’t even remember what we talked about that day. Come back.