…is repetitive “Duplication“.
Yesterday I wrote a blog post titled, “Defending the detrimental makes you an accomplice“. I indicated there must be some root cause in the basics of Scientology that allows for the harm we see perpetrated by the Church of Scientology.
Today Marty Rathbun wrote a post where he writes what he thinks is the root cause in a blog post titled, “Why Bother?“. He believes it is the induced Certainty that is the reason why scientologists misbehave. He points to the work of Ken Wilber where he says that when people experience great spiritual exaltation, they tend to believe they have found “the only way”. It creates Certainty. In some cases even fanaticism.
But is that the real reason for the Certainty scientologists harbor? Could there be an earlier root cause?
One answer comes from Hubbard himself in a technical bulletin from 8 May 1969 titled, “Important study data”. It is studied as part of an early Scientology course called “The Student Hat”. He writes, in caps:
NUMBER OF TIMES OVER THE MATERIAL EQUALS CERTAINTY AND RESULTS.
The stress on duplication is also prevalent in the counseling (called auditing in Scientology). Hubbard sees the ability to “duplicate” a trauma as the key to removing it. This is based on one of Scientology’s axioms (#12) that says:
The primary condition of any universe is that two spaces, energies or objects must not occupy the same space. When this condition is violated (a perfect duplicate) the apparency of any universe or any part thereof is nulled.
Cryptic? Well, it means that if you are able to fully duplicate a trauma, it will cease to exist as a trauma. While the axiom itself is false and the fact that auditing does not need this explanation of duplication for it to work, we can see that duplication is stressed, not only in training, but in counseling as well.
The act of duplicating in an auditing session begins very early on in Scientology with the level called “Objectives”. At this level, the person receiving the auditing is asked to duplicate the actions of the practitioner (auditor) again and again. The same is done in the early communications training in Scientology.
Brendan pointed this out last Friday. I felt myself reject his view as a sort of knee-jerk reaction since I have had so much gain doing the communications training and the auditing. Aside from getting massive, real and objective gains from both, I do see that the repetitive stress on duplication does mold a person to be more easily controlled. It sets a person up for swallowing Scientology wholesale as it corrodes the person’s critical thinking skills and hence his free will.
On one hand it can produce great gains. On the other, it blunts his ability to question.
Our resident commenter, Harper, puts it this way:
The core “evil” is Repetitive Obedience with an increasing intolerance for free action and choice in the materials application. That is all. That is the core evil.
“Give me that hand.”
“Thank you.”
“Give me that hand.”
“Thank you.”
*** OR ***
“Start …. FLUNK! You smiled … Start.”
In “A Beginner’s Guide to L. Ron Hubbard” Hardeep pointed this out. “If there is any claim of Scientology about brainwashing this is it. Repeat … repeat … repeat …”
Yes Hardeep. Why? Because …
If you control what someone DOES, you eventually control how they think. Look at prisoners who over time cannot function in society because they have been institutionalized. They are forced into a living mold of repetitive acts that SHAPE the person into something they were not before.
If you want freedom, control your repetitive acts.
The TV show by Hardeep is available here: A Beginner’s Guide to L. Ron Hubbard
There are often multiple causes for an effect. Such can be explored in what is called a “fishbone diagram“.
In the case of Scientology and the harm perpetrated by the church, I believe there are several causes. But my view is that the stress on duplication and repetition is a root cause of the Certainty that we see in so many Scientologists. More so then the exalted states pointed to by Wilber. Repetitive duplication is also used in schools, very much so in communism and other patriotic ideologies, in certain types of meditation, tribal chantings, etc. It molds controllability. The Golden Age of Tech (a regimen released in the Church of Scientology in 1996 and version 2 released just now) takes this to new heights. It enforces obedience.
Rebels get into trouble. Conformists are created. They survive.
This is my current view, subject to future revisions.
Another interesting angle on this comes from another commenter on this blog, freebeing.
Geir Isene - uncut 
No wonder why all the OTs are forced around the hamster wheel doing Objectives again and again.
Yes, they are acting disobedient.
Defending the “I” is detrimental.
.
Good GOD V… are you still riding that horse? we been told by you dozens of time that!
He is quite eager to point out what he thinks is wrong in others, but so incapable of seeing a glaring issue of his own. What tends to turn me off the most regarding self-help methodologies is when the creator or spokes-person is obviously incapable of applying it to himself. That for me is also an issue with Scientology and Hubbard.
Hubbard was dead wrong 99.99% of the time since his teaching made everything more solid in fact he has petrified ideas! I never liked him, not even when I was at the Mission or at ST Hill. His space.. well I did turn my head away from the statues when they were displayed.. with that I not -ised him.. Later on few years back I looked for him on the track because I wanted to know my connection… I have seen him as on implanter… big timer he was at that [[ not that I have not dabbled in that fine art… hehehe] since it takes one to know one!
That’s about what I think is wrong with ‘this’ universe –duplication, but obsessive. If one cannot stop duplicating it in his own universe, he cannot stop experiencing it. And then -because of that condition- he may get unwilling to duplicate it/experience it. But then he creates ridges/unreality/case. Case is misduplication. Enforced duplication as in the case of forcefull TRs are like implants, as without willingness to duplicate, misduplication occurs and ridges and case. Duplication -as with all things- must be self determined.
*to implant you can deliver an experience that one is unwilling to duplicate and yet force him to somewhat duplicate it. The result is duplication, but not really. It is misduplication. With duplication there would be as-isness.
Similarily we can say that ARC is harmful too, when it is enforced. But when done by one’s will then it’s different. Enforced ARC was called a lock in the SOS.
you really believe ARC can be enforced? really? Just think for a moment..You might agree and say YOU LOVE THAT CAT just to please me.. and you might act that way too… but in reality was it on enforcement? No.. You agreed in order to gain something.. but if I would ask you ” has the withhold been missed liking that cat” man.. you would cough that truth up in second.. so there was no enforced ARC but a falsity a lie were put there from you… now where the blame can be placed?
In the Italian blog which I read regularly and comment there. Their front page header say’..Think with your head!” I like that.. but again a bone ball which is filled with yacky soft stuff can it really think? and the top of that it is full of holes!.Oh those wonderful Italians..!
Eliza, I can imagine circumptstances where ARC can be enforced, as in instances that I have to go to public services to make useless legal papers for myself or else I am not allowed to be, travel etc The healthy citizen is a citizen that compromises they say. So are told you have to be in somewhat positive ARC (no head bashing) with various dudes that offer you as license to live. I never felt like being in ARC with school either, yet, I was forced to stay there for endless hours and forced to duplicate-parrot what the teacher said, or else I was told off or bad marks etc. Or having to be in ARC with some employer, or else body dies of starvation or something.
Yeah, if you can skip (or otherwise take responsibility for) this stuff, this society can be an actually nice place to live. Untill then, ‘nice’ is the kind of hypocrisy that I know –one can even make himself believe that not having a choice over ARC is ‘nice’, which I guess is the final stage of this implant process….happy and apparently voluntary slavery…’freedom’!… 😛
if something is TOTALLY DUPLICATED AS_ISED than it is gone it will not harm anyone…. Geir you are barking up on the wrong tree.
I do not think duplication is needed for As-Isness to occur (sorry, non-scientology-speaking readers, a bit of jargon here).
Yes. you are right on that… it seems things can vanish without duplication. They just go… I am pleased that you have shared your reality with me. Who needs a duplicate in the first place since one was to much -not wanted.
But in my basic reality there is no such a thing as ”duplicating” since one simply know… and that is that.. you know, I never ever found any duplicate of anything since everything happens in the new unite of ” NOW” ..
+1
OK.. how I see the earlier repetitive action which was shown to be in the Mission was teaching me to look… see, be there and that was it for me… I have had huge wins on those action. processes, My universe shifted I have blown immense mass. I guess I just seen– understood different… because of this that is the reason I believe confrontation is unique to scientology: the how and why.. well it was for me….
Geir… more I look at this DUPLICATION thingy I realised I never duplicated a thing in my what ever [ life?.. that is totally wrong thing to say] hehehe never ever have.
I seen things my way.. what ever has come into my universe.. and nothing more.. no duplication was ever made….very interesting…
How could I duplicate somebodies reality, cant be done. I only can agree. And again here is that black cat example.. I don’t know how your black cat loos like… and even when you see my black cat how would I know what you see???
So scientologist do believe that they duplicate but no way in hell that can happen..
Thanks again for the gain of different reality.
PS… I would like to share a happy event in my life.. I will be becoming a slave in October to a kitten… please look up on the Internet the breed. It is DEVON REX and the only cat which wags its tail when happy and will learn to fetch— role over etc,, This cat looks like a alien even has curly-wavy hair..! after all every old lady should have a companion in her bed…:)
hehe – I will look it up 🙂
Interesting ride here on this Duplication, for the both of us. I like being wrong, and it’s fun the way Brendan makes my stable data shake and crash.
we are fortunate when being made wrong, Chris and Kay Proctor do that for me and my sister, she just calls me idiot.. once a day..love that, she and I we were at the same time going up on the Bridge all the way at ST Hill. She never soloed after that but she has her own way to confront and doing well, very well. She wont tell me how she is doing that.. I want her to start to comment here in your blog…
Now Gair as a big favor could you post a kitten picture here in your blog, I would if I could.. as you know I am totally without understanding the working of computer.. hehehe cant duplicate a thing!
PS; I am waiting for your reality on” duplication” 🙂
Cat:
Reality on duplication: Tomorrow. Going to sleep now.
have a wonderful journey.
Luv the look of your alien looking kitten and happy for you to have a companion. Thanks Isene for showing the picture.
Regarding being wrong… Puleeze make me wrong, as I need a lift. hee, hee, no, really! 🙂
Thanks a million for the cat picture.. and for sharing my joy! what a havingness!
Yes, the longest since I comment here… Very interesting in did. 🙂
So you too like being wrong.. now that say a lot… with that I gotten your number, because I know where a being has to be in order to enjoy that. [ and why]
I have wondered a few times where were you at, since in your posting you don’t give that away.
Thank for you comm. 🙂
Brendan and Anette are two of the warmest, openest, neatest beings I’ve met in a long time! You pulled in good ones.
Elizabeth: “How could I duplicate somebodies reality, cant be done. I only can agree. ”
Me: Geir mentioned a day or two ago he wasn’t sure if duplication was a requisite to understandings. And I had a knee-jerk reaction to that too (I’ve been well trained in Scn duplication 🙂 )
I’ve been thinking about it for a few days now, I find many many MANY examples of understanding without duplication. Often a computer out on the internet breaks and I get to fix it without looking closely; I just see a pattern of geeky-stuff happening and figure what could cause it. Usually, I’m right. What did I duplicate there?
Obviously there has to be some agreement and observation going on for understandings to happen – I don’t see how someone could understand something they know nothing about. But how much duplication is needed? Apparently, not very much.
And certainly not TOTAL duplication
“Obviously there has to be some agreement and observation…”
There’s no difference between “observation” and duplication. You duplicate what is there to be observed.
Marildi: There’s no difference between “observation” and duplication. You duplicate what is there to be observed.
Chris: So you say, but are you sure? If we look at the concept of <a href=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstractionabstraction, we can say that there are processes going on out there, to me this is right. Our personal take on that process is our abstraction. Remember the pinwheel spinning and the abstraction of “disk” instead of pinwheel because of our abstraction? It does no harm to look at the conditioned truth of duplication. Is it really true?
Whether you want to call it observation or duplication or looking, or perception, or whatever – there is always going to be the factor of what you bring with you that layers onto that which is being duplicated (i.e. observed or viewed or perceived). You may remember my talking about that on the ARC Triangle thread (or the thread after that, where the topic was continued). A person brings his own Reality to the comm cycle, and that gets infused into the actual duplication/perception of the impulse or particle that comes from source-point. BUT there nevertheless does exist a direct perception – i.e. a duplication.
If you think about it, there isn’t any moment in the activity of life that doesn’t involve duplication. It’s true that cameras and things like that can duplicate – but it’s only a living organism that can have “duplication with understanding” as per the comm formula. And that understanding comes about through the being’s own R being brought into the last part of the cycle of communication, which is a combination of duplication with understanding.
Alan: I just see a pattern of geeky-stuff happening and figure what could cause it. Usually, I’m right. What did I duplicate there?
Chris: I troubleshoot that way, too. To get mechanical, maybe we just duplicated earlier what ifs so it sits there in our tool bag arsenal waiting for us to pull its number. I do lots of troubleshooting over the phone using others eyes and hands. If I look into a cabinet full of wire and need to trace or track something, I sort of go into a soft-focus mode and look for the physical manifestation or process going on in front of me to fit a mental concept — a little like when you watch a crime show and they show fingerprints rapidly flicking on the screen, computer looking for a match.
I have tinnitus and tune it out. I don’t listen to it, though the process is always there if I want to check and see, yep, it’s there. Duplication is an interesting subject. Marildi argues that anytime I compare two things, I’m duplicating, and I guess that’s right. ~~I wrote too much again~~
It is something I have often thought of…we are very alone in our bodies. How do we know that we all experience pain or pleasure, or the color blue the same way?
With externals we can agree that one color is blue and not another, but with internals how do we know your feelings such as the pain of a bug bite are the same as mine?
I looked them up. They are neat!
You see, Elisabeth, that was also my initial knee jerk reaction – to reject it for that reason. But then I let myself look at what Brendan pointed out. I analyzed and I let my stable data be shaken. And stirred. And lo and behold. It makes a great deal of sense.
OK.. I go and re-read what Brendan said…
He said “duplicate”
He didn’t say “totally duplicate”
Duplication is a gradient.
OK slog lets split some hairs, I have a few I can donate! But I do not debate. and Geir and I we don’t need to do that.
Spyros golden boy of Greece: some people don’t even know they have or where is their head so how could those lost souls be 2 feet back of their head? heh? 🙂
If one doesn’t know he has a head, he should be grateful for it 😛
An issue I had with exteriorisation was that I had to get interiorised first, before I could exteriorise 😛
… I was just mentioning different techniques to stop creating the reactive mind. I meant that duplicating it, was not the only way. What do you think?
SP.. I don’t get the question…. that we duplicate the reactive mind? if there is another way not to? sure…
Splog please do forgive I have miss spelled your valance name.. it was not intentionally.. When I apologise I do mean just that!
Elizabeth Hamre: if something is TOTALLY DUPLICATED AS_ISED than it is gone it will not harm anyone…. Geir you are barking up on the wrong tree.
isene: I do not think duplication is needed for As-Isness to occur (sorry, non-scientology-speaking readers, a bit of jargon here).
Spyros: I agree with both of you. Do you remember our discussion about the misunderstood word, when I said I could by-pass a misunderstood without having any phenomena? I think it is the same with all case. If a misunderstood/misduplication is experienced and one sticks there trying to understand/duplicate it, he has case, untill he understands/duplicates it. He doesn’t have to do it. He can do it.
right my friend but in these case I am glad geir pointed out the different reality and that made me look.. and get a new reality.. I love to be wrong too … 🙂
A hallmark of greatness.
Be careful with your compliment 🙂 I might get a huge something and than I have to see what that huge something is and that could be scary.. 🙂 I might not be able to Duplicat that!
You know what scared me the most since I gotten in 73? In 74 I have had few intensive of D.. by Betty Lundy and there I discovered I have been Attila the real one not just a valance now that was scary. I had auditing on that because I WAS REALLY ARCB-ken !!! Not only ARCb’ken but upset to no end! Hehehe.. nothing in these universe could scare me. now 🙂
Also would love to share with you that ” has the withhold been missed” is my very favorite question.. I have even run it on you when I look at our track about year ago. I really wanted to know what have I done in your universe!. My- my- we had fun doing each other in.. 🙂
LOL!
By the way thanks for your blog[ you that is] because it has brought lots of good time into my space.
Thanks 🙂
And you into ours.
love you too!
Geir: “While the axiom itself is false and the fact that auditing does not need this explanation of duplication for it to work, we can see that duplication is stressed, not only in training, but in counseling as well.”
The idea of “duplication” in auditing is not exactly the same as in training. In auditing, as it states in the axiom, a “PERFECT duplicate” is required to fully as-is something in the mind. But that doesn’t mean to say that all auditing as-ises or erases – some of it simply enables the pc to duplicate the incident well enough to release enough charge that it can be “objectified”. In other words, the pc has separated the incident from himself and it is no longer a “part of him”.
In training, duplication simply means to make a copy of. It’s the very concept that exists in the communication formula, whether spoken or written, i.e. you have to be able to duplicate that someone wrote or said the word “try” and not the word “cry” before communication or knowledge can be passed on from point A to point B and subsequently achieve an understanding at point B.
I do not believe that duplication is needed for auditing to work or for erasure to occur. I believe this is a fundamental error in Scientology. And whether duplication is stressed in auditing as with the Objectives or in training, it does mold a person into a more controllable person. I have seen that many times. You must surely have seen that, too.
You are making statements without giving any basis for what you say. For example, what is the construct you have in mind when you say, “I do not believe that duplication is needed for auditing to work or for erasure to occur.”
I will answer that later so as not to derail the OP just yet.
Okay, but I don’t see how the OP has much substance by just stating a claim and not giving any support for it.
That single point is not the main gist of the OP. Patience. Please do not answer this comment of mine until more people have had their say.
Marildi: Okay, but I don’t see how the OP has much substance by just stating a claim and not giving any support for it.
Chris: In a discussion, support is interesting and sometimes informative, but that is research at heart. Discussion is two people or more just talking out their ideas. Their ideas. It’s more important to try and understand what another is trying to communicate than to immediately reject the square pegs that don’t fit round holes. There’s always time later to reject ideas after they’ve had time to simmer. How you going to see if the shoe fits if you don’t try it on?!?
One example that I can think of Marildi, is when we look at two datums and notice the differences between them. This seems to cause the most inconsistent datum to blow. When I do this, sometimes the datum blows so fast that part of it is gone before it even knows it is being viewed. Not joking though my writing could be improved if I would slow down…
Any time you “look” at two datums or anything else, you are duplicating.
Duplication was only A method used in processing. Other methods were to re-postulate concepts closer to basic truth, or to exert self determinism over charged items, or I don’t know what else. And at that time, duplication was considered an inferior, slower method. But duplication (running incidents) was in the final Bridge, as everybody could do it more or less, I suppose.
Or just “Be two feet behind your head”…instant clearing with no duplication of case at all….there’s no case to duplicate then!
Sorry, I meant no reactive mind.
You know Geir, I had a similar cog too yesterday about how I duplicated/agreed with/re-created unwanted stuff over and over and thus perpetuated them in an effot to solve them. It was so ironic that I created case in order to solve it 😛 Actually, before I adopted that system, I was more able to resolve stuff, as I didn’t have those considerations that I had to go back to the problem and look at it etc
During most processing that’s what one does, but he has to do it to EP, or else he can achieve the opposite.
*irrelevant, but I ‘got’ my ‘past’ ability ‘back’ 😉
SP… you bet, one has to have a cognition only that is on indicator that one as-ised.. the cognition is the NEW REALITY one gains…”’ oh wow”’ bit…that is the change in ones universe and of course that cognition effects the Universe too.
🙂 😉
Geir, I disagree with you on this:)
Look: repetition and “duplication” is present in all activities in life where you want to polish yourself including sports. The problem would be the subject of duplication. For example if you practice a certain movement in sport, if the movement is fine and rational so that does not do harm to your body and gives the optimum performance than you should “duplicate” how it is done and adopt to your body (usually an omitted step) than repeat it to teach to your body. We can call it duplication or whatever (here I included duplication and repetition together). BUT if the movement for example causes harm to your body by the repetition process or the movement does not give an optimum performance than duplication is bad because you learn the bad movement which makes you either sick or gives non-optimum performance.
So if the system is wrong than you can blame duplication. If the system is correct, no problem with duplication.
I am not saying that duplication and repetition is All Wrong. It is part of any training. But – I AM saying that it makes a person more controllable. Just as in the military, just as in school, just as in sports where the trainer wants to better control his team. What sets Scientology apart from the above is
a) the more intense and targeted focus on repetition (on par with the military) and, more importantly
b) while the above examples are duplication and repetition in certain areas of life, Scientology encompasses All of Life. To be part of a sports team that is easily controlled by a coach is something entirely different from being controlled by a church that is supposed to encompass All of Life.
Also, the soccer coach is not about to sell you the idea that he will enhance your free will. The Church of Scientology is – all the while it drills and drills with repetition and duplication that all of LRH is gospel and all of Scientology is True. This robs a person of his free will. It makes for people who are hell bent on defending anything Scientology – even when they are presented clear facts that even the basics of Scientology has serious flaws. With such a repetitive training pattern in Scientology, a person will twist and justify, look away or defend any wrong in Scientology. It makes for fanatics.
You: repetition and “duplication” is present in all activities in life where you want to polish yourself including sports.
Me: Allow me to point out the 800 gorilla in the room where this applies to Scientology.
We all know that repetition is important in sports practice and in life, we call this “practice”. It even applies to auditor training as well, as that too is part of life. Done sanely and well and in balance with life, this indeed does work well.
But Scientology training does not work like that, because Scientology training does not permit much sanity to be introduced into itself. As I posted to an earlier blog, Scientology causes it’s own problems by introducing this aspect of certainty.
And Hubbard’s works are filled with this – the man would take things completely over the top almost every time. TRs have to be perfect – not enough or adequate for the thing being taught – but perfect. Listing and nulling has to be 100% aoll the time and all the laws known verbatim becuase $HUMUNGEOUS_BAD_STUFF happens when you don’t. You have to get the full missed withhold all the time, no flubs. You can’t get away with missing an FN and just dealing with it, your metering has to be perfect.
And all of this is present from the very lowest levels, even in Class V Academies. To *degree* to which certainty, perfection and duplication is required makes it so that the system can probably never be fixed. People using the system have become so used to this level of performance that changing the requirements is an uphill battle. You would have to find all these bits of tech and clearly indicate in each that Hubbard is wrong, and this degree is not at all required, then describe something more realistic. This of course flies straight into Tech Degrades, 10 points of KSW1 and suppressive acts.
Who has the altitude to do that?
So duplication and practice is important but Hubbard took it to a whole new level where the result is not in fact duplication but something more like robotic indoctrination.
+10
You like it twice!
So I dun good huh?
LOL . . . geeks…hahaha
Splog, I ‘duplicated’ what you said, I think! For sure, I understood every word and what you said sounded right and terrific to me.
I agree with both of you. Basically we are talking about the same thing. We touched different magnitudes and scales. I expressed that this way: “The problem would be the subject of duplication.” Sports or the whole of life.
Now, rigorous, demanding duplication can be really bad. Unless you are on the battlefield and you should perfectly handle your weapons.
But if a subject encompasses all life in a true manner and it finds the balance between duplication and sane free will than I guees simple duplication can’t be so harmful. Where you can decide what to do with the “duplicated” stuff.
But we often tend to forget about circumstances. And here comes the actuality of the battlefield example which I mentioned earlier. Times change. What was maybe necessary 30-50 years ago can be completely insane in today’s world. It was Ron who set in stone that you can’t change the technology. While we know from the conditions (his invention also) where this leads to (decline). So this is inconsistency. And I could never calculate with these inconsistencies in Scientology.
I think the basic harm lies in the nature of man when applies things in a bad way, and in this case the basic harm lies in the mind of the man who put together Scientology. But of course this is too general. This is just to say that Scientology would need a total reexamination, revision. The problem: who would do the revision? Maybe a revision lead by OT VIIIs who all have a history of sanity and goodwill. Geir should be one of them!:)
But there can be more causes and maybe there is not a “root cause of harm”. And I think this is a kind of Scientology way of thinking to look for a specific root of harm. I think there are more causes somewhere at the root which adds together to make up this volume of mess on the other end.
Geir, I told you many times how much I respect your articles. For me, there are lobby for the truth. But you know that I”m a bit unconventional with my posts. So please allow me to ask you: After all these articles, are you sure you will die in your own bed? 🙂
He might leave the body in bed when that thingy will stop working but Geir will not die ” kick the bucket” but just will move on and start a different adventure!
Hi Geir,
I usually never read or comment but your link at Marty’s blog brought me here. This is a comment for you and the various haters on this blog will not appreciate what I have to say but as you seem very open for an intelligent discussion, I’m forwarding these thoughts to you.
I do think you are onto something here with the subject of duplication. I haven’t done a bunch of research, nor really dug in to find a specific root cause, but certain aspects of the tech has had my mind going for a while.
Despite being in Scientology for over 20 years, I really only started studying the subject for real in 2005 when I was forced to do the Basics pilot at the Int Base. Then I went to the RPF in late 2006 for almost 4 years. There I received thousands of hours of auditing and delivered thousands of hours of auditing.
This experience made certain things become truths for me, as I experienced them personally. It is true for me that certain auditing techniques will “blow charge” as it is called in Scientology and uncover some stuck decisions and computations, which at the point of discovery no longer hold a hypnotic effect on you. This if anything is very real to me and nothing will take that away.
Having a fair deal of scientific background (studied science at university and was also personally fairly interested in it) there were however some things that just didn’t add up.
It is my view that Dianetics is the most honestly written book of all that he wrote. In this book he writes down techniques which have some workability through empirical observation. He gives theories of why it works, but also acknowledges that he only really know THAT it works but only has ideas of WHY – largely based on his Science background and whatever else he studied and researched.
Almost all of what I read in Dianetics I can relate to my own auditing as well as auditing others.
Moving forward to Advanced Procedure and Axioms LRH now starts to form basic laws, some of which just don’t add up at first glance. Moving onto 8-80 and suddenly the tech is explained by paralleling it with basic electronics. At this point from what I can see, the “why it works” was derailed.
I agree with you that duplication is not why we get an as-isness. I can’t tell you why something as-isses but I can tell you that this condition does exist. However, I can get the exact same feeling as when I as-is a hidden charge in auditing when a person, or a book, or a documentary, etc., tells me a piece of truth. When I hear something that is really true or acknowledges something that is true, that same feeling of relief; feeling lighter; “mass blowing” occurs. So when you inspect an incident and find out the truth (including the postulate), any negative charge blows.
So from my un-evaluated observation it isn’t duplication but the spotting of real truth that is, if not behind, at least very much involved in the feeling of as-isness.
Truth has nothing to do with electricity or the base of the motor or other scientific physics formulas and I believe one of the fundamental issues was focusing on coming up with a revolutionary “WHY IT WORKS” instead of focusing on the fact that it worked and empirically improve it from there. Though I may agree that energy has something to do with the mind and that a being can create/manipulate energy, the source of that mind is not related to energy and hence the “WHY IT WORKS” cannot be explained through physical formulas and electronics.
The core principles behind Dianetics auditing pretty much remained till now and the workability can still be observed. LRH, correctly included, tried to work out how to make it easier to apply and easier to understand, but in so doing I believe he made wrong conclusions why things worked and put a lot of stress onto these conclusions. Then based on these at least partially wrong assumptions he developed further tech which (to me) does not have full workability – such as the admin tech and ethics tech. Some admin tech works well in application (for me) such as the data series, but that’s a subject for a different discussion.
So what I think is one of the core, if not “problem” or “root cause” at least points in which the technology/philosophy started to go astray was when LRH convinced himself of the “WHY IT WORKS” behind the results he got, mainly defined through electronics and physics formulas mixed with some Lao Tzu from the Tao Te Ching, instead of pursuing the route he was taking in Dianetics where he focused on results and workability, somewhat ignoring why it worked.
(There is nothing wrong with the Tao Te Ching – one of my favorite books – but I brought it up as the axioms seem to be a mixture of this book and some university science books… Two subjects very far divorced from each other…)
Because of this he then established further tech based on his own axioms, which may or may not have been correct as to the “WHY IT IS THIS WAY” – assumptions based on possibly a bit of know-best in his scientific background.
As I said earlier, I haven’t done an in-depth study/research in this, but wanted to share my thoughts on this topic as I do agree that duplication is not the reason, but from my own observation it has something to do with seeing or experiencing truth. Whenever we find truth in auditing it gives gains. Whenever we achieve duplication in auditing we get duplication…
In all workable practices truth frees things. I believe it is the factor that made auditing wok in Scientology – to see things for what it is/what it was. The codes as established in Dianetics will make an auditor bring a preclear to see truth. This works. Though this IS a core principle in Scientology, many other core principles were added and I think that some of those added principles (based on wrong assumptions of “WHY IT WORKS”) ended up turning the subject on itself. But wherever truth is the core principle in applying auditing, results can and are being achieved.
Thanks for listening, Ulf
Welcome!
Thanks for the (lengthy) reply. I will tell my view on why auditing works and it has nothing to do with any perfect duplicate as indicated by axiom #12. Stay tuned.
Thanks Gier,
One more (not so lengthy) comment. If we are going to get down and dirty about the supposed science of how duplication as-ises there is one factor which is not included in the subject of a duplicate. For a wave being nullified by an opposing wave of the same force, the polarity also has to be reversed. If not you get a ridge. With that same principle to get as-isness through duplication you will have to have one side of it of the opposite polarity. Maybe that is a scientific way of explaining how equal amounts of ying and yan crates “calm” or harmony, but presents all kinds of issues with these axioms.
Two duplicates don’t nullify each other. Just the same as the ultimate truth is not supposedly a static. Truth is truth. Truth could be a nothingness, but isn’t limited to such. With that definition of truth an entire premise is based which has some axiomatic faults based on existing science. Only a duplicate of reversed polarity can create a nullification scientifically. The end result of such is a nothingness, but it really isn’t either – it is more of a resulting phenomena and again here we are observing the foot print of the bear – not the bear. Hope I make sense here.
If we stay on truth just being what is according to a person’s point of view, as-isness can occur because an observation of what is (for the person addressed) is a witnessing of truth. When truth is found or witnessed or experienced a sense of relief, “charge blown”, etc., occurs. This also explains other working phenomena in many different practices.
This was at one point a principle in Scientology but later got added to and redefined. I believe part of the problem started here.
Anyway, just some not-so-super-inspected comments. Looking forward to your view as you stated above.
Right. Duplication does not make for as-isness. It makes for ridges if it is fermions and nothing special if it is bosons. No, as-isness is much, much simpler than that.
WwUlf, “For a wave being nullified by an opposing wave of the same force, the polarity also has to be reversed.”
Ulf, the making of a duplicate doesn’t require making an opposite. The mechanism is that of becoming cause over the construction. LRH spelled it out clearly more or less as “Get the pc to causatively do what he is obsessively (but unknowingly) doing.” Thus making a duplicate puts the pc at cause and takes over the effect flow (obsessive, unknowing creation / mockup).
Seeing or learning (by instruction or reading or other data form) a new truth does the same thing. The person is “empowered” by knowledge, able to do or understand something new, made more causative.
Personally I think it takes little more than to understand a mechanism of the mind to get to a point of cause over that portion of the mind or case. Auditing helps a person to realize he can be at cause. Knowledge of a mechanism and a little drilling in its application could do the same.
2X Personally I think it takes little more than to understand a mechanism of the mind to get to a point of cause over that portion of the mind or case.
Chris: Yes, no more.
“2X Personally I think it takes little more than to understand a mechanism of the mind to get to a point of cause over that portion of the mind or case.
Chris: Yes, no more.
2x: Chris, it depends on whether one can use the knowledge effectively. A sort of comparison would be knowing how to drive, basically, and knowing how to high-speed drive properly. It is practice of the basic knowledge that gets you through the difficult twists and turns. The same with dealing with something like a life-rud that goes out. If you understand the mechanism of the rud and know how to use the tech of handling it, you can quickly dispel the charge.
Hello.. here is my reality on as-ising… When one is in session or just plain looking- confronting but it mostly happen in session.
When one goes earlier similar and finally finds that basic incident and that moment the person-PC recognises the ORIGINAL POSTULATES and by doing that than has a realization WOW…. that is the reason I have done that… because etc..
The recognition of the original postulate when one is finally finding the truth that sitting mass-energy which is the original postulate is blown-as-ised.
Very simple. of course one had to have many as-ising =cognition in order to understand how the energy is created when one postulated.
An the original energy-postulate was the foundation for countless similar postulates and of course the counter postulates. they -the newly created postulates-counter postulates have solidified kept the original one intact.
This basic energy which was created by that postulate is the cause for the stimulation-restimulation over the extend that track.
The basic energy-postulate needs to be erased =as-ised before the chain will lift up. but I believe this much was said by LRH too.
But I have done more research than LRH has and now I can see [without eyes] the energy masses.
PS the original postulate has created the energy mass and long as that sits there solidly do effects the person.
Your post is spot on, Elizabeth.
E. “The basic energy-postulate needs to be erased =as-ised before the chain will lift up. but I believe this much was said by LRH too.
I take it that was the 0.01% part that LRH had right?
🙂 good observation by you… how is you doing?
Hi Ulf,
You wrote: “So from my un-evaluated observation it isn’t duplication but the spotting of real truth that is, if not behind, at least very much involved in the feeling of as-isness.”
For me, what you said above gets into a problem of semantics. The “spotting” of “truth” is precisely what is meant by duplication (spotting) of exactly what is there (truth) – whether that happens to be something in one’s own mind, i.e. a self-creation, or it is something one has personally observed. The spotting (duplicating) of the latter (something observed) is why LRH stated that a person cannot effectively be taught anything he didn’t already know.
Basically, whether it is a self-created or observed isness that is being as-ised, expressing the phenomenon in your words – i.e. “to see things for what it is/what it was” – is not saying anything different from what LRH was expressing when he put it in terms of duplicating what is there.
Good job Ulf.
My take on duplication:
Enhancing free will requires the person to think for himself, to think as he like and question as he like, and only to copy or duplicate what he wants to copy or duplicate. There are areas of life that requires focus and training and duplication. But not the subject of life itself – because it hinges on free will. More free will equates to more life. Repetitive duplication makes for less free will, more robot, less life.
Then to the point of why auditing works. Firstly, axiom #12 is false. You can have two identical particles occupy the same space as long as they are bosons (Wikipedia if needed). Secondly, auditing relies on as-isness as a mechanism – meaning something will disappear; A trauma will disappear, a pain or discomfort will disappear or a thought or tendency for an unwanted action will disappear. This as-isness or disappearance has nothing to do with the person creating any “perfect duplicate” of the issue at hand. It simply has to do with the person stopping to create it.
It goes like this: A person has a mental issue. It exists because he unconsciously creates it. Continually. There are ways to help the person to stop creating it. You can ask him to create it many times until he is able to consciously create it. At that time it is a small step for the person to stop creating it. If the person is up to it, he can follow Allan Watts’ advice and simply “get off it”. And there are other ways. But the bottom line is that the person ceases to create the mental issue. He regains that much free will. It is simple. Very simple. And completely disrelated to the false axiom #12.
This is in fact the Clear cognition – that the person stops creating his reactive mind. Now, I happen to believe there is no such thing as “a reactive mind”, but that is beside this point. My point is really that any issue the person is continually and unconsciously creating can be handled by helping the person become conscious about it and master the creation or the non-creation of it. Quite often, the issue will cease to be created by the person if he simply decides to Fuck it!
I hadn’t read your comment here before I replied to Ulf, but I see we are saying the same thing.
I will even agree, to an extent, with your comment “Quite often, the issue will cease to be created by the person if he simply decides to Fuck it!”. As I noted in my comment, that ability will be enhanced by understanding the mechanism, along with a bit of drilling or auditing to get proficient at it. Simply saying “Fuck it!” is more of a not-is and often requires either force or restraint to accomplish the desire. (Like a smoker willing himself to stop smoking, but suffering continued desire.)
I say “Fuck It!” is the basis for as-isness. Even without any knowledge of mechanisms involved, letting the person simply indulge in Fuck It! does sometime work as a very valid therapy. I have tried it in coaching people to great success.
isene: “I say “Fuck It!” is the basis for as-isness. Even without any knowledge of mechanisms involved, letting the person simply indulge in Fuck It! does sometime work as a very valid therapy. I have tried it in coaching people to great success.”
2x: The operative phrase is “does sometime work…”
From my misplaced reply: LRH clearly stated that the objective of objectives was to get the pc to take over control of the body and learn how to take over control of his own pictures. If you’ve ever met anyone who jumps from thought to thought and will never finish a conversation on one topic, you’ve met someone who is not in control of his own pictures. That situation would make subjective auditing practically impossible. Having this person trying to control or modify his behavior or state of mind by saying “Fuck it!” would be entirely impossible.
I always question statements that contains absolutes like “entirely impossible”.
isene:”I always question statements that contains absolutes like “entirely impossible”.
It’s absolutely true that you should absolutely always question such statements. You may find the odd psychotic who will respond to “Come up to present time”, too, but as a general point of workability “Fuck it” is just as fucked.
I do not see “Fuck it” as anything but not-ising. Not-ising does not directly address the condition but typically requires willpower to enforce and maintain a new condition. Telling an alcoholic to say “Fuck it” will probably get a smile from him and an answer like “Ya, that’s just what I said before I got on the bottle!”
Yes, I understand the difference in meaning that you have for it. I just don’t think you’ve looked far enough to see its limited application.
2ndxmr: “I do not see “Fuck it” as anything but not-ising.”
Me: Hi there 🙂
I recognise your handle from Marty’s place, but don’t recall seeing you here before. If you are newly arrived in Geir’s space, welcome!
“Fuck it!” is a somewhat overloaded term – it can be received many different ways depending on the listener – and it’s easy to get the wrong sense of what Geir means when he uses “Fuck it!”
Geir is a geek, his background is Unix software (like me) and Fuck It! means something in that world. It means to knock of doing useless actions when you spot them happen. It means changing your mind or approach to a problem when you are far enough along to spot that the method won’t work. It means to lighten up a little. It means to stop obsessing when it doesn’t matter anymore.
it’s not some low-toned or apathetic or hopeless activity, and it definitely isn’t what you tell a drug addict as the solution to addiction. As you pointed out, that addiction is strong and mere words are not enough to get over that hump. But a time can come when the addict has broken the back of addiction and is ready to move on and leave it all behind. In geek terms, that translates to “Fuck it, I’m over that and now I need to get laid”
It’s much closer to “The Joy of Creating” than just hoping things will get better if you stop caring.
HTH,
Alan
Alan: “Fuck It! means something in that world. It means to knock of doing useless actions when you spot them happen. It means changing your mind or approach to a problem when you are far enough along to spot that the method won’t work. It means to lighten up a little. It means to stop obsessing when it doesn’t matter anymore.”
LRH very much included that principle where he said that one could just change one’s mind, or change the postulate. However, he also knew that not everyone is capable of doing that – which is why he created the gradients of processing that he did.
Btw, you arrived on Geir’s blog later than 2ndxmr, who posts here off and on, sometimes not showing up for quite a while, and apparently not since you became a regular. But he has made many comments in the past and is a trained and experienced auditor, unlike anybody else who posts here regularly. That’s the perspective he’s coming from.
“Btw, you arrived on Geir’s blog later than 2ndxmr”
Thanks for that, it must be I didn’t note 2ndxmr’s earlier posts when I was still lurking. My bad.
Alan’s da maan
Yes, “true-fuckit” has never harmed anyone anywhere anytime, only when people use it the wrong way does it cause harm… haha
And I know Hubbard said that about the Objectives. I think he was wrong. Or lying. I am not sure which.
isene: “And I know Hubbard said that about the Objectives. I think he was wrong. Or lying. I am not sure which.”
Here is a litmus test for you, then. Go to your local skid row and find someone who’s down and out. Tell him to say “Fuck it” and see if it sorts out. Then spend a while with him doing a light locational / objective process like “Look at that…” and see what gets the tone change. Notice the difference in his communication to you from before to after the locational. Probably you’ve already seen the effects a light locational can produce and could run this litmus test as a thought experiment.
Once you’ve run many hours of auditing on many different levels of case, especially some really tough ones that couldn’t manage their pictures (and I’m not talking about auditing BT’s), it’s hard to not agree with Hubbard on what objective processing can do.
go wash your mouth out with strong soap… person who reads the bilbe should not talk like that! god will punish you! you will go to hell.. repent !
🙂 no matter how many fuck has been done and been said. never erased anything. but ”fuck the whole thing” do not-is.. with that one puts the item on the self… yes it works. thanks Geir for a lesson on ”fuck it.”. good one 🙂
This is the liability of words. ‘Fuck it’ can be interpretted as ‘not creating it’, but also as ‘making it disappear while creating it’ which would then indeed be not-isness.
Darling boy of Greece you fuck it any way you like 🙂 interesting concept and do some visulasiton on that subject and see how that goes… I did not know how to spell that word… fuck it! 🙂
lol
And fuck it is permission. Something sorely lacking throughout Scientology.
Just say ‘no’ to an Ethics Officer, and see how easily you get blaclisted and ‘f@cked’ for eternity 😛
I like this current line of thought. My current take:
First, it’s important to note that Hubbard was a poor and sloppy researcher, and does not seem to have understand basic Science very well. I can list many examples if anyone wants to have them.
He makes a fundamental error when describing duplication and uses it in completely opposite ways. The Phoenix Lectures describes as-isness as seeing something for what it really is, this would be “duplicate” in the sense of “really get the full picture”, or what a student feels when studying something that makes sense. Scientologists use the word this way frequently when they say “I felt duplicated” – the other guy got it.
I intuitively feel that makes sense – a pc’s issues will stop being issues when the pc sees them for what they are (and probably just knocks off doing the silly thing that causes the issue).
Then we have the other definition – making an exact copy of. I haven’t managed to spot when this first crept in (perhaps with CCHs?) but it makes no sense at all. How is making a full copy of a mental image picture (you now have 2) going to deal with the first one? How would that work?
I don’t believe these are nuances of the same thing, I believe these definitions are fundamentally different things and the second has no place in therapy at all.
Book One seems to work simply because the pc figures stuff out – you are asking him to look, he does so, and realizes something. He’s “getting it”, he is not “making copies of it” or “doing it exactly the same”, regardless of how it appears to be that way on the surface. And just because Hubbard says that’s how erasure happens doesn’t make it so (not does it not it not so).
The cycnic in me can’t help but wonder if Hubbard didn’t conflate these deliberately as a bait-and-switch. But I just don’t know for sure; I think I need to read up on what Crowley had to say on this matter first.
Alan
Gier,
You say it much more succinctly than I but I agree with you and though we use different terms, we mean the same thing. LRH even at some point said this exact thing and I think he was right. The question is why he abandoned this train of thought in the early 50’s and went onto massive duplication in the mid 50’s…
This is the way I see this as well. And undercutting this, I find a layer unlike the theater of life.
“It goes like this: A person has a mental issue. It exists because he unconsciously creates it. Continually. There are ways to help the person to stop creating it. You can ask him to create it many times until he is able to consciously create it. At that time it is a small step for the person to stop creating it. If the person is up to it, he can follow Allan Watts’ advice and simply “get off it”. And there are other ways. But the bottom line is that the person ceases to create the mental issue. He regains that much free will.”
Everything you wrote in the above was stated by LRH.
Except the red herring of duplication and throwing a false axiom in there. It makes for a world of difference because it justifies stressing repetitive duplication as in the Objectives and TRs and elsewhere which in turn makes for a more controllable individual. And there you have a cult.
LRH said lots of things, and for anyone who wishes to make him right, he made it real easy to justify for him – because somewhere in those 35 million words he surely said something to support some justification.
You can’t just toss it off with “LRH said lots of things”. There is such a thing as basic principles and I challenge you to give me a basic principle that conflicts with the basics that LRH laid down and you simply reiterated above.
As I said above. He introduced a false premise in Scientology that makes for a spiritual trap. Reread.
Now, hugs!
Marildi: You can’t just toss it off with “LRH said lots of things”. There is such a thing as basic principles and I challenge you to give me a basic principle that conflicts with the basics that LRH laid down and you simply reiterated above.
Chris: This has been done hundreds of times on this blog alone, especially on this blog as we particularly challenge the basics of Scientology. The perch from which you write is untenable except as a true believer. It is you who cannot just toss it off with, “Nuh-uh.” At a point, if you decide to move forward in a constructive way, you may begin to look at these challenges and as Alan Watts says begin to “get off it.” I know this is a friction for me to say, but its said with a hug.
You’ve challenged me as to why I pick on you more than the other yayhoos? It’s because I like you better than them. I respect your expertise and genuine good will toward others. You’ve spent decades and untold effort honing your academic skill in a discipline which is on the way out and all but gone. It is disheartening but only from a point of egotism.
There is a tipping point where one begins to let the air out of this tire of cult fanaticism. It is for me, only at this point where we get to begin using the good skills that we got from our years in Scientology for good and to help ourselves and others. It is the fixed idea that Scientology is True. When I got over that, and my pendulum began to swing again that I started to live for myself and consequently began to be able to live for others. Until then, I lived in a cave and blogged. This is the reason for the decompression. The identification with this cult is very packed up and solid — as an abstraction. Let the LFBDFN begin.
BTW, which objectives stress repetitive duplication besides Op Pro by Dup? And do you know the theory behind that process?
And as for stressing repetitive duplication in TR’s, you mean TR 3 repeating a question to a pc who hasn’t answered it? Are you saying that isn’t applicable either in auditing or in life?
I am saying that Scientology is full of repetitive duplication – from TRs 1-9 to CCHs to Op Pro by Dup to patter drills to Chinese school to mission orders to correction lists in auditing to Grades auditing to Dianteics auditing to OT 3 & 4 to L&N to NOTs to FPRD to.. you want me to go on and list the whole freakin’ Bridge? Ido know a few exceptions, but they aren’t that many.
I’m not asking you to list out what in your opinion involves “repetitive duplication” but to tell me specifically how any of those Bridge items involve such. You gave the example of TRs in the previous post, which I challenged but you evaded responding to that.
Sorry, M. I am not biting. I think this is obvious to everyone but you here. Flamebait another on this one.
That’s a logical fallacy: Argumentum ad populum.
Plus a sheer cop out on your part. You obviously can’t back up your claims.
Obviously.
isene: “… because it justifies stressing repetitive duplication as in the Objectives and TRs and elsewhere which in turn makes for a more controllable individual.”
LRH clearly stated that the objective of objectives was to get the pc to take over control of the body and learn how to take over control of his own pictures. If you’ve ever met anyone who jumps from thought to thought and will never finish a conversation on one topic, you’ve met someone who is not in control of his own pictures. That situation would make subjective auditing practically impossible. Having this person trying to control or modify his behavior or state of mind by saying “Fuck it!” would be entirely impossible.
The problem with objectives or auditing is taking them past the point of EP. Then you’re forcing the pc to become compliant in order to “complete”. A pc can tolerate a bit of that every now and then. A review auditor picks it up as an overrun condition and rehabs it. Easy. No sweat. PC happy. Auditing continues.
I question the long term validity of subjective processing over objective ones. Because I believe subjective processing may have long term detrimental effects due to the above. Repetitive duplications certainly have.
isene:”I question the long term validity of subjective processing over objective ones.”
The process or set of processes is valid and useable only as long as it is causing change and the pc has not hit the point of being at cause over the condition or mechanism of the bank.
The reason I stress training so much is that in training the auditor learns of these mechanisms and quickly spots them when he finally receives auditing. There is a night and day difference in ease of auditing and speed of gain between most trained and untrained pcs.
2ndxmr: “LRH clearly stated that the objective of objectives was to get the pc to take over control of the body and learn how to take over control of his own pictures.”
He did say that. Doesn’t make it true though, and doesn’t make it false either.
A very dispersed pc can of course benefit from Objectives, or even just taking a walk. Or PAB 6. Any number of folk here could attest to what Objectives have produced.
But what happens when you over-run them badly? What happens after 300 hours of Op Pro by Dup? Or ordering OTs back to Objectives?
A little arsenic is good – many bits of bodies don’t work without arsenic. Too much arsenic overloads systems and a necessary thing becomes poison. Where is the point where duplication and Objectives goes from necessary to poison?
“But what happens when you over-run them badly? What happens after 300 hours of Op Pro by Dup? Or ordering OTs back to Objectives?”
You’re just asking what happens if tech is misapplied. I don’t think anyone is arguing about that.
And I haven’t heard of either taking a walk or PAP 6 delivering the tremendous gains that can be had in objectives, at least not generally speaking.
Alan, why is it you seem to want to depict auditing as something that creates gains that are – in general – no better than usual, everyday things? I think you know better.
marildi: “Alan, why is it you seem to want to depict auditing as something that creates gains that are – in general – no better than usual, everyday things? I think you know better.”
That’s eval, and frankly, more than just a little insulting.
Auditing isn’t any better than usual, everyday things. The only thing that sets auditing apart from usual everyday things is that it is focused, formalized and usually scheduled. The workable aspects of life usually don’t have those qualities. Much like university training – you can get that knowledge from many places, uni just makes it easier to get it.
Is hubbard’s auditing something special, unique in that world? No, I don’t think so. Christians report similar subjective results from prayer; they don’t go over the top about their wins as they are not indoctrinated into writing success stories. many Buddhists here and at Marty’s place assert that Buddhist practices work as better as, if not more so, than auditing.
Did I get gains from auditing? Yes of course I did, it wasn’t a waste of time. I also get gains from sex and doing my daily job well. I learned to be responsible from auditing, but something else taught me much much MUCH more responsibility: watching my son being born and my wife almost dying at the same time, and what I had to do to pull that one back from the brink when everyone else (midwife included) fell to pieces.
But these gains need to be put in perspective, so I’ll give you a comparable datum: Riding my motorbikes around racing tracks in the last 5 years trying to scrape my knees on the ground and not fall off has given me more key-outs, more gains, more being in present time and more willingness to communicate than all my auditing in 27 years combined.
The damning smoking gun as to why auditing is not especially special is the simple question “Where are all the amazing people?” Where are the fantastic clears and OTs that will influence this civilization and ooze theta into the world to make it better? After 63 years and several 100 000 people through the doors, SOME OF THEM should have had impact by now. There’s no famous engineers or politicians or writers who credit success to auditing, the famous folk who had auditing are performers and aren’t really famous – they are infamous.
I won’t knock auditing to someone who wants to give it a bash, especially from a seasoned auditor with a track record, but I’m also not going to pull punches about it’s success rate. One can get just as good results from many other activities or even just figuring stuff out for yourself. If auditing is someone’s thing and they do so honestly and with integrity, then that’s great and I’m happy for them.
To conclude, I do know better. It took 27 years but now I see where I was deluded so much for so long.
Alan, you said my “evaluation”, which was based on your own words, was insulting but you just now repeated the same thing – that “Auditing isn’t any better than usual, everyday things.”
And then you added: “The only thing that sets auditing apart from usual everyday things is that it is focused, formalized and usually scheduled. The workable aspects of life usually don’t have those qualities.”
You said that once before in a comment, and my reply was to ask you if taking a walk (or anything else you listed) were focused, formalized and scheduled would produce the same results as auditing. And I don’t believe you ever answered the question. Myself, I haven’t ever seen or heard that they do.
And I’m not saying that auditing is unique in terms of what can be obtained, either from other practices or in life itself (as you have obviously demonstrated and I have no trouble believing it). But auditing is unique with respect to how systematically, swiftly and certainly it can obtain results.
As for the question of, where are the amazing people, let me ask you – do you know of any other practice that particularly produces such?
My main line of thought is that we do have in the tech something worth salvaging and need to sift the good from the bad, or sift the bad out of the good, whichever way you want to view it.
marildi: “Alan, you said my “evaluation”, which was based on your own words, was insulting but you just now repeated the same thing – that “Auditing isn’t any better than usual, everyday things.”
Me: I have no problem with you stating your observation, it’s not untrue. I only had a problem with you saying “I should know better”. You don’t know what I know, that’s putting words in my mouth and telling me what I should think. I did a similar thing to you recently over at Marty’s place, I forget the actual words for the moment, but there was eval in it and I spoke rashly. I never got to apologize for that and I do need to polish my STFU skills
Me: I have no problem with you stating your observation, it’s not untrue. I only had a problem with you saying “I should know better”. You don’t know what I know, that’s putting words in my mouth and telling me what I should think. I did a similar thing to you recently over at Marty’s place, I forget the actual words for the moment, but there was eval in it and I spoke rashly. I never got to apologize for that and I do need to polish my STFU skills
Actually, I didn’t say “You should know better”. Didn’t use the word “should” at all. I said “I think you know better”. The operative word being “think”. 😉
Hey, you actually did apologize. You told me about your wife saying you hadn’t been at your best lately, or something like that. Remember? And you said you had taken the family to a old-time rock concert and I posted a video of my son playing a guitar solo with a famous old-time rock group. You never replied so I don’t think you saw my comment.
But as for the topic at hand – STFU. 😀
marildi: “And you said you had taken the family to a old-time rock concert and I posted a video of my son playing a guitar solo with a famous old-time rock group. You never replied so I don’t think you saw my comment.”
I did see it, along with the 1999 other mails on that day 🙂
Then real life intervened, and now my Google-fu isn’t good enough today to find that comment again. Do you have a link to that video?
I figured that since you are into the old rock groups you’re probably familiar with Starship. This number is more blues but my son does a solo starting at about 4:30:
He was a wonderful musician.
Starship – one of the underrated rock bands that just kept on rockin’ – much like The Pixies.
I don’t have a musical ear at all, but I distinctly heard a Frampton influence where the soloist starts. Thanks marildi, I enjoyed that clip hugely
Alan, I figured you would like it. Btw, not only is the band underrated but Mickey Thomas specifically as a singer – I think he has an awesome voice.
marildi: “You said that once before in a comment, and my reply was to ask you if taking a walk (or anything else you listed) were focused, formalized and scheduled would produce the same results as auditing. And I don’t believe you ever answered the question. Myself, I haven’t ever seen or heard that they do.”
What kind of auditing are we talking about? CCHs and Ls don’t produce the same kinds of results in quality or quantity either.
I never claimed taking a walk was equivalent to auditing in terms of results. I claimed that taking a walk could be beneficial as can auditing.
marildi: “But auditing is unique with respect to how systematically, swiftly and certainly it can obtain results.”
Me: That has yet to be demonstrated. If it were true in the way you express it, then auditing would pass any properly designed validation test, and we both know it has done no such thing. Hubbard claimed that auditing works predictably and the general agreement amongst Scientologists that this is true is due in no small part to the fact that Hubbard said so. Do this thought experiment: If Hubbard simply presented his techniques and left out all the claims about how reliably it worked, would Scientologists still have the same opinion of the tech? Or do they (at least inpart) have the opinion that Hubbard wanted them to have?
I don’t dispute that auditing can be beneficial, I dispute the outrageous claims made by Scientologists and CoS re: it’s efficacy.
Alan: “I never claimed taking a walk was equivalent to auditing in terms of results. I claimed that taking a walk could be beneficial as can auditing.”
Okay, if you’re saying those other things are beneficial, though not as much so as auditing, then fine – but I think it misses the significant point.
You: “I don’t dispute that auditing can be beneficial, I dispute the outrageous claims made by Scientologists and CoS re: it’s efficacy”.
Yes, of course they go too far. Nevertheless, even people like Geir and Marty, who both point out the ills of Scn (although differently), state that the tech has tremendous efficacy.
marildi: “As for the question of, where are the amazing people, let me ask you – do you know of any other practice that particularly produces such?”
That’s a straw man response as it doesn’t logically follow from what I said. I will deconstruct it.
Scientology, along with some other cult-like belief systems and political organizations, is unique in explicitly claiming that they can, do, and will, create amazing people. Outside of that narrow group of organizations, hardly any practices *claim* to produce such.
There are many amazing people in this world, and they come from all over the place. Some people have this knack of succeeding and it seems to have very little to do with specific systems that produce them. Newton is a product of a formal university, Einstein is not. Scott McNealy had an MBA and built Sun, but Branson doesn’t and built Virgin.
It seems that amazing people are just going to show up according to statistical averages; universities claim to produce *competent* professionals, and some of them turn out to be amazing. Just a sprinkling of amazing people here and there is not unusual or in any way disparaging, it is te expected result. When an organization produces so very few amazing people, especially one that explicitly claims they do, then I get suspicious. I wonder why the organization isn’t getting their fair share of results, and what the suppressor might be. After 63 years and several hundred thousand folks through the doors, no amazing results is statistically quite improbable. Let’s name the amazing Scientologists, aisde from performing artists, how many can you name? I know of none.
Your question should not have been “do you know of any other practice that particularly produces such?”, it should have been “what is it about Scientology that it isn’t even producing it’s fair share by averages?”
Alan, you made some good points, along with some sheer opinion ;). However, the most significant issue, once again, is – what is wrong with Scientology? And, to borrow a phrase: It contains the seeds of its own destruction. I’m no longer so much interested in hearing all about the destruction – as I’ve said, I’m more interested in looking at what remains once the destructive seeds have been discarded.
Btw, you’re just like me – you say you’re done with getting into all these debates about Scn and yet here we are! 🙂
marildi: “as I’ve said, I’m more interested in looking at what remains once the destructive seeds have been discarded.”
me: I used to think there was a lot that could be salvaged, mostly based on my experience interacting with many good and decent people whilst in Scn, and the good and decent people I find here too.
But the more I look, and this does make me sad, the less I find worth salvaging. It’s now at the point where I believe the good things in Scn are really the good things that are inherent in decent human beings anyway and there’s many roads up that hill.
I don’t believe it’s possible to remove Hubbard’s quirks and CoS’s insanity from the subject and be left with just the good stuff. The bad stuff is systemic throughout the subject (witness this latest thread on duplication – if you remove duplication from the tech, what do you have left?). It’s like trying to eat burnt steak, you can’t extract just the medium-rare bits even though burnt steak *can* sustain a starving person. It’s just easier to go find properly cooked food instead.
All merely my opinion of course.
But now it’s 2;30am and g’nite 🙂
Splog: “…witness this latest thread on duplication – if you remove duplication from the tech, what do you have left?”
The point about duplication hasn’t been made clear by any means. I’m willing to listen but no one, not even Geir, has said anything that makes sense. And 2ndxmr, who as I said has a lot of experience auditing, sees the duplication aspect as something positive. Did you read his posts?
And g’morning. 🙂
“The point about duplication hasn’t been made clear by any means. I’m willing to listen but no one, not even Geir, has said anything that makes sense. And 2ndxmr, who as I said has a lot of experience auditing, sees the duplication aspect as something positive. Did you read his posts?”
Me: Yes, I did read his posts.
I think thsi is another case of something Hubbard was so very very good at – propaganda by subtle redefinition of words. Words like “reasonable”.
There’s nothing wrong with duplication per se. There’s a lot wrong with using it as a bait and switch, it goes like this:
Introduce something obvious and rather workable, gain agreement that it is indeed true. Gradually and subtly change what the word means, expand it’s usage into other areas whilst retaining enough of the original meaning that foks don’t question it much. Rinse, repeat many times till the outcome is achieved – a malleable individual who never spotted how cleverly he was hustled.
The trick is to look not listen.
Bullseye. And do it ceaselessly in such volume that the marks become completely baffled by the bullshit. — I was.
Alan: It’s now at the point where I believe the good things in Scn are really the good things that are inherent in decent human beings anyway and there’s many roads up that hill.
Chris: I see that too. It was for me an expensive, destructive, and unnecessary detour on my Path.
Chris: I see that too. It was for me an expensive, destructive, and unnecessary detour on my Path.
Me: Take something good away, like what I say so often to sysadmins and programmers I mentor: “Now you know what you shouldn’t do and why. Start again, and this time you’ll get it right.”
Hopefully!
Marildi: I’m no longer so much interested in hearing all about the destruction – as I’ve said, I’m more interested in looking at what remains once the destructive seeds have been discarded.
Chris: Then time to stop lurking and to begin to begin.
Heart wrenchingly familiar. Good post.
Bravo, Alan! Applause.
Me too, I vote for cool life experiences over auditing!
Almost nothing beats a good cornet session in my world. 😀
“Almost nothing beats a good cornet session in my world”
Sadly, I have no musical talent whatsoever 😦
But I can compensate! 🙂
I bought a proper piano recently (a Yamaha) hoping my kids will learn to play. And my 16 year old son is a guitar nut, there’s something very uplifting listening to teenage boys banging out G N’ R on the electric with the amps and fuzz turned up to maximum. I’m what is called “an indulgent father”!
Marildi: “As for the question of, where are the amazing people, let me ask you – do you know of any other practice that particularly produces such?”
Me: Yes, universities.
And LRH also stated that education is a valid therapy. However, the numbers of people who attend universities are many times those who have participated in even the corrupted version of tech.
I don’t think you can name a personal advancement practice that particularly produces “amazing people”.
I’ll note too that you although you are willing to pipe up and answer questions around the “edges” of the blog post, you still don’t seem to be willing and/or able to answer the most direct questions I’ve ask you – which are simply to back up your “beliefs” with specifics.
I am simply not goint to bite on that flamebait and do the leg work for the one person here that will indulge in just about any mental and verbal gymnastic to hold onto the belief that Scientology is superior to any other self-help practice ever invented. Despite the lack of evidence for that view. So no, your flamebait is wasted on me here.
That’s all just Ad hom – and cover-up for not being willing to follow through on a simple request to state the basis of the main point in your OP. I think you’re just plain unwilling to answer because it might show up the weakness of your claim.
Btw, may I remind you that you yourself have said that Scientology is “the best we’ve got. Was that also “despite the lack of evidence for that view”?
I’ll dispute this, about Universities producing a lot of “amazing” people. I think most of those were “amazing” to start with. And in fact many if not most of the most amazing people are college or even high-school dropouts. Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerburg are just 3 of hundreds if not thousands of examples:
http://collegedropoutshalloffame.com/
How about Assange? He went to U of Melbourne, but did he graduate?
I tend to think many “amazing” people find the educational institutions they attend to be stultifying and leave to pursue their own goals. That is not to say there are not some fields for which a University education and training is helpful or even required. At least in the USA, the Universities at best lead to “credentialing” for a career track.
Interesting counterpoint Valkov.
Marildi: “Btw, may I remind you that you yourself have said that Scientology is “the best we’ve got. Was that also “despite the lack of evidence for that view”?”
Me: You are right. I concede this point. It was intellectually dishonest of me to say that Scientology is the best we got.
Geir, when I’ve stated the equivalent of “it’s the best we’ve got”, I’ve added “as far as I know”. Do you know of anything better?
I don’t know of any better. But then again, I don’t know of many betterment methodologies in the same category, so it does sound presumptuous to state that “it’s the best we’ve got”, even if I would have suffixed it with “as far as I know”. It would be like the person that only had driven a Lada (crappy Russian car) all his life proclaiming “Lada is the best car we have. As far as I know”. It’s a misleading statement. So, I apologize for my misleading statement. I retract it and I will try to only refer to the gains I personally got from it in the future, and not proclaim anything else for Scientology. Hope that helps.
Marildi: “As for the question of, where are the amazing people, let me ask you – do you know of any other practice that particularly produces such?”
Friendship
Fatherhood
Motherhood
Especially single mothers holding two jobs to support her family
Being a brother
Being a son
Being a husband
Being a wife
Being a neighbour
Being part of a team
Being yourself, true to your beliefs at any given time.
I find that the more people I meet, the more amazing people actually exist 🙂
Religions, cults, frameworks, models, and anything else we design to attempt to understand our universe and reality are more complex than that what is.
love
bren
Such a simple and eloquent look.
Hi Brendan,
The real issue on this thread is that Geir has made the specious claim that “It is the repetitive duplication, the insidious repeating of copying what LRH proclaims as truth. It is the belief that one has to copy.”
That would be fine if he were referring specifically to the later reversals and corruption of the original technology and philosophy. But he takes it further than that and says that this “repetitive duplication of what LRH proclaims as truth” exists even in the basics – and in fact, he says that it includes “the whole freakin’ Bridge with few exceptions”.
It may be true that there exists a small portion of the Bridge (such as OT III, for example) that is not real to some pc’s and thus is only LRH’s ideas (btw, even LRH indicated his observation of that and recommended a pilot to eliminate it). And this has been acknowledged by many independents whose intention is, as I’ve noted in earlier posts, to improve the tech – not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
The basic idea I get from trained and experienced auditors is that for the most part pc’s do have reality and do get relief and gains from almost all processes and Bridge levels. To name a few, there are levels that address communication, problems, upsets, and defense mechanisms (called ser facs in Scientology) i.e. difficulties that are almost universal.
JFYI, here’s a simple way LRH expressed the rationale underlying the tech: “Actually you are a giant tied down with cotton lint. You tied the knots and furnished the string and said where you’d lie.” (from the book Handbook for Preclears)
In auditing, the pc takes a look at each of those pieces of “cotton lint” – which is to say, he duplicates it. And, yes, he repeats the looking/duplicating until he truly sees it for what it is – and at that point it is no longer one of the items “tying him down”. The point is – the items taken up in auditing are the pc’s own creations, not LRH’s ideas that are being duplicated repetitively, and this is done only to the point where they no longer exist as a barrier to self-determinism. That’s the simplicity of actual core technology. It is not, in any meaningful way, a matter of “copying what LRH proclaims as truth”. Geir is mixing apples and oranges, IMHO.
Marildi: “Geir has made the specious claim that “It is the repetitive duplication, the insidious repeating of copying what LRH proclaims as truth. It is the belief that one has to copy.”
Me: Sorry, I never said that. = Straw Man argument. Please do try to understand what I am saying before you try to argue against it. And NO, I will not explain it further or give more examples or spoon feed you or clarify or say it in a different way than I already have or even understand what I have said on behalf of you. It’s almost like you purposefully Try to misunderstand what I write. That’s an explanation why I quite often give up on you, Marildi. 10-3.
Here’s the post link I copied and pasted your words from: https://isene.me/2013/06/30/accomplice/#comment-42382
In this metaphor, the cotton lint it the Tech, Ethics, Admin, and Bridge to Total Freedom.
Brendan, to respond more directly to your comment, I have a very similar viewpoint to what freebeeing wrote today and it’s faster for me to just quote him:
“What is interesting in the recent discussion is the claim that auditing is no better than living an interesting life. For me it is a matter of purpose – what are you trying to achieve. If your goal is to live a better life as a human than I can agree that there are probably just as good options for a person as auditing. If on the other hand your goal is to become a free being then the thrills of riding a motorcycle aren’t going to get you there.”
And as regards amazing people, he stated:
“1. Scientology long ago became an environment where such beings are not welcome.
2. …Most people are not willing to dedicate themselves to such an endeavor [long-term auditing]. Some are quite happy living lives and playing games the way they have been doing for oh so very long; some few others are looking for a change.
3. Spiritual pursuits are not necessarily compatible with becoming a corporate mogul, politician, or rocket scientist.”
Freebeing: If on the other hand your goal is to become a free being then the thrills of riding a motorcycle aren’t going to get you there.”
Chris: And yet, there is no example of the Bridge to Total Freedom bridging anyone to total freedom. And if in reversal, we are accepting anecdotal evidence of freedom, then riding a motorcycle does indeed make you free.
C’mom Brendan. It just can’t be that simple. Humans have had a need, I say even a craving, for models and methodologies. And this need must surely arise from real complexities. We need the models, the methodologies, the cults, the crutches. We NEED THEM!
Geir, if you want to throw out all models and methodologies you’ll have to also throw out any and all other paths or systems – including science which is nothing if not models.
And, btw, although you like to think that you have influenced Marty in his current viewpoint, the following quote from his current blog post should tell you the gulf that lies between the two of you:
“L. Ron Hubbard developed a number of unique, aggressive methods for tackling problems of the human psyche. Used intelligently there is nothing that compares to their direct, predictable effectiveness in intensifying present awareness.” http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/why-bother/
As you can see, he is still convinced that the tech is “the best we’ve got”.
Marildi: “…throw out all models…”
Me: Marildi, what the heck’s wrong with you? You continue to twist and turn what I (and others) say and keep coming up with new Straw Man arguments. I never said the above, and I would sincerely ask you to stop (deliberately?) misunderstand and misinterpret what I write. Please.
No, I’m not at all trying to misunderstand. If you were simply being sarcastic then it was odd that you grouped models and methodologies in with cults and crutches:
“We need the models, the methodologies, the cults, the crutches. We NEED THEM!”
… I was fucking with Brendan. That’s all 🙄
Geir: Marildi, what the heck’s wrong with you? You continue to twist and turn what I (and others) say and keep coming up with new Straw Man arguments. I never said the above, and I would sincerely ask you to stop (deliberately?) misunderstand and misinterpret what I write. Please.
Me: I’ll give it a shot.
Marildi, I want to ask a favour of you. I would like you to post for a week only what YOU think. I want to hear YOUR thoughts and more importantly, why you think that.
Don’t try back it up with Hubbard quotes – I already know what Hubbard thinks, he spent 36 years and 35 million words making damn sure we know what he thought.
But I still don’t know what you think on most things, because so often when there’s an opening for you to do it, you put a Hubbard quote in it’s place instead. Sometimes a quote from someone else, but most often a Hubbard quote.
Open up a little, you have a viewpoint and it’s OK to express it. Just a little example – I know almost nothing about you as an individual apart from you having a son who plays guitar. I think you’re a woman, but I’m not really sure. I don’t know your profession, your background, your training or processing level, if you were ever on staff or in the SO, if you are vegetarian or eat meat. All those little things and everyday stuffs that turn an avatar on the internet into a real person. I’m not asking you to answer a checklist of personal questions, but just to open up a little. Express YOUR viewpoint.
Alan
Alan, I would have thought you had been here long enough by now to know that I usually quote LRH with regard to some particular point in Scientology itself that is being discussed, especially if I see that what is being said is inaccurate or missing data or has been taken out of context. And I quote others when they’ve said something I happen to be in agreement with. I think that’s my prerogative – whether you or Chris (who you may have picked up this derisive attitude from) agree with it or not. Besides, you should also know by now that I do state my own opinion – quite often, including right on this thread. There again, you may have been swayed and bought the attitude of others. You should sincerely ask yourself that.
As for that list of things you don’t know about me, I’ve posted data on every item on it – and all the frequent posters here already know that. But none of them are going to jump in to say so. Why? Because almost all of them side with Geir and agree with whatever he has to say – and they also side against anybody who doesn’t agree with him. I am the black sheep here, the “outsider” who doesn’t have the same “group think”, to put it bluntly.
In the last couple days you may have noticed several posters from Marty’s blog come and go when they saw the general viewpoint held here. Btw, over on Marty’s blog, no one has a problem with my posts because, in contrast to this blog, there are plenty of other people there who have the same point of view towards Scientology that I have. I’ve even been thanked at times for posting the applicable LRH quote or reference. And not everybody agrees with Marty, by a long shot. I’ve had some exchanges of disagreement with him myself. The point is that there is a much greater variety of viewpoints and the tolerance for variety is much higher.
Btw, you are responding to Geir’s post about my supposed Straw Man. I really wonder if you read without any bias what each of us had written. To be more pointed, did you notice that he also accused me of Straw Man on another post today in reference to a statement he made in a post that I had copied and pasted? Amazing that he didn’t even recognize his own words – which summed up the whole gist of the blog post and thread! On top of it, when I gave him the link for that quote, he didn’t even bother to acknowledge me or admit his own preposterous error, much less apologize for the rant at me.
If it’s possible to put yourself in my place you may be able to understand why the whole tone of your post to “give it a shot” to… what?…get through to pitiful me? Well, your post particularly make me feel like being in comm with you on any very ARC-ful level. You’ve picked up the same condescending attitude towards me that several others here have done in their self-righteous way. Maybe I’m the one in error for not recognizing that I don’t belong here. For today at least, I’m going to Move On Up a Little Higher.
Marildi: “If it’s possible to put yourself in my place you may be able to understand why the whole tone of your post to “give it a shot” to… what?…get through to pitiful me? Well, your post particularly make me feel like being in comm with you on any very ARC-ful level.”
Me: I don’t quite get this part, is there a word missing in the last sentence?
Don’t be offended by what I wrote, that wasn’t the intent. If my tone sounds condescending, well I get that a lot and I don’t really understand why, so I gave up wondering about it long ago. It must be a geek thing, many work-mates have the same problem. So I just say what I feel in the way I feel it.
I couldn’t care less what Hubbard says about anything anymore but I would like to know what you think about things because you are alive and here right now. I don’t know any other way to say it than that.
Yes there was a missing word. I meant to write that your post DIDN’T particularly make me want to be in comm with you, but you’ve shown (again) that you are basically a really cool guy.
And I DO say what I think about things. Like the long post I just wrote you, duh? 😉 Maybe you’re getting your buttons pushed and focusing too much on the quotes to see anything else. 😛
As for your geek beingness or whatever beingness it is, there’s a wonderful reference about auditor beingness having to do with attitude that might be of interest to you. Just let me know and I’ll quote it for you. 😀
Thanks for the comm. 🙂
Yeah, you did type up how you felt 😉
I’m nosey and inquisitve by nature so I like to read what people themselves think, even if it’s just to answer “Do you like apple pie?” The mundane everyday things are what makes people real in long distance comm, these other philosophical topics can be very abstract and unreal. There’s nothing abstract about apple pie.
In my day-to-day world, comm is quite direct and often blunt. It goes with the territory and what I do for a living. Have you ever watched The Big Bang Theory TV show? Many people think that show can’t possibly be real and real people can’t possiby act like that anywhere.
Not so 🙂 The characters are ramped up for dramatic effect but the behaviour is real, and there’s a lot in Sheldon in me – I open my mouth and say what I think. “I don’t want to hear a Hubbard quote” isn’t a grave insult to your beingness and viewpoint, it literally means I don’t feel like reading Hubbard right now.
“Do me a favour please and tell me what you think” has about as much hidden inner meaning as “Do me a favour please and pass the salt” at the dinner table. I’ll leave it to your imagination to figure out how I usually answer the classic
“Does this dress make my butt look fat?”
🙂
You are certainly more elegant in your communication than I feel I am when discussing on my blog 😳
Good one.
Yes, to get through to you.
BTW; I cannot take that statement by Marty seriously – unless he has tried all such methodologies or has access to scientific data that validates it. Which he hasn’t.
Splog wrote:
I think thsi is another case of something Hubbard was so very very good at – propaganda by subtle redefinition of words. Words like “reasonable”.
There’s nothing wrong with duplication per se. There’s a lot wrong with using it as a bait and switch, it goes like this:
Introduce something obvious and rather workable, gain agreement that it is indeed true. Gradually and subtly change what the word means, expand it’s usage into other areas whilst retaining enough of the original meaning that foks don’t question it much. Rinse, repeat many times till the outcome is achieved – a malleable individual who never spotted how cleverly he was hustled.
The trick is to look not listen.
This is a tactic that Hubbard employed throughout Scientology. And he even tells us he did this in an early lecture on ARC. It’s the one where the daughter is trying to get her father to do something for her, and she uses the ARC triangle and agreement to subtly trick and manipulate him into going along with her.
What Splog has written is a very clear way of explaining it.
Way to go, Splog.
I am definitely stealing this.
Alanzo
Alanzo: “I am definitely stealing this.”
Me: By all means, especially seeing as how I nicked it off you originally 🙂
Geir: LRH said lots of things, and for anyone who wishes to make him right, he made it real easy to justify for him – because somewhere in those 35 million words he surely said something to support some justification.
Chris: This has become the backbone of my view of Scientology.
M:“It goes like this: A person has a mental issue. It exists because he unconsciously creates it…
S: I like this Marildi. The uncosncious part is that he is creating it, not that which he is creating. If that was unconscious, then naturally, it wouldn’t be perceived…it wouldn’t exist for him. So for whom does the unconscious mind exist? Just a rhetorical question.
Here’s a great definition for you:
REACTIVE BANK, 1. a stimulus-response machine of some magnitude. (PXL, p. 217) 2 . unconscious mind. (Cert, Vol. 14, No. 7) See REACTIVE MIND
Have a good night, SP (love calling you that 😉 :P)
Morning, thanks, but how did that answer my question? Did you mean that it existed for LRH? By the way, do you know the approximate date of that issues (Cert, Vol 14, No. 7)? If it’s much trouble, it’s OK, don’t bother. I just don’t have red vols handy now.
Here is another one for you: “The mystery of the (MEST) universe is that there is no mystery at all!” -PDC
*now that I’m thinking…those weren’t the exact words….but the meaning’s the same –take it or leave it. I’m not searching through! 😛
I’m late to the party but here are my initial 2 cents on the OP:
The actual “Number of times over the material” is not specified, for good reason – the number of times any given person needs to go over any material in order to make it his own will vary from person to person. It is always an individual thing; forcing a person to go over the material after s/he has grasped it results in a kind of
overrun and ACTUALLY SUPPRESSES DUPLICATION AND UNDERSTANDING.
So Yes, “repetition”, especially enforced repetition, is the problem. I cannot see how “Duplication” itself is the “root cause” of anything, because “duplication” is just a basic ability we use for communication and living. The enforced repetitious aspects of Scientology “schooling” are the root cause of the problem. It is plainly, brainwashing, a pernicious form of indoctrination that is intended to actually suppress a person’s own individual “duplication” and understanding and create people marching in robotic lockstep.
Also, I believe saying that Marty thinks it is the addiction to “peak experiences” that is the root cause of the problems is a bit of a straw man; he actually wrote that it is the way the Church uses the peak experiences to control individuals that is the root cause of the harm.
Here is what Marty actually posted, emphases are mine:
“This trap is particularly acute in Scientology, because ALONG WITH the peak and plateau experiences it delivers, its scripture is saturated with reinforcement of this sense of only-one way and superiority to mere mortals. As intensively and effectively as Scientology can focus an individual’s attention and concentration, it just as intensively and effectively CONDITIONS those new found abilities onto worshipping and defending to the death the construct that made them possible.”
It seems to me he quite clearly states it is the “conditioning” and “reinforcement”(through intensive and pervasive repetition) that is applied to individuals involved in receiving Scientology, that is the “root cause” of the harm Scientology causes.
He referenced Wilber and he compared it to other practices where enforcement was not necessarily in the picture.
And yes, it is the repetition of the insistence of duplication that Hubbard laid into the basics and the practice of Scientology that is the trap IMO.
Where did he lay those into “the basics”. As long as you refuse to answer that question your premise comes across as mere assertion .
As per Marty’s statement, that is his opinion also. It is the hammering in and overrun of certain attitudes that are the root cause of the harm Scientology does.
Sorry, but I have to call it a tie between you guys at this time. Better luck next time. On the other hand, we do want a “game where everyone wins”, don’t we? So perhaps a tie is best.
I have had a different take on that… It has thought me to keep my attention on the item…and it worked since it is not easy to stay with some heavy drama and confront it now from which I run away from- not-ised for eons!
Elizabeth: “I have had a different take on that… It has thought me to keep my attention on the item…and it worked since it is not easy to stay with some heavy drama and confront it now from which I run away from- not-ised for eons!”
That really is the crux of it. When doing subjective auditing the pc may have to work very hard to find that ancient memory. Being able to control pictures and not get lost in a maze of charge is vital to successful auditing. All the more necessary if you are a solo auditor. Thank you, Elizabeth, for this valuable solo auditor viewpoint.
My pleasure to know I can be of help. Thank You!
Yes, Marty referenced Wilbur and other practices. In which of those was “enforcement not necessarily an issue”? Marty didn’t say.
I think his post is a lot more nuanced than you are giving him credit for.
Busy here today 🙂
Going to bed now.
CY all 2morrow.
Hugs!
I started writing this yesterday and since much discussion has ensued.
I don’t think duplication is the root cause of the issue. Hubbard lectured extensively on duplication, far more than he actually wrote on the subject. People do have issues with duplication. Some objective processes like OpProByDup to name the most well known pure duplication process can be very therapeutic. I recall one of your posters a long while back to have claimed to have had the ability to change material objects after some exorbitant number of hours running it. In any event the ability to duplicate(i.e. repeat without modification) an auditing question is a needed skill. People do have charge on the action of duplication – in the sense of doing the same thing again.
To me the real root cause of the problem with Scientology is covered under the topics of hypnosis, suggestibility and persuasion. (btw, I’m not saying that auditing is hypnosis.)
“Hypnosis is rarely a ‘battle of wills’. Predominantly, people instinctively feel more subjectively comfortable when receiving positive suggestions in the understanding-framework we understand most easily. In practise, most people are less likely to resist the ideas for optimism or fresh perspectives if they: a) Concur with other ideas already held b) Are consistent with favourite decision-making patterns c) Flatter our self-identity to a level we accept d) Contain positive rather than negative enforcement – toward something good rather than away from something bad e) Are suggested in terms that mirror sensory combinations that person experiences the world through…making it easier for the suggestion to “make sense”.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggestibility
I think this snippet from the wiki entry on NLP is also relevant:
“so-called power therapies gain popularity because they are promoted, like other pseudoscience, using a set of social influence tactics. These include making extraordinary claims (e.g. a one-session cure for any trauma-related memory), creating a rationalization trap by obtaining incremental commitments from students learning the power therapy (e.g. first lesson is free and subsequent courses increase in price), manufacturing source credibility and sincerity by creating a guru-like leader that is most qualified in the power therapy, creating a self-regulated body composed of those that have completed a course in the power therapy, and defining an enemy to facilitate in-group/out-group thinking and behaviour and to serve as a scapegoat.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuro-linguistic_programming
Scientology is certainly in the genre of “power therapies”.
“Persuasion is a process aimed at changing a person’s (or a group’s) attitude or behavior toward some event, idea, object, or other person(s), by using written or spoken words to convey information, feelings, or reasoning, or a combination thereof. Persuasion is also an often used tool in the pursuit of personal gain, such as election campaigning, giving a sales pitch, or in Trial Advocacy. Persuasion can also be interpreted as using one’s personal or positional resources to change people’s behaviors or attitudes. Systematic persuasion is the process through which attitudes or beliefs are changed by appeals to logic and reason. Heuristic persuasion on the other hand is the process through which attitudes or beliefs are changed because of appeals to habit or emotion.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion
Hubbard used both Systematic & Heuristic persuasion techniques.
What is interesting in the recent discussion is the claim that auditing is no better than living an interesting life. For me it is a matter of purpose – what are you trying to achieve. If your goal is to live a better life as a human than I can agree that there are probably just as good options for a person as auditing. If on the other hand your goal is to become a free being then the thrills of riding a motorcycle aren’t going to get you there.
You ask where are all the amazing people? I have to agree that in the main Scientology has not produced any. My assessment of the situation regarding the failure to produce stellar beings is this:
1. Scientology long ago became an environment where such beings are not welcome.
2. The “Bridge” that people do is just a “demo-session” compared to what is really required to handle one’s case. There are a few beings that have been auditing for 30+ years. Elizabeth is one, I know of a few others. Just because Hubbard wished and we all wished it could be done in a short amount of time doesn’t mean that it can. Maybe he knew that and just didn’t say anything because it would have cost him a lot of customers. Nevertheless, if you think that you’re going to resolve half an eternity of living in a few thousand hours, think again. Most people are not willing to dedicate themselves to such an endeavor. Some are quite happy living lives and playing games the way they have been doing for oh so very long; some few others are looking for a change.
3. Spiritual pursuits are not necessarily compatible with becoming a corporate mogul, politician, or rocket scientist.
Just some of my thoughts on things. Namaste
Freebeeing, thanks for this thoughtful and well-spoken post. As you may have seen, I’ve just posted a comment quoting some of what you wrote.
Namaste and Much Metta,
marildi
freebeing – a well thought out and intelligent comment. Thank you.
Hubbard’s use of duplication did not really get to the core of the issue.
The postulate that brings an effect into existence and the postulate that is shall be known is the root of the matter. When a being brings something into existence and another is unwilling to know that which has been made known you’ve got a game going. Duplication is knowing that which has been brought into existence to be known.
I should have said: Duplication in regards communication and as-is-ness would have been better defined as “knowing that which has been brought into existence to be known” or use some other term or phrasing to convey the concept more clearly. I certainly had a lot of trouble groking Hubbard’s writing & lectures on duplication when I first ran into them.
Geir, thanks for posting my comment in your blog. I really enjoyed your vids from the US trip. Your face looks very relaxed and natural.
Accumulating minor “obediences” are a well-known sales tactic. This can be achieved in many different ways. Mentalists like Derren Brown can get people to do amazingly strange things by the subtle ways he gets them to obey repeatedly. If the obediences are fun and engaging, the temporary assignment of agency can easily go unnoticed.
This is why the Comm Course and HQS are so effective. They are FUN and they deeply reward obedience with powerful meaning.
How deeply can this go? Well, if you want to take the time, Derren Brown actually gets an ATHEIST to have a religious experience.
Marildi, The 800 lb gorilla in the middle of your argument is that while ceaselessly praising L Ron Hubbard and his Bridge to Total Freedom, you do not partake in the sacrament of solo-auditing. This is the outpoint, the inconsistency in your arguments like no other. You have yet to relay personal reasons showing how auditing has immeasurably improved your personal freedom and abilities. Which parts of the Tech. What is the root cause of this? It might be bad manners of me to point this out, but it is relatively true, isn’t it? You grill the rest of us ceaselessly, demanding reasons why we find the Tech to be inconsistent, and being given them, you deride the explanations as delusions of misunderstood word phenomena. I’ve tried to rewrite this to be the least snide possible. If I failed, well there it is anyway and to be sure, at this point in these discussions, I believe that your addressing this, sharing this particular reality with us all would be cathartic. Isn’t it time? I think it is just for me to ask, and please, save the energy of calling me a 1.1 SOB, because I already know that shit.
I once or twice read by LRH that to let a PC talk on and on, will not do any good to him, and I didn’t quite grasp how come. As I thought in SCN communication and ARC is considered a very good, beneficial thing.
I think I figured it out now. It must be about computation. A person that talks on and on, non-stop, and doesn’t as-is anything, gives you his computations (figure-figure), and not what he creates in his universe, thus he doesn’t as-is. For computations to exist, alteration must be introduced, or else there is no time sequence for the computations to occur.
I’m saying this as I find it somewhat related to the dublication topic. If you duplicate the EXACT creation, you get as-isness. If you duplicate an alteration you get persistence, and I believe it is a basis for implants. During an incident which one resists, there is duplication -but not exact, full duplication-, and that which is duplicated can become an implant, as it is not truth –it is not the exact creation. When you as-is the charge (the resistance that the person exerts) he sees it clearer, and as-ises the incident. So, duplication can either be used to implant or to as-is implants. The ‘crime’ in SCN would be to get somebody started on the way to duplication and leave him there halfway through, as you would bring up all those almost-duplicated things, without letting him to fully duplicate them.
And it is the same with agreement. Agreement that contain persistence, is agreement over lies. When good, free communication occurs, there is agreement only for an instance, and then the agreed upon thing vanishes (as-ises). So, if we agree over MEST… 😛
My farewell post.
How about applying the 8-8008 formula to Scientology itself?
Repetitive duplication and indoctrination oriented into agreement which grows into a bigger and bigger reality and ends up in total certainty. A new universe has been created ……. but it is not your own anymore.
The reality one is co-creating at that point is very solid, heavily intensified by agreement which is enforced as needed.
It wouldn´t be a problem as long as one kept its freedom to stop creating it and start creating something else at any moment. If one could say: Today I won´t be a Scientologist, I will be ….(whatever)
If Scientology were about freedom, it would be allowed, but it is not. It is about agreement into it´s Brave New World.
Interesting how that agreement becomes so real, ….. so certain. Slowly swallows you up and finally owns you.
Scientology certainly can release you from other things, but the endgame is to own you.
The moment your universe becomes a sub-set of Scientology´s universe, you are fucked.
Of course…….Unless you wanted it to be that way to begin with !!!!
I have to recognize Scientology gives meaning to people´s lives, rich meaning.
An apparently consistent answer to life, the universe, and everything.
But it is not my answer.
Namaste
A great post, my friend!
Namaste & fare well.
My love will be with you …. as always have…
Rafael: How about applying the 8-8008 formula to Scientology itself?
Chris: Yes, good point!
Rafael: “My farewell post.”
Chris: Say it ain’t so! . . . !
I think it is what is being repeated that is more basic. A musician repeats scales over and over and over. You can say it is a form of artistic self hypnosis on a mental emotional and muscular level. But what is repeated is music and what you become is a musician.
If you repeat knowledge that is filled with dichotomies, conflicts and are refused the privilege of questioning anything and get sent to word clearing, cramming or ethics instead, that can cause a massive internal disconnect.
Also I believe it is an insanity of being told we are helping you go free while at the same time demanding obedience. Like how you create a junk yard dog. You pet him nice and give him love then you beat him. You keep repeating the process of breaking down one’s own sense of self and you get replaced by the group think.
The perks to becoming part of the collective is a more flourishing group bonding and more opportunities to socialize with valued relations.
I think the repeating thing is partial. It is what is repeated that is more important. If the repeated command was, “go out into the street and help a person in need” you would develop something relative to the action. It is what is repeated that digs deep not just the act of repeating.
IMO of couse 🙂
Geir –
Your spotting of repetitive duplication, I believe, is getting closer. You are starting to look for actual brainwashing techniques in Scientology that were placed there by LRH, and used in ways different from how LRH said he was using them.
This is the key.
LRH’s descriptions of how and why Scientology worked were camouflage for what he was actually doing.
Don’t listen to what LRH was saying that he was doing. Look to social psychology and their understanding of social coercion, operand conditioning, and cognitive dissonance (especially as used to train new recruits in the military).
Your repetitive duplication will be found there. Plus a lot more.
L Ron Hubbard created and maintained Scientology to be a brainwashing factory that made him money. It was a factory set up on the principles of Henry Ford, after running laboratories which developed technology on the principles of Thomas Edison (the SHSBC and the Sea Org) where people willingly underwent his brainwashing techniques because they believed him when he told them he would make them totally, spiritually, free.
This is very hard for a lot of people to confront. But when you get the picture, it does explain EVERYTHING: All the outpoints and all the pluspoints in Scientology are explained by the paragraph above.
The way you word your paragraph for what Scientology actually is may be worded a little differently than mine. But I think we both will agree a lot more than we disagree.
Thanks for your blog, Geir. It is a constructive and helpful place for people to decompress after the onslaught of Scientology.
Alanzo
Alanzo: L Ron Hubbard created and maintained Scientology to be a brainwashing factory that made him money.
Thanks for the “brain washing factory” line. It will come in handy. 😉
deE: Thanks for the “brain washing factory” line. It will come in handy. 😉
Chris: Me too deE, Alanzo is amazing.
really amazing…. never sees anything good coming out of scientology. I wonder why people not think what would be their life like if they never read one book on scientology, never had auditing– taken one course and never met all those folks who they had a good time with. How their life would be now? I HAVE….
I see good coming out of Scientology.
But as Scientology is, first and foremost, a brainwashing factory, I find it most important to place the good within its proper context.
Corn on the cob is fantastic.
Corn in a turd is not.
Alanzo
Yes Alanzo… that would be bad not fit for human enjoyment. Yes scientology do implants ideas so is every learning Institution and every mother-teacher-book manual one ever read. So please sort that one out..
what would your life would be now without the good and the bad what scientology has brought you? care to share a bit of that? Elizabeth.
Alanzo.. first time since 1956 when we left Hungary while the revolution raged I went back last may… I have seen what is there now and I have realized what my life would have been if we not escaped than… I did not like what I seen there and I am grateful for the revolution no matter how bad it was because for me it brought great change and all for the better.
One still can see the bullet holes on the walls of the buildings.
I think you understand my point . thanks Elizabeth
one more thing… you also feed information.. you implant information into others ”head’ you do change realities of other persons… are you on implant station…? what is the reason you believe that your ideas knowledge better than other persons? you want to help others? what is help in the first place… ?
I know better than you! therefore you are less.. etc..[a bit more to this ] your reality is not better than any other persons JUST DIFFERENT!
and that too goes for my reality.. it is not better because I think that way, it is just different from how others see their world around them.
Consider this: David Miscavige is not about to have any money statistics going down. Despite the fact that the memberships are decreasing. This means he has to squeeze out more cash per member than before. This in turn means he has to condition and brainwash his members to accept being ever more controlled. Which is precisely why he has his top rollers (the top OTs) redo the exact level that sets a person up to be controlled: The Objectives.
David Miscavige is utilizing the power of repetitive duplication to indoctrinate and brainwash like never before – because he needs the cash to prove that he is “up-stat”.
Reference: http://www.mikerindersblog.org/gag-ii/
Got something there and makes sense to me Isene.
BTW like your video why they lie, on the Bunker tonight. Perfect.
Hubbard studied cognitive dissonance theory and put it into the beginning levels of Scientology. In the original dissertation on the theory Leon Festinger said that a personality is made up of THOUGHTS, EMOTIONS and BEHAVIOR.
Remember THOUGHT, EMOTION and EFFORT from the CCH bulletins?
CDT states that if thoughts conflict with behaviors, or emotions conflict with thoughts, etc. the person experiences DISSONANCE. All you have to do to get the person to shift either his thoughts, emotions or behaviors is by CONTROLLING one of them out of balance with the others and he will shift the dissonant parts of his personality to get rid of the dissonance.
That’s why Hubbard had people sit in hot boxes for long periods of time on the Purif. That’s why he had people walk from wall to wall, over and over for hours at a time. That’s why drilled repetitive duplication over and over – all with very tight and constant control. He wanted to cause a personality shift, very much like breaking a horse.
That’s what the beginning parts of the Bridge to Total Freedom are for – to tightly control a person into a dissonant state so that they will shift the parts of their personality to align with the control so that the dissonance will go away.
It is brainwashing, built right into the technology that promises to make a person totally free.
He put in other things too, like socially coercive Navy uniforms, and lots of screaming, “lower conditions” as wells as operand conditioning techniques like stats and conditions.
But yes. David Miscavige is re-asserting the CONTROL methods that first turned people into Scientologists in order to get them following orders again so that the stats will keep going up.
Alanzo
Al, you just plain love the sound of your own thinking cascading down your brainstem, off your lips and through your arms to the keyboard, then out onto the Internets….
Brothers and Sisters, let us Kneel. I will lead you in Prayer.”
And Valkov is back to ignoring the point again and attacking other posters personally when he can’t confront the discussion.
Like clockwork.
Alanzo
Oh. Did you feel attacked?
I did not perceive any point other than what I posted…. 🙂
People have been clamoring for me to bring back the “Al and Val Show”. Many say they miss the comic relief. I guess you miss it yourself, because you feed into it by responding to such of my posts. If you don’t want me to do it, don’t encourage me!
Al — cognitive dissonance theory as a term was not coined as a term until 1957. The first publication of some of the underlying premises of the theory was not until 1956. The theory underlying THOUGHT, EMOTION and EFFORT from the CCH bulletins were developed well before any of those papers were developed. It is more likely that Festinger drew on LRH’s works than the other way around as Festinger publishes AFTER the materials had been released in numerous lectures, books and publications.
Yes – I think one can get in on a person quite subtly by leading the person to accept being controlled in the name of therapy and ending up with a person more easily controlled, more easily duplicating anything said through the use of Objectives (CCHs in particular).
Festinger began publishing in 1950. He published “When Prophecy Fails” in 1956, and this was about a former Dianeticist/Scientologist who started a doomsday cult, and who predicted the end of the world on a certain date, and when that date passed, her adherents became even more convinced she was right instead of less convinced.
I have read a paper he wrote in 1951, which I accessed on the Internet in 2001, which laid out his theory of personality and the ground work for CDT.
I can not find that paper any more. I will continue to keep trying to find it for you. It is an extremely enlightening read.
I could be wrong, but I believe there is no way whatsoever that Festinger used Hubbard’s work. Festinger used science and experimentation to develop and validate his conclusions. Hubbard did not.
Like I said, I will keep searching for this paper. It will blow you away.
Alanzo
Sorry, Festinger began publishing in 1942.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leon_Festinger#Works
Yes I know that. But not a paper on cognitive dissonance. And I agree, it is extremely unlikely that Festinger used LRH’s materials, but I do think it is even more unlikely that LRH used Festinger’s materials. At least not in the form of cognitive dissonance, which was not coined or used as a term until 1957. (see the same Wikipedia article you refer to for the date reference on this)
Even so, I would really love to see the 1951 paper, as you know I have a bit of project going of collecting up possible source documents!
I’ve been reading up on memory studies myself and that sheds a tremendous amount of light on some of the phenomena I have noticed in Scientology (and life for that matter!) — at some point I will have to do a write-up on it — the studies into memory and neuroplasticity were not even on the drawing board back in the 1950s and are largely unknown even now. There are some startling oddities with memory and how people retain and cognize past events.
Yes. And I am hoping my memory is correct about this 1951 paper that I remember seeing in 2001.
After reading it, it explained why the emphasis on CONTROL in the early tech of Scientology, and why the Purif was later developed and put at the beginning of the bridge.
Each of these processes had an explanation from Hubbard about what was going on and why they needed to be done the way they were.
But this paper showed me what Hubbard was actually doing with the processes he was developing. In fact, the 1951 paper was written with “THOUGHT, EMOTION and BEHAVIOR” written in capital letters, just like the PABs on CCHs had “THOUGHT, EMOTION and EFFORT” written in capitals, too.
To me, it proved the deceptive way that Hubbard was presenting his tech to Scientologists, while distracting and prestidigitating away from what he was actually doing.
My search continues….
Alanzo
Cool. I would enjoy seeing that as well.
I am still waiting….. but I wont hold my breath because I know the reason why there is no answer from you…. and you know that I know the reason..
Good. Then our minds meet.
only on that point… good by.
Interesting take. I can see how you arrived at that.
Speaking of repetition, it seems it is part of the conditioning on which society operates. Maybe partially a reason why people ‘lose’ their creativity as they grow up (compared to the ‘overimaginative’ children with the small brains) is the repeating patterns of wake up, work/school, eat, sleep. Case is made of repeating patterns too –dwidling spirals. I think if I was completely free to act as human. I wouldn’t like the experience the same over and over –no interest and fun in it. So, it is a reality that gets forcefed.
Bingo.
repetitiveness causes the person lose interest because one becomes immune –no longer stimulated by the same incoming energy and than the boredom sets in!
Example: reading the same stuff over and over, seeing the same face day after day.. like in marriages -nothing new and stimulating happening any more, reading the world news– same -same but different locations- different names.
By doing repetitive command that too as-is stimulation like in bullbaiting.. so is reading about scientology or Buddhism.
Yes, old friends too can become a bore [ nothing new happening, since all has been said and heard before] but when that happens that is the real test if that friendship was really there in the first place?
Repetitive commands have great value, by doing it the stimulation is lessens .
Also all the learning, on all fields regardless what that may be: happens because the material is being repeated: that is learning it self… you may call that brainwashing implanting…
Yes, the method of parroting that is used in schools that requires repetitive reading of the same materials, seems to have the purpose to make children succectible to being implanted (makes the data ‘stick’ inside them) and also ‘swallow’ what they read, without evaluation.
From a SCN perspective, the way I see it, it works about like this: One reads or hears (from the media or others) that something exists. Since it didn’t exist for him before, it becomes an alteration. To consider that something is there, without creating it there, is an alteration. So then it can become a consideration. If the media says for example, over and over that “there are dangerous people out there”, this alteration is created –if one believes it. Additionaly, charge (disagreement) against this (presumably) unwanted consideration is created too. Then the person that believes that, may start to figure out solutions for that problem –for instance how to deal with those dangerous people out there. And postulates to fight against them and such stuff. And then he can experience it too as he postulates it!
So then, by repeatingly dissiminating such data, realities can be created –but forcefully.
However is such cases, there is no perfect duplicate being made by the guy that receives such a communication. If TV says “danger in reality” and the watcher duplicates “danger in reality”, he doesn’t fully duplicate. If he fully duplicated, he would duplicate that “TV said ‘danger in reality'”. Instead, he duplicates “danger in reality”, so then duplication becomes an implant. And so by repeatingly having him re-create that there is ‘danger in reality’, in processing, you could have him cognite that there isn’t such danger, and instead “Ohh it was TV that said that there was danger in reality”.
Whatever happened to the part about doing each thing “in a new unit of time”?
First we beat the old horse to death…. than that would be a new horse.. 🙂
That’s an interesting point. What do you make of it?
Wondering how it fits in with this “duplication” theory. Why cherry-pick “duplication” as “the” culprit? Is it because “new unit of time” is no longer being taught? Yet it is a principle basic to the TRs.
“New unit of time” is a good thing to bring up. Iuse it a lot as it is part and parcel of mindfulness. I gotta have a look at that. Meanwhile if you think of anything more on this post it up.
Hey V, surely interest and fun is created by self for self. Yet, I think it is within basic purposes to learn…which means to create and experience new things. Do experience the same in a unit of time doesn’t negate that I will learn the same again, which is useless. It is useful in auditing, but otherwise useless to me.
I’m talking about the other flow. It is always the other flow,as a matter of fact. Create create create
Valkov ””’Create create create”” you right,,,, there is no other flow even when one ”’RECALLS THE TRACK the SO CALLED PAST”’ the too is created NOW and that is that… One cant create any other ways… only NOW…
I dodn’t understand. What flow? I wasn’t talking about any flow.
The flows are self to others, others to self, others to others, self to self. They are part of the communication formula.
If they get out of balance bad things can happen, like in the CoS when people are forced to inflow inflow inflow and not allowed to outflow. They must become like robots. People in the CoS and other fascistic orgs must obey only, they cannot talk back or even “think back”, ie tg hiuk for themselves. Of course this not the way things really are, a person is basically create create creating in the “now”.
So if you are getting “useless” it is because you are creating “useless”. If you create in a new unit of time, theoretically whatever you do is always “new”, as long as you are doing it on a self-determined basis. When you cease to do it on a self-determined basis but still keep doing it you might consider that “others” are making you do it, in which case you get “overrun”, boredom, uselessness, and associated bad phenomena like saluting the flag.
It can be a long story!
I see your point. Yes, I agree it’s all ones own creations. Our difference was that by ‘new’, I meant something original. I can mock up something, stop mocking it up and then mock up another like the previous. That’s new too, but original would be something not related to the previous. I don’t need full originality to be interested, but somehow I have an urge to create/experience original stuff.
Also boredom seems to me like a beginning stage only. Repetition of something unwanted/resisted/charged, if done on purpose, is aimed to lead one to apathetically accept it…make him think something like “resistance is futile. Let’s go with the flow” 😛 Eh just an assumption.
The borders between duplicating to as-is and duplicating to implant can be thin, as the lower levels of the tone scale are mockeries of the higher ones. Which is why a process should be run up to EP –no more, no less.
In a new unit of time – being in the now – present – without memory. Without memory everything is brand spanking new each moment. So doing “the same thing” would not exist for you. It would be fresh as a daisy.
yes… you bet! that can only happen when one is no longer re-stimulated… 🙂
Very interesting thread.
It seems like Ron did tout the the “as-ising” and “duplication” hopes/dreams like he did with OT Powers – there was a part in the 9th American ACC where he just casually shared the following:
START QUOTE (LRH):
Bobby was out at the house one day and I showed him how to do this. I
had him working away on it, and he was doing just fine. And I said
then, “All right now, Bobby, take a – take a remote viewpoint and put
it on one electron in the wall. Now, have that remote viewpoint trace
that electron back to its source of creation, and make a perfect
duplicate of it.”
He said, “That’s kind of interesting. Yes, I can do that.”
And I said, “All right. Now put up about a hundred thousand remote
viewpoints on about a hundred thousand electrons in a very tiny area,
and have those remote viewpoints trace them all these electrons back
to their original point.” Bobby did, he jumped about half a foot, he
started to go over to the wall to hold it, and he turned around and he
looked at me real silly, and he says, “Can I go look at it?” And he
went over and looked at it. There was a tiny, tiny chip gone from
where he was working.
Now, this was a great shock to him. He thought this universe had a law
called conservation of energy, that nothing could destroy this energy.
That’s not true. We have violated the basic laws of physics at last.
We knew someplace along the line that we would violate the basic laws
of physics. Well, this perfect duplication violates the basic laws of
physics.
END QUOTE
Ron then goes into saying that he didn’t want to give too much data to the audience (building up yet another mystery sandwich), and that he was more interested to disseminate some more basic things first.
Geir’s argument stands.
If we use the same logic and data that LRH used, then perfect duplication requires perfect perception – i.e. affinity, reality and communication – which, in the state of man – this is utterly impossible – at least in our present – less than “OT” state.
The human eyes and ears are extremely limited and flawed – even compared with the other lesser conscious species on our own planet. The advances in the audio/visual technology in the past 20-years have really given us a a glimpse of what is possible in the improvements of “perceptics” of machinery.
Many distractions in this thread but Geir’s challenge still stands.
I disagree, the failure was not TR 3 but the non existence of TR 4, the life TR:
Here we go, Rafael. Geir’s cup of tea – radical excitement. And it’s right there in Norway.
Hi marildi, I am so happy to have comm from you. Hopping you are fine and prospering. 😀
Same here, Rafael! I miss you and the rest of the gang. We’ll have to pipe up once in a while at least. 🙂
My dear marildi, as a ” free will ” health vitamin, we should. Let’s do it just because we can.
“My dear marildi…”
You’re reminding me of when you first posted here, with your warm Latin culture showing. 🙂 And I remember Geir commenting on how polite you are.
Ok then, just because we can. 😉
Sorry, I didn’t understand your reply but I simply stated a sincere observation 🙂
Hi, Ayarsee.
As a suggestion, if you click on the reply button just under the comment you want to reply to and post your comment there, it will be clear to everybody who you are responding to. 😉
How much of LRH’s writing is good Scientology?
How much of LRH’s writing is bogus?
I would say all the books and HCOBs and some of the HCOPLs are “good Scientology.”
Of course, the later publications revised some of the earlier ones, so that has to be kept in mind, too. This applies to applications (tech), but perhaps not to principles, off the top of my head.
Thank you Marildi 🙂
Yes, I agree that most of the books are amazing. The 9th American is very inspiring and spectacular from the first to the last lecture.
The congresses were a bit “different” but I agree that most of the materials I’ve encountered so far have been pretty “fair dinkum”.
Perhaps the fundamental problem of most preclears (including myself) were merely dissatisfaction with only specific individuals and some minor misuses of certain policies that we have personal encountered and our equating (=) those perceived errors as authentic Scientology material as per LRH.
The philosophy of Scientology is really second to none, with even just the basic books and can lift a student’s consciousness and person power and freedom astronomically just by his or her reading and understanding of the basic knowledge alone.
The depth and scope of what LRH covers is impressive, and are certainly nothing short of being some of the most epic and satisfying discoveries of the millennia.
I’m not familiar with the 9th American ACC, but I tend to agree with the rest of what you wrote above. LRH had his flaws and made errors, but his insights and practical applications overall were astounding.
“fair dinkum”? Are you from down under?
Yes 🙂