Beneficial catharsis in Scientology

ILove2Lurk

Lisbeth Salander
I've explained in it in many ways many times
Most people understand
I sorta do . . . but with all due respect, no one new is coming in for the meal you're preparing.

I've never seen any sign . . . or better yet, a passing parade of hungry diners coming around.

That said, carry on. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Veda

Well-known member
Sometimes in Scientology sessions, I’d have a good auditor who was a good listener and genuinely cared.

Unfortunately, the tech got in the way so that I could never really talk things out.

When I’d bring up a problem or upset, I was encouraged to talk a bit, but there was no feedback from the auditor. Instead, she or he would give a muzzled “thank you” or similar and look at the e-meter. Instead of discussing the problem or upset and real life remedies, Iwas asked for an “earlier similar problem/ARC break/withhold, etc. It diverted my attention which made me feel better for the moment, but I’d end up back in session again days or weeks later with basically the same upset. Then there were lists and list corrections until I thought I’d go crazy with them. After a while, I had enough of auditing on that. But the problem or upset was still there.

Scientology tech got in the way of simple, straightforward counseling.

Only when I’d been out some years and had the chance to see my college psychologist, who listened and actively interacted with me, did I find out what effective counseling can do. Problems got resolved. Not in one slam-bam session, but by discussing and addressing them with effective techniques I learned from my college psychologist. He was great and helped me a lot. 🤗

I cannot honestly say that Scientology actually helped me with any personal situations through its counseling (auditing). It always diverted my attention away, instead.
This thread s is mainly directed at newbies and those doubting Scientology. They are still typically hung up on one (seeming good) thing.
 

Bill

Well-known member
I've explained in it in many ways many times

Most people understand.
No your haven't explained it. You claim you want a "complete description" and you certainly could provide what you think is a "complete description" but you don't.

You claim that people won't accept any criticisms of Scientology without us including all the "good" parts, but that's just not true either.

You pretend you are looking for the "good" bits of Scientology but asking people what parts they felt were "beneficial" isn't facts and certainly won't indicate which parts were actually, provably, verifiably beneficial at all.

Your explanations don't make sense when compared with what you do.

And your consistent evasions are interesting.

What are you trying to do? And, whatever that is, why don't you do it? Why keep picking at what people might think might be "beneficial"?

We all know that the beginning bits of Scientology appear useful. We all acknowledge it. But that isn't what you want. That doesn't satisfy you. So: What are you trying to do?
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
This thread s is mainly directed at newbies and those doubting Scientology. They are still typically hung up on one (seeming good) thing.
Where did you get the idea that those in Scientology are “typically hung up on one thing”?

ONE thing?

I don’t think that’s even vaguely true. Do you have research supporting this idea?

Those that doubt Scientology peel the onion. All of those things they peel away are the intertwined connections and agreements they’ve made with others and themselves regarding Scientology.

There are so many. It takes time.

It seems you’re trying to hit what you think may be a button, or you’re trying to gain agreement on your particular likes and dislikes with these threads you start. Is that the case, Veda?
 

Marko Ex

Active member
It only seems that way to you.

Other people have accused me of doing the opposite.

Scientology's greatest protection, besides its religious cloaking, is the inability of many of its most passionate critics to fully describe Scientology. The 0.001% of Scientology that is good is like kryptonite to them.

Even street gangs have 0.001% that is good.

A person cannot be fully warned unless a complete description is provided.
Please, do reveal, in detail, that 0.001% that is "good", and how that possibly validates the subject or its creator in any way...And, no, I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely curious; so far, I truly do not understand what you are getting at...
 

Veda

Well-known member
Where did you get the idea that those in Scientology are “typically hung up on one thing”?

ONE thing?

I don’t think that’s even vaguely true. Do you have research supporting this idea?

Those that doubt Scientology peel the onion. All of those things they peel away are the intertwined connections and agreements they’ve made with others and themselves regarding Scientology.

There are so many. It takes time.

It seems you’re trying to hit what you think may be a button, or you’re trying to gain agreement on your particular likes and dislikes with these threads you start. Is that the case, Veda?
It's typical for a person to have a "win" early on in Scientology, and to the spend years, in Scientology, trying to replicate that "win." Of course there are many variations.

These types of threads are not meant for long duration Scientologists, now ex Scientologist, who still have unhealed wounds - who feel that these unhealed wounds are being "picked" by such threads. I'm sorry about that, but I don't think it's that uncomfortable for most people, but, if it is, they should put me on ignore.

As for "one thing," that's all it takes but, of course, it could be more.

This was a response to an "It's ALL bad" person, who was making accusations and arguing with me. It was an attempt to coax him into admitting that, at least, there was one itsy bitsy thing that was "good." It might have been a good idea, a good experience, or a good person.

He interpreted this as an attempt to say that Scientology was good, which is ridiculous.

Understandably, the bad stuff is showcased on ESMBR, and in books, and throughout the Internet, but the "good" is often a key element of what is used to lure.

A person who has found something good - that has impressed him - in Scientology will ignore a mountain of damning evidence.

People lurk on this site. Old ESMB has been archived for over a year and people sometimes even lurk there.

I spend a few minutes - or sometimes a few seconds - typing in some words with these lurkers in mind. Some of them are likely people under the spell of Scientology.

I'd prefer that they don't hit a wall of "It's all bad" and turn and walk away. I want them to hang around and keep looking. If a person wants "all bad," then there are lots of places he or she can visit.

Very little in life is "all bad," but, it seems, some people are hardwired, particularly, when wounded, to think that way.

And it's understandable that they do, and I sympathize.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Please, do reveal, in detail, that 0.001% that is "good", and how that possibly validates the subject or its creator in any way...And, no, I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely curious; so far, I truly do not understand what you are getting at...
You're hung up on the notion that I'm trying to "validate Scientology."

That tells me you're not examining what I've written and presented.
 

Marko Ex

Active member
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.

Wins, in and of themselves, apart from the organization, are just "wins" with no negative connotation.
There is no such thing as "wins" apart from the organization; it's loaded language. The majority of people outside of scientology do not use the word "win" to describe a moment of emotional catharsis or a feeling of relief from a chronic problem.
Its disingenuous to talk about "wins outside of the organization" . It's still cult jargon used to describe something that's ostensibly outside the sphere of cult influence/dynamics...
But, maybe I am missing your point, as I am new tothis discussion, so...if I am mistaken, do correct me...Thanks.
 

Marko Ex

Active member
You're hung up on the notion that I'm trying to "validate Scientology."

That tells me you're not examining what I've written and presented.
I am examining it. I have read it.
You are basically trying to reach those who are uncertain/on the fence regarding their attachment to/belief in/practice of "the tech"(whatever part or version of it , without "blasting/scaring them away" with the "it's all bad!" stuff, right?
 

Marko Ex

Active member
It's typical for a person to have a "win" early on in Scientology, and to the spend years, in Scientology, trying to replicate that "win." Of course there are many variations.

These types of threads are not meant for long duration Scientologists, now ex Scientologist, who still have unhealed wounds - who feel that these unhealed wounds are being "picked" by such threads. I'm sorry about that, but I don't think it's that uncomfortable for most people, but, if it is, they should put me on ignore.

As for "one thing," that's all it takes but, of course, it could be more.

This was a response to an "It's ALL bad" person, who was making accusations and arguing with me. It was an attempt to coax him into admitting that, at least, there was one itsy bitsy thing that was "good." It might have been a good idea, a good experience, or a good person.

He interpreted this as an attempt to say that Scientology was good, which is ridiculous.

Understandably, the bad stuff is showcased on ESMBR, and in books, and throughout the Internet, but the "good" is often a key element of what is used to lure.

A person who has found something good - that has impressed him - in Scientology will ignore a mountain of damning evidence.

People lurk on this site. Old ESMB has been archived for over a year and people sometimes even lurk there.

I spend a few minutes - or sometimes a few seconds - typing in some words with these lurkers in mind. Some of them are likely people under the spell of Scientology.

I'd prefer that they don't hit a wall of "It's all bad" and turn and walk away. I want them to hang around and keep looking. If a person wants "all bad," then there are lots of places he or she can visit.

Very little in life is "all bad," but, it seems, some people are hardwired, particularly, when wounded, to think that way.

And it's understandable that they do, and I sympathize.
" Very little in life is all bad" Hmmm...
There are specific experiences I have had that were terrible: "all bad", fucked up, horrible, unfair, and utterly taumatic. Any "good" derived from those experiences came after the fact and because I quite consciously and doggedly chose to learn from the pain, to transform it.
There are plenty of experiences and situations in life that are, literally, "all bad". It's how we deal with those horrific experiences that determine whether they remain that way.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
It's not true that no one is coming. New people are always coming.
Veda, we have a new member on this very thread right now (Marko Ex) who has been enjoying ESMBR and contributing to it happily since he joined (just 6 days ago) ... you have seriously upset at least two other newbies in recent months, both left ESMBR and have not returned after becoming infuriated with one of your "positive things about the cult" threads, you know this yet continue to place more value on new people who may turn up here rather than those who already have and are often in the delicate process of decompressing and ridding themselves of cult indoctrination.

I have no doubt that you are well intentioned but perhaps you should think about the harm you could be doing to people newly out of the cult who just need time and space to work things out for themselves without the added and unnecessary complication of trying to find "some good" in the cult of which there is very little if any.
 

Veda

Well-known member
Veda, we have a new member on this very thread right now (Marko Ex) who has been enjoying ESMBR and contributing to it happily since he joined (just 6 days ago) ... you have seriously upset at least two other newbies in recent months,
Who? Please show the posts where they're "seriously upset."

both left ESMBR and have not returned after becoming infuriated with one of your "positive things about the cult" threads,
Please post it so we can all see.

you know this yet continue to place more value on new people who may turn up here rather than those who already have and are often in the delicate process of decompressing and ridding themselves of cult indoctrination.

I have no doubt that you are well intentioned but perhaps you should think about the harm you could be doing to people newly out of the cult who just need time and space to work things out for themselves without the added and unnecessary complication of trying to find "some good" in the cult of which there is very little if any.
We disagree.
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Who? Please show the posts where they're "seriously upset."



Please post it so we can all see.



We disagree.
I haven't got the time or the inclination right now to go back and pull up old posts but you were well aware at the time what was happening ... here is one old post that will have to suffice for now.

Link
 

I told you I was trouble

Suspended animation.
Who? Please show the posts where they're "seriously upset."



Please post it so we can all see.



We disagree.

In what way do you disagree?

Do you honestly believe there is enough "good" in the cult that it justifies the extreme cruelty and often long term damage it does to decent people? Or do you believe that people lurking here would be put off leaving the cult because they don't see enough positive stuff mentioned here? I believe people are ready to leave when they are ready and not a single moment earlier. Anyone lurking here already has one foot out the cult door and the other will almost certainly follow in time ... for various reasons people only leave when they feel the time is right for them and that is how it should be. I'm not here to try and manipulate people by pretending to "see the good in the cult" in case they are offended by the truth or to play any similar ridiculous games.

The people who are already here are my priority ... they have made the leap and perhaps they need a degree of protection while they are in that tricky period of coming to terms with what happened because we all experienced it and it was scary at times for many of us even though we now know it need not have been.
 

Veda

Well-known member
I haven't got the time or the inclination right now to go back and pull up old posts but you were well aware at the time what was happening ... here is one old post that will have to suffice for now.

Link
Thanks. The linked post - and the entire thread - is worth reading.


Link to post from Voodoo.

I don't see that that is what Veda tries to do. Discussing what got one hooked is not a bad thing. Understanding the cheese in the mousetrap has its benefits.

Seems to me that Veda just wants a more friendly space for the new ex. Veda has made it clear many times that he does not encourage anyone to become involved with scn. When I first came to ESMB back in 2007 it was the first place I found. I was still a tech believer. The mix of people on ESMB at the time allowed for interesting discussions of the tech. Over time as my understanding of scn broadened I came to see more clearly what was what.
 
Top