Beneficial catharsis in Scientology

Bill

Well-known member
<snip>
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.
This appears to be directed at me. I can't tell for sure because you are never direct or clear but, based on your previous comments to me, it appears you think you are talking about me.

This is pretty strange because it isn't me. I have never said "it's ALL bad". I've never claimed that you were trying to say Scientology was good.

I now understand why your previous comments have been so weird. It appears you are arguing with some imaginary "foe" and you fabricate that I'm that foe. Hint: It's not me.

I do understand, very clearly, what you are doing: Trying to get every ex-Scientologist to admit there were some "good bits" of Scientology (and there are "good bits", as many have mentioned -- even on threads not yours).

What I don't understand, and I keep trying to get you to explain, is WHY. Why do keep doing this "admit there are some good bits!!!!!!"? After all previous comments (where people, including me, have said there are "good bits") why has that not fulfilled your needs? You are never satisfied.

What do you want to happen? What hasn't happened that you must accomplish?

<snip>
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.
What I think you are attempting is that you are trying to "audit" ex-Scientologists: "Recall a time when you found Scientology 'good'". I could be wrong, but it does explain why you keep repeating the command. Your comment, above, that your were attempting "to coax him into admitting that, at least, there was one itsy bitsy thing that was 'good.'" is, apparently, the "cognition" your "auditing" is looking for.

If you are trying to "audit" me, I appreciate that you are "trying to help", but I really don't need your "auditing", thanks.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
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.
Thanks. I see you have a different sort of approach.

An ex may or may not be still experiencing pain from unhealed wounds to not wish to look at the ‘wins’ in Scientology. Most, if not all such wins were transitory and for me, forgettable. It was all a long time ago but took far too many of my working years from me to make up. Nobody can make up time, after all. Life is short.

I enjoyed the group and personal friendships the most, but I’ve made others since.

I think it’s great that you’ve stayed focused on getting others out of Scn, especially with all that’s going on in the world these days.

Btw, I’ve noticed people are a bit cranky lately…
 

Veda

Well-known member
In what way do you disagree?
On some minor things, nothing important.

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.
Not at all.

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.
I understand your point.

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.
And you've helped many people.

:flowers:
 

marra

Well-known member
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here, as far as I can see, is that we quite often get people joining ESMBR who have never been scientologists. Therefore, if they see posts which are talking about "wins" it is conceivable they may decide that they would like those "wins" for themselves and then get into scientology.

I think most ex-scientologists are aware of this and that is why they are reluctant to talk about anything good they experienced in the cult.
 

Cat's Squirrel

Well-known member
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here, as far as I can see, is that we quite often get people joining ESMBR who have never been scientologists. Therefore, if they see posts which are talking about "wins" it is conceivable they may decide that they would like those "wins" for themselves and then get into scientology.

I think most ex-scientologists are aware of this and that is why they are reluctant to talk about anything good they experienced in the cult.
Agreed, and that's why I'm generally careful in what I say on here (my discussions with Ed, Hats and others are an exception because I'm interested in what they have to say, but I don't think anyone would join the CofS based on what they read there). I think it's especially true in the wake of "Going Clear," when the old forum would have experienced a spike in the number of never-ins browsing it who wanted to know more about Scn.
 
Last edited:

Zertel

Well-known member
I think it's hard to say what percentage of people live life with a "philosophical" point of view. By that I mean people talk to each other without putting it in the context of ARC, affinity, reality, communication. Some people are happier and more active than others and now you have an "Emotional Tone Scale" or scale of emotions as a descriptor. The list goes on. How about the auditor's code with its I promise not to invalidate the person or evaluate for him and tell him what to think about his case? That has some value. There was such a broad study of Human Emotions and Reactions that its hard to say what if anything was missed the longer one participates. It can lead to an attitude of superiority often said of scientologists. I begrudgingly admit I had that attitude to some extent, the idea I knew things non scientologists could not know. Oh well - haha
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
One thing that hasn't been mentioned here, as far as I can see, is that we quite often get people joining ESMBR who have never been scientologists. Therefore, if they see posts which are talking about "wins" it is conceivable they may decide that they would like those "wins" for themselves and then get into scientology.
This thread begins with a link to the Scientology exploits catharsis thread.

The opening post of that thread begins with:

Scientology seeks to exploit the "abreactive" process.
(Unearthing previously buried trauma with subsequent relief, catharsis).

Cinematic depiction of a suffering soul being helped by a cult leader and becoming his slave.

One experience of having achieved relief in Scientology
can be enough to stick a person to Scientology for years.


*​

The opening post then goes on to describe, and document, the psychological and financial exploitation that results.

I think most ex-scientologists are aware of this and that is why they are reluctant to talk about anything good they experienced in the cult.
Do you know of anyone who has read any of my content who has joined the cult as a result?

It's absurd.

My posts all feature three links in the signature line that warn about Scientology.

Extending slightly the misguidedly overly-cautious thinking, which you attribute to "most ex-scientologists," simply mentioning the word "Scientology" might be enough for someone to search the net, resulting in the person finding a slick, glossy, Scientology site.

By that reasoning, perhaps even mentioning the word "Scientology" is a terrible mistake. Why publicize the name?

In the 1960s and early 1970s, during Scientology's period of greatest expansion, there was an enormous amount of entirely negative material easily available from the archives of any public library.

The public library was the internet of that time, and Scientology grew in leaps and bounds.

And how about the Human Potential, Self Discovery section of this message board? Perhaps that should be eliminated, just to be on the safe side?

How about the Freezone, Indy and Other Flavors of Scientology section which has posts such as this, addressing historical background:



Rare early Scientology-related book from "Human Engineering Inc.," from a relation (the nephew?) of Alphia and Agnes Hart, the publishers and editors of the unauthorized "non serious voice of Scientology" Aberree magazine.

Below is the April 1955, first anniversary, issue of Aberree magazine



The patterns were establishing themselves very early.
But the same section of the message board also features videos and links, posted mostly by ISNOI News, that enthusiastically sell all levels of the Scientology Grade Chart by places such as the Dror Center and the Advanced Org of the Great Plains.

What's to stop someone from reading this and deciding to visit "their local org"?

For the sake of safety, there's quite a bit of material that might warrant purging or eliminating.

.


?​







 

Marko Ex

Active member
Veda,
As far as I am concerned: It's fine for you to approach folks in here in whatever way feels right to you. I don't know you, really, but...you seem, to me, sincere in your desire to reach a particularly vulnerable group of people who are more uncertain about their allegiance to Hubbard and scientology and may, if I am understanding your approach/viewpoint correctly, explore their uncertainty more if they don't feel threatened or shocked or put off by seeing, um...a certain kind of "entheta"( from their viewpoint) in the comments...? Am I close to understanding your approach? You want to ease them into a discussion, gently, that is probably daunting and scary for them, yes?
I don't share your concern about newbies being put off by posts that are negative or vitriolic or sarcastic or...whatever...It is what it is. This thread of commentary is a wee, small sliver of the "real world", that is, the world outside of the jargon-saddled, master race(homo novi), oh-so-theta cult...and that population of folks you are concerned about either WILL or WILL NOT have their "OMG, FUCK HUBBARD!" realization. Full marks, really, for your gentler, easy-does-it approach, though.
In my 15 years in scienbollocky, I ADDED Hubbard's garbage to my already considerable load of self-negation and insecurity. I ended up taking a lot of shit, ended up being the perennial nice guy who was the "bestest" doormat. I also experienced lots of slick, under-handed, "hey, we're all thetans so I(the white person talking to me) can't be racist" racism that I didn't fully grok until I had been out for 3 or 4 years...So...if there's a bit of an edge(😎😉😂) to some of my posts, it's because I am STILL, 10 years later, processing my rage about my experiences in the cult. It's been cathartic to learn to be authentic, without falling into the trap of being a knee-jerk asshole; I am actually a truly nicer guy now, because I am not pretending to be "up-tone", I am not "keeping TR'S"in, but am, instead, just being myself...
That was a bit long-winded, but...anyway, do your thing. Yes, I DO get that you are NOT "validating scientology" and, yes, I checked earlier parts of the discussion✌🏾...
Hope all of that makes sense!
 

PirateAndBum

Administrator
Staff member
I think it's hard to say what percentage of people live life with a "philosophical" point of view. By that I mean people talk to each other without putting it in the context of ARC, affinity, reality, communication. Some people are happier and more active than others and now you have an "Emotional Tone Scale" or scale of emotions as a descriptor. The list goes on. How about the auditor's code with its I promise not to invalidate the person or evaluate for him and tell him what to think about his case? That has some value. There was such a broad study of Human Emotions and Reactions that its hard to say what if anything was missed the longer one participates. It can lead to an attitude of superiority often said of scientologists. I begrudgingly admit I had that attitude to some extent, the idea I knew things non scientologists could not know. Oh well - haha
What's missed is substantial. Hubbard gives you the idea that you have been given all the information worth knowing when in fact you are being led into a carefully laid out labyrinth that gives the mere appearance of superior knowledge.
 

onceuponatime

Well-known member
What's missed is substantial. Hubbard gives you the idea that you have been given all the information worth knowing when in fact you are being led into a carefully laid out labyrinth that gives the mere appearance of superior knowledge.
This is a central theme to Scientology. They claim to have all the answers, know everything and be able to solve everything. Really it's all just PR/marketing. It's part of the trap and what sticks people, because now you are a Scientologist and you have all the answers, you're better than any wog. Part of leaving Scientology means you have to give up that viewpoint, which can be hard to do.
 

marra

Well-known member
This thread begins with a link to the Scientology exploits catharsis thread.

The opening post of that thread begins with:

Scientology seeks to exploit the "abreactive" process.
(Unearthing previously buried trauma with subsequent relief, catharsis).

Cinematic depiction of a suffering soul being helped by a cult leader and becoming his slave.

One experience of having achieved relief in Scientology
can be enough to stick a person to Scientology for years.


*​

The opening post then goes on to describe, and document, the psychological and financial exploitation that results.



Do you know of anyone who has read any of my content who has joined the cult as a result?

It's absurd.

My posts all feature three links in the signature line that warn about Scientology.

Extending slightly the misguidedly overly-cautious thinking, which you attribute to "most ex-scientologists," simply mentioning the word "Scientology" might be enough for someone to search the net, resulting in the person finding a slick, glossy, Scientology site.

By that reasoning, perhaps even mentioning the word "Scientology" is a terrible mistake. Why publicize the name?

In the 1960s and early 1970s, during Scientology's period of greatest expansion, there was an enormous amount of entirely negative material easily available from the archives of any public library.

The public library was the internet of that time, and Scientology grew in leaps and bounds.

And how about the Human Potential, Self Discovery section of this message board? Perhaps that should be eliminated, just to be on the safe side?

How about the Freezone, Indy and Other Flavors of Scientology section which has posts such as this, addressing historical background:



But the same section of the message board also features videos and links, posted mostly by ISNOI News, that enthusiastically sell all levels of the Scientology Grade Chart by places such as the Dror Center and the Advanced Org of the Great Plains.

What's to stop someone from reading this and deciding to visit "their local org"?

For the sake of safety, there's quite a bit of material that might warrant purging or eliminating.

You seem to start a lot of threads with similar themes. I don't pretend to know your motives but I assume you feel unacknowledged in some way so I was trying to explain to you why, in my opinion, ex-scientologists feel reluctant to talk about wins in scientology.

You obviously still don't get it so I'm expecting another boatload of similar threads to be started by yourself.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you get more criticism than praise for these threads. Your postings in this thread are noticeable for their lack of "likes".

ps: I notice you are posting a lot fewer Incredible String Band videos since I criticised you for it a while back. Thank you.
 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member
You seem to start a lot of threads with similar themes. I don't pretend to know your motives but I assume you feel unacknowledged in some way so I was trying to explain to you why, in my opinion, ex-Scientologists feel reluctant to talk about wins in Scientology.

You obviously still don't get it so I'm expecting another boatload of similar threads to be started by yourself.

Maybe you should ask yourself why you get more criticism than praise for these threads. Your postings in this thread are noticeable for their lack of "likes".

ps: I notice you are posting a lot fewer Incredible String Band videos since I criticized you for it a while back. Thank you.
You make a lot of assumptions.

I'm not concerned about ratios of criticism and praise. I tell the truth as I see it.

A healthy forum does not discourage others from expressing their views and their feelings, no matter what they may be: including "wins."

Haven't we had enough censorship - including self censorship - in Scientology?



 
Top