Dianetics and Scientology are Science Fiction based on rhetoric

Riddick

I clap to no man
This is a interesting read. But nobody here will read it, lol. This guy figured it out, he just doesn't know about the rhetoric of it all.


One has to remember that nobody went clear or OT and nobody has returned from past life using dianetics and scientology. This isn't about having wins while involved or what got you hooked, it's about final result.

Did anybody return from having died using dianetics or scientology?

Nope, not one person, so it's all rhetoric science fiction.
 
Last edited:

Marko Ex

Active member
This is a interesting read. But nobody here will read it, lol. This guy figured it out, he just doesn't know about the rhetoric of it all.


One has to remember that nobody went clear or OT and nobody has returned from past life using dianetics and scientology. This isn't about having wins while involved or what got you hooked, it's about final result.

Did anybody return from having died using dianetics or scientology?

Nope, not one person, so it's all rhetoric science fiction.
"Rhetoric is the art of persuasion, which along with grammar and logic, is one of the three ancient arts of discourse."
Heh heh, yep.
Poor "rhetoric science fiction", at that!😂
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
How would we know the answer to that?
You tell me the answer to the question. You'd think somebody who has returned from dead having been a scientologists would by now have surfaced with full recall of their death and returning to state something like It's true, I have perfect recall of returning in a new body, my name is so and so, and my PC folders are at Flagg by the name of so and so when I was alive in my recent past life known as so and so..

What a joke, really, it's all rhetoric.

Quit asking me these stupid questions, you know the answer, none of Hubbard's postulates of going up the bridge results in a free being, you know that. Nobody has returned from death using dianetics or scientology. Jeez, it's pretty simple, you know, logos, or logic..
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
How would we know the answer to that?
also, PTS, did you read the link or article I posted? Let's be truthful, did you or not read it?
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
I don't know if some of you old timers know, but in modern times they call rhetoric "Influencer Technology". Go ahead and google it.

Nowadays Influencer Technology is actually rhetoric, LOL. That's what Hubbard did.


All the social media platforms of twitter, instragram, facebook, etc have companies using Influencer Tech, or rhetoric. Don't you see?

If you understand rhetoric, you won't be fooled again.

 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
You tell me the answer to the question. You'd think somebody who has returned from dead having been a scientologists would by now have surfaced with full recall of their death and returning to state something like It's true, I have perfect recall of returning in a new body, my name is so and so, and my PC folders are at Flagg by the name of so and so when I was alive in my recent past life known as so and so..

What a joke, really, it's all rhetoric.

Quit asking me these stupid questions, you know the answer, none of Hubbard's postulates of going up the bridge results in a free being, you know that. Nobody has returned from death using dianetics or scientology. Jeez, it's pretty simple, you know, logos, or logic..
How do you know no such person has come back? How many Scientologists have you interviewed, studied their folders? I can tell you that one of the Flag IAS Regs at the Sand Castle told me she joined the SO because she had been a scientologist before. Is it true? Dunno, but based on how few recall their past lives without being in session, it's not hard to see a person forgetting he/she was a Dianeticist or Scientologist in a previous life.

There are plenty of examples of people recalling having lived before - some extremely credible. Google it some time.

Mimsey

1630423225475.png
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
Did anybody return from having died using dianetics or scientology?
I guess they all must have pondered the option, then decided they would prefer to stay dead rather than return to do more scientology.
 
Last edited:

onceuponatime

Well-known member
How do you know no such person has come back? How many Scientologists have you interviewed, studied their folders? I can tell you that one of the Flag IAS Regs at the Sand Castle told me she joined the SO because she had been a scientologist before. Is it true? Dunno, but based on how few recall their past lives without being in session, it's not hard to see a person forgetting he/she was a Dianeticist or Scientologist in a previous life.

There are plenty of examples of people recalling having lived before - some extremely credible. Google it some time.

Mimsey
For a long time in Scientology a way to quickly get up the bridge was to say you were a past life Clear. You'd then get a CCRD and basically just attest to Clear. There was no real fact checking going on or any sort of proof required. So you had a bunch of "past life Clears/Scientologists" running around, getting onto their OT levels, etc. It was the thing to do for awhile.

This eventually started causing problems and there was a big overhaul of the past life clear/CCRD line. A ton of people got de-attested to Clear and had to run NED. From this point forward, in order to be attested to past life Clear, you had to actually remember your name, then they'd search for your folders, verify whatever data you could provide, etc.

To my knowledge there has been a grand total of 0 people who have been verified as past life Clear since they started requiring proof and verifying things. The same goes for OTs and that's one of the things the OT levels supposedly solve right? We should have had some OT Vs or whatever come back by now.

It used to be a very common, even popular, thing to do, claim you were a past life Scientologist. Ever since the CCRD overhaul they've really clamped down on it and from my observation the whole "I was a past life Scientologist" thing has gone way down.

I'm not trying to debate whether past lives are a thing or not, just providing some data.
 

mimsey borogrove

Well-known member
For a long time in Scientology a way to quickly get up the bridge was to say you were a past life Clear. You'd then get a CCRD and basically just attest to Clear. There was no real fact checking going on or any sort of proof required. So you had a bunch of "past life Clears/Scientologists" running around, getting onto their OT levels, etc. It was the thing to do for awhile.

This eventually started causing problems and there was a big overhaul of the past life clear/CCRD line. A ton of people got de-attested to Clear and had to run NED. From this point forward, in order to be attested to past life Clear, you had to actually remember your name, then they'd search for your folders, verify whatever data you could provide, etc.

To my knowledge there has been a grand total of 0 people who have been verified as past life Clear since they started requiring proof and verifying things. The same goes for OTs and that's one of the things the OT levels supposedly solve right? We should have had some OT Vs or whatever come back by now.

It used to be a very common, even popular, thing to do, claim you were a past life Scientologist. Ever since the CCRD overhaul they've really clamped down on it and from my observation the whole "I was a past life Scientologist" thing has gone way down.

I'm not trying to debate whether past lives are a thing or not, just providing some data.
I know that that program also upset a lot of people who truly believed they were clear. If you try and recall bric a brac from early in your life, getting specifics can be super difficult. Try, for instance to recall various specific details about your childhood home, and it get's hazy. While I remember what my home looked like, the view from the porch, I could not describe the layout of the rooms, what appliances were in the kitchen, what crockery my mom had. Trying to recall that from another life? Yikes.

On the other hand - the redefining clear from DMSMH version to being cause over mental MEST has thrown it all into the trash. At one point, if I recall correctly, it was how many goals you had run on GPM processing. This redefining has ultimately devalued the state of clear. I did the clearing course, and that took some doing to achieve clear. But that was pre Clear Cog. When I found out what a clear cog was - I realized I had it on my power setups, but no one recognized it for what it was back in 1969. Was my state of clear overrun? Is that even possible? :confused:

To tally it up: Clear cog in the late 60's, 2 or 3 times through the clearing course, and the Dianetics style clear rundown while on ot7 which bogged, and finally L&N something like what did you go clear on? Talk about the C/S rabbiting...:duh:

So, yes, my bridge was a complete dogs breakfast, as Ron loved to say.

Mimsey
 
Last edited:

Dotey OT

Dis-Membered
This is a interesting read. But nobody here will read it, lol. This guy figured it out, he just doesn't know about the rhetoric of it all.


One has to remember that nobody went clear or OT and nobody has returned from past life using dianetics and scientology. This isn't about having wins while involved or what got you hooked, it's about final result.

Did anybody return from having died using dianetics or scientology?

Nope, not one person, so it's all rhetoric science fiction.
I just read it. Sorry about the comm lag, lol.
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
For a long time in Scientology a way to quickly get up the bridge was to say you were a past life Clear. You'd then get a CCRD and basically just attest to Clear. There was no real fact checking going on or any sort of proof required. So you had a bunch of "past life Clears/Scientologists" running around, getting onto their OT levels, etc. It was the thing to do for awhile.

This eventually started causing problems and there was a big overhaul of the past life clear/CCRD line. A ton of people got de-attested to Clear and had to run NED. From this point forward, in order to be attested to past life Clear, you had to actually remember your name, then they'd search for your folders, verify whatever data you could provide, etc.

To my knowledge there has been a grand total of 0 people who have been verified as past life Clear since they started requiring proof and verifying things. The same goes for OTs and that's one of the things the OT levels supposedly solve right? We should have had some OT Vs or whatever come back by now.

It used to be a very common, even popular, thing to do, claim you were a past life Scientologist. Ever since the CCRD overhaul they've really clamped down on it and from my observation the whole "I was a past life Scientologist" thing has gone way down.

I'm not trying to debate whether past lives are a thing or not, just providing some data.
yep, that was my experience at the SF Mission during the heyday of the mission network and the Birthday Game, LOL. circa 1990's to 2000.

because we were winning the Birthday Game, lots of people on staff were originating they were past life clear, and a few past life OT. Of course we were all daily going of staff study time of 2.5 hours reading or listening to Hubbard's rhetoric of how to go clear and OT, and also policy of how to build a org or mission to Saint Hill size. Just do as Ron says, and we did.

Here we are 30 years later, and the SF Mission is a shell of nobodies, probably true of many orgs and missions. All the so called clears and OT's have died.

So, where are these so called clears and OT's, and why are they not of staff anymore? Not asking you, just asking the general audience.

You'd think they would be still on staff? Or come back from death to promote scientology?
 

Riddick

I clap to no man
We can ask ourselves, logically speaking, logos, where are the original clears? They are supposedly from Dianetics? Anybody hear of them, are they still involved? Why not?

History wise, the first promoter, influencer, of Dianetics was John Campbell.
 

programmer_guy

True ex-Scientologist
Dianetics is based on both rhetoric and auditing to get the brain endorphin effects.
Getting the brain endorphin effects does not require rhetoric.

But if the PC "cognitions" are to likely be in agreement with Hubbard's pseudoscience then it was recommended that they go up both sides of "The Bridge". So, co-auditing was recommended.

@Riddick when you go on-and-on about rhetoric I partially agree with you and partially disagree with you.
 
Last edited:

Karakorum

Well-known member
From this point forward, in order to be attested to past life Clear, you had to actually remember your name, then they'd search for your folders, verify whatever data you could provide, etc.
As if that would ever work.

So in theory, I could go to some org in say Moscow, join Scn again under the local surname I have in the local passport, which they don't have in the files. Then claim I'm Joe Shmoe who died in 1979 and I came back to get back on staff ( I used to work with other people's ethics and PC folders all the time. I know quite a lot about some people who have since died). I could recite their ethics history and some PC stuff too. I would pick someone who has no living relatives in scn or whose relatives are all declared.

Would that prove that I'm the reincarnated Joe Shmoe? Hell no!

Reincarnation is unverifiable
 

onceuponatime

Well-known member
I know that that program also upset a lot of people who truly believed they were clear. If you try and recall bric a brac from early in your life, getting specifics can be super difficult. Try, for instance to recall various specific details about your childhood home, and it get's hazy. While I remember what my home looked like, the view from the porch, I could not describe the layout of the rooms, what appliances were in the kitchen, what crockery my mom had. Trying to recall that from another life? Yikes.

On the other hand - the redefining clear from DMSMH version to being cause over mental MEST has thrown it all into the trash. At one point, if I recall correctly, it was how many goals you had run on GPM processing. This redefining has ultimately devalued the state of clear. I did the clearing course, and that took some doing to achieve clear. But that was pre Clear Cog. When I found out what a clear cog was - I realized I had it on my power setups, but no one recognized it for what it was back in 1969. Was my state of clear overrun? Is that even possible? :confused:

To tally it up: Clear cog in the late 60's, 2 or 3 times through the clearing course, and the Dianetics style clear rundown while on ot7 which bogged, and finally L&N something like what did you go clear on? Talk about the C/S rabbiting...:duh:

So, yes, my bridge was a complete dogs breakfast, as Ron loved to say.

Mimsey
Yeah, that sounds like a mess. I know the program of de-attesting Clears upset a lot of people. And yes, it doesn't help that the definition of Clear has changed throughout Scientology's history.

You'd at least need the name, location, time, details about the auditing etc. In reality I think they just stopped the whole attest to past life Clear thing. They say unable to find folders or whatever but I don't think they'll allow anyone to attest to past life Clear no matter what.

yep, that was my experience at the SF Mission during the heyday of the mission network and the Birthday Game, LOL. circa 1990's to 2000.

because we were winning the Birthday Game, lots of people on staff were originating they were past life clear, and a few past life OT. Of course we were all daily going of staff study time of 2.5 hours reading or listening to Hubbard's rhetoric of how to go clear and OT, and also policy of how to build a org or mission to Saint Hill size. Just do as Ron says, and we did.

Here we are 30 years later, and the SF Mission is a shell of nobodies, probably true of many orgs and missions. All the so called clears and OT's have died.

So, where are these so called clears and OT's, and why are they not of staff anymore? Not asking you, just asking the general audience.

You'd think they would be still on staff? Or come back from death to promote scientology?
Exactly. Where are all these past life Clears/OTs? We should've had at least some of them show up by now.

As if that would ever work.

So in theory, I could go to some org in say Moscow, join Scn again under the local surname I have in the local passport, which they don't have in the files. Then claim I'm Joe Shmoe who died in 1979 and I came back to get back on staff ( I used to work with other people's ethics and PC folders all the time. I know quite a lot about some people who have since died). I could recite their ethics history and some PC stuff too. I would pick someone who has no living relatives in scn or whose relatives are all declared.

Would that prove that I'm the reincarnated Joe Shmoe? Hell no!

Reincarnation is unverifiable
You'd get Sec-Checking and they would be very seriously looking into who you were. Could someone pull it off? Maybe. I think the reality is they won't allow anyone to attest to past life Clear, no matter how much evidence they can provide.

I agree with you that reincarnation is unable to be verified. The funny thing is, based on their policies and how they currently handle things, the Church of Scientology also agrees with you. Of course that contradicts a bunch of LRH's writings but that's Scientology.
 

Karakorum

Well-known member
You'd get Sec-Checking and they would be very seriously looking into who you were. Could someone pull it off? Maybe. I think the reality is they won't allow anyone to attest to past life Clear, no matter how much evidence they can provide.
If its some un written iron rule that nobody gets past that test, then yeah.
On the other hand... I hate to brag, but if there is anyone who could get past that sec-checking it would probably be me.

I went through a lot of sec checking in my day and I'm sure I did more sec-checks on people than anyone else on the boards.

The funny thing is, based on their policies and how they currently handle things, the Church of Scientology also agrees with you.
Well, a broken clock is still right twice a day.
 
Top