Soooo was there anything you guys actually liked about Scientology?

james087

Member
"I'm currently reading Dianetics. I thought auditing with a partner would be a good experience? Thoughts? "

If you are currently reading dianetics, then you will need a partner who has also read dianetics,

both of you will be auditing your selfs to the state of of Clear. That is the main theme of the book, that is you can go Clear, or be a human being without psychosomatic illness.

Let me tell you that this is not true. No two people that have read Dianetics have achieved the state of Clear. Nor have any people who got professional auditing from the Church of Scientology.

While there are claims of "clear", it actually has never happened.

Don't let me stop you, get a partner who has read dianetics and audit yourselfs.

Many have tried.
I've witnessed first hand that people who are suppose to be clear are anything but. What I have experienced from one free session was digging up a repressed memory from childhood and with a little suggestive tone from an auditor I was able to express extreme anger which I thought I was incapable of. I deeply wounded one of the Scientologist with my words who was trying to prevent me from leaving the building.

All in all 4 years later and after doing a lot more release of pent up rage (thankfully I didn't kill anyone) I feel like I can finally pay attention to my own emotions. It broke whatever psychological barrier I had up that was preventing me from paying attention to my own emotions. "Clear" might not be real to me, but I do feel there might still be benefits for me doing the exercises.

Are engrams even a thing? Seems like malarkey to me.
 

J. Swift

Well-known member
Jeffrey Augustine wrote "it was Mathison who created the Tone Scale". Maybe @Karen#1 could ask him to comment on this.

"As other commentators have noted — and we deeply appreciate their research — it was Mathison who created the Tone Scale. He did so in order to give his electropsychometric practitioners a basis to classify their patients based upon readings observed on the Mathison e-meter. We mention the Tone Scale as Mathison had created a lock-and-key system in which the Mathison meter was intended for use only with Mathison’s written guidance, instructions, interpretations of needle reads, and the other written specifics of the system he had devised or would devise in the future."

"Conversely, Hubbard had taken a different direction in 1951 by devising his cumbersome and bloated Chart of Human Evaluation. This chart was Hubbard’s attempt at creating a psychometric basis to classify human behavior within a Dianetic framework."
Harold#1: My ten-part series on the e-meter is here: A Brief History of How Scientology’s E-Meter Came Into Existence – Parts 1-10

IMHO, it's well worth the read if you like details. A few things:

1. Volney Mathison coined the term "electropsychometer." It is in his patent.

2. Volney Mathison coined the term "The Electropsychometric Tone Scale" as shown in the jpeg below. Mathison conceptualized, created, and designed the graphic layout for the Tone Scale. Mathison was careful to state his Tone Scale was theoretical.

3. Hubbard later changed the name of Mathison's Electropsychometer, which was in use in Scientology from 1952-1958, to the "Hubbard Electrometer." Hubbard also changed the graphic format of Volney's circular Tone Scale and made his into an expanded linear chart that ranged from -40 to +40. Hubbard used his Tone Scale to both confirm the wins Scientologists have in auditing and to invalidate them when they weren't getting with the program. Hubbard's used his Tone Scale in many self-serving ways. For Scientologists, the Tone Scale is a quick way to self-position their spiritual state -- and that of others -- within the framework of Scientology. Hubbard's Tone Scale is a subjective and self-referential metric that is found useful by Scientologists.

4. In terms of Hubbard's Scientology social engineering program, Hubbard used his Tone Scale as a weapon and decreed that all persons 2.0 and below on the Tone Scale should be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow." See my post on Scientology's Genocide: The Horrifying Real Secret of Scientology is Genocide
E.Meter.Tone.Scale.png
 
Last edited:

Harold#1

A VERY STABLE SUPER GENIUS!!
Harold#1: My ten-part series on the e-meter is here: A Brief History of How Scientology’s E-Meter Came Into Existence – Parts 1-10

IMHO, it's well worth the read if you like details. A few things:

1. Volney Mathison coined the term "electropsychometer." It is in his patent.

2. Volney Mathison coined the term "The Electropsychometric Tone Scale" as shown in the jpeg below. Mathison conceptualized, created, and designed the graphic layout for the Tone Scale. Mathison was careful to state his Tone Scale was theoretical.

3. Hubbard later changed the name of Mathison's Electropsychometer, which was in use in Scientology from 1952-1958, to the "Hubbard Electrometer." Hubbard also changed the graphic format of Volney's circular Tone Scale and made his into an expanded linear chart that ranged from -40 to +40. Hubbard used his Tone Scale to both confirm the wins Scientologists have in auditing and to invalidate them when they weren't getting with the program. Hubbard's used his Tone Scale in many self-serving ways. For Scientologists, the Tone Scale is a quick way to self-position their spiritual state -- and that of others -- within the framework of Scientology. Hubbard's Tone Scale is a subjective and self-referential metric that is found useful by Scientologists.

4. In terms of Hubbard's Scientology social engineering program, Hubbard used his Tone Scale as a weapon and decreed that all persons 2.0 and below on the Tone Scale should be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow." See my post on Scientology's Genocide: The Horrifying Real Secret of Scientology is Genocide
View attachment 5042
Did LRH make a tone scale before Mathison?
 

james087

Member
If the emeter tone-arm is at, say, 2.0 this does not mean that the PC is at 2.0 on the so-called tone scale.
Why are some people confusing these two things?

(No, I am not defending "the tech", Hubbard, nor Scientology.)
I doubt anyone's confused that 2.0 emeter = 2.0 tone scale. What I thought at first was Hubbard took inspiration from Volney when really the dates prove it was impossible for Hubbard to have done so and really (probably) Volney took inspiration from Hubbard.


Did LRH make a tone scale before Mathison?
Yes
 

pineapple

能说的名字不真的名字
If the emeter tone-arm is at, say, 2.0 this does not mean that the PC is at 2.0 on the so-called tone scale.
Why are some people confusing these two things?

(No, I am not defending "the tech", Hubbard, nor Scientology.)
And if the tone arm is at 4.0 it doesn't mean the pc's in enthusiasm, though it may mean he's asleep.
 

pineapple

能说的名字不真的名字
Harold#1: My ten-part series on the e-meter is here: A Brief History of How Scientology’s E-Meter Came Into Existence – Parts 1-10

IMHO, it's well worth the read if you like details. A few things:

1. Volney Mathison coined the term "electropsychometer." It is in his patent.

2. Volney Mathison coined the term "The Electropsychometric Tone Scale" as shown in the jpeg below. Mathison conceptualized, created, and designed the graphic layout for the Tone Scale. Mathison was careful to state his Tone Scale was theoretical.

3. Hubbard later changed the name of Mathison's Electropsychometer, which was in use in Scientology from 1952-1958, to the "Hubbard Electrometer." Hubbard also changed the graphic format of Volney's circular Tone Scale and made his into an expanded linear chart that ranged from -40 to +40. Hubbard used his Tone Scale to both confirm the wins Scientologists have in auditing and to invalidate them when they weren't getting with the program. Hubbard's used his Tone Scale in many self-serving ways. For Scientologists, the Tone Scale is a quick way to self-position their spiritual state -- and that of others -- within the framework of Scientology. Hubbard's Tone Scale is a subjective and self-referential metric that is found useful by Scientologists.

4. In terms of Hubbard's Scientology social engineering program, Hubbard used his Tone Scale as a weapon and decreed that all persons 2.0 and below on the Tone Scale should be "disposed of quietly and without sorrow." See my post on Scientology's Genocide: The Horrifying Real Secret of Scientology is Genocide
View attachment 5042
@J. Swift, how do you explain this March 1949 letter from Hubbard to Robert Heinlein where he explains the tone scale (starting on page 4)?

In her book Dianetics in Limbo, Helen O'Brien mentions the first e-meter use, in 1952, and says Mathison made the meter in response to Hubbard's suggestions. (pg 55)

"And we learned by experience that the very first E-meters, which a
Californian named Volney Mathison made in direct response to
Hubbard's suggestions during a lecture series in Los Angeles,
were far superior to anything which came later.
These were the
ones which Hubbard worked with and wrote about during the
period when his attention was fixed on the meter's use."

The copyright on that "Electropsychometric Auditing" illustration is 1954, by the way (on the upper right).
 

Enthetan

Veteran of the Psychic Wars
I've witnessed first hand that people who are suppose to be clear are anything but. What I have experienced from one free session was digging up a repressed memory from childhood and with a little suggestive tone from an auditor I was able to express extreme anger which I thought I was incapable of. I deeply wounded one of the Scientologist with my words who was trying to prevent me from leaving the building.

All in all 4 years later and after doing a lot more release of pent up rage (thankfully I didn't kill anyone) I feel like I can finally pay attention to my own emotions. It broke whatever psychological barrier I had up that was preventing me from paying attention to my own emotions. "Clear" might not be real to me, but I do feel there might still be benefits for me doing the exercises.

Are engrams even a thing? Seems like malarkey to me.
You experienced relief from being able to talk about your feelings and past. Other people can get relief from being able to talk to a good friend.
 

The_Fixer

Bent in all sorts of ways..
You experienced relief from being able to talk about your feelings and past. Other people can get relief from being able to talk to a good friend.
Or cuddling up to a pretty other scientologist in a warm bed on a cold night.

Just to maintain my cred, or lack of, I didn't find many of that species....
 
D

Deleted member 51

Guest
I've witnessed first hand that people who are suppose to be clear are anything but. What I have experienced from one free session was digging up a repressed memory from childhood and with a little suggestive tone from an auditor I was able to express extreme anger which I thought I was incapable of. I deeply wounded one of the Scientologist with my words who was trying to prevent me from leaving the building.

All in all 4 years later and after doing a lot more release of pent up rage (thankfully I didn't kill anyone) I feel like I can finally pay attention to my own emotions. It broke whatever psychological barrier I had up that was preventing me from paying attention to my own emotions. "Clear" might not be real to me, but I do feel there might still be benefits for me doing the exercises.

Are engrams even a thing? Seems like malarkey to me.
Not to discount your win in any way, but most people addressing childhood incidents for the first time in any psychological or psychiatric counseling session often get the Big Bang win pretty early on, if not the first session. Getting a person to go into a session for the first time is the hardest part. Especially for men. Once that hurdle is out of the way and a person is willing to be introspective, the realizations just roll.

It’s great they got your barriers down, but just criminal that it was to get you to associate It as something special about Scientology.
 

exbritscino

A complete member........
The one thing I enjoyed was shagging the living daylights out of one of our attractive female staff members.
This was after she had signed a sea org contract and was the night before she was goi going to St Hill to start the EPF.
Some years later I bumped Into her. She never turned up at St Hill and had dumped scientology.
Result!
Just goes to show what an "Out 2D" can achieve.......
 

james087

Member
Not to discount your win in any way, but most people addressing childhood incidents for the first time in any psychological or psychiatric counseling session often get the Big Bang win pretty early on, if not the first session. Getting a person to go into a session for the first time is the hardest part. Especially for men. Once that hurdle is out of the way and a person is willing to be introspective, the realizations just roll.

It’s great they got your barriers down, but just criminal that it was to get you to associate It as something special about Scientology.
Thanks, I think this is what I was looking for and needed to hear.



Edit* I found this: Abreaction - Wikipedia and I believe it explains a lot.

"In Scientology, Dianetics is a form of abreaction that science fiction writer L. Ron Hubbard borrowed from the United States Navy[11] when he spent three months in a San Diego hospital in 1943 with the complaints of an ulcer and malaria.[12] Hubbard later wrote, in his autobiography My Philosophy, that he had observed abreactive therapy in the hospital, though in later life he claimed to have made the discovery on his own after being wounded in battle and given up as untreatable. "

"Though traumata of clearly aetiological significance were occasionally present, the majority of them appeared very improbable. Many traumata were so unimportant, even so normal, that they could be regarded at most as a pretext for the neurosis. But what especially aroused my criticism was the fact that not a few traumata were simply inventions of fantasy and had never happened at all. "
 
Last edited:

pineapple

能说的名字不真的名字
Getting back to e-meters for a moment, it's worth mentioning that there was a period of a few years in the 50's when e-meters were not used. This is from an article by Antony Phillips who used to post on the old ESMB (ESMB 1).

"When I went on the HPA (Hubbard Professional Auditor) course in 1955/6 e-meters were not used.

The book Dianetics '55 contained a reason why e-meters stopped being used. Later editions of the book contained footnotes to this explanation, explaining (to some degree) why the meter was now alright to use. These footnotes have varied a bit over the years. If you are fortunate enough to get your eyes on a pre Miscavige edition of the book, look at Chapter X "Communication Lag", end of first paragraph. As far as I can remember I have seen different footnotes in different printings, one extending to more than half a page small print.

In about 1958/9, when I worked in the London HGC as an auditor, we started to use the E-meter again. We were given (allowed to use) a new e-meter, made in England which we called the Green and Gold meter. Its layout was with a dial above two main knobs. The Americans had what was called (if I remember correctly) the Blue e-meter which had the dial to the right, and knobs to the left (right handed auditor would operate the meter Tone Arm with left hand and write with right hand)."

Here's the section of Chapter X from Dianetics 55! that he refers to.

dn55 ch10 e-meters.png
 

The Oracle

Not the same Oracle from a decade ago
when I realized I was mocking up my own reactive mind but could start, stop, change it, I realized I was mocking up Scientology and seeing and believing what I wanted Scientology to be. That was nice to live in a bubble of delusion for a while. When I got out and realized Scientology is a rogue, criminal organization founded by a criminal and run by a thug, that realization really hurt. PTSD type symptoms. Don’t waste your precious life on anything Scientology. Too much garbage ideas thrown in by LRH and Miscavige. It will confuse you. Study Buddhism and Elkhart Tolle. Lots of good things out there that won’t fuck u up. You don’t get rid of your reactive mind by doing Dianetics. There is no such thing as a “clear”. The book was a hypothesis and 65 years later proven to be a pseudoscienc. It’s a scam. Throw the book in the burn pit and move onto other practices that are not going to do you harm.
 
Last edited:

Zertel

Well-known member
Getting back to e-meters for a moment, it's worth mentioning that there was a period of a few years in the 50's when e-meters were not used. This is from an article by Antony Phillips who used to post on the old ESMB (ESMB 1).

"When I went on the HPA (Hubbard Professional Auditor) course in 1955/6 e-meters were not used.

The book Dianetics '55 contained a reason why e-meters stopped being used. Later editions of the book contained footnotes to this explanation, explaining (to some degree) why the meter was now alright to use. These footnotes have varied a bit over the years. If you are fortunate enough to get your eyes on a pre Miscavige edition of the book, look at Chapter X "Communication Lag", end of first paragraph. As far as I can remember I have seen different footnotes in different printings, one extending to more than half a page small print.

In about 1958/9, when I worked in the London HGC as an auditor, we started to use the E-meter again. We were given (allowed to use) a new e-meter, made in England which we called the Green and Gold meter. Its layout was with a dial above two main knobs. The Americans had what was called (if I remember correctly) the Blue e-meter which had the dial to the right, and knobs to the left (right handed auditor would operate the meter Tone Arm with left hand and write with right hand)."

Here's the section of Chapter X from Dianetics 55! that he refers to.

View attachment 5062
The e-meter performed as expected in auditing sessions. Looking at reads, a floating needle, a long fall blowdown or other manifestations was not a figment of my imagination.
 

Harold#1

A VERY STABLE SUPER GENIUS!!
From Jeffrey Augustine's very interesting history of the E-meter:


"THE HUBBARD MARK V E-METER

"Ron Hubbard’s withdrawal of the e-meter from Scientology was a tactical move that allowed him to get rid of Volney Mathison and the Mathison electropsychometer. The “E-Meter in Exile” period also permitted Hubbard to unify Dianetics and Scientology and bring the entire movement back under his control."

In Dianetics 55! Hubbard let readers know that he now had his own e-meter:

"


The 1958 “American Blue” Hubbard Electrometer. This was the first e-meter Ron Hubbard introduced that bore his name. The dial reads “For Use in Scientological Clearing.” Thus, the original purpose of the e-meter as conceived of by Hubbard himself was to “clear” people by use of the psycho-political system of Scientology. The implications of “planetary clearing” have been seen and documented by the world since the 1950’s.

 
Last edited:

Veda

Well-known member


Certainly. But absolutely nothing in the emeter tells you anything you run is real or anything is doing you any good.
"Absolutely nothing" and "anything" may feel good to say, but is such language accurate? Are there no nuances?

As I recall. during the 1920s and 1930s, both Carl Jung and Alfred Korzybski noted the possibility of using galvanic skin response meters for assessing mental states.



.
 
Top