Soooo was there anything you guys actually liked about Scientology?

[Harold#1]

"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.



.

From Jeffrey Augustine @J. Swift :

CARL JUNG

As has widely been noted, the Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung used the psychogalvanometer in his experimental research. Gregory Mitchell describes Jung’s 1906 experiment:

One of the first references to the use of this instrument [the psychogalvanometer] in Psychoanalysis is in the book by Carl Gustav Jung, entitled ‘Studies in Word Analysis’, published in 1906. He describes a technique of connecting the subject, via hand-electrodes, to an instrument measuring changes in the resistance of the skin. Words on a list were read out to the subject one by one. If a word on this list was emotionally charged, there was a change in body resistance causing a deflection of the needle of the galvanometer, indicating that a complex-related ‘resistance’ was triggered. Any words which evoked a larger than usual response on the meter were assumed to be indicators of possible areas of conflict in the patients, hinting at unconscious feelings and beliefs, and these areas were then explored in more detail with the subject in session. Jung used observed deflections on the meter as a monitoring device to aid his own judgment in determining which particular lines of enquiry were most likely to be fruitful with each subject.

Jung had the patient hold the electrodes of a psychogalvanometer as he read words aloud. Any words that caused the needle on the psychogalvanometer to deflect were treated as emotionally charged items to be handled in a psychotherapy session.

In the modern era we speak of emotionally loaded words that can trigger a person. This is what Jung was looking for in word association. He wanted to find word triggers by use of a psychogalvanometer. These triggers could then be addressed in psychoanalysis. Keep in mind that Jung did this in 1906. Current and former Scientologists can already see where we’re going with this one. We leave it for later.

AUSTRALIA 1930


The Mirror (Perth, Western Australia) Saturday 22 November 1930, p.1.

A Brief History of How Scientology’s E-Meter Came Into Existence – Parts 1-10

A Brief History of How Scientology’s E-Meter Came Into Existence Jeffrey Augustine The Scientology Money Project Copyright 2020 We take a wide systems approach in this series by reviewing the…

scientologymoneyproject.com

 

[Operating Wog]

To answer the original question, there was a lot I found good in Scn. A lot of stuff about communication, responsibility, positive attitude has changed my way of thinking to this day. Yes, it's all very derivative. And the tech is often used more as a weapon than as something to help. And there are a lot of guidelines and rules of thumb that have been artificially elevated to some kind of unquestionable science.

 

[Bill]

"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.

The emeter may tell you what a person feels about what they think, but that has nothing to do with the reality or fantasy of those thoughts. It simply can't. That is absolute. "Past lives" are NOT verified by the emeter.

This is why (some) Scientologists think that incidents four quadrillion years ago are "true" when it doesn't match what is known about the universe or known about Earth. How a person feels is not reality.

Likewise, when a person feels better or now believes they "can have super abilities", it's just thoughts. That's what the meter reacts to: Thoughts. Is it real? The emeter can never tell you.

 

[Deleted member 51]

Most of the e-meter reads don't mean what Hubbard said they do, or only sometimes mean what he said. The whole OT tek and much of the clear tek is based on the emeter, so the whole thing is out of whack.

A dirty needle pretty much means someone is pissed off, bored, antsy or annoyed. That's not exactly what Hubbard said though, but that's pretty consistent.
A rising needle doesn't mean anything to do with gaining mass. Really, it doesn't. That's all Hubbard gobbledygoop. If your pc or pre-OT gets distracted and daydreams, the needle will rise. When you pull the attention back, the needle will fall. It doesn't mean anything to do with running implants, engrams or whatevers. If he focuses a long time on ANYthing, the needle will also rise. That's the same e-meter reaction as daydreaming. I don't feel massy when I daydream, do you? A rising needle only has something to do with changing focus, that's ALL. It probably rises about as long as a person's attention span and when he/she shifts attention, whoops, there it goes and falls.

So a falling needle can mean all sorts of things, from changing focus to letting go of a problem. So SOMEtimes it's a good thing and most of the time it means nothing.

Rockslams are supposed to mean evil intentions, but they can't even seem to figure out what the hell a rockslam looks like. The people who see them the most aren't auditors, though. Auditors hardly ever see them. Do you know who sees them all the time? You'd never guess. WORD CLEARERS. That's right, rockslams have to do with words and education and learning things. So rockslams probably have a whole lot to do with misunderstanding and calling them signs of evil is ridiculous. Not understanding something doesn't mean a person wants to shoot you, but if he doesn't speak the same language, he'll more likely walk away than talk to you.

That's just a few off the top of my head. So much BS by Hubbard! Scientology is a minefield of false information based on false facts and false assumptions and half-truths and twisting your brain around trying to force it all to make sense. It's just bad stuff and a waste of time.

 

[Zertel]

Any path toward spiritual freedom, enlightenment or other such description requires complete openness and honesty on the part of the participant. A Buddhist acolyte won't get very far if he or she hides or withholds their deepest thoughts from their teacher. In fact revealing one's deepest secrets might provide the greatest amount of progress and relief.

In scn auditing the auditor takes written notes of the person's responses and the session is submitted to a Case Supervisor for review. It would take a very high degree of trust in any scn organization to believe that their session recordings remain forever private and confidential.

 

[pineapple]

To answer the original question, there was a lot I found good in Scn. A lot of stuff about communication, responsibility, positive attitude has changed my way of thinking to this day. Yes, it's all very derivative. And the tech is often used more as a weapon than as something to help. And there are a lot of guidelines and rules of thumb that have been artificially elevated to some kind of unquestionable science.

Yes, there are bits of truth in it, and some useful things. I still think the TR's are useful, but that's about it. You could find something good in almost any system.

And scn is based on lies. Hubbard was lying from the beginning. He said there were clears, but there were no clears. In DMSMH he said he'd worked 270 cases (or is it 273?) and "cleared or alleviated" them all. Where were those cases? None of them ever came forward. (In that letter to Heinlein he actually says he has close to A THOUSAND cases, but I guess that was too big a whopper even for him.)

And in KSW, Hubbard claimed his way was the only way, and he was the supreme authority and the only one who'd contributed anything workable, which was a big lie.

The good in scn is more than canceled by the bad. You can cherry-pick some good out of it, but as someone else said, it's like picking corn kernels out of a turd. If you need some kind of a system, you'd be better off with something else. And it wouldn't cost you anywhere near as much.

 

[Zertel]

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.

Four years ago on Rathbun's blog I related a satori or kensho experience I once had. Someone referred me to a nondualism teacher named Adyashanti which started me on a several month investigation into nondualism and I listened to Adyashanti, Mooji, Alan Watts and other teachers one of whom was a female teacher I liked but I don't recall her name right now. I found that I resonate with most of their teachings. James might spend a few hours on nondualism to see if it has any impact on him.

Most of the nondualism teachers have a background in Buddhism. Some sects of Zen Buddhism give credence to the possibility of "Instant Enlightenment". I think Tolle just woke up one morning "being there" in a new state of existence. I'm still waiting. (joke)
..........................................................................................................

Kenshō[note 1] (見性) is a Japanese term from the Zen tradition. Ken means "seeing", shō means "nature, essence".[4][2] It is usually translated as "seeing one's (true) nature", that is, the Buddha-nature or nature of mind.

Kenshō is an initial insight or awakening, not full Buddhahood.[5] It is to be followed by further training to deepen this insight, and learn to express it in daily life.[6][7][8]

The term kenshō is often used interchangeably with satori, which is derived from the verb satoru,[9] and means "comprehension; understanding".[web 1][note 2][note 3]

 

[james087]

So yesterday I sorta sent that image to a current Scientologist that I've kinda made friends with. I told her I like to look into things that inspired L Ron. I can tell her head is spinning. So far all she's replied with is that she loves it and will get back to me with a better response. I wonder how this will go.

She never got back to me with a "better response".

Usually she would contact me in the morning, but I ended up contacting her this time. She's a lot more quite.. I think the gears are still turning.

I'm going through the lesson questions and answering almost all of them with disagreement and putting forth my own philosophy. I had a lot of fun with the question "Describe the cyclic aspect and death". I wrote down the lyrics from The Lion King.

From the day we arrive on the planet
And, blinking, step into the sun
There's more to see than can ever be seen
More to do than can ever be done
There's far too much to take in here
More to find than can ever be found
But the sun rolling high
Through the sapphire sky
Keeps great and small on the endless round

It's the circle of life
And it moves us all
Through despair and hope
Through faith and love
'Til we find our place
On the path unwinding
In the circle
The circle of life

 

[Operating DB]

I loved the things i learned after Scientology.

What crosses my mind today is that stupid datum by Hubbard, "If it isn't written, it isn't true," and its corollary, "If L. Ron Hubbard wrote it, it must be true."

What a wonderful feeling of intellectual freedom to discover that this was just a propaganda line, designed to make the Scn masses do what the cult wanted.

L Ron Hubbard was full of shit. Scientology is a money-making operation.

It's weird to see some ex-Scientologists still follow this "If it's written, it must be true" datum. They believe some of the oddest, most controversial things when right in front of their eyes they can see the information is false. They don't believe what is in front of them, though. That was part of being in Scientology - not believing what I see, or what I had previously learned, not believing what I knew to be true, but instead, believing Hubbard's and the cult of Scientology's versions of things, because "it was written."

That's why I love this forum and the old ESMB. Reading others' perspectives and observations about how we were hoodwinked.

You mentioned the "If it's written, it must be true" datum". Why just because it's written down does it means it's true? It's amazing how some of us read that and accepted it and automatically assumed it's true across the board in all situations. Hu666ard really had us going. I still hate his guts.

 

[Veda]

The emeter may tell you what a person feels about what they think, but that has nothing to do with the reality or fantasy of those thoughts. It simply can't. That is absolute. "Past lives" are NOT verified by the emeter.

This is why (some) Scientologists think that incidents four quadrillion years ago are "true" when it doesn't match what is known about the universe or known about Earth. How a person feels is not reality.

Likewise, when a person feels better or now believes they "can have super abilities", it's just thoughts. That's what the meter reacts to: Thoughts. Is it real? The emeter can never tell you.

You don't have to convince me. I've never suggested that psychogalvanometers were truth detectors.

What would you say to a person who thinks he or she has benefited, in some fashion, from the use of a meter to find an "item," that was then addressed?

 

[Bill]

You don't have to convince me. I've never suggested that psychogalvanometers were truth detectors.

What would you say to a person who thinks he or she has benefited, in some fashion, from the use of a meter to find an "item," that was then addressed?

Too general a question. But I will say that Scientology is all about convincing people to believe "something good happened".

 

[Bill]

Too general a question. But I will say that Scientology is all about convincing people to believe "something good happened".

This has led me to a nice summation of Scientology.

• What Scientology promises: Super human abilities
• What Scientology works to accomplish: The belief that something good happened.
• What Scientology actually delivers: Meaningless statuses: "Release", "Clear", "OT", "Patron Meritorious", "Planetary Humanitarian Excelsior", etc., etc.

 

[james087]

Soooo any strategies on convincing current Scientologist that they should leave without being immediately labeled a SP?

Assuming you all actually promote that kind of behavior.. it's definitely going to bring on some pain..

Now I really have become covert...

 

[Bill]

Soooo any strategies on convincing current Scientologist that they should leave without being immediately labeled a SP?

Assuming you all actually promote that kind of behavior.. it's definitely going to bring on some pain..

Now I really have become covert...

I wonder if the reverse attitude would work. Be very excited about all the promised results. Overly excited. "I can't wait to see all the amazing things an OT does!". "Tell me which amazing industry leaders are Scientologists!" And so on.

 

[Veda]

Too general a question. But I will say that Scientology is all about convincing people to believe "something good happened".

In your opinion, has anything authentically good ever happened to anyone because of some part of Scientology?

 

[james087]

In your opinion, has anything authentically good ever happened to anyone because of some part of Scientology?

I'm not Bill but I'll add my opinion. "good" is subjective. It's completely up to you what good is. I will dare borrow and twist what LRH said: "If it's good to you then it's good.. to you".

Truth on the other hand isn't subjective at all. The nerve of him saying "If it's true for you then it's true" that's like saying "so long as you believe it then it's true" Jesus.

The truth is

• What Scientology promises: Super human abilities
• What Scientology works to accomplish: The belief that something good happened.
• What Scientology actually delivers: Meaningless statuses: "Release", "Clear", "OT", "Patron Meritorious", "Planetary Humanitarian Excelsior", etc., etc.

How you feel about it is up to you.


Edit* I personally feel that everyone that quit drugs or learned how to read or tackled some 'real' childhood trauma were good things that happened to them because of some part of Scientology.

 

[Bill]

In your opinion, has anything authentically good ever happened to anyone because of some part of Scientology?

In my opinion, the bolded part is in question. Do people have good things happen while in Scientology? Yes. It is provably BECAUSE of Scientology? No, not provably. Possible? Sure. I think the Placebo Effect is the more likely answer for most Scientology "wins".

Are Scientologists better people than non-Scientologists? No. Scientology does not, demonstrably, make better people. In addition to all the normal troubles people have, Scientologists are burdened by poor thinking skills (ruined by Hubbard's "thinking") and bad "solutions" that they must use to remain "on Source".

 

[james087]

I wonder if Hubbard really believed he didn't have that 2nd wife. That's some high level denial either way. Holly @#$%.

 

[Xenu Xenu Xenu]

I wonder if Hubbard really believed he didn't have that 2nd wife. That's some high level denial either way. Holly @#$%.

 

[Harold#1]

Don't forget, he also "never had" a third child with the second wife he "never had":

L. Ron Hubbard holding his third child with his second wife, Sara. They named their baby Alexis.