See earlier Terra Cognita: Clear Schmear, Do Not Evaluate for the Preclear, The E-Meter, The Is-Ness of Is-Ness, Cause Over Life — Really?, BT’s in the Belfry, Two New Conditions!, The Condition of Liabilitiness, Condition of Doubtfulness The Mind, The Way To Happiness: Really? A Story, Auditing: a PC’s Quest for the Holy Grail, The Knowledge Report, Integrity, The Almighty Stat, The Reg, The Horrors of Wordclearing, Why Scientologists Don’t FSM, Respect, The Survival Rundown – The Latest Scam, Communication in Scientology… Or Not, Am I Still A Thetan?, To Be Or Not To Be, An Evaluation of Scientology, Fear: That Which Drives Scientology and Justification and Rationalization.
Almighty Intention
The Communication Course was one of the best courses I ever did in Scientology. It was also the first course where I was introduced to the importance of intention. With enough of it, I could do just about anything.
In no time, I was delivering my lines with meaning and purpose! “Do fish swim?” “Do birds fly?” or “Off with their heads!” from Alice in Wonderland.
Intention was an integral component of LRH’s Comm Formula (Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention, Attention and Duplication with Understanding) and he defined the word as: “…the command factor as much as anything else. If you intend something to happen it happens if you intend it to happen. Verbalization is not the intention. The intention is the carrier wave which takes the verbalization along with it.”
I wasn’t exactly sure what a “carrier wave” was, and the “verbalization” part was a little vague but I got the difference between asking a question, delivering a command, and making a comment. My twin and I rarely, if ever, had problems understanding each other. That was never a situation. To me, at least.
Our supervisor on the other hand would regularly flunk us for not delivering lines with enough intention. It wasn’t enough to simply say, “Birds of a feather flock together,” and be heard. One had to say the line with INTENTION. Sometimes our Sup “got” our intention; sometimes he didn’t. I would “intend” for my twin to “get” the line; would deliver it; and my twin would acknowledge that it’d been received. Seemed pretty straight forward. Apparently, not.
More Intention
Shortly after Student Hat and HQS, I routed onto the Hubbard Standard Dianetics Course—the HSDC—where I was exposed to the heightened importance of delivering lines with even greater intention. In order to get needle reads on a meter, I needed to up my game. And my intention. I needed to “deliver” my lines so that they impinged on my PC’s bank—his reactive mind.
If I didn’t get reads, it wasn’t because there weren’t charged items, it was because my TR1 was out and I wasn’t delivering my lines with sufficient intention. Even though my PC easily heard what I said, somehow the “intention” hadn’t gotten through and impinged on his reactive mind. At least, that was the theory according to LRH and my sup.
By this time, I’d learned that thetans not only lacked matter, energy, space, or time, but that they were all-knowing, faster than light, and more powerful than a speeding locomotive. If this was true, and my PC heard the command, and his Bank was full of charged items, why wasn’t the meter going crazy with reads? Not only did this phenomena of only getting sporadic reads happen with me as the auditor, it happened with me as the PC.
And not only did these occur in the sessions I was part of, they happened frequently with other auditors and PCs, too. Was everybody else’s intention as poor as mine? Evidently few in the church could deliver their lines so as to insure consistent needle reads. Maybe it had to do with a rash of weak carrier waves.
Was my auditor supposed to shock me out of some sort of metaphysical complacency with superior vocal impingement? Were his questions expected to breach a kind of ethereal barrier between “me” and my “bank?”
Having lived for quadrillions of years, I and everyone else in the org should have had hundreds of times that many reading incidents. I was taught my “confront level” was too low to access any but a few.
Training
One of the biggest arbitraries in Scientology tech is what constitutes good intention. Some sups get it much easier than others. If a line is delivered well and everyone heard it, fine. We can all move on. Some sups, on the other hand, flunk students for what they consider the slightest drop in perceived intention, whether they got the line or not. What constitutes proper intention is widely subjective.
Often, supervisors would demand more emphasis on the last syllable of the last word of a question or command, the idea being to really “punch” the message through. This led to even more bizarre and artificial delivery of lines.
I never had to submit a video to a C/S in order to pass metering drills, but heard many horror stories from those who did. One such person at Flag was flunked on their first submission and passed on their second—both times having submitted exactly the same video.
Humanity
Because the subject of intention is so subjective, and because needle reads are so scarce relative to the number of supposed incidents in the reactive mind, I believe much of the empathy and kindness gets drilled out of students studying to become auditors.
This isn’t to say good auditors don’t exist and people haven’t had fabulous wins in session. But all too often, in an attempt to convey intention, auditors come across as rigid and robotic.
Auditing by LRH
I’m not a fan of everything LRH did, but have you ever listened to him audit people in his early seminars? He was light, warm, and almost casual with his subjects—almost the polar opposite of today’s auditors. He actually talked to his PC’s. For him, verbalization wasn’t the intention.
Sure, he Q and A’ed, and wasn’t always the perfect auditor by today’s standards, but he communicated to his subjects without pretense and without relying on verbal tricks. He was friendly and treated his subjects as if they weren’t just another number sitting in a crowded waiting room.
LRH didn’t exaggerate his lines by trying to impinge on his PC’s bank; he just talked to them.
Intention and the Machine
The insistence that questions be asked with ungodly intention in order to get suspect reads on a suspect machine is poor therapy and is one of the reasons why auditing fails and people leave the church.
All my auditors were good people who wanted me to improve. Without exception, though, they operated as if they were afraid to communicate naturally. To just talk to me. That if they deviated from a tightly-controlled methodology, not only wouldn’t I get the gains I’d been promised, but they would be severely disciplined.
This affected method of auditing was further reinforced by the installation of video cameras at advanced orgs. Big Brother was now watching and recording every command, question, and manipulation of the meter, and the “almighty read” had become more important than the PC. Much of the compassion was lost.
Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita
Marildi, in response to your 11/23, 2:56 pm post asking me about where I’d spelled out exactly which foundational concepts and methods that I believed that Elron had misappropriated, please see my 11/20, 8:26 post to this thread for details.
This blog format for ongoing discussion makes it very hard to keep track of ongoing conversations, so, like I said before, please feel free to point out to me if I’ve failed to respond to a comment or counter-argument that you’d made to one of my posts.
Btw, if you don’t mind my asking, are you still active as an indie auditor and do you continue to solo audit on the OT levels?
please feel free to point out to me if I’ve failed to respond to a comment
Please don’t. If you guys want to carry on an extended discussion I will be happy to give each of you the other’s email address.
Sorry, seemed like an important topic worth going into. I wasn’t taking Marildi’s comments as offensive, insincere or off-topic, so…
HF, we obviously need to end off on this topic, but for future reference you should request email notifications so that you can easily see when you get a reply to a comment and exactly what it was in reply to. In the above comment, you wrote “in response to your 11/23, 2:56 pm post asking me about where I’d spelled out exactly which foundational concepts…” – but that was not what I asked, and this is a continuation of confusion on your part.
You probably know how to get notifications, but in case you don’t, just click on the little box where it says “Notify me of new comments via email,” which is right below where you type in your comment. Do this when you post your first comment on a thread.
Cheers.
Thanks M., I just enabled the “notify me…” function, so that should make things much easier for me to stay on top of.
I’m at a bit of a loss here in understanding what the concern is over continuing a discussion that is both civil and, imo, of fundamental importance in deconstructing $cn at a foundational level, but I’ll respect Mike’s wishes here.
Let’s continue this discussion as the occasion may arise in relation to future blog topic, shall we? I did my best to spell out two major uncredited sources that Elron misappropriated and folded into $cn as if they his own. I could easily have gone on there to include quite a few more, but that would have made my already TL;DR post even longer. In the meantime, I’ll re-work my argument and see if I can make it more concise and easily understandable.
Best wishes to all on this Thanksgiving Day
Ok, I’ll see you “up the line.” 🙂
Happy Thanksgiving to you too, and Mike and everybody here.
In answer to the endless refrain of “Elron failed to credit his sources”, SO WHAT? Hundreds of people participated in the trial and error of developing the scn processes. Hundreds of footnotes all over the place would just be a distraction to training lay people to audit and apply what seemed to work, particularly on the lower levels. Training average people to audit was not intended to be a college education in philosophy and psychology.
The easy, simple and comprehensive answer to Elron putting his name on the bottom of everything was copyright protection. The law respects intellectual property rights. Without debating what does or doesn’t work in scn, a huge amount of time and effort went into developing and presenting “The Bridge”. In the pre internet days anyone using scn materials verbatim outside of the cherch would get a legal notice to cease and desist and that would shut them down.
“In answer to the endless refrain of “Elron failed to credit his sources”, SO WHAT?”
Well, it WOULD help is separating known good sources (wheat) material from known sociopath sourced (LRH chaff) material.
Most but certainly not all people entering scn previously or currently had or have little or no background in science, religion or philosophy. It’s a first shot thing for most people, myself included, who are persuing personal or utopian goals or a combination therof.
The public perception of people who previously or currently persue anything related to scn in any venue is that they are total fools. In hindsight which is now easy, I would say I lacked critical thinking skills, *my own* lack of ability to separate the wheat from the chaff. But of course at that time many years ago I had no basis for comparison. That still doesn’t negate benefits gained.
Must everyone delete their scn participation from public inspection?
Well, anyone CURRENTLY pursuing scientology is certainly looked upon as a fool by the VAST majority of people in the developed world as the truth of the subject is NOW well known and available on the internet.
“Most but certainly not all people entering scn previously or currently had or have little or no background in science, religion or philosophy. It’s a first shot thing for most people, myself included, who are persuing personal or utopian goals or a combination therof.”
I agree completely, and that was my experience as well. But that’s one of the best reasons why it’s important for any intellectually honest writer to give credit to the sources that he uses as a foundation for his theory, model of the mind, system of counseling, etc.. As I explained in detail earlier, Elron misappropriated most of the crucial foundational constructs of his theory of mind and counseling techniques from others without giving them direct correct and renamed them in ways that added no additional clarity or significant insight. If you don’t have the educational background to understand that much of Dn and Scn is based on Roger’s person-centered therapy model and Freud’s theory of the unconscious, then you’re going to buy his fast line of BS about having come up with something miraculous and brand new, which is exactly what many young folks like myself did at the time we got into the cult.
If you credit Elron for the very important work that he actually stole from others, then the credit for the efficacy of their counseling models become associated with Dn and Scn, and the authoritative status he gained from that rip off aided him immensely in selling folks the space opera gibberish that WAS his original, but ineffective contributions to the upper bridge.
HF: “As I explained in detail earlier, Elron misappropriated most of the crucial foundational constructs of his theory of mind and counseling techniques from others without giving them direct correct and renamed them in ways that added no additional clarity or significant insight.”
A counter-argument to the above was give by My 2 Cents in two posts of this thread:
here https://www.mikerindersblog.org/intention/#comment-151484 and here https://www.mikerindersblog.org/intention/#comment-151603
You never responded to either of those comments and in another post on this thread, you wrote the following:
“FP, why not point out where I’m in err, or where my logic falls apart . . .? I’m completely willing to consider your well-reasoned counter-argument.” https://www.mikerindersblog.org/intention/#comment-151681
You seem to only want to keep repeating the same talking points over and over – most of which are little more than assertions. This includes the points that My 2 Cents countered in the two comments linked above, which you never responded to. Why not?
Hi Miraldi – People on blogs express a diversity of viewpoints. I’ve found for myself that my viewpoints change over time in small increments as I assimilate other peoples viewpoints. This is beneficial to me.
Hi, NotClear2me. What you say is totally fine. My comment to Harpoona Frittata was just that he claimed to be “completely willing to consider a well-reasoned counter-argument,” but when My 2 Cents responded more than once (twice on this thread alone) with a counter-argument to something HP keeps asserting, he continued to assert it and gave no reply to My 2 Cents – no indication that he had considered the counter-argument at all.
Marildi, actually I did respond to the comments that M2C made in my 11/21 post that I made at 2:34 pm, but I mistakenly addressed it to FP instead of M2C. I added a note shortly thereafter to correct that error, but I can easily see how you might have missed it.
This blog discussion format is not the best for keeping track of ongoing and extended conversations, but I do try to keep track of those that take place over days and among a number of different responders. So, please do continue to remind me if I’ve failed to respond to your comments or anyone elses as well. I appreciate it.
If after you’ve read my 11/21, 2:34 post you still feel that I haven’t fully addressed the points that M2C made, then please let me know, k?
HP, in that post of 11/21 at 2:34, there is nothing on the subject of what you called LRH’s “misappropriation of most of the crucial foundational constructs” – which was what I was specifically talking about in my comment above and even quoted you on at the beginning of it.
So far at least, neither have you responded to my own reply to you, in response to another comment you made regarding LRH’s so-called “misappropriation” having to do with the “carrier wave” and “force” of intention: https://www.mikerindersblog.org/intention/#comment-151695
Who cares? Can you get into present time and end this back and forth that nobody in the world could care less about?
Some of your readers might care about such things, Mike – especially if they are on the fence about Hubbard and the CoS but still think the tech does a lot of good. As I’ve said, I think this kind of discussion contributes to your cause too, as it shows that not everybody outside of the church completely disses LRH and the tech.
In any case, sorry to have annoyed you, and I appreciate you allowing as much as you did.
Yes indeed! Good old intention. While listening to the PDC tapes in 1971, Hubbard mentioned his ‘good friend’ Aleister Crowley, and recommended Crowley’s book: Magic in Theory and Practice (1925). I went out and got a copy and was surprised to find just how much Hubbard had ‘lifted’ from Crowley. For example:
“”Definition: Magick is the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.
Postulate: ANY required Change may be effected by the application of the proper kind and degree of Force in the proper manner through the proper medium to the proper object.
Theorems
1. Every intentional act is a Magical Act.
2. Every successful act has conformed to the postulate
3. Every failure proves that one or more requirements of the postulate have not been fulfilled.
4. The first requisite for causing any change is through qualitative and quantitative understanding of the condition
5. The second requisite for causing any change is the practical ability to set in right motion the necessary forces.
6. Every man and every woman is a star.
7. Every man and every woman has a course, depending partly on the self, and partly on the environment which is natural and necessary for each. Anyone who is forced from his own course, either through not understanding himself, or through external opposition, comes into conflict with the order of the Universe, and suffers accordingly.
8. A Man whose conscious will is at odds with his True Will is wasting his strength. He cannot hope to influence his environment efficiently.
.
And on though…
28.””
And supposedly Crowley, from the east coast, wrote Parsons in Pasadena, to beware of Hubbard who he viewed as a loose cannon ball.
IMO Crowley and Hubbard tried to make a Maker of Games, able to change the physical universe by the use of Will and Intention. They fell short for numerous reasons.
Another Story:
With sixteen I recieved my Life repair. And in one of those sessions some overwhelming pictures came up that I couldn’t understand the meaning of and for 35 years I tried to understand those pictures and tried to discuss it in my auditing or have the processes on them to resolve the worries connected to those pictures.
Even after new OT4 it wasn’t resolved and I still worried about it. The problem was I wasn’t aloud to discuss it outside of sessions and the auditors had their C/ses and rules and were only interested in getting me to a fn, which never was a problem, but nobody wanted to discuss the subject….It cost me 100deds of hours and years of worries……
5 years ago, in desperation, I called a client that knew about me having been a Scientologist, as we were discussing it to help her, because she was cheated in some business with scientologists.
I asked her if she got some time to help as I was in desperation. In a evening I told her my whole story in Scientology ( the first time I told it to a wog).
The Only question she had about the weird pictures I had as a 16 Year old was: ” But, was there nobody you could talk about and discuss it ?”
Wow ! i was in shock and realized that I wasn’t aloud to discuss it with anybody, only if I pay some money for sessions and there I could only discuss it the way that is given by the rules.
What a fool I’ve been for 35 years !
So we discussed those weird pictures until there was a a logic and natural explanation to it and I could resolve the worries about it. It didn’t cost me one cent…
And it was a shock for me to realize what a robot I was and how I was sold of having problems that didn’t exist……
No intention of any auditor ever helped as mostly they were robots bound by their rules……
5 years ago I was invited by a Technology Company to hear short speeches of about 15 Minutes each, where they presented new ideas and products in IT.
One guy came onto the stage, he was very shy, no confronting of the public, no presence at all and no intention.
As an arrogant asshole I was, I immediately evaluated the guy and the company as having no clue about Pr, Stage manner and all this nonsense we learned from hubbard….
But then the guy started to talk with a very mumbling voice and fortunately he had a mike so we could hear him and he had a powerpoint presentation.
The room was totally silent and listening to him as in those 15 Minutes he gave condensed Informations that were so valuable and interesting and giving new perspectives for new business that nobody cared about that he behaved like an idiot on stage.
Honestly, I was quite confused about the nonsense I learned about communication, presence etc…. And I d the feeling of having been a snake oil salesman in the past when acting on stages and making a fool of myself when giving lectures about Scientology….
Since then I don’t evaluate people anymore about their skills of communication and just listen to them when they are talking…..
Intention, tr1, confronting, obnosis, and whatever we learned complicates the interchange with people very much and mostly the purpose of those techniques is only to manipulate…..
I learned that quite a lots of wogs feel free to talk about any subject when they like you and can show their real emotions and feelings without any reservation…
Yep, humility! Standing O. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hip hip!!!!
Your are officially out. Humility and Scientology do not exist in the same breath.
Thank you Roger. You are a mensch!!
I’ve very well observed similar errors in Hubbard’s techs and déclarations and their application to pcs and students. As a C/.S, I was not after “intention” from the auditor when looking a session’s video, they were already so many other things to see in lower auditing levels, and I never kept any video except to show it to THAT auditor in order he could see himself his own errors.
To resume scientology and Hubbard, it became very clear for anybody not blind, that scn et lrh were after power, money, and “I’m always and shall always be right”.
Intention.
Like that has not been around since the beginning of time..with all living creatures?
Lion – “I intend to eat today”
Bird – “I intend to build a nest for my eggs”
L Ron put significance into “Intention” – like he invented it. EVERY live thing intends all the time.
L Ron was the modern day – Wizzard of OZ – making life solutions very complicated, convoluted and impossible to have….and then $elling the $olution with no money back guarantees.
Check it out –
A flower waltzes by a stress test. “A Scientologist says “heh, come over here – let’s find out if you are stressed”. Flower sits down. “Grab the cans” says the Scientologist.
“CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER” .the flower grabs the cans.
Scientolgist: “What or who is causing you stress in your life” and then points to the E-Meter while he yells out – THAT – right there! What was that?
Flower, very curious now about this “meter” …and taking the bait…says…”well, I have not had any water for a while…and I am thirsty”
The Scientology says – “Well, what is going to happen if you don’t get any water?”
The flower says – “I WILL DIE”. The Scientologist takes the cans out of the flowers grip and sets them down on the table now in control…
Then…with that insouciant certainty waxing from the Scientologist – he stares the flower in the face, hands him the book Dianetic’s and says “Well, we have the solution to that problem – have you read Dianetic’s – the Modern Science of Finding Water”?
..and the mind fuck begins.
The Flower (already having available WATER for free everywhere) begins the mind shattering mind fuck of Scientology…in search of water. The Flower gives up his family, his dreams, his goals and all of his resources in search of finding water through Scientology….but he never gets any cuz those damn SP’s keep fucking things up!
Scientology exploits people like the Wizzard did to Dorothy on the ‘Wizzard of OZ’
We all have everything we need…just click your heels and believe in yourself.
Idle Morgue, that was well written. Great metaphor.
“…if you intend something to happen it happens if you intend it to happen…”
“Intention” is merely me wanting something plus my plan to get it. Intention is no substitute for skillfulness and knowledge. Without those things “intention” can steer you into a ditch. Clinical studies have shown us what we have observed countless times for ourselves: good intentions paved the way to hell! The evidence is clear. INTENTION does not possess supernatural properties but is only part of a well-balanced meal.
The above quote is hot air.
oh god, intention, sounds like postulate that hubbard tried to achieve to tell us to think we could postulate anything, that would be the carrot of going “OT”, that we all could achieve, and he hisself told Sarge he failed in the end. LOL
And he wasn’t coming back, LOL
Sea Org motto, we come back. LOL (do we have evidence of LRH signing a SO contract for a billion years?)
Why on earth would one need “intention” as an auditor to get a meter to read? LOL
If one were to believe hubbard’s “carrier wave” theory, and fall into that trap, why it sounds science like. LOL
Somebody bring me up to date on particle accelerators and maybe hubbards wave theory aligns. LOL
Logic Alert! Logic Alert!
Nicely said UTR
This is going to be a first for me – actually not criticizing a Terra article too much as some parts of it I actually agree with!
So, yes I do believe as does Terra that (hopefully only some) auditors now in the Church have indeed become robotic and this is mostly to do with them picking up the WRONG ideas from their predecessors. I mentioned this concept before with Miscavige’s “blind leading the blind” theory, but the only thing is, is that the wrong ideas were already embedded in some parts of auditor (and other) training, starting around 1982-3. It was probably false data picked up from the awful Mission Holder’s conference where such an attitude prevailed and perpetuated since then. Surely it is obvious that one can be warm and ARCful and still get your TR1 in? But apparently as Terra implies this is not now the case with some Church auditors who have for some strange and received reason, separated the two factors. I get the feeling that it is now considered to be cool to be nastily aggressive as an auditor. A friend of mine told me (after I had left staff) that such had occurred with him in session with a Flag-trained auditor and I told him what I would have done in response. This adopted (nasty) auditor attitude has obviously been “exported” from Flag. It is also more or less the same (shit) with supervisor training.
As to Terra’s ideas about having millions of incidents ready to be revealed as reads on the meter, this is covered in “An auditor and the mind’s protection”, which is as I recall from my Dianetic course, is summarized in one of the HCOBs on the course, as well as being a chapter in DMSMH.
As to the subjective estimation of TR1, if one has understood the quite simple explanation by LRH on this, there is no problem. I don’t see what Terra’s problem is with the term “carrier wave” either – it is quite a straightforward concept. I had good supervisors drilling me on this until I understood and carried out the action properly. It was quite a tangible physical universe thing, not nebulous or esoteric at all. Did you deliver the command/question properly and did the PC receive it? The irony here is that now sups have been infected with the WRONG ideas like a virus of nastiness that has infected the whole of auditor training – but when sups drilled me before all this started I could see what they meant and saw the better results when I did what they and the materials stated. Of course it is a somewhat subjective thing but where do you draw the line? You draw the line on what gets better results with the PC. Simple as that. And if your TR1 sent the command over the PC’s left shoulder and into the wild blue yonder then it ain’t gonna work! It’s not hard, just needs good practicing. It’s also not going to work if the auditor is aggressive and/or shouting of course, which is partly Terra’s (legitimate and correct) complaint.
Lastly this thing on the emphasis on getting correct reads is more or less correct, but nevertheless in the current Church is being used now as a way to bash auditors, it seems. If someone who has been auditing in the HGC for years successfully but happens to miss one read then, yes it is not ok, but to hang, draw and quarter the auditor because of this is also not ok. In my Org we treated our auditors with respect and with the realization that they don’t intend to miss a read – and handled them appropriately. I get the feeling (and it is only a feeling admittedly) that some Execs nowadays, are looking for any excuse to do auditors in that they for some weird and “personal” reason of their own (the auditors probably won’t be so “compliant” as other staff for instance), tend to come down like a ton of bricks on such misdemeanors. LRH gave the handlings for this in many HCOBs on auditor training/Cramming etc. but it doesn’t include the virtual tarring and feathering of the auditors.
“If someone who has been auditing in the HGC for years successfully but happens to miss one read then, yes it is not ok, but to hang, draw and quarter the auditor because of this is also not ok. … I get the feeling … that some Execs nowadays, are looking for any excuse to do auditors in that they for some weird and “personal” reason of their own”
How about shaming and screaming at the person in front of their peers THEN chucking them into frigid water from a ship for making a mistake like that. The way old Hubb’s did?
Well, a Class 8 (on the ship then) is simply a higher standard. Sorry (not really) to pour cold (sea) water on your rant.
I happen to agree with you on that. I’ve lived in a number of organised & regimented organisations and without doubt Scientology produced the worst assholes of execs I’ve ever encountered. The organisational structure as it really is in the church allows so called execs to quickly master the “talk the talk” and appear knowledgeable but are in fact just lying to everyone, especially themselves. I had no time for Scientology execs at the best of times, now I really don’t like system that allows and endorses such assholes.
Think what you like about the tech but the humble auditor is systematically punished for simply doing their job and their desire to help is fed off from above. It’s just too easy to invalidate.& justify the execs existence so they “find” the mistakes.
Agreed Yawn. Most of the exec and management structure rode on the backs of the auditors. Even LRH was guilty of that. His disdain for them was manifested when he was out of the public eye as I noted above. Why else freed beans and rice to the most valuable people on the planet?
One more nail in the coffin. They *have to* be seen to be “making it better”. Good isn’t good enough. Back in the 60s/70s, I cannot recall more than one session in which I didn’t “get” the auditor’s intention. And the meter read, then read again as I narrowed down my thoughts until I got the item. It worked. No big deal. No enforced commands. But Miscavige, in his intent to outdo Hubbard, began fiddling with things. This attitude has carried down the line, each new person wanting to outdo anyone else, lest they be pointed out as not getting it.
In truth, this will simply speed the downhill run the czerch is currently experiencing. Not such a bad thing.
FP wrote, ” I don’t see what Terra’s problem is with the term “carrier wave” either – it is quite a straightforward concept. I had good supervisors drilling me on this until I understood and carried out the action properly. It was quite a tangible physical universe thing, not nebulous or esoteric at all.”
The term “carrier wave” is a straightforward concept, but only as it has been developed within the field of physics, where different kinds of actual waves – acoustic, electromagnetic, etc. – can be detected, measured and determined to have specific properties. For example, spoken words propagate through our earth’s atmosphere (and less well even under water) on acoustic sound waves that can actually be measured and visualized as real things that always demonstrate the same properties. Out in deep space, where there’s no atmosphere through which sound waves can propagate, you could make your articulatory speech mechanism muscles work, but there is nothing to carry sound anywhere.
In $cn, intention is conceptualized as something that emanates from an individual, but is understood to be different from articulated speech itself. So, if it isn’t carried by the same kind of acoustic wave propagation physical means that speech depends on, what “carrier wave” does it use? That’s not specified in the $cn theory because then Elron would have been hypothesizing the existence of something that actually does fall in the realm of science to test and evaluate.
So, the term “carrier wave” is a metaphor that shouldn’t be incorrectly understood to refer to anything real in any kind of physical sense. As soon as you mistakenly take it for something real, then difficulties rapidly ensue. Chief among them, imo, is the implication that the causal efficacy of your specific intention depends on something like their degree of intensity or focus, In reality, unless you threaten or coerce the person that your intending to do what you want, your success depends on them as much as you. In other words, intention has no carrier wave, but instead depends on a mutually shared state of mind between auditor and PC for it to be effective and it is a dynamic, two-way phenomena, NOT a one-way flow at all.
Intention is NOT a “tangible, physical universe thing” because if it were we could detect it, measure it and understand its properties and dynamic principles of operation. It’s great that your academy supes trained you in a way that enabled you to be effective as an auditor in helping people, but whatever they did to shape and correct your auditing skills had nothing to do with their ability to detect and coach you on your intentional skills as they’re “transmitted” on some sort of non-acoustic carrier wave. Words carry meaning and intent; non-verbal gestures convey meaning and intent; but the word “intention” is just an abstraction that generalizes across all the different specific desired outcomes, directions, commands, states of mind, etc. that exist; it isn’t a “thing” in the same sense that actual carrier waves can be defined and understood via physics are.
Harpoona destroys yet another L Con lie.
If you think that all that hot air and blather about nothing destroyed anything apart from the reputation of its author then good luck to you – you need it.
LMAO!
FP, why not point out where I’m in err, or where my logic falls apart, instead of doing the ad hom thing? I’m completely willing to consider your well-reasoned counter-argument. I wasn’t disagreeing with what you said in order to make you feel small and stupid; I did so to deconstruct an approach to theory building that Elron used over and over again which is pretty obviously bogus once you see what he was up to.
Most generally, Elron was all about giving Dn and $cn the patina of scientific authority, while assiduously steering clear of actually using the scientific method or attempting to integrate his work with any of the established fields of science that existed at the time he developed his theory and counseling model. He often did so by misappropriating terms, such as “carrier wave” and “force,” which can be detected, measured and manipulated, based on proven laws of physics, and used them in combination with abstract concepts, like “intention,” to try and put the science in scientology. But as soon as you ask, for example, “What’s is the carrier wave frequency or properties” then it all falls apart in a heap on the floor.
Personal attacks are evidence of a bankruptcy of ideas.
Attacking people is what Ron did. Ron dealt with those who disagreed with him by making them into demons.
Foolproof, I just have to say, you attack people. I agree with Harpoona. Just counter ideas with ideas.
If you think Scientology is the “only way” then you must also agree with the concept that critics are bad people.
Foolproof, you do not need to attack people to get your thoughts across.
Attacking people is a bad Scientology habit. It is how Ron dealt with disagreement: destroy them.
Just share your thoughts. And expect that others will have different thoughts.
How we communicate with each other is more important than the subject in that communication.
You consider yourself highly trained Scientologist, but your quality of communication does not support that assumption.
You’ve been rude to so many people here. Don’t take it all so serious. Just share your thoughts about how Scientology works for you.
HF: You state that LRH was “misappropriating terms, such as ‘carrier wave’ and ‘force,’ which can be detected, measured and manipulated, based on proven laws of physics, and used them in combination with abstract concepts, like ‘intention,’ to try and put the science in scientology.”
In FOT, LRH wrote that “mental energy is simply a finer, higher level physical energy.” That statement, including what was stated about intention, has basically been demonstrated by many scientific studies. Here’s an excerpt from an article titled “Mind over Matter: Princeton & Russian Scientist Reveal the Secrets Of Human Aura & INTENTIONS” [my caps for emphasis on the word INTENTIONS]:
——————————
“Dr. Konstantin Korotkov, professor of physics at St. Petersburg State Technical University, states that when we think positive and negative thoughts, each have a different impact on our surrounding environment.
“’We are developing the idea that our consciousness is part of the material world and that with our consciousness we can directly influence our world,’ said Dr. Konstantin Korotkov.”
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/09/05/mind-over-matter-princeton-russian-scientist-reveal-the-secrets-of-human-aura-intentions/
——————————-
The following is from another article about experiments using Random Number Generators (RNGs):
——————————-
“RNGs are systems created by Princeton researchers that are sensitive to and respond to the INTENTIONS [my caps] of individuals, in other words, the influence of consciousness. They also respond to marked shifts in attention occurring in their environment. Peaks of order are commonly recorded during moments of shared attention and emotions.
“RNGs also responded, and had the largest effects ever recorded by the Global Consciousness Project during major world events, like 9/11. Other large recordings have occurred on presidential inaugurations, tsunamis and the deaths of public figures. These findings stirred deep questions about the nature of consciousness and it’s connection to our physical material reality.”
http://www.collective-evolution.com/2014/03/08/10-scientific-studies-that-prove-consciousness-can-alter-our-physical-material-world/
——————————–
The excerpt quoted above is from an article titled “SCIENCE PROVES THAT HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS AND OUR MATERIAL WORLD ARE INTERTWINED.”
The above excerpts, from two different articles, give some of the scientific evidence that intention is not an “abstract concept” and indicate that intention is indeed a “carrier wave” and actual “force.” There are many other articles along the same lines, which you can easily find with a Google search.
The entire field of psi research is very interesting indeed and it is one that I was very interested in and followed closely about 25 years ago, but I’m not current at all now. So, I’m certainly not one to dismiss it out of hand. However, since any fully documented and successfully replicated experimental results demonstrating telepathy, telekinesis, etc. would pretty earth-shattering in the field of physics, there’s a pretty high bar of proof required there which, last time that I checked, hadn’t been met.
I’ll read up on the refs.that you linked and perhaps we can have that more general discussion at some point in the future. For now, though, let’s focus in on Hubbard’s claims here and I’ll expand a little on my “this ain’t science, you idiot!” commentary regarding them.
You quoted Elron here, from his FOT: “mental energy is simply a finer, higher level physical energy.” He’s stated this as a fact, rather as a hypothesis. As such, it’s has the weight or mere assertion anywhere except in sciento-land. It’s an interesting possibility, but he gives it the weight of scientific fact, then goes on to elaborate a whole cosmology around it.
Back in the 50’s, when little was know about how brain enables mind, there wasn’t a whole of empirical research that closely linked changes at the neurophysiological level of brain with sensory perception, short term memory,, long term memory, emotion, attention, etc., but now there is. So, the fact that $cn never circled back to reconcile its theoretical foundation with modern emprical neuroscience has left it pretty much in the same dark place that it started in way back in the 50’s.
Given how much that is now known about the relationship between brain and mind in relationship to abstract thought and every other form of mental process as well, there’s no need to make untestable hypothesis in order to make further progress in our scientific understanding, much less to base an entire cosmology on a system of assertions that has avoided subjecting its claims to experimental verification.
Please just end this back and forth. I don’t want to have to read it any more.
The key to success as an auditor, in my opinion, is to have genuine empathy. This concept is diametrically opposed the ethos of the Sea Org. They have somehow confused sympathy (bad) with empathy (good), so much so that they are unable to differentiate between the two.
This is particularly evident in the RTC. They are cold, ruthless, Terminator-like. Not the type of person to train empathetic auditors.
No one has contributed more to the destruction of Scn (as a movement or an applied philosophy) as the Sea Org.
Ironically, the very organization assigned to protect the subject, is responsible for its destruction.
Can’t disagree. But it is what they have become infected with is the real problem.
Because the org was filled with L Con trained OTs. That is the only common denominator amongst that group.
In my final week in the SO before I was found to be HIV positive and sent off to to die I was on course finishing my OEC Vol 0. The RTC Rep came into the course room and saw someone doping off. She said: Straass, find his MU” “Yes sir.” I started working with the guy and about 30 seconds later the RTC Rep said : Did you find the MU yet? I said “No sir, but I will”. “You better”. About 15 seconds later I “found” the word. Probably what really happened is that the guy, knowing we were both TOAST if he didn’t come up with an MU fast, just told me a word that he said he did not understand. So the RTC Reps “hard cold chrome steel intention did not make me a better word clearer or make him a better student. It just made us better liars. I used to do this myself when being endlessly word cleared to no result. My falling asleep could have been from a misunderstood, but more likely it was from lack of sleep or from the fact that I had sleep apnea which causes me to stop breathing seventy times per hour when I would sleep at night which would cause anyone to fall asleep during the day or even maybe it was because I was slowly dying of AIDS almost the entire time I was on the ship. These conditions all have solutions but finding MU’s is not one of them.
My point is that duress in training and auditing do not make people cognite; it makes them stupid.
Now this does not mean that all duress is bad. There is such a thing as a “raised necessity level”. Shortly after the Starlight Cabaret was renovated in 1992 just before Maiden Voyage I was called up there. I went in and DM said ” What is that noise? An air conditioning suction ducting had been installed over the podium to draw away the extra heat generated by the event lighting. The ducting was making noise which could only be caused by a leak in the duct. But because it was a suction duct, the air was going into the duct, not leaking out, and finding the leak would not be easy. I said to DM “I don’t know what it is sir but I am going to handle it right now.” I went back to the Engine Room and by the time I got there I had decided what to do. I got some spray foam the vents engineer uses to insulate ducts and I just started spraying it on the area of the sound. Suddenly the noise stopped as I had sprayed the foam on the outside of the leak and the suction had sucked the foam into the leak, blocking it.
Now I did not come up with a solution while talking to DM. At that time I had no fucking idea what to do, I just knew that I only had minutes to pull it off. A PC will never cognite if the auditor puts any duress on the PC’s lines. I just realized that one of the main reasons I was successful on my post is that I worked almost totally unsupervised. I was not perfect, I occasionally made mistakes but I saw and handled them before anyone else noticed them. This may have given the appearance that I did not make mistakes, but I did.
One problem with this is that 5 years after I left they had not yet found someone to replace me on my post. That means they were coping for 5 years (or more, for all I know there may still be nobody on the post). Part of the reason is that, being unsupervised for 16 years, no one person knew what I did. I did a hat writeup after I left, but that is no substitute for a being who will be the “post title”.
I have a number of considerations about this. There is too much to state here, except that it was completely unnecessary. There was no real reason why I had to leave my post. There are effective treatments for AIDS (and this was known before I left the ship). I am thankful though for the callous disregard of common decency, the lies told the amount of counter- intention to my remaining alive ( and I do not say this lightly as these were my friends, and some would still be, except the Security Clearance I/C OSA WUS informed me that “Ex SO members do not have friends”. Anywhere. Ever. I don’t give a fuck ( I trust Mr Rinder will censor any language that crosses the line, I am just writing what I think) what they may have done to me but they put my wife through hell for 6 months and there was no reason for that other than ever purps on the part of someone. Since we are talking about intention in this post, it is not only enough intention, but pro-survival and contra-survival intention.
My experience:
Intention is not words or how to get across sound to the preclear. First you have to communicate to the preclear. The person himself. Thetan or soul. Then intention is not that you want to make an effect on the other end of the line. Most people think that having intention is to make an effect on the outside world. Like the preclear. Or if they try to lift the ashtray, on the part of the ashtray. That is all wrong.
Intention, to intend, is only on the side of the person having that intention. It is so easy as concept that most of the people make it wrong. If you want something, intend something you have to intend it. It is in your universe. If you do not intend it yourself then nothing happens. If you feel not comfortable to intend it, but you have to, then you cannot make any effect. The creation of the effect on the other side is only with you, within your universe. If you have some sort of withholding, then you do not intend, you cannot. You are withholding.
The most important factor with intention is “freedom”. Intention is not overwhelming someone. If you want to overwhelm someone that is not intention. Intention is that you want it but the other side has the freedom to decide to be effect or not of your intention.
Therefore Scientology cannot win these days. They forgot the top principle of Scientology. Self Determinism. Scientologists think that Self Determinism is on your side and all others in this universe are other determined. That does not work out well. Even if you are Super OT and Super Tone 40, it only works if you grant the other side Self Determinism.
Listen to PDC tape lectures. It is all in there.
Or…go down the rabbit hole all the way and truly free yourself from this mind numbing nonsense.
This is an amazing thread. Everyone (except Wynski of course) is basically saying that they experienced good results in Scientology when their auditors were high-toned, and bad results when their auditors were low-toned. So, if we could eliminate those factors that make or keep auditors low-toned, we might have something worth doing.
Re intention, auditors’ statements to their pc’s must be heard and understood, but that’s not enough. Good auditing is a relaxed conversation between friends, but in the context of the pc trusting the auditor enough to allow him to lightly control the conversation. And the pc’s willingness to be controlled is proportional to the affinity, understanding, and empathy of the auditor. Those factors form the “carrier wave” that allows his intention to get through to and be accepted by the pc.
The Church is dying because DM has no real affinity, understanding, or empathy for other people, and therefore can control people only through fear.
” So, if we could eliminate those factors that make or keep auditors low-toned, we might have something worth doing.”
We might indeed, but I’m not so sure the credit there should go to anything unique to $cn. As I mentioned earlier on this thread, and on several previous threads as well, $cn is a mad mash-up of many other people’s ideas, counseling techniques, models of the mind, techniques of spiritual transformation, etc. None of them were given the kind of source attribution that they deserved and is expected in the fields that he drew heavily from. Once you delve into the history of psychology, become acquainted with Buddhism and acquire a background in philosophy, it’s very easy to see what Elron misappropriated and claimed as his own and how he mixed it together with other unacknowledged strands to create $cn. Without that background, Elron leaves you to believe he alone created this incredibly penetrating set of insights and procedures, which are unique in history…and that just ain’t so.
Without writing a book here, one of the very best example of him lifting a major aspect of his counseling model’s core set of techniques without crediting its originator can be very easily observed when you compare the Auditor’s Code with Carl Roger’s person-centered counseling model (see here for a brief overview https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-centered_therapy ). The techniques and philosophical approach that Rogers developed, and whose work preceded and was contemporaneous with Hubbard’s development of Dn and $cn, are almost identical to those used in $cn auditing, but this major and foundational influence was never credited. Instead, Elron changed the names to protect the not-so innocent and claimed it as his own.
To draw just one more parallel here, Elron also borrowed heavily from Freudian abreactive therapy, in which the reliving of past moments of traumatic experience was understood to be an effective means of freeing repressed emotions and achieving insight into and relief from past experiences that were often deeply buried in childhood memory. Elron lifted many of the concepts that Feud, Jung and others within the psychoanalytic school, but completely failed to give them the credit they were due or acknowledge the origins of some of the most central of his concepts that were directly founded upon it. Again, he just pilfered others’ ideas and methods, then renamed them to be used under his own trademark.
This is both intellectually dishonest and acts to give Hubbard a false level of authority that he doesn’t deserve, while also making it purposefully difficult to understand what his counseling model and theory of mind (and later spirit) were based on. So, instead of trying to find whatever might be useful and worthwhile which is unique to $cn, I think that a better and more respectful approach would be to return to the uncredited sources if the concepts and methods that Elron incorporated into his mash-up, then go forward from there.
I’ve said this before, but here it is again.
Before I even knew Scientology existed, I studied and participated in Freudian, Jungian, Reichian, and Rogerian psychotherapy, as well as Eastern religion and Western philosophy.
I didn’t “fall for” Scientology or for LRH as my guru due to ignorance of the alternatives. Based on that background and my personal experience in Scientology as a pc and an auditor, I know the following to be true.
1) All major researchers into the mind used and built on the discoveries of their predecessors.
2) LRH himself said that nearly every major principle in Scientology existed earlier in some other philosophy or technique.
3) LRH said his job was to review the work of his predecessors and bring their workable discoveries into a “best of the best” streamlined system that would actually help people.
4) It would have been better if he’d given them more credit.
5) Scientology worked better for me than anything else, by miles.
This is enough for me. I see nothing to gain in complaining endlessly that LRH should have been or done this, that, or the other. He was who and what he was, both good and bad. He left us what he left us, both good and bad. It’s our job to throw out the bad, and use the good along with whatever we may find of value in the work of others, to make our lives better.
All this endless, repetitive debating over worthiness is a waste of time. Analysis is not doing. Go do something.
All this endless, repetitive debating over worthiness is a waste of time. Analysis is not doing. Go do something.
Does this apply to you?
My Two Cents, I do not think you feel the healing and the release of pain people feel when they can criticize.
People are in various degrees of decompressing from the cult. Some are just leaving now.
Those same people have lived their lives in fear of having a critical thought towards Ron.
It may not be for you, Those who have escaped recently or who are thinking of leaving must know it’s ok to be critical of Ron.
This whole,”Ron is only human” “stop dissing Ron” does not heal those who have experienced great pain and family loss.
Sorry My Two Cents, the doctrines of Scientology and the man who founded it are open for scrutiny.
The only place you will find none is back in the Church or in closed Indi group that demonizes scrutiny.
Free thinkers scrutinize. Especially if that which is being scrutinized has caused great pain for some folks.
But it’s sounds like you really enjoy the tech. That’s great! I mean it.
There are other techs.
My Two Cents, is Scientology the”only way out of the trap,” “Man’s last chance” whereby if somehow Scientology vanishes in thin air, mankind has lost the way out?
Mike, for about a month I spent too much time participating in your blog. My debating was in response to the irrational negativity of some commenters. It didn’t do much good, as they didn’t change. So, I cut way back.
But I think the real intention of your question is to get me to stop commenting on the good in Scientology. As you said, such comments detract from the pure negativity you want your blog to convey.
My viewpoint is that it’s a great commendable that you’ve enabled the exposure of the Church’s abuses. But it’s a great overt that you’ve gone beyond that, to the point of PR against the recognition of the good in the basic subject.
There are times in life when destruction is necessary. But when massive destruction has already occured, and people remain stuck on continuing to destroy without also beginning to rebuild, that’s insanity.
Among the many things we enjoy on this blog is the intellectual deconstructing of scientology doctrine not just discussions about the abuses and absurdities of the church. The value in deconstructing Hubbard’s assertions is, in my opinion, that it may bring him down as an infallible authority and thus loosen the grip he and his ideas have on peoples’ minds. That’s what saved me.
If it makes sense it will prevail. If it doesn’t it will burn on the balderdash bonfire. It is natural to revel in the exposing of falsehoods through the application of rational thought. As J. Krishnamurti said, that is our first and last freedom.
Well said! What I lacked as a young adult when I first encountered Elron’s vast and all-encompassing cosmology was an informed, objective perspective concerning where many of the fundamental concepts, central tenets of belief, counseling methods, etc. that $cn is composed of initially came from. Elron failed to credit his sources and renamed other folks’ concepts as his own from the get go.
Now, more than three decades later, and after an immense amount of study in a variety of different fields and disciplines, I know exactly what I didn’t know way back when. And with that knowledge it’s very easy to discern, for example, how closely based the auditor’s code is on Carl Roger’s person-centered model of counseling, or how much of Elron’s reactive mind concept and Dianetic auditing procedures parallel Freud’s model of the unconscious/subconscious and utilize a variation on abreactive psychoanalytic methods.
If these contributions were minor or his error in failing to credit them was unintentional, then I’d still think of him as the innovative genius that I once did, However, very large parts of DN and $cn were lifted from other traditions, used without being given credit and purposefully disguised in made-up technical terms that didn’t provide additional clarity regarding the underlying concepts, but attempted to frame them as his own original ideas. His vastly exaggerated claims of results and constant revision of processes that had just been hyped and sold as having been perfected a minute ago combine with his intellectual dishonesty in stealing others work and claiming it as his own to thoroughly discredit him as a true scientific researcher.
In the end, you can boil it down to one central aphorism that applies to any field of knowledge or belief system that you might encounter: Anyone who claims infallibility is not, and any group that believes that it, but no other, has a corner on Truth is wrong. Elron and $cn made both of those errors, just as so many other individuals and groups have before them.
Harpoona, I forgot to include the fact that very few of the many philosophers and psychologists I studied gave much credit to their predecessors. Most of them made up their own terminology, too.
Usually they’d have one very worthwhile new insight which they then extended into a far more comprehensive system half of which was speculative bullshit to fill in the gaps unexplained by their initial great breakthrough.
I hated having to read 300 pages of torturous pontificating to find the 5 or 6 pages that really said something worth my time as a seeker. One of the attractions of Scientology for me was LRH’s claim to have done that for us so we didn’t have to wade through as much filler to get to the good stuff. I also appreciated that he gave us something to do as well as just think about.
I recognized from the beginning that many of his concepts had been incorporated into Scientology from other systems. And I had no problem with his terminology. I appreciated that he’d translated so many true and useful concepts from other “languages” so we could study and think in just one rather than dozens.
That said, I also could see that he enjoyed the admiration of his followers a bit too much.
M2C, I’m curious to know what you believe scientology does for people.
My Two Cents, my question still stands:
Do you think Scientology is “mankind’s last chance”, that Ron was the only person to find the “most workable” proceedure?
That if Scientology was to vanish mankind would not have another chance?
This is not a trick question. It is simply a question.
I will answer for me: Yes, so far. And yes if it were to vanish there would be no other chance – so far. .
Brian, I don’t know for sure.
Thank you both for your answer.
So Foolproof, are you familiar with other paths to know for sure?
What is the basis for your certainty?
And MTC, I appreciate your agnosticism on the subject.
My2Cents: I appreciate your responses. I hope you don’t stop. Every debate and every discussion needs two or more sides. You provide valuable points of view. I don’t mind repetition, either.
I have also felt like giving up as I simply notice that Mike seems to prefer to allow detractors of the subject more say than those in favour. I am now going to selectively answer, if at all. I still have the feeling that OSA are at work here and send various lunatics in here to comment to drive away any UTRs.
I think you are perceiving the fact that there are more detractors than there are supporters. There are many more ex-scientologists than there are scientologists. And people can tell by the subject matter of the posts that generally I am about exposing the lies and abuses in scientology. I don’t censor people — on the rare occasion I do I usually note it. The makeup of the commenters at this blog is a reflection of who is interested in this subject. I cannot of course know about the readers — though there are a lot more readers than there are commenters.
My 2 Cents: “My debating was in response to the irrational negativity of some commenters. It didn’t do much good, as they didn’t change.”
It may have made more change than you think. Per my observation, the comments on good experiences with the tech have increased lately, and new commenters posting positive comments have increased as well.
On top of it, you have clarified a number of common confusions about the tech, and I would say the ripples from that have done and will do more good than it might appear on the surface.
Regarding Mike, you wrote: “As you said, such comments detract from the pure negativity you want your blog to convey.”
What I got from Mike is that the purpose of his blog is to expose the disconnection and other horrors in the CoS. With regard to the tech, I believe he is generally critical of it, but I think he is basically open. He did say not long ago that he learns from the comments, and I don’t recall that he has objected to any of your clarifications. In any case, I think you would agree that he does deserve credit for allowing other views to be posted.
I also give credit to readers for being able to see when the negativity is too much. I’ve read that the whole American culture is in an era of reveling in “Ain’t it awful,” so I doubt the extreme negativity will go away too soon.
Bottom line is I hope you continue to post here.
FP, when your posts reflect your own personal perspective, based on your own direct experiences, of $cn as it relates to you, they’re completely valid and worth respectful consideration here. As I’ve said repeatedly in the past, I’ve had positive gains from my early auditing experiences that I have no intention of ever denying.
The difficulty comes when you, or anyone, frames your remarks in ways that judge, defame or disrespect other folks views, so separating those things out may make it clearer for you exactly what others are objecting to, thereby facilitating productive conversation. In this regard, you’re just going to have to take the word of others that they find this or that remark to be personally offensive, then either work to resolve that upset or put it aside for whatever reason.
Personally speaking, I think that you are sincere, not a shill for the corporate cherch and desirous of interacting with others who have a similar background. So, to the degree that you can police your own remarks and edit out those that could be taken as personally offensive and are responsive to those who call you on what they perceive as personal attacks, I think that our continuing discussions will be more congenial and conform to the level of decorum on this blog that Mike has every right to determine, since he’s footing the bill 😉
I have no difficulty engaging with folks who have a strong belief in the efficacy of the tech, especially when they focus in on describing their own personaal experiences as PCs and in auditing others. And since I once studied the subject very intently, I have the theoretical background and familiarity with its technical jargon to carry on a decent conversation about in $cn terms and in terms of its fundamental assumptions. However, I can also analyze it from training in science and long years of study in psychology, philosophy, neuroscience, comparative religion, meditation traditions and beyond, which provides me with an “outside the bubble” perspective which I can argue at length is a very value perspective to bring to the analysis of any particular belief system.
When I’ve misunderstood, lacked the knowledge of, or just plain forgotten, some part of $cn’s vast web of interconnected beliefs and principles, I welcome being informed or corrected, which allows me to better understand those, like yourself who are more of a believer in the essential worth of $cn than many here. So, if we can go back and forth between discussing certain aspects of $cn which have their direct correlates in non-$cn terminology and different theoretical frameworks – such Elron’s definition of what an SP is and psychology’s criteria for classifying a person as having an anti-social personality disorder – then somewhere in middle, through the mutual intentional to reach a shared understanding, we can meet up without rancor and bad feeling…maybe even come away from it with fresh insight and knowledge.
So, by all means, stick around and do your best to politely and respectfully communicate your truth! I’ll do my best to listen and understand.
Correction: the above is directed as response to My2Cents, NOT Foolproof!
Sorry, I hate that there’s no “edit” function in this format!
My 2 cents worth
I may be in error, but I don’t think that Mr Rinder, or (Mike) as most people here refer to him as is objecting to stating good things about Scn. I have said a lot of good things about Scn on this blog and he has never complained about them. It seems to me that if there was nothing good about Scn we would not have invested so much in the subject. True, we are not here because Scn is a great thing. My beefs with it are not mainly with the subject, but with the people who use the good things about it to lure unsuspecting people in to be robbed, lied to damaged, destroyed or killed. If others think the subject or the Founder is to blame, fine. This is about Freedom of Speech, like it says in the Creed. The Church does not believe in the Creed; I know, I was declared solely for following it.
LMAO
Factor 28. Go have a read My2cents.
ll this endless, repetitive debating over worthiness is a waste of time. Analysis is not doing. Go do something.
Scientology did nothing for you – you seem to be intolerable of others.
In 1978, Linda Engman was the Senior C/S at ASHO/Fdn, and I was the Sr. Supervisor of the SHSBC. As the Sr. Sup, one of my duties was to call roll.
One night, while I was going through the roll call of close to 200 students, Linda walked into the classroom and “observed”. I’d learned to call their names quickly, because the list was long. Everyone who was supposed to be there WAS there, and responded when I called their name.
Within half an hour, there was a cramming order in my in-box from Linda. She felt my intention was off during roll call and she ordered me to fix that.
Two things:
1. There were nearly 200 people in the room, mostly being quiet, but I still had to raise my voice to be heard, which worked; and
2. How does one put intention into a roll call when you don’t know where the students are seated? If I’d sought out every student before calling their name, roll call would have taken an hour or longer.
I’m sharing this is because the subject is intention and how misguided that concept became. I never agreed with the cramming order and — to my horror — I was unable to smoothly pronounce some of the students names during roll call from that point on. In fact, it marked the beginning of a voice disorder I’ve lived with for most of my adult life.
If I still believed in scientology technology, I’d say Linda’s cramming order was a wrong indication. But since I don’t use scientology teachings anymore, I’m just going to note that she didn’t have a clue about how to call roll, she was out of line (it wasn’t her hat to C/S roll call), and she was wrong.
She was quick doing one of her compliance report little jobs, trying to oversee the tech in the course room, which is one of the C/Ses, or the Senior C/S’s jobs.
But the illusive “intention” really is NOT something supernatural, even though we were trained with the implication that “intention” was something a thetan, each of us, possesses like some sort of variable invisible horsepower which through auditing and training realizations we would regain our more native thetan mega horsepower someday. Supernatural powers which were the snipe we were all chasing for, I presume, that’s how I viewed it.
So, the various jobs in the orgs, have their various responsibilities to enforce all the supposed things we were required to do in our jobs, tech or admin, which resulted in us recharging up our thetan batteries in the Scientology orgs doing L. Ron Hubbard’s lineup of tech training and auditing up the Hubbard Bridge to Total Freedom, or total native state thetan horsepower regained, supposedly, someday, up past the levels that LRH left us. Him pleading from the start to help him build that “better Bridge” but then he stamped on squirreling.
It’s all human history soul powers snipe hunting to me today. No OTs were produced since OTs are the spiritual snipes of Scientology, never to get obtained.
So, your Senior C/S was just doing her little target on a tech program from Senior C/S Int Office that said for her to look in on the Tech Course Rooms, practical too, and ensure something was done to improve something which would let her sign off on the compliance report for that program that someone in Senior C/S Int Office was prodding her to get her Senior C/S Program done done done.
What’s really long range a dismal joke to all of those still on staff, though, is the bigger problem of the whole operation NEVER going to produce any OT soul improved people. Rather people just normally improve with experience in life and that is coincident to their Scientology training and processing, really. And they learn how to fake the role of OTs and so forth sufficient to not be constantly under the gun and in trouble.
Your C/S was doing “bare minimum” of her Senior C/S job, and who knows what was falsely running through her head on top of that.
Thanks for the explanation. I didn’t know Linda’s job was to oversee the tech of “roll call” … but I believe you. She was still wrong 🙂
Basically Robin you are right, she had no real business engaging in such a petty action. Take heart that she probably couldn’t find anything else to criticize you with and had to settle for that. Inspecting the course room is all very well, it is her part of her duty as Senior C/S, but if my Senior C/S had come up with such nonsense I would have just told him to **** off – with good intention! Haha!
Yup Robin, she was wrong.
Terra Cognita: “By this time, I’d learned that thetans not only lacked matter, energy, space, or time, but that they were all-knowing, faster than light, and more powerful than a speeding locomotive. If this was true, and my PC heard the command, and his Bank was full of charged items, why wasn’t the meter going crazy with reads?”
The reason for that, to my understanding, is that the meter reads on what is available to the pc and would be real to him if taken up. Other things are buried but can be “un-buried” by discharging related items, making the buried items now available.
Regarding the intention factor in auditing, I think it is parallel to the idea of entanglement in quantum physics, which isn’t just a “faster than light” response – it’s instantaneous – and in effect there is no space and time. A valid read is defined the same way – instantaneous or instant.
Part of the Axiom on communication is that there is intention on both sides of a communication cycle. For the pc, I think intention is basically a matter of being in-session – “interested in case and willing to talk to the auditor.” When intention is present in both the auditor and pc, in a nonphysical, quantum-physics sense, they are in the same moment (time) and space. Or, as some people intuitively describe it – they are “one.”
Everyone knows what attention and intention are at a personal level of direct experiential understanding, but when it comes to systematically defining it as an objective capacity, or on some sort of explicit continuum ranging from low to high, it’s much less clear exactly what’s meant or how anyou could standardly and objectively evaluate its correct “strength”. The kind of wildly varying experiences that lots of folks report with their academy supes coming up with their own arbitrary criteria for evaluating its intensity or degree of impingement underscores that point.
What hasn’t been noted yet is that the effectiveness of anyone’s intention depends on the degree of engagement that exists between the individuals involved in whatever kind of interaction that you might care to name. In auditing, that interaction is always within a diad – the auditor and the PC – and unless the PC is engaged at a personal level, then the auditor’s intention will never be effective. For an auditor to come across as robotic, fearful and more concerned with what an electronic instrument is doing than what they’re saying and feeling is to become disengaged, thereby rendering their intention ineffective.
The “carrier wave” analogy emphasizes what the auditor is trying to do TO the PC as a kind of one-way flow, instead of seeing the alignment of interest and purpose shared by them both on equal basis as a necessary condition of mutual engagement that is the larger conductive field that is mutually created by them both.
One of the primary reasons that many here (myself included) continue to value some of the auditing experiences that they’ve had in the past is that the person-centered counseling model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-centered_therapy that Elron “borrowed” from Carl Rodgers and re-named “auditing” IS a very effective counseling model when utilized correctly, especially when applied by folks with a high degree of native empathy and compassion for others. Without that as the bedrock of auditing, no amount of scripted, rigidly applied scientology-specific rundown or routine is going to do diddly…which is exactly why auditors trained and supervised under the current terror regime of fear and duress are worse than useless. Any gains that PCs make now have come about in spite of, rather than as a result of, the kind of fear-conditioned robotism that’s being foisted upon paying public $cilons at this time!
I agree Harpoona. The power of any good therapy is a good connection between the therapist and the patient.
In that connection is safety. And in safety the dead come to life.
Flunk! Harpoona your tone 40 was out.
HF, good points. I never met Hubbard, but have heard many report that he could turn on the charm when he wanted to. I know when you are in session with a really good auditor you are not worrying about the meter or bored stiff going through a set procedure. A good auditor engages you, isn’t robotic,doesn’t shout and so on. It is absolutely true that a good auditor can get great results just talking things over (officially called “two way communication”) while a bad auditor using high level techniques just makes it worse.
There is even a film by Hubbard about this, TR16 “Auditor Beingness”. In it a group of auditors get coached on really being there and helping the person. Dave Miscavige saw all the rushes, approved the edit and the sound, showed it on the Freewinds when it was done, but seemingly it flew way over his head.
I remember one day I was in his office and had to repair the VHS machine. They had a very expensive VHS recorder that was only used to review taped submissions from trainees on the Pro Metering Course. It had linear (not FM) sound so you could single frame it and find the exact end of the line spoken by the auditor within 1/60th of a second. They were watching the needle and were rejecting any reads that were called by the auditor but were not within 1/60th of a second of being “instant”. As I understand it they later invented some equipment so this could be done on auditors everywhere, not just on those unfortunate enough to be trained at Flag.
This kind of authoritarian harassment of trainees is just the exact opposite of what you would do if you really wanted to help people. No wonder the Church is emptying like a theater on fire.
I can see how someone who really tries to help people, and uses the older auditing pattern as demonstrated by Hubbard on recordings of his own sessions, could come away with the idea that it works. It does work if you consider a great result to be someone in tears who can smile again like an episode of Dr. Phil.
It does not cure myopia, give you eidetic memory, make it possible for you to remember how to build the spaceships of yesteryear or able to leap tall buildings at a single bound. So it doesn’t work in any measurable objective sense. But it can make someone feel better. Personally I prefer a good workout.
Wow, that’s a very interesting and insightful story that goes right to the core of why $cn, under lil davey’s repressive and out-tech leadership, is failing big time.
Where folks come up with concepts like “for a e-meter read to be valid, it must come within 1/60th of a second of the end of an auditing command or question” is totally beyond me! If you really wanted to get literal concerning what an “instant read” means, it would be one that occurs EXACTLY at the end of a command, not one millisecond before or afterward. More than likely, they chose the 1/60th of second arbitrary duration because it was the finest temporal resolution that the equipment they had could resolve…pretty silly.
Elron did have a very engaging manner during the auditing sessions that I’ve listened to. There was something light, playful and conversational about them that’s nothing like what takes place these days. So glad I got out of the cult when I did, over three decades ago.
Good article!
“Still not Declared,
Terra Cognita”
What does this mean?
TC is still “officially” a member of the Cherch. If a member is kicked out, they are “declared”, in the CoS lingo. That means that the Cherch and their Intelligence arm, OSA, have no idea who TC is, but they certainly would declare him/her in a New York minute if they could.
Not these days. I know several who have been Dead Filed but not declared for doing far worse than I did.
My money is on OSA knowing exactly who Terra is but he hasn’t come out; isn’t in some picture with Rinder; hasn’t been on TV, movies or press.
If they know who TC is, she would be declared immediately for posting articles on Mike Rinder’s blog. I got declared just for reading articles.
I don’t think so these days. It changed somewhere around 2014-2015. I know people who refused to go in, resigned, told off OSA, spoke of what they read on internet, expressed their disgust with good people being declared and/or asked for their money back and have not been declared. Some have been Dead Filed but not all.
But who knows cuz “standard tech” is a crap shoot.
Cindy, I never got declared and I announced to everyone I knew, which included a celeb &, one of R’s children I was friends with, that I wasn’t any longer a scientologist. A few years later I send a message to same when Mike & Marty put up websites telling what was going on.
All I ever got was a condition assignment, treason, from LCI. Hmm, I don’t think policy is applied all that much anymore. 🙂
In my humble opinion, policy has not been generally applied for about 20 years. Of course, they will decide whether or not to apply a policy. If they want to shoot someone and a policy says they can or should shoot them, they will apply policy and shoot them. If they want to shoot someone and policy says they can’t shoot this person, they will not apply the policy and shoot them anyway. The organization has become a suppressive group and has many of the characteristics of a suppressive person. One of these characteristics is that they do not recognize the actual source of their problems. It seems that Mike is one of the more Anti-scientology commenters on this blog, and so would logically be declared SP. Now this does not mean that Mike is bad; since he is suppressing a suppressive group that may be good. But the organization does not operate logically. I was assigned a Condition also. I was assigned the Condition of Death. My Fitness Board stated that I was to return to duty “As soon as possible next lifetime. At least a person declared SP can do his A-E and get back into good standing. LRH said that whatever you do, do it as a Professional. Since I have been assigned the title of SP, I had better wear the Hat. If anyone has an Suppressive Person Full Hat checksheet, I will route onto it immediately.
Bill, if you had been at Int you would have been declared SP for being unfit for duty. Different policies for different orgs. 😉
Sure they could declare TC. Just put out an issue that says “TC IS DECLARED A SUPPRESSIVE PERSON.” They will not do that because most people will think that “TC” stands for Tom Cruise.
“End this fucking session right now!” Despite what my auditor said or did, no matter how good or bad her intention was at that point, she ended it. That’s intention. What lead up to that was years and years of the church losing its intention to actually do something for me, the guy on the other side of the meter. I’d had it with the padded programs, the lack of folder studies, the 3-swing F/N, the perception that my church didn’t even think I was a good person. All the “standard tech” in the world doesn’t matter a hill of beans if you lose the desire to actually do something positive for the guy on the other side of the meter and it becomes about something else.
The only attitude, technique that always brought my pcs to a happy EP was caring for them, feeling a sense of gratitude that I can help a fellow human being.
Everything else, all of the jargon and auditing patter always took second fiddle to my pcs.
When I felt connected to them as souls, a reflection of the Supreme Being as an individual, the session was always pleasant for myself and my pc.
In a word; love
Regarding intention and being there:
In retrospect I can see that the practice of intention and the practice of being there (TRs) can become an enforced localization of the ego.
If a person is ignorant of themselves, are out of touch with the simple direct perception of their own true nature, what gets manifested as intention is a projected will of force without theta. Its more of a pushing energy out of the eyes.
It’s what David Miscavige manifests when you look at his pictures.
In Woglandia it’s called the Scientology robot stare.
So for me, it was feeling a sense of unity with my pcs that had me taken off course a number of times to handle difficult pcs that other auditors could not handle.
But when it’s the ego there, intending, than the being is forcing energy through the eyes and mouth.
It’s a course vibration and makes the pc uncomfortable.
While we’re on the subject of intention I have to give a big FLUNK on the midget and his obvious lack of it through his spokespuppet Karen MisPouwage in the letter to A&E. OK, Dave let’s try it again.
START!
I think that Dave has got his intention down pat. He is producing exactly what he intends to produce, money and power for himself, and fear destruction and death for all of the CSMFS which comprises the rest of the population of Earth.
Putting the microscope on intention is an interesting introversion. I was always amazed at how I’ve never really met a Scientologist who didn’t know all about how auditing should be done on them. Yet, very few ever became auditors themselves and even fewer got the nod of approval from the majority of “observers” of how people should audit. Intention directly parallels ‘results’ as a study-able subject.
You’re sure right about it being subjective though. Studying intention in detail is like watching grass grow or paint drying and then writing a book about it. I do love the term, “it was not my intention to…” Best one liner a Scientologist ever uses to explain and/or misdirect others with their actions/motives.
The goons at RTC sure went out of their way to kill off the subject and ability of how to audit.
Intention is one of the more grossly misunderstood terms used in Scientology.
Listen you goddamn ashtray I’m not gonna say it again, “STAND UP!!!!!!”.
After demanding that the ashtray STAND UP 3 times & the ashtray refusing to comply, I took a hammer to it. The wins I got were out of this world!
Do a success story on that!
He can’t. He used the table in an objective process and it suffered the same fate as the ashtray. So many objects, so many wins…
He just did.
Thanks to Dead men, I yawn & alcoboy, I can now take a hammer to anything! My next step is a chainsaw…..
Gradients OSD, gradients. The OTness of a chainsaw needs careful consideration. For a couple hundred grand I know a guy who knows a guy who knows of a backwoods ex hippee who deals in creative expressionism with the Church of Husqvarna. Get you an intro… within 2 strokes of a smokey start… How about it big guy? You feeling lucky?
I had a session by a class 8 student at AOLA one time – from the meter shield up he didn’t move a muscle. It was very un-nerving. Most of my auditing was fine, though possibly one of the most upsetting sessions, was when I was doing L&N on a ser fac and I was on the brink of spotting and verbalizing it when my otherwise fine auditor, told me my needle was floating. That jerked my attention out of the bank and the item was lost forever, despite my trying to find it in subsequent sessions.
He was another class 8. I was wondering TC, as I read your post, if Hubbard’s insistence on Standard tech dehumanized auditing?
In both of these examples however, they violated his definition of standard (can you believe I still remember it?) “A definite level or degree of quality that is proper and adequate for a specific purpose” which we lowly academy students had to memorize when the class eights returned from the ship after doing the first LRH taught Class 8 course.
In all honesty, I have little justification to bitch – I have made some really stupid errors as an auditor myself.
Mimsey
Yes, the myth of “intention”. According to L Con you could say a command without ANY intention and the recipient wouldn’t be able to understand a word of it. More bullshit.
If it WERE true you could deliver a command without the verbal component and have it understood. But, it’s BS.
I really liked your post.Only out of two auditors at Asho F I had in SO that I loved,one left for further adventures with the cult and the other was RPFed,if all the others had just talked to me,instead of trying to scream their sessions at me as if I was incapable of understanding,I would not dislike so intensely the memories I have of those days.Minus the Sec-checks etc.Thank you for your pieces,very important.?
Passionate sincerity is what I today have come to believe is “intention” in the Hubbard sense.
I was a Flag Course Sup, I had to pass people’s Objective TR 8, the one where you have to really have sufficient intention when giving the “Walk over to that wall. Thankyou. Touch that wall. Thankyou. Turn around. Thankyou. Look at that wall. Thankyou. Walk over to that wall……” You have to give the commands with sort of a total primacy of thought surrounding your sincere and clearcut wishes that the person receiving the commanad ONLY listens to you, ONLY does what you do, you have to just have that level of belief simultaneously and fluidly as you (the student being give the final pass by the course supervisor) get the Course Sup to do the commands.
It’s just onemindedness sincerity and intensity.
Strong focus.
More focus and HIGH expectation.
And fluid and commanding.
Ugh, turning members into sort of Alpha personalities who can give orders and get things done.
Focus building.
But, what does it get?
Any “OT” people?
No.
But possibly some people get more focused in their lives, learn to blot out any doubts and other thoughts they have going on simultaneously self disparaging themselves or extraneous thoughts that have nothing to do with the tast of getting the auditing commands accomplished.
I think today that making people into really good therapists, which is what the TRs were to help produce, is NOT the panacea for getting the Scientology take crank therapists made.
Some people, I concluded, are just the natural “Auditor of the Year” type of people who likely may have enjoyed careers as therapists if they had had different career paths in life, and had they gotten therapist trained.
I don’t think, after my 7 years on the RPF, that everyone is suited nor wishes to be a therapist, and Scientology delivery of the auditing rundowns and exorcism done on OT 4 and 5 needs be done by people who are pretty much, in my opinion today, the kind of people who are sympathetic understanding people.
The “intention” tool, is just determined focus and auditors also have to have sincere natural understanding and be smart enough to understand whatever the preclear or pre OT is saying. Auditors have to be smart and educated enough and be acceptable as auditors in the preclear’s mind.
But then, I don’t think the therapy angle of Scientology ever felt fruitful for me. I never thought I’d come up with some enlightenment discoveries better than were I to read other people’s enlightenment stories!
Reading the OT wins on the old Flag HGB Garden Room Success Board, of the Ls preclears who would sometimes write fantastic OT wins of going exterior, is what I was suffering doing Scientology for.
If Scientology made soul flying real to the people doing the L rundowns, then I’d suffer doing all the steps to get up to getting the Ls and get that soul flying ability too.
That was why I was there.
“Intention” is just a tool kit tool, supposedly, for auditors, and then for members to help them get focus.
No one ever got those ashtrays to float up into the air without the use of their hands.
I was hoping someone eventually would be doing so, but no one ever does.
Dupe hopefulness kept me glued to Scientology and Hubbard’s promises of the OT soul flying abilites at the end of the Bridge.
Not to be a contrarian, I normally refused to work with any auditor that was stiff and robotic. And most of my auditors were more like teammates. A few times I was forced to accept robot auditors and I hated it. With the added 3 swing rule it did get worse and worse.
IMO it’s how safe the PC feels to make up stuff in his bank and have the auditor verify with the meter that that stuff is correct. It’s all predicated on going along with the illusion that auditing works. I have had lasting wins from auditing, however not for the reasons I thought.
Video cameras in auditing rooms would negate any of the pros I associate with auditing. Does anyone know if or when class v orgs video tape auditing sessions?
I started receiving auditing in the mid-80s. And for the next 30 years I had some excellent auditing and, towards the end, some horrific auditing. I’ve had profound sessions, to this day, I am unable to explain.
Obviously, your auditor has a lot to do with the results obtained. Contrary to what the church may say, two of the best auditors I’ve had were trained in their local org, pre-GAT. Some of the worst auditors have been from Flag and my local AO.
There was a quality about my good auditors that is hard to nail down. They understood their craft, it was simple, effortless, like talking to an old friend.
I’ve concluded that good auditors are not trained under duress. Correction is not an ordeal, but an opportunity to hone their skills. Auditing in the HGC was all about the PC and getting the best possible result.
With bad auditors, training is a deadly serious activity. One MU could be a bullet to the brain. HCOBs are scrutinized and over-analyzed and figure-figured (looking at you rhythmic F/N). Flunks are devastating. A mistake can wind you up on the decks. In short, its all rather dangerous. This style of training does not foster the “art” of auditing. Its all about precision and the quest for perfection (whatever that means). There is more emphasis on the auditor and his actions, than on the PC and their gains.
Corollary: the closer you are to RTC, the more dangerous it is to train to be an auditor – and actually audit.
You could say LRH was a bit fanatical about auditing flubs and GAEs, certainly at the level of Class VIII. DM seems to have latched on to this and made it SOP for ALL auditor training, by introducing GAT and Son of GAT. And in the process, destroyed anything good about the subject.
Good auditors I think those people who were awarded the “Auditor of the Year” awards were the type of natural auditors. (The “Auditor of the Year” auditors who loved it so much, they continue today since they just love doing it, they would all likely have been great therapists if their lives were different.)
Remember the old “Look at me. Who would i have to be to audit you?” process that used to be sort of a rudiment in the way old days, as start of session rudiments.
But again, why even do auditing?
I learn more from outside reading compared to any of the realizations I got in the thousands of hours of auditing I got.
Did you ever reach any enlightenment actual abilities?
I agree, Chuck. First of all…I feel ALL auditing is subjective. And, to be honest, while going up the Bridge, I never took the abilities on the Lower Bridge to be objective abilities. I continued simply because I got something out of the previous level and wanted to do the next.
When I “went Clear”, it was a truly profound experience. All I can say is, it was an earth-shattering experience for me personally. What exactly happened I do not know. And whether my “state” matched up to the church’s criteria, meant nothing to me.
Regarding abilities – All I can say is that I attested to the State of Clear. 1950 Book One Dianetic Clear? Nope.
But, I don’t regret doing the auditing.
To answer your question – “Why even do auditing?” I think there are beneficial elements to auditing that could be explored or studied, if one were a mental health professional.
Yea, it’s polite to let people enjoy their great Clear experiences, those people who had it.
I thought it was verbal induced brain massaging, the brain can be verbally tricked and prodded into mental highs. My atheist unpolite thoughts on it today.
Dunno, Chuck. Not really justifying it, or looking for an explanation. Just something I experienced.
Statpush: There is nothing wrong with your case. It’s just Chuck’s lack of TR4.
Exactly so, Statpush,
Auditing Clear was most profound! I knew at the time it was my subjective reality that had changed forever. And I looked forward, sadly for years, to when Hubbard would bring out real drills/levels to exercise a ‘thetan’ with intention actions that produced effects observable in the physical universe, and by others not in the sciento universe.
God yes.
Hubs couldn’t convey the simplicity of his “tech” and had to make it a rigid, mechanical “science”. The successful auditors were the least robotic yet virtually all training focused on treating the person getting auditing as a machine needing repair.
Yet another gross, gross mishandling of a simple practice of listening to someone’s problems until they felt better.
One time in a session in response to the “Self Analysis” book command/question, “Recall a time when someone had just given you something”, my pc, a middle aged man, began flailing his arms saying “No! No! No!”
He was reliving a time when he was dumped off at an orphanage as a child and someone was trying to give him an ice cream cone to calm him down.
No intention on my part was needed to cause that occurrence. The command by itself caused it.
In 2016 GAT 2 tries to push you into becoming a pushy robot.