What's new

ESMB and The Freezone - let's have it out!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Boldgirl

Patron Meritorious
Oh NO! Not HERE! Heavens...



What I mean is I enjoy spirit in a debate, that's when I turn on. But when I hit logical fallacies like "it works because it is shown to work" I do tend to get a little more animated.

In all honesty, i think freezoners are deluded and still infected with a disease they can't confront. Their denial that their minds are still controlled are meaningless to me. I actually feel more sorry for them than anything else. But when the few who come on with this standard Scientology tech-like answers get on that jag I like to push their buttons. Then they can deny their minds are still under someone else's control AND deny their buttons were pushed.

Earthlings are easy...

How true. I guess admittingly part of my exit therapy has been posting against these FZ cult members.

But then again, I feel worse sometimes knowing that not only do we have to dismantle the C of S but now there IS another group out there doing people harm with false promises of cultist technilogy and thinking they are saving the world too... Thats TWO groups that the world would be better off without....now somehow you cant take this persoanll FZ's. I didnt even know you existed before this board. You are obviously people that feel you are helping people. But having you around helping people legitimately is preferred versus you keeping the con alive and harming people's psych whether you believe it or not.
 

Escalus

Patron Meritorious
I think it is a logical fallacy in itself to say that your opponent's argument in a debate is wrong because they are mentally damaged.

At least I think I read that somewhere....

Hmmmmm.... where would that be???

And if that's what i was claiming as a reason for the existence of the fallacy you'd be correct.
 

Boldgirl

Patron Meritorious
Ron's "genius" was taking observable phenomena and weaving them into a slave-making cult. This was his intention to make men his slaves.

So of course, we studied his dogma and some of it rang true with our experience so we filled in the gaps in our understanding of these phenomena and of life with the other bits of Ron's philosophy and bingo! He had his slaves!

Re-read Science of Survival and you will see that he clearly took observed behaviours and wove them together into a "wog"-hating "wog"-fearing technology to handle or isolate the "wogs".

So to return to your example, you voiced uncertainty over what to do about versions of "love" like "lust" and "1.1". I simply pointed out that you may have been influenced by a pervert's philosophy on the subject.

I can't de-programme you and you may not want to be. You may prefer to hold the confusions Ron's philosophy has stuck you with. It's your choice.

The "chart of human evaluation" is a load of bull, based upon some good observations by LRH, in my opinion. His observation was quite good, but his conclusions were perverted, I believe, influenced at the time by his own mis-treatment of and upsets with Sara Northrup.

The whole book and his "chart" is a justification for his own perverted behaviour.

Watch the Plymouth videos and see how nastily the Scios use the chart on Stu. Reading bits of it and sniggering about him in his prescence and you see a perfect example of Ron's perversions in practice.

Drop his cult brainwashing and then observe, see what you see. That's all I'm saying.

For example, I've met Stu and talked with him. Ron's Chart analysis of him is entirely incorrect. LRH's pigeon-holing of "1.1's" (which you referred to) is completely eroneous.

Ron has perverted your love, Cat, by chiming into some things that you had already observed and he's left you with a dilemma that you don't have a solution to. This was his intention, to confuse you, in order to make you accept his "solution" called the "Bridge to total freedom" and be his slave. :melodramatic:

Great posts--so well written, and SO SO RIGHT. I am sitting here in shock that people cannot see how conditioned they are. Conditioned is being nice...mind controlled is what i really wanted to say.

I wish for them all that they snap out of it, I want us all to be normal again....ok maybe not normal-that would be too dull.
 

Boldgirl

Patron Meritorious
Feeling relief is not proof of the truth of something, although it is proof of the truthiness of something.

.

Righto! For me I take that statement a step further to expalin the 'relief' people report with auditing and then people take it to the next level of -well it must be true and be valid......

this is a fine distinction point to be made....

I love this thread...but I do have to go to work but I cant leave the board until I at least make it to catch uo to the last thread.
 

Boldgirl

Patron Meritorious
Depends. I was a Pro Word-Clearer and Sup and involved with this topic a lot.

The "Method 4" crap of "must find" the prior misunderstood word if one disagrees with a bulletin, I agree, is 100% control.

But if a student is all foggy and can't fix it by himself, and the sup helps him zero in on a word he didn't get (by the STUDENT's call), and the student brightens up on spotting that was THE word even before opening the dictionary, how is that control to the end of agreeing with some concept?

Paul

agreed---there is a positive to understanding what the hell you are reading but thats not what Hubbardonian study tech was developed for!
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
Depends. I was a Pro Word-Clearer and Sup and involved with this topic a lot.

The "Method 4" crap of "must find" the prior misunderstood word if one disagrees with a bulletin, I agree, is 100% control.

But if a student is all foggy and can't fix it by himself, and the sup helps him zero in on a word he didn't get (by the STUDENT's call), and the student brightens up on spotting that was THE word even before opening the dictionary, how is that control to the end of agreeing with some concept?

Paul

Let me take a swing at this one.

First of all - what does "all foggy" mean? When I went to Newcastle University there were many words I did not understand but I never felt foggy, except in the student union bars. Before Scientology I never, not once, experienced any of the "phenomena" so lovingly described by Hubbard to do with study problems.

So - first of all - the student would have to be trained into having those reactions. Much like scientologists are trained into all sorts of responses that they wouldn't normally have.

Secondly if they were studying a Hubbardic work then, according to KSW, they are merely supposed to be duplicating it - not arguing about it. And there, in a nutshell, is why Study Tech does not work. It was originally conceived of as a way to force scientologists to not argue, not debate but instead, passively acquiesce to whatever they are being told. After all, if you did not understand what Hubbard had written it could not possibly be because it was un - understandable rubbish - oh no it had to be because

a) You did not understand the full definition of the word "the" "an" or "or" even though you had been using them your whole life.
then
b) Failing that, you are full of false data
then
c) failing that you are a heavy drug case
then
d) failing that - you have many overts
then
e) failing that - - you have many MWH which is why you are now trying to run away from this insanity called study tech
then
f) You are an SP.

Not once in that admittedly OTT sequence is there room for

"Hubbard did not know his arse from his elbow"

The whole concepts of a) supervisor and b) study tech are false.

Students need teachers. People who understand the material and, if necessary can engage in Socratic discourse to lead the student out of ignorance (from ex- duco - to lead out of, educate) and into the light of education.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
And if that's what i was claiming as a reason for the existence of the fallacy you'd be correct.

OK. What is the reason for the fallacy?

I say that it is a lack of critical thinking skills. They don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is.

But they do know what a "wrong target" is. And that can be the entrance point to winning the argument and instructing them how they just lost it.

It is a lack of critical thinking skills that got a person so enmeshed in Scientology.

And it is the understanding and use of critical thinking skills that gets them out.

By the way - the Data Series does NOT CONTAIN critical thinking skills!
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
Yes. It can get tiring going over the same points over and over again with freezoners.

But that's what we have BoldGirl and Pixie for!

They're fresh, and have lots and lots of energy to fight the battle.

We just need to arm them with all the tools they need. And they will arm others, etc., on down the line.

"on down the line..." did you like that?

I got that from L Ron Hubbard.

Yes. Go with the flow.

What you resist you become... So careful about resiting L. Ron Hubbard too hard... else you will become you-know-who... not in name... but in your attitude and thinking... like looking down on others, etc.

You know what I mean.

How to get rid of something requires quite some skill that sometimes borders on magic.

.
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
From where I sit at this point in time, I dont think Mick is being extreme. Looking up words while in scn using study tech was all about how wrong the reader is for not getting or agreeing with a concept-thats the underlying mind control. Also looking up words became a compulsion, a little voice that many felt they 'had to do' or I will be in trouble and they'll know when they do a meter check on me, fear or looking sleepy or tired or fidgety--it was all conditioning to feed the fear and the 'must do' that scientology breeds into it's cult members.
Same with ARC. You learn to ignore your own knowingness because you try to fit every situation with another into an ARC box and formula.

Talk about yourself... not me.

.
 

Voltaire's Child

Fool on the Hill
FINALLY something you & I can disagree about Fluff! :)

Although a lifelong Goldwater Republican, for thirty years I've been convinced that the u.s. republican party is trying to prove CBR was right about insane intergalactic conspiracies. During that time period the relatively sane members of the u.s. political class have, from my perspective, been the liberals.

Obama may be a lousy candidate but the thought of another contemporary republican (McCain, Feh!) selecting more supreme court justices is simply too awful to contemplate.

AuH2O!

Mark A. Baker

Ah, but I'm not a republican, either. I'm pretty right wing in some respects but am pro choice and some other stuff like that. I tend to dislike most liberal political views (with a few exceptions) and am only SLIGHTLY happier with Republicans. If you put a gun to my head and said I had to pick one, it would be Republicans but I'm by no means happy with them.

I'm more of a Libertarian.

I won't vote for Obama at all. I'd have been happier with Hillary Clinton. I'm pretty sure, though, that Obama is likely to be our next president.

I voted for Ralph Nader in the last two elections. My answer to people who said I was throwing my vote away was "Well, this country allows a person to vote for someone not in the major two parties (Dems and Reps) so if YOU have a problem with it, then feel free to lobby to make voting for third party candidates illegal. As long as I have the option, I'm voting as I please."
 

Vinaire

Sponsor
From where I sit I am seeing that each person has created their on Scientology.

I used Scientology in such a way as to help others, and I think that I did a damn good job of it.

Now I have found something better.

.
 

Ladybird

Silver Meritorious Patron
I've done the Student Hat and I know a bit about this but I can't compete with Paul here.

Scn's emphasis on word clearing is an example of a sometimes workable datum carried to extremes. IMO it's used to cover up for the fact than modern CofS course sups often don't know the materials they're training the students on, so they have to parrot "What do your materials state?" when the student encounters a problem.

An addition to my list of questions to ask CofS staffers is this; if word clearing is so vital, why don't top students at school and university do it all the time?

It would not matter if the course supervisor knew the materials the student was studying or not. Supervising is not teaching, supes are there to make sure the student is applying "study tech".

"A course must have a Supervisor. He may or may not be a graduate and
experienced practitioner of the course he is supervising but HE MUST
BE A TRAINED COURSE SUPERVISOR[."] (REF: HCO PL 10 MAR 1971R REVISED
29 JAN 75, WHAT IS A COURSE?

HCOPL 19 Apr 1965 - ETHICS, TRAINING AND PROCESSING REGULATIONS


"1. The only answers permitted to a student's demand for verbal
technical data or unusual solutions are


'The material is in (HCOB, Pol Letter or tape).'
'What does your material state.'
'What word did you miss in (Bulletin, Pol Ltr or tape)?'
and (for requests for unusual auditing solutions)
'What did you actually do?'


Any other answer by Technical Secretaries, Ds of T,
Instructors or course personnel is a misdemeanor." - L. Ron Hubbard

As to "word clearing", top students at any school have used dictionaries for centuries! Hubbard did not invent dictionaries, he just found a way to use them to further his own purposes of confusing the shit out of people so they wouldn't notice his hand in their pocket.

Look up all the different "methods" of word clearing...there are 9.
 

Alanzo

Bardo Tulpa
Where is Lionheart?

.
Lionheart rode off on a White Horse into the Sunset, with his trusty servant by his side.

But I get letters from him from time to time. He's got a condo in a vacation get-away spot somewhere in Spain, where windmills still turn, and gallant chivalry still blooms, even to this day.
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
agreed---there is a positive to understanding what the hell you are reading but thats not what Hubbardonian study tech was developed for!

I thought Hubbard ripped off study tech from the research of Charles Berner. Alan posted about that a couple of times. Hubbard didn't credit Berner for the work and in fact got rid of him soon afterwards.

Are you suggesting Berner's years of research were to this same end?

Paul
 
Last edited:

Vinaire

Sponsor
My wordclearing made people brighter for real, and brought about an understanding unique for that person, and not what could have been intended.

When a person simply could not agree with something, I never insisted that he must agree with it. I let him work it out from which viewpoint it could be so and from which viewpoint it wasn't so.

I always let the person maintain his or her own viewpoint.

My mantra was to reinforce self-determinism, or even get a person to the point of pan-determinism. This was always appreciated.

.
 

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
No worries, almost everyone here seems to think the same :)

Its the avatar that does it - now I may have a Scottish wildcat as my avatar but it's a male cat..

I like the Rastas I've met, but no, heavy use of dope's no good for you.

yeah rastas can be fun to be around, for a little while anyway.


'Cos the Church sucks, and that is where most people get their experience of Scn. If they tried it at a good freezone group (as I did), it wouldn't be 80% (assuming that statistic is accurate).

The stat is from the cofs figures - I was in charge of memberships for the CofS when the IAS first started so I had access to them.


In many cases yes, but that's also what (relatively) non-spiritually aware people think of anyone who's "reaching" spiritually. Try giving up your job to go to India and stay at Poonjaji's ashram, for example, and watch your work colleagues tell you you're not "thinking critically".

I disagree - people do not challenge the reach, it is when someone says "I am going to wotsisnames ashram so I can learn to levitate" that the cynics among us suspect that this person is only rowing with a single oar.


But wouldn't that apply to almost anything spiritual? Zen? Raja yoga? Rajneesh's dynamic meditation? You're probably right, but a good spiritual discipline or technology hastens the process of change or growth. I think this needs a thread by itself.

Yes, indeed it would. Please prove your assertion that a "good spiritual discipline hastens the process.." I do not think this is correct at all.

You seem to be against all kinds of spiritual technologies and disciplines, not just Scn.

Of course I am, I am an SP. "spiritual technology" is a tautology. It is used by people who try to make their woo woo sound like it has a basis in the real world instead of the fantasy world it comes from.

He may well have gone nuts; I had another spiritual teacher who I think lost it at some point, so maybe Ron did too.

we agree - I think. But I think my reading of it it may be more charitable than others.

The 50's tech was very good IMO, but it was a research line. It worked with some people and not others, and even with the people it worked on it was incomplete (the grades didn't exist back then. for instance). Other researchers have come along since and produced more reliable technologies based on the same data Ron started out with.

You have yet to address my question about whether you think Hubbard was nuts or was a liar when he wrote dianetics. Don't feel singled out, Vinaire always has a problem with this as well.

So can we get a link to the research, the studies and the results then?


Moonies - no way IMO. The Hari Krishnas have a fantastic restaurant in London but they're right at the top of Cultwatch's list of dangerous cults because of the very hard conditions they subject their devotees to.

both cults have waaay more members than the CofS and both seem to be rolling along - but it's an opinion only. The Krishnas have yet to recover from the horrifying child abuse that was rampant in the 80's.

All cults abuse, some get found out.

Sorry, they don't. I have a friend who's OCD. You don't make gains by performing rituals when you're OC (obsessive compulsive), it merely provides a brief release from anxiety. In her case, her gains haven't been from handwashing but from CBT (cognitive behaviour therapy).

Excuse me? Brief release? sounds like a gain to me - as you have not provided what YOU mean by a gain we are dancing in the dark here.



I'm saying there's at least some value in the Tech, you and others here are saying there isn't. Others reading the thread can decide for themselves.

"Scientology is good and original. Unfortunately what is good is not originl and what is original is not good"

As for sucking people in, I'm heavily outnumbered here by people who think I'm wrong so I wouldn't worry too much about that.



I know. Freedumb - LOL.

I don't seriously think you are trying to suck people in - you seem to be up for debating which, IMHO, is great!


No one's being blanketed. We're just having a conversation about Tech, in fact as I've just said I'm being outnumbered here by people who think I'm wrong so if anyone's being "blanketed" it's me.

ah, a subtle reference of mine that was waaay too subtle. Oh well.

I was referring to some emails that Ogger sent during some of his more insane moments.
 

Escalus

Patron Meritorious
OK. What is the reason for the fallacy?

I say that it is a lack of critical thinking skills. They don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is.

But they do know what a "wrong target" is. And that can be the entrance point to winning the argument and instructing them how they just lost it.

It is a lack of critical thinking skills that got a person so enmeshed in Scientology.

And it is the understanding and use of critical thinking skills that gets them out.

By the way - the Data Series does NOT CONTAIN critical thinking skills!

I don't know where logical fallacy comes from. To me it's a lot like just a defense mechanism. It can be engaged in by all kinds of folks. probably anybody and everybody if they're cornered, desperate, or think that's all you need to do to get out of the IT'S A TARP.

Anyway the issue, originally, was whether or not a logical fallacy was enough to blow me off, and I assure you

it isn't because... you know... it isn't. :nervous:
 

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Let me take a swing at this one.

First of all - what does "all foggy" mean? When I went to Newcastle University there were many words I did not understand but I never felt foggy, except in the student union bars. Before Scientology I never, not once, experienced any of the "phenomena" so lovingly described by Hubbard to do with study problems.

So - first of all - the student would have to be trained into having those reactions. Much like scientologists are trained into all sorts of responses that they wouldn't normally have.

I'm not going to take up that point.
Secondly if they were studying a Hubbardic work then, according to KSW, they are merely supposed to be duplicating it - not arguing about it.

Hubbard wrote a lot of contradictory stuff. Just as you are picking out some bits to bolster your argument, I used to ignore the bits in study tech I found harmful (in my opinion) when supervising. There is data in the study tapes about allowing a student power of choice over data, i.e. reject it if you wish. I would allow a student to reject something Hubbard said if he wanted to, providing he appeared to understand what it was he was rejecting. If you want to say but that violates KSW, go for it. It's too late to Comm Ev me for it.

And there, in a nutshell, is why Study Tech does not work. It was originally conceived of as a way to force scientologists to not argue, not debate but instead, passively acquiesce to whatever they are being told. After all, if you did not understand what Hubbard had written it could not possibly be because it was un - understandable rubbish - oh no it had to be because

a) You did not understand the full definition of the word "the" "an" or "or" even though you had been using them your whole life.
then
b) Failing that, you are full of false data
then
c) failing that you are a heavy drug case
then
d) failing that - you have many overts
then
e) failing that - - you have many MWH which is why you are now trying to run away from this insanity called study tech
then
f) You are an SP.

Not once in that admittedly OTT sequence is there room for

"Hubbard did not know his arse from his elbow"

This is simply an amplification of your point, which is not in my understanding of Study Tech. I could probably dig up a quote online about "power of choice" over data if you want. If I thought Study Tech demanded that the student agree with whatever Hubbard said I would hold it in utter contempt.

The whole concepts of a) supervisor and b) study tech are false.

Students need teachers. People who understand the material and, if necessary can engage in Socratic discourse to lead the student out of ignorance (from ex- duco - to lead out of, educate) and into the light of education.

Students don't necessarily need teachers. It depends how good the study materials they have are. Have you ever tried to learn a piece of Microsoft software using MS "help" files? (Rhetorical question!). A couple of years back I did the European Computer Driving License and Advanced ECDL courses at Newcastle College. The courses basically consisted of self-study with a computer program and pack, the pack being say 75 lessons, each one on a small part of MS Word, or Excel, or Access, etc. There were staff there called tutors, who tried to help out the students who needed it, but who didn't teach the stuff. In my opinion, the study materials for those courses were GREAT. There were very few times I needed help from the staff. Trying to learn that stuff in a group setting with the teacher lecturing the students wouldn't have worked at all.

But would I want to learn sky-diving from a pack like that? No.

Paul
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top