Who is Geir Isene?

[Panda Termint]

"OT" is a Scientology term. Deal with it.

Of course, when Scientology's "bait and switch" becomes internalized...

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=218625&postcount=252

I get it, Veda. The same as I got it when you answered me in the post you linked. It just seems really odd to me that someone would, on the one hand, refute Hubbard's statements as rubbish and then, on the other hand, insist that these same statements are the only means by which a thing may be measured. It seems odd to me.

OT *is* a scientology term but to me it simply is a term that encompasses the concept of a Spiritual Being who is capable of operating independently of a body and able to influence material things. I had this concept long before I ever heard the term OT. It's a concept that is much older than scientology and will certainly outlive it. As will I.

 

[Panda Termint]

PT: Wow, did you see that spaceship zoom by?

Z: Huh? Wow, no, I musta missed it. All I saw was a bus.

PT: No; it was a spaceship!

Z: No; it was a *bus*!

PT: Oh, I see what' confusing you! I *call* a bus a spaceship because I like the word.

Z: Uh huh.

Zinj

It was a DC-8!

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

That is funny and so very appropriate.

He KNOWS he's a body.

He knows Scientology has nothing to do with spirituality. Seriously can you think of anyone less spiritual than L. Ron Hubbard ... other than his self trained protégé David Miscavige? Don't get me wrong I have no problem with you diluting yourself by submitting to Hubbard's con game, I just have a problem with the delusional followers of a con man expecting people who know better to humor them by entertaining their fantasies

 

[Ackerland]

Hubbard redefines the "abilities" and characteristics throughout the Tech, particularly at OT3 and in the NOTs series. The DMSMH definition is surely a posited/postulated definition given the complete absence of Clears at that time. The bottom line (to me) is that he was more given to hyperbole and exaggeration than factual measurement and analysis of a condition.

in DMSMH Hubbard also very frequently says stuff like (it's not verbatim, I am quoting from memory) "this was confirmed in xxx cases, each and every one was cured", "dianetics is an exact science", "the road to your mind has been paved, you only need follow it", "it has been confirmed that clears don't suffer from xyz".

already in DMSMH hubbard claims Clears do exist, here is the quote:

Book 1, Chapter 2: "The Clear"

Further, these results can be obtained on a comparative basis. A neurotic individual, possessed also of psychosomatic ills, can be tested for those aberrations and illnesses, demonstrating that they exist. He can then be given dianetic therapy to the end of clearing these neuroses and ills. Finally, he can be examined with the above results. This, in passing, is an experiment which has been performed many times with invariable results. It is a matter of laboratory test that all individuals who have organically complete nervous systems respond in this fashion to dianetic clearing.

A few paragraphs later:

"An entirely new recall process which was inherent in the mind but which had not been noticed came to light in the process of observing clears and aberrees. This recall process is possible in only a small proportion of aberrees in its fullest sense."

You notice how he says: "came to light in the process of observing clears and aberrees"? That is past tense, not future tense.

So please don't give me all that crap about Hubbard only writing about a theoretical state of clear that he sought to achieve time of his life. In Dianetics, he says he _observed_ clears, writes very exactly about what the state of clear is and what it is going to deliver. So if what you say about Hubbard not having produced clears at the time of releasing DMSMH is true (and most certainly I believe it is) this only leads me to the conclusion that already back then the writings in Dianetics were scientifically unsound from a friendly perspective, but more likely a fraud and a con as I believe it to be.
And this is what people who go into Scientology are promised when they get into it and read the book. Spare us with the "oh many people have very different definitions of what clear is", Hubbard wrote it and you can read it exactly in dianetics. Please spare us with the notion that Hubbard amended his definition of clear in later works (like on OT levels), this doesn't make it any better at all. May I remind you of what he wrote in DMSMH about what dianetics is? Ok, here goes:

Book 1, Chapter 1: "The Scope of Dianetics"

Of what must a science of mind be composed?
[...]
Such a science would exceed the severest terms previously laid down for it in any age, but any computation on the subject should discover that a science of mind ought to be able to be and do just these things.

A science of the mind, if it were truly worthy of that name, would have to rank, in experimental precision, with physics and chemistry. There could be no "special cases" to its laws. There could be no recourse to authority. The atom bomb bursts whether Einstein gives it permission or not. Laws native to nature regulate the bursting of that bomb. Technicians, applying techniques derived from discovered natural laws, can make one or a million atom bombs, all alike.

After the body of axioms and technique was organized and working as a science of mind, in rank with the physical sciences, it would be found to have points of agreement with almost every school of thought about thought which had ever existed. This is again a virtue and not a fault.

Simple though it is, dianetics does and is these things:

1. It is an organized science of thought built on definite axioms: statement of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences.

Oh I really _do_ love reading Dianetics.

 

[Zinjifar]

How this works:

First you hypothesize something: e.g. 'A Bank Account under the name Zinjifar with $1,000,000,000.00 in it.'

Next: You give it a name: 'I'll call this bank account 'Pokey''

Then you talk about Pokey until it's got enough 'mass'.

If some scoffer says that Pokey is imaginary, you tell them that, no, it's not imaginary because there *are* bank accounts with $1,000,000,000.00 in them, so, they shouldn't dispute the reality of Pokey.

Finally, you go to a Realtor and buy yourself a sand castle using credit on your Pokey.

Zinj

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

How this works:

First you hypothesize something: e.g. 'A Bank Account under the name Zinjifar with $1,000,000,000.00 in it.'

Next: You give it a name: 'I'll call this bank account 'Pokey''

Then you talk about Pokey until it's got enough 'mass'.

If some scoffer says that Pokey is imaginary, you tell them that, no, it's not imaginary because there *are* bank accounts with $1,000,000,000.00 in them, so, they shouldn't dispute the reality of Pokey.

Finally, you go to a Realtor and buy yourself a sand castle using credit on your Pokey.

Zinj

You'd also have to tell the person questioning your claim that they could not possible believe money or bank accounts exist, simply because they are questioning you.

 

[Mick Wenlock]

Mick, I'm just playing!

I've written elsewhere about the differences between how Hubbard defines a Clear and how those who believe they achieved that State would define it.

Hubbard redefines the "abilities" and characteristics throughout the Tech, particularly at OT3 and in the NOTs series. The DMSMH definition is surely a posited/postulated definition given the complete absence of Clears at that time. The bottom line (to me) is that he was more given to hyperbole and exaggeration than factual measurement and analysis of a condition.

I should have realized panda

 

[Veda]

I get it, Veda.

-snip-

I don't think you do; however, I don't wish to derail this thread.

Or, God forbid, morph it into a thread such as the one below:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=10201

At least we can be glad that Hubbard had a big head, because some of you guys are never gonna get out of there.

Someone should have told you about the tilted walls and tilted floors and the fun-house mirrors, before you wandered into the Hubbard Labyrinth.

Too late now, but please try to understand that there's still time to warn others.

 

[Panda Termint]

in DMSMH Hubbard... <major snip...>
Oh I really _do_ love reading Dianetics.

Ackerland, I think you (and perhaps others) misunderstand what I mean when I say "posited/postulated" the attributes of a Clear.
What I mean is; he "made it up", DMSMH is a mostly work of fiction.

The "case studies" you mention are surely bogus. There were no actual Clears at that time, Hubbard made them up too. That's what he did.

There *are* undoubtedly certain truths contained within the text but these were mostly "borrowed" from other sources.

IMO, Dianetics is a "theory" that Hubbard postulated and espoused which others who followed then turned into a movement. It wasn't Hubbard who created his own "religion", it was us, the people who followed him!

I didn't always think this way but I do now. Is that clear enough?

 

[Panda Termint]

I don't think you do; however, I don't wish to derail this thread.

Or, God forbid, morph it into a thread such as the one below:

http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?t=10201

At least we can be glad that Hubbard had a big head, because some of you guys are never gonna get out of there.

Someone should have told you about the tilted walls and tilted floors and the fun-house mirrors, before you wandered into the Hubbard Labyrinth.

Too late now, but please try to understand that there's still time to warn others.

Why do you always have to make it personal, Veda?

I think I brought this thread back to being about Geir Isene twice.

If you look back over the thread you'll see that I was simply calling ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn on his propensity for dropping off-subject turds into the thread. He seems to do that on many threads, it's not discussion it's rant.


I've asked several times about his rationale and the source of his certainty about scientology, Clears and OTs etc. He hasn't ever answered those questions.

You seem to have the impression that I'm a scientologist, intent on defending it and trolling to that purpose. I'm none of those things and I'm not the one trolling here.

If I was really intent on trolling ESMB I'd probably;

(a) adopt a Username that provoked a degree of cognitive dissonance right from the outset, something like "MinnieMouseCleansMyHouse" (that ought to get their cognitives dissonating!)

(b) then I'd add a disturbing symbol to my Avatar, something like a swirling flaming crucifix, a pentangle, a magical symbol loaded with significance etc (that should soften their cognitives up)

(c) then I'd create a verbal turd like "scientology works, Hubbard was right, Clears and OTs are everywhere" etc and drop it into every thread that caught my attention (the suckers are so busy dissonatin', they'll never notice)

(d) continue to do these things, thread by thread, day after day simply because I find it "entertaining".

Luckily for me I'm not that kind of guy.

I think it's much more beneficial to allow Exes to rationally discuss their experiences, learn about the lies they've been told (without adding further lies) and allow them to find their own way out of the scientology maze.

Geir Isene is a good example of a scientologist in the process of doing exactly that.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

Ackerland,

I think it became theoretical when he realized, early on, that he wasn't actually producing any. Or let me put it this way- for those of us who are still interested at all in it, it did become theoretical.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

Ackerland,

I think it became theoretical when he realized, early on, that he wasn't actually producing any. Or let me put it this way- for those of us who are still interested at all in it, it did become theoretical.

Is contracting pneumonia from reading his cheesy science fiction before you pay for it, also "theoretical" too?

 

[Voltaire's Child]

He didn't say people would always get pneumonia. He said could or they could also become severely ill. "Could" not "will". He probably became ill and figured others probably would, too.

Being restimulated can make a person ill, it's just stress.

 

[lie2meiluvit]

...

 

[exscilon]

He didn't say people would always get pneumonia. He said could or they could also become severely ill. "Could" not "will". He probably became ill and figured others probably would, too.

Being restimulated can make a person ill, it's just stress.

RJ67 was addressed to all staff & students of Scientology IIRC.

Elron said he was describing OT3 in very broad detail because otherwise it was LIKELY to make you very sick.

Millions of humans know about Xenu and they don't get sick from it .......though they could die laughing.

 

[ChuckNorrisCutsMyLawn]

He didn't say people would always get pneumonia. He said could or they could also become severely ill. "Could" not "will". He probably became ill and figured others probably would, too.

Being restimulated can make a person ill, it's just stress.

We aren't talking about being restimulated, we are talking about reading Hubbard's third rate science fiction.

So you think it's actually possible to contract pneumonia from reading Hubbard's cheesy science fiction before you pay for it?

 

[Pepin]

RJ67 was addressed to all staff & students of Scientology IIRC.

Elron said he was describing OT3 in very broad detail because otherwise it was LIKELY to make you very sick.

Millions of humans know about Xenu and they don't get sick from it .......though they could die laughing.

die laughing yes.

Indeed I think very little of what really happened is detailed and not for anyone getting sick but for far dire consequences like self annihilation.

Yes, us humans can create some crazy stuff

 

[Feral]

<SNIP>

I think it's much more beneficial to allow Exes to rationally discuss their experiences, learn about the lies they've been told (without adding further lies) and allow them to find their own way out of the scientology maze.

Geir Isene is a good example of a scientologist in the process of doing exactly that.

How very progressive of you Panda, next you'll be saying that we shouldn't call people 'psycho' because they believe in something we don't.

How I love the dogmatists.

At least they are consistent, if a little dull and repetitive.

 

[Panda Termint]

You know me, I'm always doing my best to make the world a better place.

 

[Voltaire's Child]

RJ67 was addressed to all staff & students of Scientology IIRC.

Elron said he was describing OT3 in very broad detail because otherwise it was LIKELY to make you very sick.

Millions of humans know about Xenu and they don't get sick from it .......though they could die laughing.

"Likely" does not mean "definitely".

Point of fact, I do know several people who did get sick from hearing OTIII stuff out of context. And it wasn't suggestion, either, as not one of them believed that they were hearing the actual OT materials. I also hasten to say that not one of them, to my knowledge, regrets hearing it and all are fine now.