ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at www.exscn2.net.



The E-Meter As A Delusion Facilitator

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by Kha Khan, Mar 30, 2009.

  1. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron

    I second that motion! :thumbsup:

    I'm outa here. If I come back to this thread hold me in contempt! :thankyou: :party:


    --
    Ted
     
  2. Free to shine

    Free to shine Shiny & Free

    You know I got very angry when I read that dismissive comment, so I had a breather and thought about it.

    I see this thread as being an honest attempt to discuss one of the most fundamental issues within scientology. I see genuine posts, written from the heart, I see posts with viewpoints that could help people understand what happened to them. I see genuine attempts to discuss and explain from different sides of the 'tech'. In between I see a tag team attempt to rubbish, query, belittle and pass judgements and then finally to 'laugh off' the whole thread.

    How typical of scientology.

    Well good luck with it.
     
  3. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    It's just escapees being returned to their cells by Rover. The old tv show "The Prisioner" wasn't fiction. What's your number? :D


    Mark A. Baker
     
  4. Mark A. Baker

    Mark A. Baker Sponsor

    The question I would suggest is: Did you ever feel it was unsafe to communicate about anything to your auditor? If so why?

    Don't go too interiorized on it. :)



    Mark A. Baker
     
  5. Zinjifar

    Zinjifar Silver Meritorious Sponsor

    To the first; feeling unsafe about communicating with 'your' auditor would be a very sane situation.

    But, for the 2nd; since when did you play with Black Dianetics?

    Zinj
     
  6. degraded being

    degraded being Sponsor

    Lionheart takes the time to be thorough -because of the dismissive responses to a question which should be taken seriously IMO by those who choose to use or support the tech.

    Such a discussion, if it were to happen in mainstream psychology/psychotherapy
    (in the hypothetical situation that some kind of meter was used), would be welcomed.

    Lionheart seems to have articulated his argument so well - presumably using data which cannnot be refuted- that he got agreement. But with a dismisive attitude.

    Carmel did not seem to agree with Lionheart at first but they found points about which they did agree. I don't think either of them ended up miffed about it or thought they had lost anything.

    It was a good discussion. IMO it was an important one given the fact that any kind of "therapist" could influence their client. Scientology does include indoctrination and the 'baked bean factory" approach could tend to steer clients to auditor/scientology expected outcomes.

    FTS gave personal experience of negative expereiences.

    It is not about trying to get everyone to stop using e-maters, or to stop everyone auditing.

    Get over it!
     
  7. Mystic

    Mystic Crusader

    As long as the "tech" and toys such as e-meters are in the equation, spirit will not be discovered.
     
  8. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor

    I agree. I always thought that e-meter was a distraction. It was an attempt to dig deeper into another person's psyche in violation of that person's reality.

    There is nothing more to discuss about it.

    Those who get it, get it. Those who don't, don't. Why overrun it on others? Why try to enforce your viewpoint on others?

    Just state your viewpoint with your reasons and be done with it.

    .
     
  9. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    Does this mean that it's perfectly OK to make jokes about the behaviour of scn'ists but NOT OK to make jokes about the behaviour of Ex's, even when they're behaving in a manner that invites it?

    Don't take it personally, it isn't aimed at anyone in particular.

    I think my post is quite funny if you take it in the spirit with which it was tendered. Read Ted and Vin's posts preceding it.

    Moreover, to me, the point I'm making about most Religious practices facilitating delusions seems worth considering.
     
  10. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    I am repeating this here. You did not deserve ridicule for it. :no:

    A wonderful heartfelt response and including some data about the effect of LRH's C/Sing on your delusion. :thumbsup: Thank you for your contribution.

    Well done to you for spotting and writing this up!

    I am so sorry you got ridiculed for it on this board which has a purpose "to freely discuss mutual experiences in Scientology".

    How very sad that the resulting ridicule might act as a disincentive for others to write and help themselves recover from delusion. :bigcry: The ridicule is a big positive strike for freedom for exes - not! :grouch:

    The ridicule thrown out on this thread could perhaps be because the thread strikes right at the heart of a key factor in Hubbard's "processing" of homo sapiens to deluded slave! Whatever happens we must not discuss this "process"! So let's ridicule it.

    Yes the "Don't go too interiorized on it." comment by Mark was a dirty piece of black scn tech. Disgraceful!

    Well said and thanks for the support. At times during these pages and pages of ridiculing me it has felt like wading through mud. I can't deny that the ridicule and obfuscation as made it hard to discuss this thread and at times the ridiculers made me want to give up trying to discuss it.

    Veda explained it well here:
    http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=233162&postcount=287
    The template for the doctrine and operation of Scientology was finalized by the early 1970s, and it was not meant to be easily perceived or understood. Arguing about Scientology with a Scientologist - who has been deceived by Scientology, plus is deceiving himself and, sometimes, deceiving others - is usually an unfulfilling exercise.

    You are right about Carmel and I would like to thank her for engaging in the discussion. That's all I ever wanted to achieve in this thread. I think we almost totally agreed once we discussed and answered each other's points. I think the only difference is the degree of delusion influence metering has. That's cool with me.

    Others evaded and ridiculed whereas Carmel engaged and discussed despite some initial strong disagreement. Thanks Carmel! :thumbsup:

    I like your Baked Bean factory simile. Remember Scn is called "processing". Raw beans to baked beans, homo sapiens to deluded slaves.

    As this thread seems to have been swamped with ridicule. I'll leave it to other ESMBers to decide if they want to discuss this IMO vital subject. Otherwise I will go silent and let the ridiculers and ofuscators "win"!
     
  11. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    Why did FTS's post "invite" ridicule? :confused2:

    Do you not understand that when someone makes a very personal post, they are opening themselves to being wounded by ridicule and to taking "joke" responses personally? Don't you understand this? :confused2: I thought that was obvious.

    Refer to the purpose of ESMB " to freely discuss mutual experiences in Scientology". Joking and ridiculing personal experiences does not create a safe environment for people to post personally or honestly.

    Yes, "Religious practices facilitating delusions" is worth consideration but the subject of this thread is the Scn practice of using the e-meter. It is a dispersal and diversion to talk about other religions on this thread. That tactic is an OSA tactic worthy of Tommy Davis.
     
  12. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    I think this is a valuable thread, Lionheart. I appreciate you bulldogging it, actually, as a casual comment or two wouldn't have forced me to look closely enough. I haven't used a meter for years, but I certainly ran some delusions in CofS sessions prompted by "correct" meter use. There is more meter revelation there (with me) to be dug up, I am sure.

    Paul
     
  13. Ted

    Ted Gold Meritorious Patron


    It was no-communication situation.

    Writing up one's experiences and conclusions about them, that's cool. I believe it helps others, too.

    Questioning the tech and policy, I do it all the time. Very therapeutic.

    Asking for a response and not accepting the answers, rude.

    Just say what needs to be said. Simple declarative sentences work best.


    --
    Ted
     
  14. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    Good observation.

    (Please notice also that I am NOT using this icon here --> :hysterical:. An overuse of that icon makes it worthless.)

    .
     
  15. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thanks Paul. I nearly quit ESMB twice over this thread as it was such hard work to get through the obfuscation and ridicule.

    Any other contributions to how the meter may or may not facilitate delusion are welcome.

    Good luck in your sorting out over the meter. It's a slow process with layers of stuff to peel off and realise.

    Maybe an example or two of how you or others were deluded might help yourself and others? Or of course how you weren't deluded by the meter reactions.

    You have some useful supervisory experience of the implantology (dealing with implants) levels. That would be interesting. My personal experience with the meter is only on Dn, Grades, HRD and DN Clear.

    "I'm stubborn as those garbage bags that time cannot decay
    Imperial, mysterious in amorous array
    I'm jumped, but I'm still holding up this little wild bouquet" Leonard Cohen :roflmao:
     
  16. Panda Termint

    Panda Termint Cabal Of One

    I wasn't referring to FTS's posts at all, I was referring to the circular logic displayed in the thread in general. I didn't ridicule, I simply made a joke about the thread. I can't help it if someone else perceives my attempt at humour as ridicule.

    My follow up comment re: joking about the behaviour of Scn'ists vs Ex's was in response to her protesting my joke.

    To avoid further confusion, the sequence went like this;

    I hope that clarifies the sequence of events somewhat.

    I think it's quite healthy to be able to laugh at ourselves sometimes, especially when we're taking ourselves too seriously. I learnt that from posting here on ESMB.

    BTW, I happen to like FTS very much and think you're OK too! :)
     
  17. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    What I am about to say is a very significant aspect of it, in my opinion. I had 2-300 hours of Dianetics around 1973-5, before NED. I would guess this happened at least twenty times, maybe fifty times. I would be auditing some chain of AESPs, and I had found the earliest this lifetime incident of that somatic. The chain had not reached an EP acceptable to the auditor, maybe accurately reading the meter and pc indicators and maybe not, and he would ask for an earlier similar. I would peer into the fog and come up with something and we would continue with the "chain", now in Wonderland thousands or millions or billions or trillions of years ago. It is not that the auditor was steering — accurately or not — on a particular read, but the mere fact of there being "no EP" according to Hubbard meant there MUST be an earlier similar incident, and so both the auditor and pc would dutifully hunt around until something appropriate was found.

    These very rarely bogged with me. Either I would have some acceptable Dianetics EP on the "incident" I had found, or else I would say "Oh, this is imaginary, this chain EP'd when I saw the ____ (or whenever)" and that would F/N according to the auditor and that would be that.

    I think the main error here is in Hubbard's Dianetics theory, including the expected meter phenomena.

    -----

    With regard to the meter reads on OT2 and OT3, I'll write a separate post on it, but not right now.

    Paul
     
  18. Vinaire

    Vinaire Sponsor


    For retrial please see the thread "Effort to Simplify," especially this post:

    E-Meter Retrial

    .
     
  19. lionheart

    lionheart Gold Meritorious Patron

    Thanks. For those that don't know, on Standard Dianetics, which is what you recieved, the auditor would ask for Earlier Similar if the TA rose on the meter or if the PC answered "more solid" to the question "Is the incident erasing or going more solid?" If the TA was rising this erasing/more solid question wasn't asked regarding how the PC felt. The Earlier Similar question was asked straight away.

    So these would be the two secnarios where you were asked for Earlier Similar and tripped into supposed "whole track"

    So rising TA meant E/Sim was asked automatically without consulting the PC about what was happening as regards erasure.

    So thanks, this is another example of the meter being used in standard Hubbard technology to possibly invite delusion.

    I remember in my own sessions I got to the point where I could always find an Earlier Similar "beyond this lifetime". They didn't bog, usually, either. So my Dianetic experience seems similar to yours. Now, those "whole track" and even implants that I ran in Dianetics seem like delusions to me that I conjured up because the combination of Hubbard's tech and the meter phenomena encouraged me to believe the delusions. The tech and Ron's examples of whole track incidents set me up to believe them and the meter was used to encourage me to mock them up. That was my experience.

    Examples of how the meter didn't encourage delusion are also welcomed.
     
  20. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Agreed. I can't say they were all delusional. It would seem that many were, from my originations of "It's dub-in. I EP'd on ___". But others seemed to be genuine and EP'd as if they were. It doesn't mean that they were genuine, but the point is that since I could easily get out of a chain by finding an earlier point where it had EP'd I had no real necessity for continuing on with a charade (i.e. that specific whole track chain) if I genuinely felt that it was a charade.

    Not so interesting, though. :).

    Paul