Tom Cruise and mental health

[ceinwyn]

No scientology here, uh-uh, nope (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4010495/)

[Selsaral]

Hilarious. Psychology is absurd but Xenu the Galactic Overlord is
the real deal?

[Dargo]

Scientologists really get into insane rants about psychology and psychiatry. Because the lead character is an evil psych, Kirstie Alley is the only major actor from Cheers (other than Coach of course) who has never appeared on Frasier

[Autonemesis]

Originally posted by Dargo
Scientologists really get into insane rants about psychology and psychiatry.

That's because they're crazy.

[freemonkey]

Originally posted by Dargo
Scientologists really get into insane rants about psychology and psychiatry.
They must be in denial about all the psychology that was used on them to make them into Scientologists.

[Cheiron]

Considering that Hubbard used his knowledge of psychology to make that religion, it really doesn't surprise me that scientologists have a problem with it.

I mean, fundy christians have a problem with biology in regards to evolution, because it effectively explains away part of their holy book.

So it is reasonable to assume that scientologists would have a problem with psychology because it effectively explains how the religion was made, and the ways to keep people in that religion.

Side note: there are no cults, just small religions. Doing my part to make religion a dirty word.

[Deacon Doubtmonger]

Originally posted by Dargo
Scientologists really get into insane rants about psychology and psychiatry.
Check out the website of their deceptively-named front organization, Citizens' Commission on Human Rights. (http://www.cchr.org) Note also the logo designed to look like the seal of a legitimate government agency!

[Weltall]

Pity, if only those schizophrenics and sociopaths knew that taking a nice stroll was so good for them we'd all be much better off today than if they went to see the psychologists like they do now. :rolleyes:

[extinctionist]

Side note: there are no cults, just small religions. Doing my part to make religion a dirty word.

Nah... there are no religions, just big cults.

Or fucking HUGE self-help groups.

[4th Generation Atheist]

Actually they're just big pyramid schemes.....where the guy at the top doesn't even exist!! how could anyone....:banghead:

And Scientology is one of the better, clearer examples.:rolleyes:

[Matrioshka_Brain]

Which one of them was it that had dyslexia: Tom or John Travolta? Slipped my mind.

[Barney Gumble]

Originally posted by Matrioshka_Brain
Which one of them was it that had dyslexia: Tom or John Travolta? Slipped my mind.
Cruise. Check out this link (http://studytech.org/archives/000059.php).

I've seen the clip, and it was hilarious watching King (notorious ass-kissing, interviews completely devoid of substance - hey, just like Scientology!) stammer after he brought up Cruise's dyslexia, which is apparently well known, and Cruise just flat-out denied it - King couldn't believe it. King just paused, tried to collect himself and asked again..."Uh...you never had dyslexia"? Sure, Cruise was diagnosed with dyslexia after all those years (likely the result of evil psych conditioning), until Hubbards miraculous tech revealed the true nature of his learning disorder; invisible irradiated souls of aliens that were blown up with atomic bombs in volcanoes thousand of millennia ago, selfishly attaching themselves to Cruise's magnificent physique.

Like, DUH PEOPLE!

Good on ya, Kidman. The woman got out just before Cruise graduated to OT-Level-I-am-Officially-Approaching-Hubard-Levels-Of-Insanity.

[Doctor X]

Dargo:

Because the lead character is an evil psych, Kirstie Alley is the only major actor from Cheers. . . .

Not to disagree with a large Luxon pone to hyper-rage, but methinks it may be that she tried to "help" him with his addictions with Scientology and he spurned it.

--J.D.

[fando]

Originally posted by Barney Gumble

Good on ya, Kidman. The woman got out just before Cruise graduated to OT-Level-I-am-Officially-Approaching-Hubard-Levels-Of-Insanity.

And how her star shines after being eclipsed by a lunatic for the longest time...

[Sunfair]

Her star? I thought that was her botoxed forehead.

[callmejay]

Actually, I believe I read somewhere that Cruise was so bad at reading (probably due to dyslexia) that he could hardly read his lines when he started acting. He believes that Scientology helped him to learn to read, which if true, could be a powerful motivator for him to believe in it as a religion.

[Doctor X]

That and they have the negatives. . . .

--J.D.

[whichphilosophy]

No scientology here, uh-uh, nope (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4010495/)

Tom Cruises comments are pretty spot on. Let's face it, (as I mentioned in an earlier posting), the sum total achievement of Western Psychiatry in the last 60 years is clean beds for mental patients.

[Friar Bellows]

Tom Cruises comments are pretty spot on. Let's face it, (as I mentioned in an earlier posting), the sum total achievement of Western Psychiatry in the last 60 years is clean beds for mental patients.

Congratulations! You have won the prize for most ignorant comment of the year on IIDB. Your prize is spending a month helping out at your local hospital's psych ward.

[fando]

I don't think the celebrities are aware of Scientology's crazy shenanigans. They're cared for by special handlers, who make sure they don't see the ugly underbelly. In fact, there are special buildings devoted to managing the celebrities called Celebrity Centers. They are treated like royalty. Most of the real brainwshing occurs elsewhere, at least here in Los Angeles.

[elwoodblues]

Scientologists really get into insane rants about psychology and psychiatry. Because the lead character is an evil psych, Kirstie Alley is the only major actor from Cheers (other than Coach of course) who has never appeared on Frasier

Ha! I never realized that was why she never showed up.

[reprise]

Actually, I believe I read somewhere that Cruise was so bad at reading (probably due to dyslexia) that he could hardly read his lines when he started acting. He believes that Scientology helped him to learn to read, which if true, could be a powerful motivator for him to believe in it as a religion.

I have no problems whatsoever believing that the study tech probably did improve Cruise's reading skills. He would have been being coached at a level of service which the average person could never afford, and whether or not you believe that the study tech was developed by Hubbard (a lot of former Scientologists believe it wasn't), it is effective not because it's "special", but because it's based on a sound principle - "never go past a misunderstood".

Applied Scholastics, in common with Narconon, the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights, the Cult Awareness Network, and many other Scientology subsidiaries is just another hook to get you in the door, but the success of these subsidiaries is dependent on identifying real life problems which people are experiencing and appearing to be able to do something about those problems right this minute. I can't recall a time when I was involved in Scientology when anyone was ever told by staff to "come back later" or that "we can fit you in on Tuesday", and the immediate attention which people are given - on its own - goes a long way towards explaining why people feel better about their situation even when objectively nothing has changed.

[King Rat]

That's because they're crazy.

Careful, Starboy just got banned for similar comments.

[whichphilosophy]

I have no problems whatsoever believing that the study tech probably did improve Cruise's reading skills. He would have been being coached at a level of service which the average person could never afford, and whether or not you believe that the study tech was developed by Hubbard (a lot of former Scientologists believe it wasn't), it is effective not because it's "special", but because it's based on a sound principle - "never go past a misunderstood".

Applied Scholastics, in common with Narconon, the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights, the Cult Awareness Network, and many other Scientology subsidiaries is just another hook to get you in the door, but the success of these subsidiaries is dependent on identifying real life problems which people are experiencing and appearing to be able to do something about those problems right this minute. I can't recall a time when I was involved in Scientology when anyone was ever told by staff to "come back later" or that "we can fit you in on Tuesday", and the immediate attention which people are given - on its own - goes a long way towards explaining why people feel better about their situation even when objectively nothing has changed.

I last did full time courses I suppose in 1986. I'm no expert but as a recipient I can say:

The study technology is not a religious course in itself. The problem people are having trouble with various subjects is because they can't study.

I left school with chronic dyslexia. I couldn't even dial or write phone numbers correctly and my written work was pretty awful.

Now the course teaches a person how to study by learning how to read, learn and apply. The reason for this is that originally because there are millions of words on tape and written down and the procedures are trediously precise as the results are said to be more accurate.

Our education systems cram us like parrots and all we can do is at best memorise but soon forget what we learnt. Vocabul
A Basic Study Manual is around US$45.00 (for improving education) is sufficent for a first time or only time student.

I'm not sure if any text books are required.

I haven't been active for years, but many of the articles appearing on the net were discredited years ago as I even remember some of them at the time. When the Founder was alive many of these article could not be written due to libel laws, so some thing I can't take seriously.

Regards



That's all.

[whichphilosophy]

I don't think the celebrities are aware of Scientology's crazy shenanigans. They're cared for by special handlers, who make sure they don't see the ugly underbelly. In fact, there are special buildings devoted to managing the celebrities called Celebrity Centers. They are treated like royalty. Most of the real brainwshing occurs elsewhere, at least here in Los Angeles.

I think you do not really know about the subject at all. I did some courses in the 1970s and 1980s. I came in as a ordinary person and still am.

I had learning problems. Today I would be drugged on Ritalin by the School psychologist or psychiatrist where the US is an example, because it's an excuse for the lousy education system. Chinese students here in Beijing do much better , even when studying subjects in English.

I never found any secret brainwashing going on. All the courses are the same. Anyone can go to a Celebrity Centre. It's designed for those leaning towards the Arts.

The truth is because the celebrities are saying how well they are benefittings, your imagination gets the better of you and you invent these bizarre statements. Sorry to be so blunt but I have to be honest.

[whichphilosophy]

And how her star shines after being eclipsed by a lunatic for the longest time...

Kidman didn't leave Scientology.
Her and Tom are excellent friends and actors in their own right.

The papers got it wrong again.

[Biff]

I think you do not really know about the subject at all. I did some courses in the 1970s and 1980s. I came in as a ordinary person and still am.

I had learning problems. Today I would be drugged on Ritalin by the School psychologist or psychiatrist where the US is an example, because it's an excuse for the lousy education system. Chinese students here in Beijing do much better , even when studying subjects in English.

I never found any secret brainwashing going on. All the courses are the same. Anyone can go to a Celebrity Centre. It's designed for those leaning towards the Arts.

The truth is because the celebrities are saying how well they are benefittings, your imagination gets the better of you and you invent these bizarre statements. Sorry to be so blunt but I have to be honest.

It sounds like someone needs to read A Piece of Blue Sky by Jon Atack. It is an excellent history of Hubbard and Scientology.

Oh, and of course, if you're curious, it's easy to find the OT III documents online, many of them full PDF's of the pages in Hubbard's own handwriting. Don't take our word for it, get it from the frothing horse's mouth.

Biff

[enemigo]

Because the lead character is an evil psych, Kirstie Alley is the only major actor from Cheers (other than Coach of course) who has never appeared on Frasier
Kirstie Alley played a psychiatrist in Deconstructing Harry.

[Invader Tak]

Didn't Kirstie Alley also play a bad, chain-smoking psychologist of some sort in "Village of the Damned"?

There's a niche for you. Evil mental health professionals!

[brighid]

Careful, Starboy just got banned for similar comments.


No, not really ... but repeatedly violating forum rules after being previously banned ... and promising not to violate the rules again and then doing it again ... and being banned ... and then promising not to violate the rules .... and then doing it again ... and again .... after having been edited dozens of times ... you should know better King Rat.

Brighid

[King Rat]

you should know better King Rat.

Actually I don't, I must admit that I haven't been following the Starboy drama that closely. All I know is what is listed in the banning list. My priorities lie elsewhere.

I enjoy insulting scientology as much as the next guy. Any religion that draws the likes of Kidman, Cruise, Travolta, and Alley has got something inherently wrong with it. I just see little difference between what Starboy says about xtians, and what is being said about scientologists in this thread.

[Matrioshka_Brain]

Whichphilosophy:

www.xenu.net
Understanding Scientology (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us.html)
Skepdic on Dianitics (http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html)
Skepdic on L. Ron. Hubbard. (http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/hubbard.html)

And read that book Biff mentioned (as well as Martin Gardener's "Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus," as it has some stuff on it in there).

Don't buy into it [Scientology]. Seriously. They just want your money.

------------------------------------------
On a semi-related topic, what do you get when you combine Objectivism with Scientology?

"Neo-Tech" (http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Neo-Tech/)
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/virus.97/0484.html

[whichphilosophy]

It sounds like someone needs to read A Piece of Blue Sky by Jon Atack. It is an excellent history of Hubbard and Scientology.

Oh, and of course, if you're curious, it's easy to find the OT III documents online, many of them full PDF's of the pages in Hubbard's own handwriting. Don't take our word for it, get it from the frothing horse's mouth.

Biff

Since my own line of work is investigative a close look at John Atak will show you he's a full of contradictions but be patient and read this bit carefully:

(1) When John Atak left Scientology, he was appointed Chairman of the Advanced Levels Committee a breakaway group which claimed to be the real C of S and they were establishing new organisations with the documents Robin Scott had stolen from Denmark. This group claimed that Scn had been taken over secretly by the US government in a coup with a front group in charge. (His title is normally given to a very dedicated person who is keen to promote the advanced levels).

(2) When that group folded after some internal disputes, John became Chairman of the Advanced Levels Committee in 1984 for the Freezone.

It's in German but his name is at the bottom. My German is poor so I am not going to try and translate it.

http://www.freezone.de/german/d_atack.htm

(2a) There was some dissent in the breakaway groups. A colleague at work who had joined group entitled "Freezone,� mentioned John was trying to write his own "Technology which caused some disputes.

(3) I did have references of discussion and records of meetings that group used to have with John as a prominent member, but I have had other things to do than keep a record of these. This would just put him there at the time. They are not available on the internet nowadays.

(4)Then John produced a piece of blue sky some years later. He reversed his views.

(5) In law one cannot defame the dead, so a lot of repeats (as I would expect) of failed law suits against C of S in the past were mentioned.

I thought the bit about the winged goddess part was quite good as the secret behind Dianetics. Actually I wish it was that easy. However reading just some of the hundreds of pages of printed transcripts in sequential order in the "Research and Discovery Volumes" an account of his research these will in context show the great painstaking research into his study and implementation of the subject.

Also there are several accusations flying about (even discredited ones) most of which are not new. Looking to many of these you will see, believed to be or a third hand statement or hard to decipher

If 1 or 2 of those things were true, then the organisation would be an illegal organisation.

My point is he seemed to be a bit of a "fanatic on Scn" which of course is as bad as being fanatically against it. Yet about 5-6 years later his book is a contradiction of what he was saying some years before.


OT DOCUMENTS
In fact reading any of the data out of context, then not applying it, or not applying it properly will make anything look ridiculous.

What do you understand by OT?
I may well do some courses in the next couple of years when I return to the UK.

I've personally seen the people who have come of drugs in the 1970s through this subject and do well in business work and life, so I don't pay too much attention to the negative stuff which has always been around. By the way I first heard about the subject through bad publicity (as did some other colleagues), but when I checked at the recommendation of a neighbour it was totally different.

There's enough anti Scientology books to fill a library, including those withdrawn. Perhaps John's book may actually turn out free advertising.
However the bottom line is that John’s book is just fruit from the poisonous tree whatever you believe about Scn.

The above can apply to any investigation when coming across such blatent contradictions.

Anyway it's a free society anyone can believe what they want. What is of concern is when people are then not allowed to by law.

[Biff]

Ok, wp, you seem a bit confused. Jon Atack is completely up front about his involvement with breakaway groups before he did his own research into Hubbard's background. The lesson here is that trying to extricate yourself from a cultic environment often results in first feeling that the essential teachings are true, but that some "elements" in the group have distorted them.

Once he spent time away from the group and teachings, and then returned to investigate, Atack found not only a virtual lack of real research by Hubbard, but a deep involvement by Hubbard in drugs, the occult, and various illegal business practices. Let me ask, have you actually read A Piece of Blue Sky, or are you dismissing it out of hand? Character assassination is not foreign to the Church. I'm sure you're smart enough to judge a source for yourself. Read A Piece of Blue Sky, and then tell us what you think.

As for the OT III documents, I ask the same question. Have you looked at what are purported to be the real OT III documents, or are you dismissing them without reading them? I hope not. Read the OT III story, and get back to us.

Biff

[reprise]

I think you do not really know about the subject at all. I did some courses in the 1970s and 1980s. I came in as a ordinary person and still am.

I had learning problems. Today I would be drugged on Ritalin by the School psychologist or psychiatrist where the US is an example, because it's an excuse for the lousy education system. Chinese students here in Beijing do much better , even when studying subjects in English.

I never found any secret brainwashing going on. All the courses are the same. Anyone can go to a Celebrity Centre. It's designed for those leaning towards the Arts.

The truth is because the celebrities are saying how well they are benefittings, your imagination gets the better of you and you invent these bizarre statements. Sorry to be so blunt but I have to be honest.

As a former Sea Org member (AOSH ANZO), I consider myself as somewhat more qualified to comment of the organisation as a whole than someone who has done several courses on an external basis.

What is published online accurately reflects the teaching of the OT levels. I have already commented here and elsewhere that the study tech works. The TRs also work. The major mistake which critics of Scientology make is not acknowledging that some of the tech is useful. Having said that, neither the study tech nor the TRs are unique. If you encounter them for the first time within the context of Scientology, then because they do work, it becomes that much more easy to accept that other aspects of Scientology's teachings are equally valid.

I still use a lot of Scientology's principles in everyday life. Especially the study tech and the TRs, but also things like the ARC triangle and the Be-Do-Have triangle. Even the ethics conditions - applied absent Scientology - can be very useful in respect of decision making, as can be applying the dynamics. None of these "formulas" are actually new. They are very old principles repackaged.

And a Scientologist in good standing will automatically reject criticism of the Church as entheta or enturbulence (there's a reason why one of the first directives of CommEvs is a non-ent order) because Scientology teaches that its critics are "downtone", "suppressive persons" or "type 3".

I don't know how far up the bridge you are right now, but I can assure you that a "whole of life history" being in the hands of an organisation which has an established record of releasing (and even fabricating) confidential information in order to silence its critics can be a very powerful motivator in convincing public figures to keep any criticisms they have of the organisation to themselves when they leave.

Yes, the GO has been renamed, yes the "fair game" policy has officially been revoked, but if you think that either no longer exists in practise, then I would suggest that you get to know some "disaffected" Scientologists personally.

[whichphilosophy]

Congratulations! You have won the prize for most ignorant comment of the year on IIDB. Your prize is spending a month helping out at your local hospital's psych ward.

I very much appreciate your award as it is very seldom I receive a first prize for anything.

If I gave you all the comments from Doctors and psychiatrists I would have to write a book. I've quoted a few as you go down.

I've cut and paste a few onto this.

I'll just mention a few references. Please read these as not many people have a chance to read this.


ECT
(Discovered in an Italian Pig Slaughterhouse Urgo Cerlietti 1938)

Peter Sterling, Ph.D.Professor of Neuroscience University of Pennsylvania 31 May 04 Testimony To The New York State Assembly Committee On Mental Health On Electroshock Extracts.

As a neuroscientist I have studied the structure and function of the mammalian brain for more than 30 years. I teach this subject to medical and graduate students at the University of Pennsylvania where I also conduct an active research program on this subject. I became concerned about the effects of electroconvulsive shock (ECS)……….

1) ECS is designed to evoke a grand mal epileptic seizure involving massive excitation of cortical neurons that also deliver excitation to lower brain structures. The seizure causes an acute rise in blood pressure well into the hypertensive range, and this frequently causes small hemorrhages in the brain. Wherever a hemorrhage occurs in the brain, nerve cells die -- and nerve cells are not replaced.

LOBOTOMY Brief Story
The lobotomy. Invented in Portugal, 1935, by Egos Moniz. Ironically, four years later he was shot and partially paralyzed by a victim of one of his lobotomies, and in 1955 he was beaten to death by another one of his patients who apparently didn't want his "help." From the book Medical Blunders:

Walter Freeman pioneered the trans-orbital (through the eye) lobotomy, which he literally performed with an ice pick.

Try this website http://www.23nlpeople.com/lobotomy.htm





HAve a look at these. These are just the tip of the iceberg. If you are investigative and like to learn for yourself you will find this interesting.
A lot of hard facts which seldom get to page 1 of the press.

COMMENT ABOUT INVENTED PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS
Dr. Loren R. Mosher, former Chief of Research at the National Institute of Mental Health's Center for the Study of Schizophrenia, states: ''DSM IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document...DSM IV has become a bible and a money making best seller -- its major failings not withstanding.'' But the real issue, he says, is ''What do the (DSM) categories tell us? Do they in fact accurately represent the person with the problem? They don't and can't, because there are no external validating criteria for psychiatric diagnoses. There is neither blood test nor specific anatomic lesions for any major psychiatric disorder.''

Check other psychiasts, Dr Thomas Szaz,Peter Breggin (www.breggin.com),


ALSO
Studies by University of New York: Studies by Professors Herb Kutchins from the California State University, and Stuart A. Kirk from the University of New York, found, ''...there is ample reason to conclude that the latest versions of DSM as a clinical tool are unreliable and therefore of questionable validity as a classification system.''

BOUNTY HUNTERS (SOME Psychiatric hospitals have already been forced to pay back the medicare treatents).

See this review which talks about how (even today) psychiatry hospitals pay bounty hunters on commission to attract new business. On the day their medical insurance runs out they are suddenly pronounced well:----

http://www.ftrbooks.net/psych/ect/bedlam.htm

RITALIN PSYCHIATRIES GIFT TO OUR FUTURE GENERATION

In the book, "Predicting Dependence Liability of Stimulant and Depressant Drugs," by the medical researchers Klaus R. Unna, M.D., Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Illinois at the Medical Center, Chicago and Travis Thompson, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology and psychiatry, University of Minnesota, they say the following:
Perhaps the best-known effect of chronic stimulant administration is psychosis. Psychosis has been associated with chronic use of several stimulants; e.g., amphetamines, METHYLPHENIDATE (RITALIN), phenmetrazine and cocaine... [This] psychosis mimics paranoid schizophrenia or paranoia so closely that it has been misdiagnosed as such by experienced clinicians many times.

What is the long term outlook for children raised on Ritalin on a daily or almost daily basis? Exactly what you would expect if your child were raised on cocaine on a daily or almost daily basis.

American National Institute For Mental Health own funded study:
46% of the children raised on Ritalin are charged with at least one major felony by the age of 18
30% are charged with two or more such crimes by the age of eighteen.
25% of these children are institutionalized in mental institutions or prisons by the age of eighteen.
15% will threaten, attempt or actually commit suicide by the age of eighteen.


Actually it’s the Psychiatrists who do the labelling. An inability to properly educate children, diagnose the real physical problems (see other comments) is not an excuse. Only the Drug company PR departments are claiming it works.

Controversial but factual article written in USA today The Case Against ECT by Jan Eastgate Nov 1998
It does give the link between the Nazi use of it and its use today. Very detailed and could not be successfully rebutted at the time.

http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/eleo-treat.htm


QUOTE: Labeling a child, "mentally ill," is like hanging a sign around his or her neck saying, "GARBAGE: take it away.", Thomas S. Szasz, M.D., Professor of Psychiatry.

. However as I write Given the lack of scientific support for physical causes of ADHD, the U.S. Government finally following in the footsteps of some 19 states and making it against the law for school personnel to insist that students be drugged as a condition for attending school. So on May 21, 2003 the House of Representatives passed bill number H.R. 1170, ( Child Medication Safety Act of 2003), which makes it mandatory for all states to develop and implement policies prohibiting school personnel from requiring a child to obtain a prescription for ADHD medications. The bill passed by landslide votes of 425 to 1.
(The Bill has not yet been enacted in Law as it is waiting for the Senate to pass it. While waiting schools continue to push these on school children many below the age of 8).

DEEP SLEEP THERAPY CHELMSFORD HOSPITAL AUSTRALIA

You can check this on the website and read for yourself without my influence or that of anyone else. If you have difficulty I can dig some out.

Only one thing I would like to say, if you are a parent try to ensure your kids are not prescribed by the school doctor to take Ritalin or other "Hyperactivity drugs." I am sure most would.

Hope this is okay for now

[whichphilosophy]

Whichphilosophy:

www.xenu.net
Understanding Scientology (http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us.html)
Skepdic on Dianitics (http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html)
Skepdic on L. Ron. Hubbard. (http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/hubbard.html)

And read that book Biff mentioned (as well as Martin Gardener's "Science: Good, Bad, and Bogus," as it has some stuff on it in there).

Don't buy into it [Scientology]. Seriously. They just want your money.

------------------------------------------
On a semi-related topic, what do you get when you combine Objectivism with Scientology?

"Neo-Tech" (http://www.ex-cult.org/Groups/Neo-Tech/)
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/virus.97/0484.html

Is this all you can do, quote what other websites tell you and cut and paste.
If you have a statement make a constructive point. and not be manipulated by others.

What do you actually want to say as I don't see a question here except references to some sites with confused and generalised comments.

Do you want me to read through this and still not know what specific points based on your own rational analysis is?

Regards.

[reprise]

You are absolutely right that CCHR was ONE of the organisations involved in the closure of Chelmsford hospital. I was actively involved in that particular campaign, just as I was involved in the campaign to get Freedom of Information legislation passed in Australia. And as I was personally involved in both of those campaigns, I'd really like to see you do something more than claim 20 year old "victories" on behalf of the Church, and keep cutting and pasting as examples of the good done by Scientology, things about which you quite clearly have done no in depth research whatsoever. You accuse the critics of Scientology of cutting and pasting entheta, black PR, or whatever they are calling it in the Org these days, and yet you have not offered a single reasoned opinion of your own. You have only offered your own cut and pastes in return. You just failed the Scientology study tech. You are being "glib". Demo to me right now that you understand any of what you have just cut and pasted, because you sure as shit wouldn't pass an e-meter test on your understanding of Scientology if your last post is any indication.

Let me guess, you've done lots of auditing and no tech. If you're a Dianetic Clear, then I suggest that you go back and do the Dianetic Clear Over-run programme because you aren't coming across as tone 4, let alone tone 40.

For the benefit of our gentle readers, the person posting here in defence of Scientology seems way too unfamiliar with its principles and practises or any of its doctrines to have actually spent any time involved in it at all. I especially note that the poster has not clarified at all which particular courses they have done and the location of the orgs which delivered the services. I'm especially fascinated by their quoting of arguments which the Orgs themselves have not used in the last 20 years ("squirrel tech"? - HELLO).

I'd love to know which Org is servicing you, because they would get the biggest bitch-slap from Flag if they knew what you were posting here and now. But then again, if you were a REALLY good Scientologist, you wouldn't even be able to access this website because you'd be running the Sci-filter.

You haven't used a single phrase or word or concept which leads me to believe that you've had even the remotest exposure to Scientology, so pardon me if I regard your testimonials in defence of the Org with a great degree of cynicism.

[reprise]

Is this all you can do, quote what other websites tell you and cut and paste.
If you have a statement make a constructive point. and not be manipulated by others.

What do you actually want to say as I don't see a question here except references to some sites with confused and generalised comments.

Do you want me to read through this and still not know what specific points based on your own rational analysis is?

Regards.


No, YOU, analyse it. Because if you'd done even the most basic of Scientology courses then you would not at this point be invoking anything other than ARC. I guess you're stuck in anger right now. That's OK, Scientology can sell you a course to bring you "uptone". If I believed that you really were a Scientologist, then I'd take great satisfaction right now in submitting this thread to you local Org as an example of why your local commander should be busted to the RPF or the DPF.

BTW, the Commander of AOSH/ANZO at the time of the Chelmsford Hospital thing was female. You'll gain some credibility in my eyes if you can tell me her name.

[Friar Bellows]

I very much appreciate your award as it is very seldom I receive a first prize for anything.

Cool. So which hospital did you choose to volunteer at?

[whichphilosophy]

Ok, wp, you seem a bit confused. Jon Atack is completely up front about his involvement with breakaway groups before he did his own research into Hubbard's background. The lesson here is that trying to extricate yourself from a cultic environment often results in first feeling that the essential teachings are true, but that some "elements" in the group have distorted them.

Once he spent time away from the group and teachings, and then returned to investigate, Atack found not only a virtual lack of real research by Hubbard, but a deep involvement by Hubbard in drugs, the occult, and various illegal business practices. Let me ask, have you actually read A Piece of Blue Sky, or are you dismissing it out of hand? Character assassination is not foreign to the Church. I'm sure you're smart enough to judge a source for yourself. Read A Piece of Blue Sky, and then tell us what you think.

As for the OT III documents, I ask the same question. Have you looked at what are purported to be the real OT III documents, or are you dismissing them without reading them? I hope not. Read the OT III story, and get back to us.

Biff


BELOW ARE SOME NOTES

Here is my conclusion.
The book mentions nothing new, ie Russel Miller, Cyril Vosper and Paulette Cooper. I am not too familiar with the others at times repeat each other.

I think the book could have been done in a year as most of the data was there. So really he left the alternative group after 1984 and brought the book out in 1990

Just looking at the overwhelming amounts of Research volumes books tapes. the different precise procedures and applications, whatever ones views one will know definitely there was a lot of research. He could not have studied these. The books only give a snap shot. The research texts give the logic and research that was done.

As his biography is being compiled there are some snippets coming out from people who knew him even non staff members. Their impressions are nothing like John Ataks inferals.

The books nothing worse than what I've seen in the past.

With the Owner deceased some old articles and statements can now be more freely printed as one cannot defame the dead.
Gery Armstrong is a poor source of information. He was caught on police Video Tape conspiring to plant incrimination information into an organisation in LA. He is no longer a reliable witness in the US courts.

Too many distortions assumptions generalities and heresay to give an accurate view.

The book hardly goes into the practices and principles of Diantetics and Scientolgy. That is to say the actual processes.

Yes one can raise their IQ and feel healthy. This is from personal observation and experience.

Sorry I don't rate it too much.

If I did the Advanced levels (OT) just by themselves they wouldn't make sense. I have to crawl up the ladder.

As for costs. No problem. My problem was time As for doing more in the future. I will do more courses.

Really in fairness you should meet members for yourself and judge them on their merits.

If you visit an organisation they can give you a demonstration how an e-meter works. You will participate in it by the way. Don't worry your brain will still be the same colour afterwards.

As for the book, I first heard about the subject through bad publicity. So this may indeed be free advertising.

There's nothing wrong if you ask any challenging questions as long as you haven't got your mind totally made up before.

Actually I was initially more interested in starteing a thread on Man's evolution based on DNA research (Recenlty done in 2003). This shookthe evolutionary world a bit. Thats another subject. The notes are just own comments on some.

Regards



NOTES: No need to read them I just commented briefly on some of the chapters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He as active in the Freezone in 1984 and in 1990 he published the book So he had less than 6 years to have a dramatic realisation after doing how much research. He has some documents and references to earlier books written, by Vosper, Russel Miller, Paulette Cooper.

I don't see much of research in this book.

Part 1, pretty much matter of fact
Part 2 sample
"I saw the Sea Org as the monastic order of Scientology, something like the Knights Templar, perhaps. I felt guilty, because I was not ready to renounce everything for the good of the cause."
Nothing much there.

Better way to understand an e-meter is have a user show you how it works. Doesn't take long to understand the principles. It takes longer to understand the reads and how to use it well

Chapter 3

Gerry Armstrong Fruit from the poisonous tree. Gerry got too cocky and careless after some initial court wins. He was caught by the LAPD on videotape trying to plant evidence on the organisation there to do with tax. He complained the taping was illegal, but not at all since the police were tipped off in advance.

I'll wait for the official biography for this. If you read it you can get a balanced view

Chapter 4 he mentions some in house politics if you like but pretty shallow.
There was a shake up and upheaval at that time, so I think we are seeing some vibrations. I was doing courses at the time after working away offshore.
Not at all as dramatic as he makes out.

OK I'll give him 2 out of 10 for highlighting something was going.

Let me skip a few because I'm in the middle of other things and probarbly boring.

I thought there would be more new stuff in the magical career.The News of the world (later)I understand also published a similar article to the Sunday Times.

Considering he was studying of several known religions and produced hundreds of lectures on the spirit and mind, he is bound to mention such things. Theres a lot more on Bhuddism and Hinduism. These references on magic and how early man was trapped in this and supersitition are pretty small.
Nothing exciting or dramatic.

Actually during one of his lectures on tape he did say that he was quite flattered that all his critics credit him with finding the time to do all these things.

Chapter VII The world's real clear
Actually I quite believe the statement about higher IQ and body skills. That's pretty normal.
Despite what some think an IQ can raise or lower. This was a subject I raised in some MENSA and ISPE discussion groups. Not chat but e-mails.

It raised my IQ reading ability and health so I have no comments about yes.

A simple ploy to position Albert Einstien with Ron Hubbard trying the same. That's standard hack journalism.

Chaper 6
This move to land was done confidentially and expediently. Old hat.
"I like this one a new kind of tourist with a fixed stare."
This gives rise to Armstrong's Afridavit.

In fairness to the St PetersburgTimes it does pretty good balanced articles. In the early days there were some clashes however.

Quentin Hubbard. That was I think after my first courses. There was speculation that he had been assassinated... There are so many stories about.

The Guardians Office (GO) Legal department. This did somewhat get involved in too many suits and 12 members were convicted for stealing government documents. There was no need to do this. Under the Freedom of Information Act they could have obtained these even if it took a bit of time. Sure government organisations can try delay tactics by moving documents to other offices.


This is well known. It was replaced in a management shake up. Every organisation has management shake ups.

The GO was not up to the job. Some of the staff were transferred. Some stayed and some new ones brought in.

Chapter 8 Child custody case.
I know the couple concerned. This should have been a simple case. The judges comments were based on a testimony by a psychiatrist hostile to the subject. A psychiatrist can say anything they want in a court case. Nothing new. That was his opinion which the judge took.


In general I think this contains old Hat. I can't comment on all of it. It's contains one sided in house politics.

However most people can be swayed by alarmist statements or suggestions that put doubt in their minds rather than factual statements.

I would say given that most of he information was known the book would have taken a year or so to write with little or no research.

He took some information from Russel Miller, in turn he from Cyril Vosper, Gerry Armstrong.
..................................End of notes...................................

[Biff]

wp, your response is not entirely clear to me. I have read A Piece of Blue Sky several times, and your responses and notes on it lead me to believe that you haven't actually read it. Could you tell me definitively whether you've actually sat down and read Jon Atack's book cover to cover, rather than simply trying to discredit his information with references to other people?

It is, unfortunately, a standard tactic of the Church to immediately attempt to assassinate the character of any perceived critic, and it has been perfectly acceptable to them to fabricate evidence where none exists.

I suggest you read both Atack's book and the OT levels, without a predisposition toward discrediting them, and then tell us what you think.

Biff

[whichphilosophy]

wp, your response is not entirely clear to me. I have read A Piece of Blue Sky several times, and your responses and notes on it lead me to believe that you haven't actually read it. Could you tell me definitively whether you've actually sat down and read Jon Atack's book cover to cover, rather than simply trying to discredit his information with references to other people?

It is, unfortunately, a standard tactic of the Church to immediately attempt to assassinate the character of any perceived critic, and it has been perfectly acceptable to them to fabricate evidence where none exists.

I suggest you read both Atack's book and the OT levels, without a predisposition toward discrediting them, and then tell us what you think.

Biff

I can only summarise some points instead of reading over old stuff. Despite the hype and inuendos that are effective in causing turbulence.

I can't see anything to get me excited about this book. The reason I mention fruit off the poisonous tree is this is common in business and law when one discredits themselves.

I'm not working for the Church. Sure I agree with their views. By the way if someone attacks them or trys a smear campaign anyone has a right to take recourse through the courts or to rebut it.

There's no harm in disagreeing with Scientology. This is not a problem.

As for me I don't perhaps see what the fuss is about.

Do need to re read Judge Latey's comments or the death at sea again or about Jim Parsons and the Magic. This is old hat.

Apart from his impressions, cut and paste from old books, and slipping in OT information there's nothing.

I'm almost inclined to send a letter to the legal departments and suggest that this book can be used as free advertising.

I think however the concern in reading the OT levels before they should be done.

I forgot there's some new but out of date in the summing up.

If I make it to the OT levels I'll tell you what I achieve. You can't get that reading it only.


However the question will be is it important does the subject work and produce positive results for the individual?

What are your views on this?

As for Atak Gerry Armstrong I wish them well but even they have stated they were making gains.

Regards,

[whichphilosophy]

Cool. So which hospital did you choose to volunteer at?

I would choose to work in a TCM Hospital where they don't use drugs. Actually they do treat schizophrenia with some success on herbal remedies.

I would not work at a hospital where patients are forcibly drugged.
electroshocked etc.
I wouldn't work in a US hospital that uses bounty hunters on commission to grab patients and then let them go after a while.

Regards,

[whichphilosophy]

No, YOU, analyse it. Because if you'd done even the most basic of Scientology courses then you would not at this point be invoking anything other than ARC. I guess you're stuck in anger right now. That's OK, Scientology can sell you a course to bring you "uptone". If I believed that you really were a Scientologist, then I'd take great satisfaction right now in submitting this thread to you local Org as an example of why your local commander should be busted to the RPF or the DPF.

BTW, the Commander of AOSH/ANZO at the time of the Chelmsford Hospital thing was female. You'll gain some credibility in my eyes if you can tell me her name.

Someone gives me some website addresses and I said what's the question. Well if I have to kick start communication then so be it. I've had people send me websites before and they did not even understand it. This is no use to man nor beast. This is because some people don't understand what they're critical of. Their minds are confused.

I'm so scared, send this to Saint Hill Fdn UK if you like what will you tell them. The last time I was there was 1986 so maybe not all remember me.

So because someone sends me a few whacky websites the Chief of the local organisation is at fault.

I was never in Australia so how on earth could I know her name. Was it you?

At least you're livening up things a little bit. Actually as this may involve some terminology people are not familiar with you can always write to my own e-mail address on any points. I have a special one (quoted in my details) which I use for some other discussion groups.

[Matrioshka_Brain]

Is this all you can do, quote what other websites tell you and cut and paste.
If you have a statement make a constructive point. and not be manipulated by others.

What do you actually want to say as I don't see a question here except references to some sites with confused and generalised comments.

Do you want me to read through this and still not know what specific points based on your own rational analysis is?

Regards.

You were supposed to - I know this may come as a shock to you - read them over. <huh? what?> Yes - read them over. <gasp! He's serious!>

Not condescend, or automatically dissmiss me out of hand. That gets us nowhere. If you had actually read the links (the four up top anyway) you could have perhaps critiqued them, or - god forbid - learn something about the subject at hand. Such as:

Hubbard's inflated record.
http://ronthewarhero.org/

Hubbard's mental health woes.
http://www.clambake.org/archive/ronthenut/
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/scientology/scientology.html

How it all got started.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-01.html
http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html

Killings and abuse by the CoS.
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/index.html

Takeovers by the CoS.
Clearwater, CA - http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-13.html
The Cult Awareness Network.

Brute legal tactics of the CoS to censor what its victims see, and squash dissent, over the internet and other mediums.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/censorship/
http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_vs._the_Internet

The literary quality (or lack therof) of the CoS' most secretive dogma.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/secret.html

Brainwashing.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-14.html
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-04.html

Bogus personality test.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/oca/

And much much more!
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/
http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/dianetics.html
------------------------------------------------

Scientology is a totalitiarian cult created, continuing, and operating for the sole purpose of maintaining power and exploiting people for all they're worth.
Dianetics was an ad hoc solution to Hubbard's lagging writing career. The cult will do anything to anyone for any reason. It gives Eric Blair's 1984 a run for its money.

Hubbard gave it religion status for nothing other than to have tax-exempt status and to help keep it from being investigated.

Its doctrine is entierly psuedoscientific (http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/essays/engrams.html), made up (or unorigional) and made to look researched to gullible people.

You should by no means associate with this group or take its doctrine seriously. As I'm sure you know, no other cult extracts as much money from it's victims. I wasn't told to cut and paste this by anyone; do not think me to be mindlessly parroting.

-----------------------------------------------

Someone gives me some website addresses and I said what's the question. Well if I have to kick start communication then so be it. I've had people send me websites before and they did not even understand it. This is no use to man nor beast. This is because some people don't understand what they're critical of. Their minds are confused.
...

I understand what I'm critical of, thank you very much, and I've wrote essays on the topic for school (I wish I still had them... lousy computer crashed :mad: ... :( ). I've also read over the links. This isn't new to me.

-----------------------------------------------

I also think the S&S forum would be a better place for examining the claims of scientology.

[Biff]

I can only summarise some points instead of reading over old stuff. Despite the hype and inuendos that are effective in causing turbulence.

I can't see anything to get me excited about this book. The reason I mention fruit off the poisonous tree is this is common in business and law when one discredits themselves.

I'm not working for the Church. Sure I agree with their views. By the way if someone attacks them or trys a smear campaign anyone has a right to take recourse through the courts or to rebut it.

There's no harm in disagreeing with Scientology. This is not a problem.

As for me I don't perhaps see what the fuss is about.

Do need to re read Judge Latey's comments or the death at sea again or about Jim Parsons and the Magic. This is old hat.

Apart from his impressions, cut and paste from old books, and slipping in OT information there's nothing.

I'm almost inclined to send a letter to the legal departments and suggest that this book can be used as free advertising.

I think however the concern in reading the OT levels before they should be done.

I forgot there's some new but out of date in the summing up.

If I make it to the OT levels I'll tell you what I achieve. You can't get that reading it only.


However the question will be is it important does the subject work and produce positive results for the individual?

What are your views on this?

As for Atak Gerry Armstrong I wish them well but even they have stated they were making gains.

Regards,

I understand now. The Church has told you that anyone who criticizes them has secret crimes that need to be uncovered. In fact, the idea comes straight from Hubbard himself. As someone who has actually read Atack's book, I can tell you that it contains information that has been supported by many other former scientologists (who, of course, you consider "poisonous"), and also has far more sources than just Gerry Armstrong.

Why don't you read this book, and the OT levels, instead of speaking from ignorance of them? Are you going to talk about the information in the sites you've been directed to, or are you going to protect yourself by dismissing them before you even read them?

Biff

[whichphilosophy]

You were supposed to - I know this may come as a shock to you - read them over. <huh? what?> Yes - read them over. <gasp! He's serious!>

Not condescend, or automatically dissmiss me out of hand. That gets us nowhere. If you had actually read the links (the four up top anyway) you could have perhaps critiqued them, or - god forbid - learn something about the subject at hand. Such as:

Hubbard's inflated record.
http://ronthewarhero.org/

Hubbard's mental health woes.
http://www.clambake.org/archive/ronthenut/
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/scientology/scientology.html

How it all got started.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-01.html
http://www.skepdic.com/dianetic.html

Killings and abuse by the CoS.
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
http://www.whyaretheydead.net/childabuse/index.html

Takeovers by the CoS.
Clearwater, CA - http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-13.html
The Cult Awareness Network.

Brute legal tactics of the CoS to censor what its victims see, and squash dissent, over the internet and other mediums.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/censorship/
http://www.skeptic.com/03.3.jl-jj-scientology.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_vs._the_Internet

The literary quality (or lack therof) of the CoS' most secretive dogma.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/secret.html

Brainwashing.
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-14.html
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/wakefield/us-04.html

Bogus personality test.
http://www.xenu.net/archive/oca/

And much much more!
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/
http://www.factnet.org/Scientology/dianetics.html
------------------------------------------------

Scientology is a totalitiarian cult created, continuing, and operating for the sole purpose of maintaining power and exploiting people for all they're worth.
Dianetics was an ad hoc solution to Hubbard's lagging writing career. The cult will do anything to anyone for any reason. It gives Eric Blair's 1984 a run for its money.

Hubbard gave it religion status for nothing other than to have tax-exempt status and to help keep it from being investigated.

Its doctrine is entierly psuedoscientific (http://www.xs4all.nl/~kspaink/cos/essays/engrams.html), made up (or unorigional) and made to look researched to gullible people.

You should by no means associate with this group or take its doctrine seriously. As I'm sure you know, no other cult extracts as much money from it's victims. I wasn't told to cut and paste this by anyone; do not think me to be mindlessly parroting.

-----------------------------------------------



I understand what I'm critical of, thank you very much, and I've wrote essays on the topic for school (I wish I still had them... lousy computer crashed :mad: ... :( ). I've also read over the links. This isn't new to me.

-----------------------------------------------

I also think the S&S forum would be a better place for examining the claims of scientology.

Thanks for your post.

I see you’re a student. I should therefore be more polite to the future generations.

In honesty if you have fixed opinions then there would be no point in even discussing the subject.
However, I’m not really interested in converting people to one view or another so much as getting people to look for themselves as one should be able to tell good from bad (which can be very difficult at times).

I am familiar with these websites, but what they don’t tell you is what it is actually like for the individual based on their own experience. Sure there are some write ups etc.

I’ve paid for courses years ago, and have yet to do them. If you think there’s something wrong with me for this, then you have a point.

Why do these websites make no sense to me. Apart from containing a lot of out of date already discredited information I go on my own experience.

1. First of all during my involvement I immediately ceased to have colds flu or any ailments. All medical tests showed perfect health.
2. As for my literacy, I was dyslectic, i.e., could not even write down a phone number without getting them back to front.
3. As with nearly every person I was on course with and stayed, their incomes skyrocketed. A couple of people I knew when I was 23 were cleaning office floors for a living. Now they nearly all own their own businesses and some became millionaires.
4. Sure some people come and go and are not satisfied.
5. Sure people have disputes or dislikes. I mean I read one Xenu article about someone who joined the staffs in the USA. His main gripe was there was a hole in his trouser pocket.
6. My own view is to judge people on their merits, no matter who they are. Can’t go much wrong on that. They don’t have to believe in my own views. My only objection is if they try to make me wrong for having these. For instance if someone tried to get me fired by showing the boss some Xenu articles (never happened though) or something.
7.

If you meet some people who have done courses for a few years you may get a shock how actually decent they are.

If you ask a Bhuddist what it is like to experience something in Bhuddism, he/she would probarbly say you can describe the taste of an apple but still not know until you have tasted it.

Take care

[GunnerJ]

I'm moving this to Non-Abrahamic Religions Discussion, because at this point any relation to Media and Pop Culture is marginal at best.

-GunnerJ
M&PC Mod

[whichphilosophy]

Cool. So which hospital did you choose to volunteer at?

Just a point, (sent a reply already) my earlier referrals was not to do with the vast majority of care workers but mainstream psychaitry.

The care workers have had a lousy job trying to deal with the after effects of lobotomies, ECT drug side effects which has added to their workload but nothing to their salaries.

Also there are psychologists and psychiatrists who speak out against this but too few.

[Infidelettante]

I'm moving this to Non-Abrahamic Religions Discussion, because at this point any relation to Media and Pop Culture is marginal at best.
-GunnerJ
M&PC Mod

Thank you GunnerJ, this thread is a good fit for NAR&P. I'd like to welcome everyone and ask that you maintain the high standards you exhibit in this thread. Please address the argument. Individuals are off limits.

Could one of you post a brief run up of the basics of Scientology so those of us who are unfamiliar with it could have some idea of why the passion for and against it run so high. Thanks,

JT

[jivatum khantina]

Id just like to make a few comments on the issue of psychology.

Many people when railing against psychology act as if its failures are and missteps are reasons for complete condemnation. They point to EST or ECT and Labotomy and call all of psychology barbaric. They point to failed diagnoses and call it crack-pot science. They point to hurried analysis and rushed judgements and call it greedy. They point to drugs prescriptions from psychiatrists and call it a drug addicting cop-out.

The problem is that such is the nature of trying to advance in a still largely not understood field of science that is relatively fresh. One could look historically at general medical science and see the same problems. Leeches and bloodletting, how barbaric. And all of medical science is filled with misdiagnoses and missed diagnosis. And the push from HMO's puts many hospitals on tighter and tighter budgets so that many patients get patch jobs and sent back on their way. And drug prescriptions are about the only cure prescribed for ailments. Yet we do not call MD's barbaric, crack-pot science, greedy, or copping out.

Why? We hold a new and more difficult science of psychology to the same standards as a much older branch of medical science, something that is quite frankly unfair. Imagine if hundreds of years ago they had declared general medicine illegal because they were barbaric, crackpots, and greedy cop-outs. Our state would be abysmal.

Now on the issue of drug prescriptions, I do agree that they should be used as a last resort, in all branches of medicine. I think therapy is a better alternative for psychiatric patients just as I think that lifestyle changes and enviornment improvement are a better alternative than quick fix prescription for MD patients.

The problem is that everyone wants a quick fix and therapy, be it mental therapy or general health therapy are slow and long term fixes; and therefore satisfy neither the patient nor the one paying for treatment.

I think our cultures focus on immediate treatment and failure to implement working school systems has caused the increase in problems and the easy fixes to them. We train our kids from a young age to have continual stimulation, lively TV, continual attention, exciting commercials even. They are behaviorly trained from a young age to expect and adapt to continual high output stimulus, and we wonder why they cant sit still to read a book, or hell, to learn to read in school. So we try and invent new more exciting ways to teach them, and all we do is ingrain within them and their psyche an inability for patience and long term focus. This is what is causing our ADD problems, and rather than fix the root issues, everyone wants a quick fix, and the problem is so biologically ingrained one must either reset the biology with chemicals, or spend many sessions and enviornment changes to retrain the body. Since the chemicals are cheaper and faster acting, they become the norm, addressing the symptoms but not the roots.

This however is a problem with society and culture, not one with psychology. And such is the problem with many of the "problems" people have with psychology.

[whichphilosophy]

Id just like to make a few comments on the issue of psychology.

This however is a problem with society and culture, not one with psychology. And such is the problem with many of the "problems" people have with psychology.

I almost agree. People have a problem with themselves and therefore have extended them to unworkable forms of medicine, psychology and psychiatry which deny our inherent existence and knowledge.

True happiness lies within oneself and not through drugs.

[Derek Spiewak]

WP, nobody ever said that Scientology contained nothing useful. We (and frankly I) am saying that fundamentally it teaches a sad dependence on Scientology orgs by undermining other practical, useful knowledge.

For instance, the more classes you take in Scientology, the more words are redefined to mean things that only make sense in the context of Scientology. It's not any wonder at all that many kids raised in a steep environment of Scientology are not capable of operating outside the Church.

Did it ever occur to you that the first few courses are useful in order to get you to pay for more? Did it ever occur to you that the first few courses only feel useful? The original author of these courses was someone who, at best, understood human psychological responses very well; and at worst, was a master manipulator. Please do not jettison simpler explanations in favor of more complex ones -- principle of parsimony.

Furthermore, yes, a lot of people could have been sued for the things they are saying if Hubbard was still alive. However, that in and of itself does not make them untrue. True and untrue are not decided by litigation.

[whichphilosophy]

WP, nobody ever said that Scientology contained nothing useful. We (and frankly I) am saying that fundamentally it teaches a sad dependence on Scientology orgs by undermining other practical, useful knowledge.

For instance, the more classes you take in Scientology, the more words are redefined to mean things that only make sense in the context of Scientology. It's not any wonder at all that many kids raised in a steep environment of Scientology are not capable of operating outside the Church.

Did it ever occur to you that the first few courses are useful in order to get you to pay for more? Did it ever occur to you that the first few courses only feel useful? The original author of these courses was someone who, at best, understood human psychological responses very well; and at worst, was a master manipulator. Please do not jettison simpler explanations in favor of more complex ones -- principle of parsimony.

Furthermore, yes, a lot of people could have been sued for the things they are saying if Hubbard was still alive. However, that in and of itself does not make them untrue. True and untrue are not decided by litigation.

I don't understand how you came to those conclusions for they are nothing like what I experienced by being there.

Did you do any courses. If so what ones did you do.

I can answer the points if you want.




Regards,

[Derek Spiewak]

I don't understand how you came to those conclusions for they are nothing like what I experienced by being there.

I am afraid I am going to regard you as lucky, then.

Did you do any courses. If so what ones did you do.

Yes. I did the Basic Study Course, and I attended a trade school whose classes were built on Scientology methods. The managing staff of the school were all Scientologists. Many of my friends in the school went on to take classes at the Church because the teachers warned them that their careers would not advance unless they took Scientology courses. In fact, my internship was terminated because I declined to take any courses at the Church. My friends who went on to take classes universally went nowhere, except working for the Church or the school in a badly weighted exchange of labor for classes.

I can answer the points if you want.

I don't see why you didn't do that in the first place. While you are at it, explain why you believe that the entire medical profession has failed to make a science of mental health as it has made a science out of every other kind of health, but a single man with no scientific education seems to have captured it all by using techniques that no other scientist regards as valid or reliable.

[jivatum khantina]

I almost agree. People have a problem with themselves and therefore have extended them to unworkable forms of medicine, psychology and psychiatry which deny our inherent existence and knowledge.

True happiness lies within oneself and not through drugs.


In which case you dont really agree with me. I was saying that psychology and psychiatry are valid and legitimate sciences. I was also saying that they, like all other branches of science are often rushed and corrupted by general society not by any faults of the sciences themselves. Psychology is very legitimate and very helpful, so long as patients are willing to spend the time and effort to root out their problems and find a solution to their ails. Something most people feel they dont have time for, and a issue further perpetuated by individuals like scientologists whose claims that it is useless and should be illegal create the negative schemata of a "shrink" or "head-doctor" that is only out the sheister your money away. This is a rather ignorant and sadly pervasice view that makes it still so hard to get people the real help they need and encourage people to enter and explore the profession as either a career or as a resource for mental health.

I never said that drugs are inneffective or that drugs should never be used. I said that they should be used as a last resort, that there are other safer methods of therapy, and chemical treatment should only be used when there is severe biological problems or nuerochemical malformations and imbalances that cannot be corrected with therapy.

It like obesity. We should treat it with proper nutrition and excercise, but many people want to resort to a quick fix pill. Since the pills are valid for some people(diabetics, thyroid problems, hormonal imbalances) others beleive that they too should receive the "miracle drug" without any proper effort. It does not mean that weight loss therapy is bad, or even that the drugs are improper, but rather that society as a whole is to much into quick fix solutions, regardless of the arena, be it mental science, body science, economics, education, politics, war, and even entertainment. They want a quick fix and to move back to status quo, regardless of whether or not the root problem was addressed.

[anthrosciguy]

Ha! I never realized that was why she never showed up.

I thought it was cause she couldn't fit through the doors anymore.

[reprise]

Thank you GunnerJ, this thread is a good fit for NAR&P. I'd like to welcome everyone and ask that you maintain the high standards you exhibit in this thread. Please address the argument. Individuals are off limits.

Could one of you post a brief run up of the basics of Scientology so those of us who are unfamiliar with it could have some idea of why the passion for and against it run so high. Thanks,

JT

The "core beliefs" of Scientology are no more weird than the "core beliefs" of most other religions, and just like most other religions some of Scientology's teachings have useful applications even to those who reject the core beliefs. The passions about Scientology stem largely from the methods it uses to control both its members and its critics.

[whichphilosophy]

The "core beliefs" of Scientology are no more weird than the "core beliefs" of most other religions, and just like most other religions some of Scientology's teachings have useful applications even to those who reject the core beliefs. The passions about Scientology stem largely from the methods it uses to control both its members and its critics.

I can understand your view. I'll send something about this later. Meanwhile if a person is coerced into doing something they don't want to do, they are then acting against themselves. This is according to Scientology policies and procedures. The whole point of the subject is someone acts on their own determinsm. If a person disagrees the word I tell people is N~~O.

For instance if a husband insists his wife does courses but she's not interested then she will not benefit and the organisation should by its own rules NOT have accepted payment. It doesn't do anyone any good.

If a person wants to do exclusively Scn courses but is not really sure how it works/he she shouldn't do them.

As for non religious courses there is a small one which I want my wife (non-scientologist) to do to improve here English and ability to study. If she wants to study the subject that is up to her.

You will be surprised how excellent the atmosphere was when I used to go to Saint Hill UK. It's nothing like what some peopel think. Good humour and direct communication.

As for critics. Nearly everyone I know is not a scientologist and has no interests in going. I have no problem with other's opinions of the subject.

The term critic is used to denote peoples in a hostile manner wish to attack it and discredit it.

Also legal action is only resorted to as a last minute. If a bad press article is written they normally ask if the can issue an article of rebuttal. This is often refused. Then they will offer to pay for an advertisement in the same paper to rebut the article. Or they may do one in another publication. Legal action is expensive, hence this common sense approach.

I think maybe 25 years ago they were involved needlessly in lawsuits but they had to reform their legal departments which were not totally following the organisations policy.

Later I'll post a 1 X A4 page and personal experience.

Regards,

[Derek Spiewak]

The term critic is used to denote peoples in a hostile manner wish to attack it and discredit it.

Have you looked up "critic" in a non-Scientology dictionary recently? Can you see why I might find this alternative definition disturbing?

[whichphilosophy]

Have you looked up "critic" in a non-Scientology dictionary recently? Can you see why I might find this alternative definition disturbing?

Good question and good point because there are different definitions. Actually Critic is not in the Scientology glossary. You can check it under Glossary at www.scientology.com to make sure. (No harm in not trusting anyone till you can check things out for yourself).

Disagreement with it is no problem. Like most people who did courses most people I knew and know have never set foot in an an organisation and I sustain a job etc. I have no problem with people who disagreed with me when I did the services, or after, but didn't care for the subject etc., had other beliefs. No problems.

The American Heritage when I have my copy handy is one of my favourite dictionaries.

The definition I use (noun) is

American Heritage Applicable Definition: One who passes a rigorous or captious judgment; one who censures or finds fault; a harsh examiner or judge; a caviler; a carper.

If you have a friend and neighbour who disagrees with how you can improve your children's grades which slipped, but uses a "expresses a reasoned judgement" one definition, hence can imply towards constructive advice then of course no problem. They might suggest that you should be more firm on homework and perhaps try tutoring. But this would be helpful.

Now if your neighbour was a carper especially covertly so through the school or other neighbours I think you would then be concerned. Once you get this the information starts to distort very quickly.

We live in a diverse society, and diverse thinking and viewpoints have contributed directly to our technological advances and quality of scientific reaearch. At the same time there must be tolerence.

There are of course things one should not tolerate. Being an atheist is ones right and one can disagree. How could I enforce my concepts on someone else who does not agee with the spiritual concept of things?

If they do decide to become religious and or are spiritual, they can only do this through their own perception.

I have quite a few discussion on ISPE and PDG lists with Atheist scientists and thinkers as well as religious ones. Ironically the staunch atheist has very similar views on nearly everything except spiritual existence.

I know that the perceived use of the word critic has been misdefined to give the impression that the Scientology organisation and its members attack everyone who disagrees with what the subject which would be logistically impossible. I wouldn't have time to go to work or raise a family.

Any other questions, no problem. I'm not an official source as I'm not on the staffs and haven't done courses for a while.


Regards,

[whichphilosophy]

Thank you GunnerJ, this thread is a good fit for NAR&P. I'd like to welcome everyone and ask that you maintain the high standards you exhibit in this thread. Please address the argument. Individuals are off limits.

Could one of you post a brief run up of the basics of Scientology so those of us who are unfamiliar with it could have some idea of why the passion for and against it run so high. Thanks,

JT
Anyway, we can first start with the official definition of the subject, since the exact meaning can be understood and to avoid confusion.

I did courses several years ago, and recently decided to continue again. I have a great deal of financial credit but it's just the time.

Scientology: comes from the Latin scio, which means “know� and the Greek word logos, meaning “the word or outward form by which the inward thought is expressed and made known.� Thus, Scientology means knowing about knowing. Scientology is an applied religious philosophy developed by L. Ron Hubbard. It is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life.

Dianetics: comes from the Greek words dia, meaning “through� and nous, meaning “soul.� Dianetics is a methodology developed by L. Ron Hubbard which can help alleviate unwanted sensations and emotions, irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses. It is most accurately described as what the soul is doing to the body through the mind. When the founder wrote this book, he paid tribute to Sigmund Freud for his work on the conscious and sub-conscious mind.

This suits me, because it's the only religion, I can look in a scientific manner, be it still personal experience and seeing others gain from it. This is my own impression from reading observing and application. The subject cuts across the conventional thought patterns where religion and science are divided. It's probably why I've met scientists and engineers who like this subject because in studying it they are also investigative and like to put into practice what they read.

Some things are naturally confusing to some. One hears that Scientologists have been cured of their illnesses, but the principles and practices make it very clear that neither Scientology nor Dianetics is intended to cure any physical illness.

Through greater knowledge of others and the environment it’s not unusual for its members to start earnings higher income and do better in their jobs and businesses, as they become more aware of their environment.

Of course like any profoundly new concept (based from a great deal of old knowledge and research from a whole spectrum on philosophies and religion) one is bound to rattle a few cages. If a person becomes able to fathom out what people are thinking (but not reading their thoughts as such) then obviously a cheating business partner a cheating spouse will be the first one to warn them against continuing the subject and the last one to want one to know what they’re doing. However by understanding the situation more they can then work towards better solutions in life.

In the past when I did courses, I have/had no problem with people who disagreed with it and still don’t. I shouldn’t be expected to force my view on people as it is their decision whether or not to look at this subject. It never ceased to amaze me at the bizarre impressions I see that are totally nothing like what I have experienced and just heated up old distorted news and articles many of which I saw years ago. However some people have preconceived and unwittingly perform a familiar ventriloquist act based on what they were fed on the internet. It's a shame because I am sure most of these people are well educated.

In a similar manner, I find it amusing that so many people now take themselves as experts on the subject because they have seen a few hostile websites and sometimes read through a few books and read some confidential scriptures on the net. If someone just wants to read about this subject, or view it as a dilettante in order to criticize it is as good as feeding pearl to swine. They will not benefit from the fruits of knowledge; one has to apply it to verify how it works and according to thier observation.

I often ask for specifics and they are somewhat stumped, thus no interesting dialogue takes place.

It was Joseph Goebbles who manipulated mass media bombardment and manipulation, after concluding that if you tell a lie enough times people will believe I, but of course it was an American politician who said you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The extremists behind these webs themselves openly admit they are against religion but extremely so. And sure enough the same bit of information will be plastered around 1000 websites.

I suppose 9/11 raised my interest when scientology volunteers at the site of the World Trade Centre were asked to stay on while others left and now are doing some programs with the fire services. I was amused at the initial outcry from a few “ARS members� in the editorial rooms, but my question was, if you were also in New York, why didn’t you give a helping hand and help set up and run refreshment facilities for the rescue services, apply first aid if they knew it rather then stand in the back end and carp.

As for Fair Game just raised by a poster, one person caught on videotape stating that he intended to forge and then plant incriminating documents on Church premises, claims this was Fair Game. However permission had been obtained from the LAPD Silly man he got too cocky. He should have been satisfied with his earlier out of court settlement, but he also received fines for violating these. I can raise other examples but this is not a Fair Game forum. The media hyped attacks in Italy Germany and Spain produced nothing on this despite millions of dollars spent on this and only achieved a waste of tax payers money.

As the US essayist, philosopher, poet and philosopher Henry David Thoreau one said, “It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.� However with improved perception one can see what is actually there and not what one has told they should see.

[Derek Spiewak]

See, the great thing about posts like this is that they contain such a staggering amount of assumptions and unfounded assertions that when you point them out, the author tends to say "Hey, listen, I can't answer such a huge barrage of questions..." Those of us who come from a perspective of scientism get this all the time from Biblical creationists. But I'm going to try anyway, because I have the day off.

Scientology: comes from the Latin scio, which means “know� and the Greek word logos, meaning “the word or outward form by which the inward thought is expressed and made known.� Thus, Scientology means knowing about knowing. Scientology is an applied religious philosophy developed by L. Ron Hubbard. It is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life.

Please define the following terms:
"Applied Religious Philosophy"
"Handling"
"Spirit"
"Other life"

Dianetics: comes from the Greek words dia, meaning “through� and nous, meaning “soul.� Dianetics is a methodology developed by L. Ron Hubbard which can help alleviate unwanted sensations and emotions, irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses. It is most accurately described as what the soul is doing to the body through the mind. When the founder wrote this book, he paid tribute to Sigmund Freud for his work on the conscious and sub-conscious mind.

To describe Dianetics as "methodology developed" is to give it a scientific origin that, to be fair, you do not know to be the case. Please cite for me the process by which this religion was founded.

Describe an "unwanted sensation" and an "unwanted emotion."

Describe your understanding of the prevalence of psychosomatic illness.

Please cite the mechanism by which the "soul" interacts with the mind.

Please cite examples of Sigmund Freud's writings that have withstood the criticism of scientific progress, and in which way "paying tribute" to them could be beneficial to Hubbard.

This suits me, because it's the only religion, I can look in a scientific manner, be it still personal experience and seeing others gain from it. This is my own impression from reading observing and application. The subject cuts across the conventional thought patterns where religion and science are divided. It's probably why I've met scientists and engineers who like this subject because in studying it they are also investigative and like to put into practice what they read.

If you can see it as valid from a scientific viewpoint, and others (including the vast majority of scientists) cannot, do you think this is an argument for a solipsistic universe?

Some things are naturally confusing to some. One hears that Scientologists have been cured of their illnesses, but the principles and practices make it very clear that neither Scientology nor Dianetics is intended to cure any physical illness.

Really? Not even psychosomatic illnesses?

Can you tell me what diseases can be psychosomatic in nature?

Through greater knowledge of others and the environment it’s not unusual for its members to start earnings higher income and do better in their jobs and businesses, as they become more aware of their environment.

It's also common for people to earn more by losing any sense of financial ethics (a word tellingly redefined by Scientology). Please provide a basis for the assertion that Scientology has A. a correlational relationship with higher income, and B. a causal relationship with higher income.

Of course like any profoundly new concept (based from a great deal of old knowledge and research from a whole spectrum on philosophies and religion) one is bound to rattle a few cages. If a person becomes able to fathom out what people are thinking (but not reading their thoughts as such) then obviously a cheating business partner a cheating spouse will be the first one to warn them against continuing the subject and the last one to want one to know what they’re doing. However by understanding the situation more they can then work towards better solutions in life.

Do you really see the world this way? That the enemies of Scientology are made up in large part by people who are afraid that Scientologist super-powers will eke out their own horrible secrets?

In the past when I did courses, I have/had no problem with people who disagreed with it and still don’t. I shouldn’t be expected to force my view on people as it is their decision whether or not to look at this subject. It never ceased to amaze me at the bizarre impressions I see that are totally nothing like what I have experienced and just heated up old distorted news and articles many of which I saw years ago. However some people have preconceived and unwittingly perform a familiar ventriloquist act based on what they were fed on the internet. It's a shame because I am sure most of these people are well educated.

Do you know anyone who has walked away from Scientology with reservations about its tactics or effectiveness? Other than that I make no comment about things I hear about Scientology. If I did have questions about Saint Hill or the Sea Org or Narconon, I wouldn't be asking you.

In a similar manner, I find it amusing that so many people now take themselves as experts on the subject because they have seen a few hostile websites and sometimes read through a few books and read some confidential scriptures on the net. If someone just wants to read about this subject, or view it as a dilettante in order to criticize it is as good as feeding pearl to swine. They will not benefit from the fruits of knowledge; one has to apply it to verify how it works and according to thier observation.

This is absolutely no different from Christians who say that in order to know that God/Jesus exists, you have to first believe. You're telling me that in order to really benefit from it, I have to throw myself into it uncritically.

I often ask for specifics and they are somewhat stumped, thus no interesting dialogue takes place.

I've given you specifics, and you are right. No interesting dialogue has taken place.

It was Joseph Goebbles who manipulated mass media bombardment and manipulation, after concluding that if you tell a lie enough times people will believe I, but of course it was an American politician who said you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The extremists behind these webs themselves openly admit they are against religion but extremely so. And sure enough the same bit of information will be plastered around 1000 websites.

I cite Godwin's law here. You cite Nazis in a serious discussion and that has a tendency to taint further discussion. I seriously urge you to avoid doing that in the future, it is considered bad form in every Internet forum I've ever seen. To paint your opponents with the "wacko extremist" brush is just insulting and causes people to disregard you most of all. Just a word of help.

I suppose 9/11 raised my interest when scientology volunteers at the site of the World Trade Centre were asked to stay on while others left and now are doing some programs with the fire services. I was amused at the initial outcry from a few “ARS members� in the editorial rooms, but my question was, if you were also in New York, why didn’t you give a helping hand and help set up and run refreshment facilities for the rescue services, apply first aid if they knew it rather then stand in the back end and carp.

They declined to mention that they were using Scientology along with their other, useful, methods. It was the most cynical thing I've ever seen done by a sectarian organization. If you were in New York at the time, you'd know that there were plenty of non-SCN people participating and helping out. In fact, with all the adherents that Scientology supposedly has, I'm astonished they didn't send a few hundred more.

As for Fair Game just raised by a poster, one person caught on videotape stating that he intended to forge and then plant incriminating documents on Church premises, claims this was Fair Game. However permission had been obtained from the LAPD Silly man he got too cocky. He should have been satisfied with his earlier out of court settlement, but he also received fines for violating these. I can raise other examples but this is not a Fair Game forum. The media hyped attacks in Italy Germany and Spain produced nothing on this despite millions of dollars spent on this and only achieved a waste of tax payers money.

Scientology orgs do not harrass their most public detractors...is that what you are saying? I'm having a hard time following that paragraph.

I'll propose the notion that Fair Game (or whatever it's called now) is just one aspect of Scientology which paints a larger picture of an organization that expects all its adherents to tirelessly promote it and marginalize its detractors, and that your posting here is part of that expectation.

As the US essayist, philosopher, poet and philosopher Henry David Thoreau one said, “It’s not what you look at that matters, it’s what you see.� However with improved perception one can see what is actually there and not what one has told they should see.

Please describe for me how your "improved perception" is different from the altered perception of victims of coersion.

[whichphilosophy]

See, the great thing about posts like this is that they contain such a staggering amount of assumptions and unfounded assertions that when you point them out, the author tends to say "Hey, listen, I can't answer such a huge barrage of questions..." Those of us who come from a perspective of scientism get this all the time from Biblical creationists. But I'm going to try anyway, because I have the day off. .

These are good questions. In fact excellent.

If an author has a barrage of questions, then he/she should answer them one at a time.

Actually Dianetics was an answer to a barrage of questions. (That's a little off the point).

If you bear with me I will come back in a couple of days. We are getting busy on some contracts here, and tomorrow evening I have to meet some Chinese Students.

I will definitely answer the points you raised. Point by point.

I have another interesting person who has asked me some questions on alternative treatments.

It's good to see some objective questions because the worst thing one can do is believe at face value.

Regards

[premjan]

what is the difference between scientism and scientology?

[whichphilosophy]

See, the great thing about posts like this is that they contain such a staggering amount of assumptions and unfounded assertions that when you point them out, the author tends to say "Hey, listen, I can't answer such a huge barrage of questions..." Those of us who come from a perspective of scientism get this all the time from Biblical creationists. But I'm going to try anyway, because I have the day off.

Sorry I couldn’t reply on your day off. True believe nothing at face value. Anyway I shall do my best to reply to all your points. However you could read Dianetics Modern Science of Mental Health (I’m not on commission here) as you can then get direct information from the writer. I;m meeting some people tonight (Chinese students) so I have to rush this quickly to complete).

QUESTION: PLEASE DEFINE THE FOLLOWING TERMS

Q Applied Religious Philosophy"
A We can certainly say the investigation of the natures, causes knowledge values etc by reasoning. However since applied it is empirical (derived also from observation and experiment). In fact I would say empirical is more stressed here as it is a subject that is applied. Since it is religious it is our study of the physical universe, the universe(s) and its relationship to ourselves and ourselves. This in turn leads to better understanding in these areas

Q "Handling"
A Some one deals with shipping functions will be handling those things there. Ie dealing with a job. If a person has a customer query to do, by dealing with this efficiently she handles the customer.
We handle life, = deal with and deal with life’s challenges etc.
In the context used ie in the definition

Here where we are saying “It is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life.� We can say it is dealing with issues of the spirit and its relationship to the universes and life.

In other words as one can discover (not be taught) their spirituality and operate freely as such within the universe(s). The courses are a path to go along.

Q "Spirit"
I’ll cut and paste the Scientology definition of THETAN
thetan: an immortal spiritual being; the human soul. The term soul is not used because it has developed so many other meanings from use in other religions and practices that it doesn’t describe precisely what was discovered in Scientology.
We use the term thetan instead, from the Greek letter theta ( ), the traditional symbol for thought or life.
One does not have a thetan, something one keeps somewhere apart from oneself; one is a thetan. The thetan is the person himself, not his body or his name or the physical universe, his mind or anything else.
It is that which is aware of being aware;
the identity which IS the individual.
I’LL ADD THETA from the Scn dictionary
theta: energy peculiar to life which acts upon material in the physical universe and animates it, mobilizes it and changes it; natural creative energy of a being which he is free to direct toward survival goals. The term comes from the Greek letter theta ( ), which the Greeks used to represent thought.
It is the study and handling of the spirit in relationship to itself, universes and other life.

"Other life"
Other life, plants trees, animals other spiritual beings.


.
Q To describe Dianetics as "methodology developed" is to give it a scientific origin that, to be fair, you do not know to be the case. Please cite for me the process by which this religion was founded.

A The scientific method was conducted through the research. Doing the courses will only reflect some of this, but precision application of the steps will produce the results required. The person studying should then rely on their own observations.

Over the past few years a whole library volumes has been put into print. Last time I was in the UK this had reached Volume 8. The volumes are larger than encyclopedias. From what I saw the research is very methodical. Taking what one knows, researching and experimentation. This records the study case histories etc.

Learning the subject does show the steps are very methodical and tried. Deviate from the steps and things go awry. This is my own experience.


Q Describe an "unwanted sensation" and an "unwanted emotion."

A Moods depression, sensation can be any feeling like a heat cold, “hair standing on end sensation, any physical sensitivity.

Q Describe your understanding of the prevalence of psychosomatic illness.
A There is somewhat a medical debate on this very subject however there is agreement that psychosomatic illnesses. The subject of psychosomatic medicine is confusing because if something is not medically originated then it cannot be medical

Anyway we are talking about something that is the influence of the mind on the body but also the body conditions can affect thus influence the mind. Dianetics Modern Science of Mental Health gives some of the early procedures involved in this.
Please cite the mechanism by which the "soul" interacts with the mind.
We have the Soul (See definition of Thetan) which ideally can control the mind and thus the body. In cases of trauma whether there were severe incidents the reactive mind which is just below the awareness level will have an adverse effect at times on the person. This is the source of psychosomatic illnesses.
Please cite examples of Sigmund Freud's writings that have withstood the criticism of scientific progress, and in which way "paying tribute" to them could be beneficial to Hubbard.

These are mentioned in Dianetics Modern Science of Mental Health. Freud had discovered the separation between the conscious and sub conscious mind. In fact the book pays tribute to his research. Freud for instance discovered that childhood trauma resulted in abnormal adult behaviour? Freud referred to repressed trauma in Freudian circles, to promote sound mental health? He was making progress and was on the right track. Still a brilliant man in his own right.

In Dianetics the terminology is different because the research discovered other factors of the mind. Just expanding on this leads to further research data.

Freud’s original Project for Scientific Psychology—abandoned in 1893—attempted to relate all psychological events to cellular biology and chemistry. This was something else Freud was close to. In fact the book Science of Survival mentions how people’s physiology can change. During research the differences in their physiological make up as people improved was fascinating. I’ve deviating here a bit.

Like many of his early books it is tightly packed with data. There is quite a lot of study here. I haven’t read about this for several years.

A very lengthy course SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE involving the study and application of thousands of pages of research and application data will mention this. It’s above my two brain cells alas. It takes several months full time to do. There are several sections to this course.
To be able to study and apply this is there are prerequisites of “how to study courses.� The more basic ones at least based on his works if not written by him, can be taught to non scientologists. My wife may do one of these as her written English is poor (non English).

I’m not sure if the advanced learning courses are available to non-members.

Since his work has been criticized and applauded I can’t say what his general standing is but maybe slightly in obscurity?

Quote:

If you can see it as valid from a scientific viewpoint, and others (including the vast majority of scientists) cannot, do you think this is an argument for a solipsistic universe?

We each have our own Universe, Bhuddism believes that the only thing that actually exists is self.
However I may add that Scn could be the discovery of what is self.
Bhuddism believes that the only thing that actually exists is self. That the physical universe is an illusion
Some of Scientology has roots in Bhuddism though only remotely similar.

I may add that if the physical is an agreed upon illusion then it may follow that we can in fact become cause over it. This research in full is above my level).



Really? Not even psychosomatic illnesses?

It’s the psychosomatic illnesses that disappear. A physical one will get better however if the person themselves feels better. I think any doctor on this point would agree.



This is where the doctors will debate plus there was confusion.

By finding the source of a problem various sensations irrational behaviour and pains would disappear. Yes The person was dealing with their problems but the psychosomatic illness went.

This would be logical. If the psychosomatic illness has its roots in a past traumatic effect and this disappears then the illness would at least reduce. There is a procedure in Dianetics Modern Science of Mental Health.

Now there is a debate in medicine. One doctor will disagree; one will partly and some will agree.

Can you tell me what diseases can be psychosomatic in nature?

The following can be included rheumatism, migraines, aches and pains in general. By the way I don’t have the references here. Even cancer is mentioned. Then things like mood swings, depression dizziness etc can reduce and disappear

Addressing the spirit through the mind to the body if you like.


It's also common for people to earn more by losing any sense of financial ethics (a word tellingly redefined by Scientology). Please provide a basis for the assertion that Scientology has A. a correlational relationship with higher income, and B. a causal relationship with higher income.

Well yes but with all that money are they any wealthier as a person? But yes it does happen. Individuals cheat their companies with false accounting as the both lose money while they line their pockets I think we know that with Enron and Worldcom as good examples. The definition is quoted out of context. A person earning a higher income as a result of their producing finer products will create more goodwill.

Persons who have stolen money are asked to repay it back and are not allowed to go on any courses. As well as the rights and wrongs it’s


(A) A person has more confidence. They remove their own barriers and inhibitions. (Cause starts with being causative). They study better and because they are more alert and alive they can work more productive.

(B) My income in 1977~79 rose 4X. I somehow moved from a relief supermarket manager to a better paying job in the Oil Industry.

I’ve seen this happen to many others, but this is only my own experience. Most have done much better than me.



Do you really see the world this way? That the enemies of Scientology are made up in large part by people who are afraid that Scientologist super-powers will eke out their own horrible secrets?

I would say on a global scale there were a few entrenched individuals (for which some documents I recall were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. (Around 1979 or so someone read a FBI memo that suggested Scientologists went around shooting their relatives, but just injured them. There were no recorded shootings. Just fear of people who are able to know more than they should. This fear is not new in history.
This is another subject. An old book, Hidden Story of Scientology, by Omar Garrison did give a narrative of what was going on.


Do you know anyone who has walked away from Scientology with reservations about its tactics or effectiveness?

Yes. Some people will not benefit from routine auditing for instance. Some people drift away and then many of the appear after months or years. As for tactics. Maybe in house gossip, but I see this more by persons who are coerced into leaving.

One example was a colleague who received exit councilling and then decided to become a Christian (nothing wrong with becoming a Christian), and that all the gains he had were really caused by the “devil.�

The only real complaints I saw was from a group who split off after a management shake up. John Atak was amongst them. There have been breakaway groups in the past. Most don’t seem to last more than a few years. When the copyright charges flew some then nattered about harassment. This was to hand over copyright copies. The offered cheaper courses, but I didn’t want course technology diluted with something else.

If someone has auditing but it does not resolve their problems or the processes are rushed, this will reduce the gains. Just miss on point and the person receiving it and they will not be impressed. Good management however will resolve these issues.

It’s a difficult subject and just like anything else not applied will not work.

If this is corrected (and in the subject there are corrections) the person will benefit.

If a person has problems with a spouse or relatives, their gains will be reduced because they are being distracted. The best remedy is to gain their acceptance. Actually there is disconnection but this is very rare unless they have real lunatics.


Other than that I make no comment about things I hear about Scientology. If I did have questions about Saint Hill or the Sea Org or Narconon, I wouldn't be asking you.

You would be better going to Saint Hill and visiting them to find out about Saint Hill.
If you phone in advance they can take you around the grounds etc.
If fact they should get someone to get you to try the e-meter. (demonstrate how it reads on thought and not on say hand movements or moisture as these cause easy to spot false reactions).

Your right why take my word. However, I quite like Saint Hill. I shall go there in a year or so to continue courses after several years. As for Narconon, I met people who got off drugs including heroin while doing the programs. I know some of these people (associates not so much friends) who over 30 years later do not take drugs but you should speak to them. The Narconon approach is unique.


This is absolutely no different from Christians who say that in order to know that God/Jesus exists, you have to first believe. You're telling me that in order to really benefit from it, I have to throw myself into it uncritically.

Look at my last sentence.

It’s a religion in the oldest sense in that you have to find out for yourself according to your own reality. It has to be applied and not just read to know about it. Take a Bhuddist. He may say that to describe the benefits of being a spirit cannot be described. Describe the taste of an apple, smell of a flower etc can only go so far. However actually tasting and smelling is different.


Q I've given you specifics, and you are right. No interesting dialogue has taken place.

Now you gave me some specifics and I hope there is something of interest.

Q I cite Godwin's law here. You cite Nazis in a serious discussion and that has a tendency to taint further discussion. I seriously urge you to avoid doing that in the future, it is considered bad form in every Internet forum I've ever seen. To paint your opponents with the "wacko extremist" brush is just insulting and causes people to disregard you most of all. Just a word of help.

But did he not say that? The ones I refer to are, but the format and out of context of what they put. I ony refer to the ones who are. Dr Peter Breggin psychiatrist, is opposed to Scientology, but his work is respected by Scientology management. He is against brutal drug treatments.


Q They declined to mention that they were using Scientology along with their other, useful, methods. It was the most cynical thing I've ever seen done by a sectarian organization. If you were in New York at the time, you'd know that there were plenty of non-SCN people participating and helping out. In fact, with all the adherents that Scientology supposedly has, I'm astonished they didn't send a few hundred more.

ED: Yes, I have no doubt, there were lots.

However there is a particularly effective form of complementary “assists which compliment first AID. When the others left, the RED CROSS and Scientologists stayed on. They are currently involved with the fire department and supplying them with training. The assists can eliminate psychic trauma and shock thus helping the recovery process. Some firemen are scientologists. One fire chief is a part time course supervisor in NY organisation.

They’re easy to learn. It’s a long time since I did any, but they work pretty quickly and when done for the first time surprisingly.

The Scientologists were just about the first on the scene and well organised at such short notice. They were mainly professionals with other jobs or housewives and locally for sure staff member