EST and Scientology

A place to post and debate the Church of Scientology.
User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Demented LRH » Tue Aug 28, 2012 3:29 pm

Turtlez wrote:@Demented LRH

Please provide proof that "EST claimed in the past that est used techniques developed by L. Ron Hubbard,". I can tell you with alot of confidence that what you are saying is inaccurate and has no truth in it. Est and Erhard and every one associated with est and Erhard never claimed any such thing.

My understanding is that in the early 70's COS viewed est as a competitor.Both est and COS were in the people business and improving life business and the fact that Werner Erhard took some Scientology courses (among dozens of other different courses, studies and modalities he encountered) and that shortly after started his own program est, and had a great amount of success with it right off the bat , COS may have concluded (right or wrongly) that Erhard was using some ideas from COS in est.

If, and that is a big if, there was in fact any overlap of ideas or similarities, even in a very small part of early est, I would not really know because I have never been exposed to any COS course content nor do I know anyone who has. I am going to guess that both Erhard and Hubbard lifted ideas and merged together ideas that were either taken whole or in part and inspired from other other sources and that both owed Erhard and Hubbard owed great debts to other people.

In the biography "Werner Erhard: The Transformation of a Man, The Founding of est is a biography of Werner Erhard by William Warren Bartley, III" there is a section that spells out explicitly Werner Erhard's encounters with other sources including with the Scientology courses he took in very great detail, and generously lists all his debts to other sources.
My statement that you quoted was not originated by me but by the CoS representatives who described the procedures that EST use as “Squirrel Tech”.

The fact is that CoS lawyers accused EST of copyright violations. Unless this was a frivolous lawsuit, there must be some ground for their accusations.

Just seeing EST as a competitor is not enough for a lawsuit to proceed, there must be some data substantiating the accusations of copyright violations.

“I am going to guess that both Erhard and Hubbard used ideas and put together ideas that were lifted and inspired from other sources and that they both owed great debts to other people“.

Suing someone for having similar ideas won’t take you anywhere, any lawyer would tell you that. CoS accused EST of using copyrighted Hubbard data, which is a clear violation of CoS copyrights. I do not remember exactly how the lawsuit ended, but I think it drove EST out of business.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
sconetale
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:02 am

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by sconetale » Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:04 pm

Turtlez wrote:@ Demented LRH
In est, for 4 long days, participants (customers) looked (if they wish to) into the how they lived their lives, at things they have done, choices and decisions and conclusions they have made about themselves, about others and about the world in the past and how those past based things may be unknowingly still effecting how they live and what is possible for them to do, think and be in their own lives. And I saw such things.
I wasn't there when there it was still called EST, I only know its current incarnation as Landmark, but the line that it is a "look into how you live your life" is how Landmark/Est likes to describe itself.

I don't think that you can really look at how you live your life while someone is talking at you without stopping: I think it is impossible.
I see this as a manipulative strategy - a form of deception if you want to put it into a more extreme term.
When we hear someone talk, it feels almost the same as if we think ourselves, but in fact, your own strategy of making sense is suppressed.
For 3 days, 14 hours each, plus added nighttime "exercises".

Whenever you are in a Landmark course, it is not you that speaks, but the Forum Leader. You are held in specific ways of looking at your life, and this implies a subversion of your potential for critical thinking by framing it into concepts such as Racket - Story - Wanting to Look Good - Strong Suit and later in the Advanced Course: your Act, etc.

"Looking at the way you live your life" is therefore always framed into a specific bias, and rather than a "look" I would characterize this as a "strategy to destabilize your approach to life".

The positive aspect of this is that it allows you some wiggle room, a moment of freedom from things that you thought were set in stone - that is what creates the impression to "benefit from the Forum".

However, every time Landmark has you "floating" for a moment, they move in and make it look as if you could only "keep on floating" if you "Enroll people into what you have gotten out of the Forum".
Ergo, bring people to Landmark.
This is enshrined into their jargon - specific words are used such as "Enrollment" in which the difference between "Advertizing Landmark" and "Successful Communication" is erased completely, or at least relocated into a fog of confusion.

Whatever you may come up with as a resistance to this communicative strategy ("enrolling others into possibilities you have created" while simultaneously "bringing people to Landmark") is made out to be your problem - something that you need to overcome to be free... to "live a life of possibility" etc.

The impression that you learn how to become more free, more powerful, more effective, more communicative, et cetera is sandwiched into the establishment of
communicative strategies that make you a personal Landmark Education advertizement machine.
Turtlez wrote: What are "engrams"? Whatever they are, they were not part of est as far as I know.
I know Scientology only indirectly and I wasn't there when L.E. still was EST, but from what I experienced in Landmark and know about Scientology, there are a LOT of concepts adopted from Scientology.

It was not so noticeable to me in the "Forum", which seems to be more built around Alan Watt's concept of "Nothing" and things taken from Taoism.
I recently discovered this video, which contains a lot of moments and statements that re-appear in a jaw droppingly literal form in the Forum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLrMVous0Ac
Other philosophical influences include Heidegger's existential philosophy - who himself had a connection to Taoism as well.

As for Scientology concepts, El Jefe pointed out the life strategy of "Be-Do-Have" of which I didn't know had a parallel in Scientology - so there might be more that I didn't notice.

Where the reference to Scientology become really obvious though is the "Advanced Course" which features among others
- a layout of the 8 dynamics (with the statement that the Forum was about the 1st and 2nd dynamic, while the Advanced Course is about the rest of the dynamics). The dynamics are presented as an onion with you at the center and "God" on the outside, with all the groups building up around you.
- yes, the Engram, which is the reason for the traumatic experiences that make up your "Act". It is not called an "Engram", but a traumatic experience described in precisely the same way - accompanied by a moment of unconsciousness in which a suggestion was absorbed.
- a travel down the time track into potentially previous lifetimes (tracing back your Act/Engram to its earliest incident)
- partner training sitting facing each other staring into the other's eyes (albeit shorter than in the Scientology TRs)
- seeing life as a collection of "games to play"

There are probably more.
In the Advanced Course, they also pull the most intense sandwich of personal destabilisation and "Landmark Advertizement School".
You are made to "play a game" in which the goal is to get as many people into the "guest event" as possible.

I don't mind the philosophy, it's interesting.
My disagreement with Landmark is this:

Landmark manipulates you into working for its own benefit while distracting you from this fact by telling you that there is something interesting for you to discover and overcome inside your resistance against its manipulation.

Mind control by introversion.

Turtlez
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Turtlez » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:43 pm

EST and Scientology
Last edited by Turtlez on Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Turtlez
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Turtlez » Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:48 pm

EST and Scientology
Last edited by Turtlez on Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
secularpatriot
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by secularpatriot » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:02 pm

"I have a lot of respect for L. Ron Hubbard and I consider him to be a genius and perhaps less acknowledged than he ought to be." --Werner Erhard (founder of EST and The Landmark Forum)

Turtlez
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Turtlez » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:25 pm

EST and Scientology
Last edited by Turtlez on Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Demented LRH » Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:57 pm

Turtlez wrote:
Demented LRH wrote:
Turtlez wrote:@Demented LRH

Please provide proof that "EST claimed in the past that est used techniques developed by L. Ron Hubbard,". I can tell you with alot of confidence that what you are saying is inaccurate and has no truth in it. Est and Erhard and every one associated with est and Erhard never claimed any such thing.

My understanding is that in the early 70's COS viewed est as a competitor.Both est and COS were in the people business and improving life business and the fact that Werner Erhard took some Scientology courses (among dozens of other different courses, studies and modalities he encountered) and that shortly after started his own program est, and had a great amount of success with it right off the bat , COS may have concluded (right or wrongly) that Erhard was using some ideas from COS in est.

If, and that is a big if, there was in fact any overlap of ideas or similarities, even in a very small part of early est, I would not really know because I have never been exposed to any COS course content nor do I know anyone who has. I am going to guess that both Erhard and Hubbard lifted ideas and merged together ideas that were either taken whole or in part and inspired from other other sources and that both owed Erhard and Hubbard owed great debts to other people.

In the biography "Werner Erhard: The Transformation of a Man, The Founding of est is a biography of Werner Erhard by William Warren Bartley, III" there is a section that spells out explicitly Werner Erhard's encounters with other sources including with the Scientology courses he took in very great detail, and generously lists all his debts to other sources.
My statement that you quoted was not originated by me but by the CoS representatives who described the procedures that EST use as “Squirrel Tech”.

The fact is that CoS lawyers accused EST of copyright violations. Unless this was a frivolous lawsuit, there must be some ground for their accusations.

Just seeing EST as a competitor is not enough for a lawsuit to proceed, there must be some data substantiating the accusations of copyright violations.

“I am going to guess that both Erhard and Hubbard used ideas and put together ideas that were lifted and inspired from other sources and that they both owed great debts to other people“.

Suing someone for having similar ideas won’t take you anywhere, any lawyer would tell you that. CoS accused EST of using copyrighted Hubbard data, which is a clear violation of CoS copyrights. I do not remember exactly how the lawsuit ended, but I think it drove EST out of business.

You are speaking/speculating of things you know nothing about, and have no facts to back up any of it, and with a bias that is distorted towards your point of view so there is not much we can actually discuss. If you had one single fact , we could better talk about this.
I do not have a point of view because I have never been to EST and I do not have a first-hand experience of its procedures. I am talking about legal matters, in particular about allegations made by CoS about violations of its copyrights.
If EST folk changed the term "engram" to the term "traumatic experience" while leaving the Dianetics procedure intact, then this is a violation of CoS copyrights.
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
sconetale
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 5:02 am

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by sconetale » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:01 pm

Turtlez wrote:@ sconetale,

I read your point of view and you expressed very well how you see things related to Landmark.


No two people see a tree the same way. What you described is entirely not my experience whatsoever, not even in part, nor was it the experience of my family and all of my friends who participated in The Landmark Forum and other programs, and we are a VERY large and diverse group of people.

Some people get traumatized walking into Walmart or attending a family christmas dinner. They are not wrong for seeing that world that way but it is not the common experience.
Of course, my critical POV in regards to Landmark is all about me, right? :)

Look, I'm willing to entertain looking at myself to see "what about me it is that I make Landmark out to be" - fine with me.
As a psychological experiment to know myself better - take responsibility for my way of making sense.
OK! No problem.

However, using this rhetorical sleight of hand to divert criticism is the cheapest trick in the Landmark book.

Turtlez
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Turtlez » Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:15 pm

EST and Scientology
Last edited by Turtlez on Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Turtlez
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Turtlez » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:14 pm

EST and Scientology
Last edited by Turtlez on Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
secularpatriot
Posts: 368
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: USA

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by secularpatriot » Tue Aug 28, 2012 10:45 pm

Turtlez wrote:
sconetale wrote:
Turtlez wrote:@ sconetale,

I read your point of view and you expressed very well how you see things related to Landmark.


No two people see a tree the same way. What you described is entirely not my experience whatsoever, not even in part, nor was it the experience of my family and all of my friends who participated in The Landmark Forum and other programs, and we are a VERY large and diverse group of people.

Some people get traumatized walking into Walmart or attending a family christmas dinner. They are not wrong for seeing that world that way but it is not the common experience.
Of course, my critical POV in regards to Landmark is all about me, right? :)

Look, I'm willing to entertain looking at myself to see "what about me it is that I make Landmark out to be" - fine with me.
As a psychological experiment to know myself better.
OK! No problem.

However, using this rhetorical sleight of hand to divert criticism is the cheapest trick in the Landmark book.

You calling it a "rhetorical sleight of hand" does not make it an actual "rhetorical sleight of hand". It is actually you doing the exact thing you are accusing me of, using rhetoric to "divert" away from my pointing out that your opinions are just your opinions, whatever they are worth.
Turtlez, you are absolutely using rhetorical sleight-of-hand. And then dismissing what DementedLRH is saying with a casual wave of your hand and sniffing, "that's your opinion" without having actually received her communication.

Landmark logic is like a man punching his wife in the face and asking her, "So, honey, who are you producing abusiveness in your space?" Certainly, the wife is producing abusiveness in her space, but the wife-beater never looks at-- or even sees a need to look at-- his own abusive behavior. This logic that led to an inability/unwillingness for anyone in the organization to self-examine (unless they were dealing with someone higher up in the organization) was everywhere in that organization.

I volunteered briefly at the New York Area Center making calls and collating handouts. At one point, the center manager came out of her office and put her face two inches from her assistant's face and screamed at her for a solid minute. Then she went back into her office and slammed the door so hard the building shook. Shocked, I turned to the person next to me and asked, "This is 'a world that works for everyone'?" The person replied, "It's okay. Her assistant has given her permission to speak to her that way."

I was appalled. If someone gave you permission to hack their hand off with a rusty axe, it wouldn't make it ethical to do so.

YES, individuals need to take responsibility for their own experience. But this doesn't excuse an organization from taking responsibility for what it does, for the wreckage it creates.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Demented LRH » Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:53 pm

Turtlez wrote:
Demented LRH wrote: I do not have a point of view because I have never been to EST and I do not have a first-hand experience of its procedures. I am talking about legal matters, in particular about allegations made by CoS about violations of its copyrights.
If EST folk changed the term "engram" to the term "traumatic experience" while leaving the Dianetics procedure intact, then this is a violation of CoS copyrights.
@ Demented LRH

you are talking about things you know absolutely nothing about, you have no knowledge of any legal matters, you only vague conjecture and speculation. ANYONE can sue anyone else for anything in todays world, it is an appalling state of affairs and frivolous lawsuits are too many to list. Demented LRH, if there even was a lawsuit, please provide a link to details with specifics and dates. If a lawsuit was won or lost, again please provide links to details and dates.

Otherwise you are just talking about baseless fairy tales, and there is nothing to discuss.[/quote]
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

User avatar
Demented LRH
Posts: 2499
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:02 pm
Location: New York City, NY, USA

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Demented LRH » Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:01 am

^^Turtlez,
FYI:I was a paralegal in the past, so I know a thing or two about lawsuits. Paralegals are far below lawyers, but I learned several things from my lawyer friends.

Several years ago I read an article about the CoS lawsuit against EST. There is no Internet data about this lawsuit, which means that it was settled outside the court.

I found something very interesting about Erhard -- there was a lawsuit against him for illegal transfer of money.

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-03-27/ ... ner-erhard

Here is more information about EST and the lawsuits against it

"Many people sued est in the Eighties; psychiatrists demonized est tactics in the American Journal of Psychiatry. Still, enrollment never waned, and many people swear est enhanced if not saved their lives, once they got in touch with their inner asshole"

http://believermag.com/issues/200305/?r ... cle_snider

One more lawsuit against Erhard that he lost:

"Erhard had not been seen in public for several months prior to the trial.[12] He was not personally served,[22] and did not respond to the lawsuit.[1] Judge James C. Cacheris entered a default judgement in favor of the plaintiff.[1][18] "Erhard defaulted. He never filed an answer to our complaint," said attorney Ragland.[18] The judge decided to wait for the lawsuit to conclude before determining Erhard's liability in the case.[1] After a 5 day trial, Judge Cacheris issued his ruling against Erhard, immediately after the jury determined its verdict in the lawsuit.[14] The judge ordered Erhard and his company to pay her both compensatory damages and punitive damages,[14] in the total amount of $501,790.[1][22]

http://www.enotes.com/topic/Ney_v._Land ... ner_Erhard
“This OT shit is driving me insane. On a positive side, I laugh a lot these days because I’m at a funny farm.”
L. Ron Hubbard

L. Ron Hubbard era un maestro de masturbacion fisica y mental.

Turtlez
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Turtlez » Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:51 am

EST and Scientology
Last edited by Turtlez on Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Turtlez
Posts: 264
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2012 9:43 pm

Re: EST and Scientology

Post by Turtlez » Wed Aug 29, 2012 1:52 am

EST and Scientology
Last edited by Turtlez on Wed Apr 17, 2013 7:59 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Opinions & Debate”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests