TECH Outside COS:

[Ladybird]

Source: Internet Site]


INTRODUCTION


(This will be a long preamble to the document, but some things have
to be extended out to reason it through.)


This is an excellent file about Dianetics and speaks about previous
instances where the core "teachings" of Dianetic Therapy were already
described or considered. Key concepts such as Engrams, a term coined
in the late 1930's, cellular memory and the like - all come from past
works in the fields of psychology/psychiatry and philosophy.


[The term 'engram' was spoken of as part of classic psychology in the
series 'Discovering Psychology', chaired by Dr Philip Zimbardo
(Stanford)
and was part of a historical revision of psychology. He used the term
in the current sense - so I guess Scn can hardly claim the term as their
own].


As well as the borrowings, the criticisms go much deeper.
Consider this statement from this document:


"Unfortunately, none of Hubbard's claimed research, nor
those of his valid researchers can be found today, if
they ever really existed."


For a 44 year old "Science", there is indeed an appalling lack of
any studies or research papers tabled by Scientology in defence of
its longest standing product, Dianetics.


Now, I have a good collection of books in the sciences that cover
years like the 1930's to 1960's. In selecting a volume, I may read
about a Science, lets say, Electronics. The information contained
therein, even 30 years ago, is laughably outdated due to the
advances made. One hardly takes the discussion about magnetic core
memory for computers as a factual text on which you base current
practices. To some small degree, the basic tenets hold true, but
you'd not get far in practice.


The same then, applies to the 44 year old Dianetics text. NEVER,
NEVER, EVER revised, it is sold this very minute with same contents
it had, say in 1959 (my earliest copy I purchased in New Zealand).
So, where is the scientific evaluation, the refinement, the throwing
away of useless and redundant process and information? NOWHERE!
You are simply being asked to trust a long dead and long distrusted
science-fiction author's 1950 text on a subject he never studied
and never produced research for, and put faith in the concept
that he wrote the one final 100% correct last-word-on-the-matter
treatise on the entire spectrum of the treatment of the human mind!


Even L. Ron Hubbard's own words, in "How to Study a Science", give
cause to all people, Scientologists or not, to stand back and review
just why on earth a 44 year old text is treated like it was divinely
inspired! To quote from that essay:


"Nearly everyone has done some manner of observing of the material
universe. No one has seen all there is to see about an organism,
for example, but there is certainly no dearth of organisms
available for further study. There is no valid reason for
accepting the opinion of Professor Blotz on the Blitz University,
who said in 1933 that schizophrenics were schizophrenics, and
that made them schizophrenics for all time."


["How to Study a Science" - Quoted from internet posting, taken]
[from "Scientology: A New Slant on Life," L. Ron Hubbard]


And of course, by Hubbards own words and the substitution of names,
institutions and flavour of insanity, we end up with:


"Nearly everyone has done some manner of observing of the material
universe. No one has seen all there is to see about the human mind,
for example, but there is certainly no dearth of human minds
available for further study. There is no valid reason for
accepting the opinion of L. Ron Hubbard of the Church of
Scientology, who said in 1950 that engrams were engrams, and
that made them engrams for all time."


So, do we believe what Hubbard wrote in 1950, or what Hubbard wrote
after 1950? The practice of Dianetics according to the 1950 book is
hopeless outdated and purely the opinion of one man. But the argument
would follow from the Church of Scientology, that all the subsequent
discoveries and improvements to Dianetics in other books provide a
backup to that original text. This is simply an acknowledgement that
the book is faulty. On the other hand, you won't see one word saying
that anything in the book is wrong.


So revise it, or throw it away. There are 16 million copies of this
scientifically hollow text that have a greater value as pulp than the
basis of mental therapy. Only a Church takes a text as gospel and
uneditable. Church means faith, and there you have it. It's a faith
thing. 'It's probably wrong but you must believe it anyway'.


Science and Religion simply don't mix. Religion, traditionally,
implies faith and holy writings. Looking at a scale thus:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious, Globally Accepted
Holy Texts, Scientific Examination
Faith Factual Proof
Nothing Discarded Removal of False Data
| |
| ........\...........................................................|
| \ |
DIANETICS \ PSYCHOLOGY TEXTS
| LRH |
| |
<------ Towards Untruth Towards Truth -------->


Proceeding to the left, you get less and less truth, fact and science.


Thus, under the scrutiny of Scientific method, the contents of this
ancient text become unstable with a little study, unworkable with
moderate study and outright lies when completely evaluated.


Notice that the meter above doesn't quite hit the far left edge. This
is because _SOME_ of the contents of Dianetics is true - about 2%.


Of course, it's a challenge that will never be taken up, since the
C of S is too tied to the 44 year crusade to make it legitimate.


So Scientology has, in all this time, just doggedly trekked onward
from 1950, producing book after tape after process all seated upon
this premier text. Borrowed data, untested ideas, all add up to
something that is a fraud. And an expensive fraud at that.


Anyway, I've had my say. Now see what people with more time and
more authority have to say, don't just take it from me. After all,
why should you listen to this on the authority of one man, me? As
Ron said, " There is no valid reason for accepting the opinion of ... ",
so listen to these others.


BEGIN------------------< hubbard.sources.FAQ >--------------------------


Dianetics: The Evolution of a Science is L. Ron Hubbard's incredible
story of how he discovered the reactive mind and how he developed the
keys to unlock its secrets.
-- Scientology blurb quoted by j...@lds-az.loral.com (J
Barbera)


Ron, never one to hide his light under a bushel, modestly described
his discoveries as a "milestone for Man comparable to his discovery
of fire and superior to his invention of the wheel".
-- Russell Miller in Punch, 19feb88 p.46-


The following is the stuff I have about where Hubbard obtained his
"discoveries".
---
Article 1046 of alt.religion.scientology:
From: lipp...@uavax0.ccit.arizona.edu (James J. Lippard)
Subject: Origin of Dianetics
Date: 6 Jan 92 04:04:00 GMT


Reprinted with permission from The Arizona Skeptic, vol. 5
no. 2 (September/October 1991), pp. 1-5. (Sorry about the poor
paragraph
formatting.)


Dianetics: From Out of the Blue?
By Jeff Jacobsen
L. Ron Hubbard, author of the book Dianetics: The Modern
Science of Mental Health and founder of the Church of
Scientology, was a science-fiction writer before penning the
book that would launch his fame. Dianetics is a self-help
book published in 1950 which claimed to include new and
unique theories on how the mind works. Hubbard claimed that
this work was totally unprecedented; "Man had no inkling
whatever of Dianetics. None. This was a bolt from the
blue."1 So there would be no doubt as to the originality of
his ideas, Hubbard wrote that "dianetics borrowed nothing but
was first discovered and organized; only after the
organization was completed and a technique evolved was it
compared to existing information."2 According to Hubbard,
some philosophers of the past helped provide the foundation
of Dianetics, but the remaining research had been done "what
the navigator calls, 'off the chart.'"3
Dianetics became a New York Times bestseller in 1950, and
has since sold many millions of copies.
Was this a totally unique theory of the mind wrought from
Hubbard's "many years of exact research and careful
testing,"4 or was it a loose composite of already existing
theories mixed with novel, unproven ideas? This paper
proposes to show that, despite Hubbard's claims of
originality, many of the ideas in Dianetics were already
existing and even in vogue before Dianetics appeared. Either
Hubbard really studied other works before he wrote Dianetics,
or he wasted years of his time re-inventing the wheel.
Although there are no reference notes in Dianetics to see
what are Hubbard's ideas and what are borrowed, we can
quickly eliminate the idea that Dianetics appeared "from the
blue" by Hubbard's own statements. In Dianetics itself is
the statement that "many schools of mental healing from the
Aesculapian to the modern hypnotist were studied after the
basic philosophy of dianetics had been postulated."5 Alfred
Korzybski, Emil Kraepelin, Franz Mesmer, Ivan Pavlov, Herbert
Spencer, and others are mentioned as resources in Dianetics,
so we must assume Hubbard was crediting these people to some
degree. He must certainly have known, then, of at least some
of the research from his time which will be mentioned in this
article. Hubbard in other settings acknowledged Sigmund
Freud (especially through Commander "Snake" Thompson),6 Count
Alfred Korzybski,7 and Aleister Crowley8 as contributors to
his ideas on the human mind. In a speech in 1950, Hubbard
stated that he had spent much time in the Oak Knoll Naval
Hospital medical library in 1945 during a stay for ulcers,
where "I was able to get in a year's study."9
In fact, most of the theories and ideas in Dianetics can be
found in scientific literature previous to the first
publishing of Hubbard's theories. Parts of Dianetics, for
example, have striking resemblance to two articles found in
Volume 28 (1941) of the Psychoanalytic Review.
Dianetics theory posits the existence of engrams. These
are memories of events that occur around us when our
analytical mind is unconscious, and they are recorded in a
separate area of the mind called the reactive mind. A
seemingly unique theory in Dianetics is that these memories
begin being stored "in the cells of the zygote--which is to
say, with conception."10 These engrams can cause problems
for the person throughout life unless handled through
Dianetics auditing.
Dr. J. Sadger, nine years before the introduction of
Dianetics in 1950, wrote that several of his patients were
not cured of their psychological problems until he had taken
them back to their existence as sperm or ovum. He declared
that "there exists certainly a memory, although an
unconscious one, of embryonic days, which persists throughout
life and may continuously determine an action."11 Sadger
spends much time explaining how his patients' memories of the
time when they were zygotes or even sperm or ovum had
affected their adult behaviors, noting that "an unconscious
lasting memory must have remained from these embryonic
days."12 There were "unmistakable dreams" of being a sperm
in the father's testicle.
Engrams, those unconscious memories of Dianetics, are said
by Hubbard to be stored in the cells of the body and passed
on to their clone cells and finally on to the adult being.
Hubbard claimed to discover that "patients sometimes have a
feeling that they are sperms or ovums... this is called the
sperm dream."13 It was impossible, he claimed, to deny to a
pre-clear that he could remember being a sperm. But Sadger
wrote about this first, and Hubbard could well have read this
in his "year's study" at Oak Knoll Hospital.
Another coincidental discovery of Hubbard and Sadger was
that mothers often attempt to abort their child. Sadger
states that "so many a fall or other accident of a pregnant
woman is nothing else than an attempt at abortion on the part
of the unconscious, not to mention those cases where the
mother seeks to free herself more or less forcibly from the
unwanted child."14 Hubbard concurs; "Attempted abortion is
very common,"15 and in fact "twenty or thirty abortion
attempts are not uncommon in the aberee."16 Again, not an
idea "from the blue."
Life in the womb was not very kind, according to one of
Sadger's patients: "Perhaps when father performed coitus
with mother in her pregnancy I was much shaken and rocked.
Shall that have been one reason that I so easily became dizzy
and that all my life I have had an aversion even as a child
from swings and carousels?"17 Hubbard, in a similar vein,
insists that the mother "should not have coitus forced upon
her. For every coital experience is an engram in the child
during pregnancy."18 "Papa becomes passionate and baby has
the sensation of being put into a running washing machine."19
There are at least three other similarities like the "sperm
dreams", commonality of abortion attempts, and fetus
discomfort during parental sex. This seems quite a
coincidence, but it is not known whether Hubbard read
Sadger's article. Suffice it to say that these are major
ideas in Dianetics, but they are not new ideas.
The second article under discussion from Psychoanalytic
Review deals with the unbearable conditions during birth and
the affects of these in later life. Grace W. Pailthorpe,
M.D., argued in this 1941 article that patients should be
psychoanalyzed more deeply into the period of infancy, or at
least to the 'trauma of birth'. Otherwise no lasting
therapeutic effect could be expected. Birth has traumatized
all of us, she declares, and these unconscious memories drive
us in our adulthood. "It is only when deep analysis has
finally exposed the unconscious deviations of our vital
force"20 that we can recover and enjoy life.
In Dianetics, the reader is left with the impression that
the ideas of birth and pre-birth memories and traumas,
multiple abortion attempts, and fetal discomfort in the womb
are new discoveries. As can be seen, this is not the case.
And there are many other impressions of "new" and "unique"
that are incorrect as well.
With Pailthorpe's article, for example, we can also note
the dramatic similarities of Dianetics with simple Freudian
psychoanalysis. There is in both the return to past times in
the patient's life to search for the source of his or her
current problems. Once these problematic memories are
discovered and treated the problems vanish. In Pailthorpe's
article we have a man who was hopelessly traumatized by the
events at his birth. He was cruelly kicked out of his "home"
in the womb, and his resistance to this was assumed to be the
cause of the immediate traumas of the nurse's and mother's
attentions (which were "painful to the child's sensitive
body"21). These traumas caused headaches and social
disorders in adult life. Psychoanalysis discovered the
causes (birth trauma) and when these were brought to the
conscious level with their meaning explained, the headaches
and social dysfunctions were alleviated.
Dianetics follows this line of reasoning to a great degree.
According to Hubbard, engrams (past traumas) are discovered
in the pre-clear's past, and bringing these engrams into
consciousness (from the reactive to the analytic mind)
alleviates the disorder. Hubbard claims that after auditing
people (he had the pre-clear lie on a couch in Freudian
imitation), "psycho-somatic illness...by dianetic
technique...has been eradicated entirely in every case."22
A theory in psychoanalysis known as abreaction is so
similar to Dianetics (and preceding it by many years) that it
must be mentioned in more detail here. A 1949 article by
Nathaniel Thornton, D.Sc., gives a brief overview of
abreaction and his views on its value. Abreaction began with
Freud and was considered early on to be "one of the very
cornerstones of analytic therapy."23 This is a method of
freeing a patient "from the deleterious results of certain
pathogenic affects by bringing these affects back into the
conscious mind and re-experiencing them in all their original
force and intensity."24 A patient of one of Freud's
colleagues, under hypnosis and "with a free expression of
emotion"25 was freed of all her psycho-somatic symptoms using
abreactive therapy. Pierre Janet is credited in the article
with utilizing abreactive therapy to restore painful memories
to consciousness and thus relieving a patient's symptoms. A
patient being treated with this method must continually work
through such painful memories until the patient "could accept
the fact that the original experience no longer loomed up as
a threat to him."26
Thornton concludes that abreaction is a useful tool simply
because "confession is good for the soul", and that talking
to someone about one's problems is almost always therapeutic.
"Auditing" in Dianetics is a virtual clone of abreactive
therapy. Auditing basically is searching through a person's
past until an engram is discovered, then continually
reexperiencing the event when the engram (painful memory) was
instilled "until the pre-clear is no longer affected" by the
memory.27 Hubbard takes abreaction to an extreme and
declares that once a person has removed all his engrams, then
Dianetics has done its job and an almost god-like human
results. Once again, the similarity of an already existing
theory on the mind is presented as a great discovery in
Dianetics.
Alfred Korzybski, mentioned in passing in Dianetics,28 owes
a debt to Hubbard for making his theories well-known,
according to some former followers of Dianetics. Bent
Corydon, a former Mission holder of Hubbard's Church of
Scientology, has made a convincing comparison of Dianetics
and Korzbyski's writings, demonstrating that there is in
essence little difference between many aspects of the two.29
In support of this comparison, it should be noted that there
was a "Korzybski fad"30 sweeping through the science-fiction
community in the 1940's, of which Hubbard was a member, and
that Hubbard, as mentioned above, had stated the contribution
Korzbyski made in his research.
Corydon also mentions the book The Mneme published in 1923
by Richard Simon, wherein not only the idea of engrams, but
the very word itself is used. The word "engram" is listed in
the Oxford English Dictionary as deriving from Simon's book.
Cybernetics, published in 1948,31 compares the human mind
to the newly developing technology of computers. Dianetics
also tells us to "consider the analytical mind as a computing
machine."32 Cybernetics speaks of "affective tone" scales,33
as does Dianetics in a remarkably similar vein.34
Cybernetics was a very popular work at the time Hubbard was
writing Dianetics.
We have seen that many of the ideas in Dianetics which were
claimed to be unique were in fact current in the study of the
mind at the time of, or just before, the introduction of
Dianetics. It is difficult to see whether Hubbard had
studied some of these works during his "many years of exact
research,"35 but as mentioned previously he does acknowledge
other researchers. At any rate, no book is written in a
vacuum, so we may conclude from the evidence that Hubbard was
aware of at least some of this research previous to writing
his work. Barring acknowledgment somewhere by Hubbard, or a
list of articles and works he had read, we can only guess as
to the others.
It seems safe to conclude that the theories presented in
Dianetics did not arrive "out of the blue" as claimed, but
were instead a synthesis of previous, uncredited works. In
that case, is there any reason to discount the ideas in
Dianetics? There certainly is. There are outlandish,
unsubstantiated claims made by Hubbard, including the
possibility that cancer may be cured by Dianetic
processing,36 that colds and accidents can be eradicated,37
IQ improved,38 life extended,39 and total recall enjoyed.40
None of this is proven in any way other than constant mention
of previous research. The problem with this research is that
there is no tangible evidence of its existence. Hubbard in a
lecture stated that "my records are in little notebooks,
scribbles, in pencil most of them. Names and addresses are
lost... there was a chaotic picture...."41 A certain Ms.
Benton asked Hubbard for his notes to validate his research,
but when she saw them, "she finally threw up her hands in
horror and started in on the project [validation of research]
clean."42 He was putting this into the hands of valid
researchers "whose word can't be disputed" so Dianetics could
be legitimized by the scientific professions.
Unfortunately, none of Hubbard's claimed research, nor
those of his valid researchers can be found today, if they
ever really existed. And if the methods and statistical
results of the supposed research are not available, they
cannot be checked and duplicated as the scientific method
calls for. Anyone can make as many outlandish claims as he
wants, but the research must be accessible and reproducible
to support those claims if he brandishes scientific validity.
Dianetics is designed as a how-to manual for
psychoanalysis. Anyone who reads the book should be able to
perform Dianetics auditing and help his fellow man become
"clear". "Dianetics is not being released to a profession...
it is insufficiently complicated to warrant years of study in
some university."43 It is better to audit someone, said
Hubbard, regardless of how well, than to not audit at all.
But this seems a bit reckless. Auditing can produce "tears
and wailings,"44 and "a patient...that...bounces about, all
unconscious of the action."45 Regardless of the auditor's
abilities, and regardless of how traumatic a session becomes
for the pre-clear, "If an auditor...can sit and whistle while
Rome burns before him and be prepared to grin about it, then
he will do an optimum job."46 This sounds more like quackery
than therapy.
Children often have engrams that are restimulated by their
parents. Hubbard states that it may be necessary to remove
the children from their parents if this is the case, until
the engrams are processed.47 Here again we have Hubbard
making an outlandish proposal of splitting families in order
to produce healthier people.
The cells of the zygote, according to Dianetics theory,
record sounds during a period of pain (Hubbard often uses a
husband beating his pregnant wife as an example), such as
"'Take that! Take it, I tell you. You've got to take
it!'"48 From this engram we are to believe that the child
grows up to be a thief. Cellular recordings of sounds by the
cells can even be in another language unknown to the adult or
child and still cause similar problems. All of this, again,
has no evidence accompanying it, and without such evidence it
may as well be classified as mere science-fiction.
We have in Dianetics a work by a science-fiction writer who
claims to have created a totally new and foolproof handbook
of the mind with no documentation to prove his claimed
research. This book has been actively sold by Hubbard's
Church of Scientology for many years, and yet it is simply a
synthesis of already published ideas with bizarre,
unsubstantiated claims thrown in. The theories in this book,
other than those found in previous works by others, have
never been scientifically validated, and in fact, one attempt
came up dry.49 There is little scholastic or societal
benefit to be derived from this work. S.I. Hayakawa put it
well in his review of Dianetics: "The appalling thing
revealed by dianetics about our culture is that it takes a
452-page book full of balderdash to get some people to sit
down and seriously listen to each other!"50


Copyright (c) 1990 by Jeff Jacobsen. For permission to
reprint this article, contact:
Jeff Jacobsen
P.O. Box 3541
Scottsdale, AZ 85271
1quoted in L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?, by Bent
Corydon and L. Ron Hubbard, Jr. (Secaucus, NJ: Lyle Stuart,
1987) p. 262.
2L. Ron Hubbard, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental
Health (Los Angeles: American Saint Hill Organization,
1950), 12th printing, paperback, August 1975, p. 340.
(Henceforth Dianetics.)
3ibid. p.400.
4ibid. p. ix.
5ibid. p.122.
6Russell Miller, Bare-Faced Messiah (N.Y.: Henry Holt & Co.,
1987), pp.230-231.
7L. Ron Hubbard, cassette tape, "Introduction to Dianetics,"
Dianetics Lecture Series 1. 1950. Bridge Publications,
Inc.
8Stewart Lamont, Religion, Inc.: The Church of Scientology
(London: Harrap, 1986) p.21.
9"The History of Dianetics and Scientology" cassette tape.
10Dianetics, p.130.
11Dr. J. Sadger, "Preliminary Study of the Psychic Life of
the Fetus and the Primary Germ." Psychoanalytic Review
July 1941 28:3. p.333
12ibid. pp.343-4.
13Dianetics, p.294.
14Sadger, p.336.
15Dianetics, p. 156.
16Dianetics, p.158.
17Sadger, p.352.
18Dianetics, p.158.
19Dianetics, p.130.
20Grace W. Pailthorpe, M.D., "Deflection of Energy, as a
Result of Birth Trauma, and It's Bearing Upon Character
Formation." Psychoanalytic Review July 1941 28:3 pp.
305-326, p.326.
21ibid. p.307.
22Dianetics, p.91.
23Nathaniel Thornton, D.Sc., "What is the Therapeutic Value
of Abreaction?" Psychoanalytic Review 1949 36:411-415.
p.411.
24ibid.
25ibid. p.412.
26ibid. p.413.
27Dianetics, p.206.
28Dianetics, p.62.
29Corydon and Hubbard, Jr., pp. 266-269.
30Albert I. Berger, "Towards a Science of the Nuclear Mind:
Science-fiction Origins of Dianetics", Science Fiction
Studies, 1989, vol. 16:123-141. p.135.
31Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics; or Control and Communication
in the Animal and the Machine (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
York, 1948).
32Dianetics, p.43.
33Wiener, p.150.
34Dianetics, p.323ff.
35Dianetics, p.ix.
36Dianetics, p.93.
37Dianetics, p.92.
38Dianetics, pp. 90, 193.
39Dianetics, p.170.
40Dianetics, p.417.
41L. Ron Hubbard, cassette tape, "What Dianetics Can Do,"
Dianetics Lecture Series 2. 1950. Bridge Publications,
Inc.
42ibid.
43Dianetics, p.168.
44Dianetics, p.253.
45Dianetics, p.278.
46Dianetics, p.179.
47Dianetics, pp.154, 155.
48Dianetics, p.212.
49Jack Fox, Alvin E. Davis, and B. Lebovits, "An Experimental
Investigation of Hubbard's Engram Hypothesis (Dianetics),"
Psychological Newsletter 1959, 10, 131-134.
50S.I. Hayakawa, "From Science-fiction to Fiction-science",
Etc.: A Review of General Semantics, 1951 Vol. 8 (4) 280-
293. p. 293.


Jim Lippard Lipp...@RVAX.CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Dept. of Philosophy Lipp...@ARIZRVAX.BITNET
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
----
Article 16757 of sci.skeptic:
From: m...@cup.portal.com (Mark Robert Thorson)
Subject: Karl Lashley and L. Ron Hubbard
Date: 20 Oct 91 00:33:40 GMT


I recently was reading a book describing the work of Karl
Lashley and his students at the University of Chicago, and
was struck by the similarity of his work and the "technology"
of Dianetics.


I already knew that Lashley coined the term "engram". In fact,
Lashley is famous in the field of neurobiology for his decades-
long search for the engram (i.e. memory trace). Most of these
experiments took the form of teaching a rat or a pigeon some
sort of stimulus-response relationship, then performing brain
surgery (like removing or slicing up some small part of the
brain), allowing a period of recovery, then testing for the
continued existence of the learned response. Despite spending
virtually his whole career looking for the seat of memory,
he never found it. His work is considered to be strong
evidence against the existence of any sort of "memory organ"
in the brain.


In his book _Studies_in_the_Dynamics_of_Behavior_
(University of Chicago Press, 1932), Lashley and his students
Stone, Darrow, Landis, and Heath report on their early work.
What caught my attention is how intensively they used one
particular analytical tool, namely galvanic skin response (GSR).


They looked at many different aspects of GSR, including
magnitude of response, recovery time, baseline shifts,
spontaneous responses, initial resistance before stimulus,
and minimum resistance achieved during examination.
This data was correlated (using factor analysis) against
questionnaires designed to measure specific personality
traits.


Here are some of the questions they used. Note the similarity
to questions on the famous "personality test" which is often
a person's first contact with Scientology.


Do you often feel self-conscious about your personal
appearance?
Do you think you are regarded as critical of other people?
Do you have the habit of contradicting people?
Have your friends ever turned against you?
Are you frightened by lightning?
Do you often experience periods of loneliness?
Does it bother you to have people watch you at work?
Do you get tired of people quickly?
Were you your parents' favorite child?
Do you consider yourself a rather nervous person?
Are you frequently troubled with nightmares?
Do people think you are selfish?
Does it make you uneasy to go into a tunnel or subway?
Can you stand the sight of blood?
Are you bothered much by blushing?
Do things often go wrong for you by no fault of your own?
Do you think you know yourself well from having observed
your own mind?
As a child did you like to play alone?
Are you troubled by thoughts of death?
At night are you frequently troubled by the idea that
somebody is following you?
Is there anyone you want to get even with?
Do you think most people are self-seeking or malicious?
Do you have a great fear of fire?
Do you usually sleep well?
Do you lose your temper quickly?
Do you dread the sight of a snake?
Do you feel life is a great burden?
Do you feel that you are not satisfactorily adjusted to life?
Have you found books more interesting than people?
Are you troubled with shyness?
Do you frequently talk to yourself?
Do you have difficulty in making friends?
Do you frequently talk to yourself?
Do you usually sleep well?
Are your feeling easily hurt?
Are you often in a state of excitement?
Were you considered a bad boy (or girl)?
Do ideas often run through your head so that you cannot sleep?


It seems to me that Hubbard borrowed extensively from
Lashley's work, which is reasonable considering that it may
have seemed the most advanced scientific work in psychology
at that time. But today, Hubbard's Dianetics is an
anachronism, like a time capsule from a university psychology
department of 60 years ago.


Of course, Hubbard added much of his own stuff, like the
auditing procedure and the theory of "negative engrams".
He turned GSR, a tenative scientific tool, into the E-meter,
a tool for his own brand of mass psychiatry.


Can anyone tell me if Hubbard ever acknowledged the
contribution of Lashley's work to Dianetics? And did
Lashley ever comment on Scientology? (Lashley lived to
be quite old -- I believe he died around 1975.)

[basicbasic]

TECH outside COS: Group creative processing on TV!?

Big suprise! Typing away here, I heard creative
processing type commands, found it came from the TV
someone had left on.

" Paul McKenna will make you thin." on sky 2 in UK.

Handling a lady's impulse for binge eating, he got
her to mock up a gateau, change its colour, spin it
around, imagine it in her tummy and so on.

Further this was group processing by TV! He was
inviting people at home to follow what he called
"this process"!!

"Self doubt and not believing in myself has gone"
said one of his volunteeers live on TV.

" Can wear smaller clothes now" said another.

These wins voiced publically to a TV audience and
the world!

Now he's getting someone else mocking up she's
Michelle Ffiefer. Her perception of her beauty is
changing rapidly! From -9 ugly, to plus 9
beautiful. With what seems like excellent PC changes.

Guess he read tech degrades PL. We don't say this
is old, or we don't do this anymore.

This whole programme is creative
processing!!!

bb

For more information on services in the Freezone,
mail me, Terril Park, at bbaf...@hotmail.com
This address can also be found in the next URL.

To find out more about us and to join our
forums see our websites at
http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs

http://internationalfreezone.net

For those who are quite new to the subjects of
Dianetics and Scientology, we have a forum where
your questions can be answered, and their is a minimum
of the quite extensive specialised terminology of these
subjects. The forum website also has a couple of dictionaries
of scientology terms.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Freezone101/

[GOLDSTEIN]

Sounds like visualization techniques. Yes, they can work. I suspect the real engine of it is self determination. I guess you can call that scientology - I mean, I'm sure it's part of the tech, just that it has a long history, for example worldwide shamanic / magic traditions.

[basicbasic]

Just googled " Visualisation techniques". There is an awful lot of information. It is written about a lot in learning and teaching.
I do accept this part of scn is in the magical/mystical tradition. Back in the fifties, connections with Crowley and magick were bad PR. Now?
Maybe not so. Even OTO finds Crowley an embarrassment, but he was brilliant.

My view, these techniques are about knowingly creating mental image pictures. This is a fundamental spiritual/human activity. This of course is a precursor to creating changes in the physical universe. Thus Magick, Scientology, science even. Think apple,head,Newton,Einstein.

One may even look at this as an indication of the SCN ideas that we created the physical universe.

Below a few quotes . The latter Creative processing/visualisation and its application to dating tips. For more advanced procedures, read Pitbulls
wooing of Magoo.

This URL shows the broad applicability of such methods.

http://www.themystica.com/mystica/articles/v/visualization.html

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

Overcome your shyness

What is visualization ?

"Visualization," "imaging," or "cognitive behavioral rehearsal" is the process of creating detailed mental pictures of behaviors you wish to assume. It can be a useful supplement to your other efforts at overcoming shyness. In effect, it is a way of practicing in your mind behaviors that you wish to acquire in real life.

And research shows that visualization can really help. Researchers at Louisiana State University found that people could actually increase the amount of weight they could lift by visualizing themselves doing so.

Daydreaming is a form of visualization. The difference between visualization and daydreaming, however, is that there are gaps in daydreams, and we picture some hypothetical event that will probably never take place. In the visualization process, by contrast, we picture something that is more likely to happen and imagine the step-by-step process by which we will handle it.

You need to practice visualization when you know you can relax without fear of interruption. Try to choose a time when nobody else is home, or, if this is not possible, go to a room by yourself and hang a "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door. (It is okay to tell people what you are doing.)

Before you begin your visualization session, you should relax for a few minutes. You need no special regimen. If you are familiar with yoga, meditation, or another relaxation discipline you may practice it briefly before beginning visualization. Otherwise, kicking off your shoes, putting your feet up, and going into a quiet mood will be fine.

It is important, however, to be relaxed when visualizing because you want to subconsciously associate a feeling of relaxation with the social situations that you are about to mentally rehearse. When you actually enter into a situation you visualized, you want to be able to recall that relaxed state vividly.

When you feel you are sufficiently relaxed you are ready to start the visualization process.

1: Close your eyes and picture the scene that causes you shyness as vividly and accurately as possible. Picture the people who are involved in the scene. What do they say? How do you respond?

2: If you are visualizing something that happened in the past, picture the scene as it actually happened as vividly as possible. What is it that was difficult about this situation?

3: What did the other person (or people) say? What did you say? What do you feel was inadequate about your performance?

4: Now visualize the exact same scene again. Picture what the other person said to you. But this time, picture yourself responding as you wish you had responded. Or, if you initiated the interaction, picture yourself doing so as you wish you had, effectively, self-confidently. If you have trouble knowing what this would be, think of an outgoing person you admire and picture how he or she would handle the situation. Imagine yourself behaving the same way.

5: Now picture how you think the other person might have responded to you had you acted the way you wished. Then visualize your next move or statement, his or her response, and so on, until you think the interaction is completed.

6: If you are visualizing something that will happen in the future, you must make a number of suppositions. Who do you expect to be talking to? Is it likely to be a man or a woman? Have you met this person before? What is the setting? What do you wish to accomplish with the interaction? How should you approach this person? What do you think you should say? What do you expect the other person to say? How will you respond? Visualize this scene repeatedly until you think you have worked out all the details and have determined what your best approach will be and how you will respond to various possible behaviors on the part of the other person. Picture yourself being relaxed, friendly, confident.

The important thing to remember when visualizing is not simply to think "I must be more outgoing," but to actually see yourself being more outgoing. See every step of your desired behavior as if it were projected on a movie screen. Just as you mentally "see" various scenarios acted out when you daydream, so must you "see" them when you visualize. As with any other skill, your ability to visualize will improve with practice.

A few other tips: First, be realistic about what you're visualizing. Don't see yourself as being the "life of the party" right away. Instead, look at the graduated desensitization list that you made up in the previous section, start visualizing the first thing that causes you shyness, and work your way up from there.

20-30 minutes a day is a good amount of time to devote to visualization.

Go back to Dating
Site Meter

© Copyright 2000 to 2006. All rig

[GOLDSTEIN]

>Just googled " Visualisation techniques". There is an awful lot of >information. It is written about a lot in learning and teaching. I do >accept this part of scn is in the magical/mystical tradition. Back in the >fifties, connections with Crowley and magick were bad PR. Now? Maybe >not so. Even OTO finds Crowley an embarrassment, but he was brilliant.

All true, imo.

>My view, these techniques are about knowingly creating mental image >pictures. This is a fundamental spiritual/human activity. This of course is >a precursor to creating changes in the physical universe. Thus Magick, >Scientology, science even.

Seems to be a bit in advance of actual science as we know it, currently, officially such things do not exist, but I like to say anyone can do experiments, which I have; but if they did, they might find out some things. On a simple, physical level, it has been demonstrated to be real, beyond dispute. If there is an underlying metaphysics (which, there seems to be, and much material confirms it, as you know), it may be an extension of the other.

>One may even look at this as an indication of the SCN ideas that we >created the physical universe.

Possibly, Maybe we are the sum of whatever created the universe, and thus share some of its properties; whatever the case, the strange fact exists that there seems to be an interface of mind to material. I better stop there, such beliefs are contrary to some folks, might create a runaway off-topic avalanche.

This is an example of why scn can't be dismissed (which I once did) completely, imo. It is not so simple, not so easy to toss it all out.

If people of CoS would raise up to your tone level - if I understand that correctly, I think I do - there'd hardly be a reason for critics; but those folks in CoS, regrettably, are hard to talk to; there's an order of magnitude or two - or three, difference.

>For more advanced procedures, read Pitbulls wooing of Magoo.

Of that, it is a mystery to unravel of which "even Aristotle, if resurrected for that very purpose, could not disembowel its meaning."

Although he is perhaps mad, he was brilliant in his "The Blessing of the RPF" post. I almost spewed out all my coffee on my screen, I was laughing so much. He used the technique of Dickens, when he wrote some early books like "Oliver Twist", using humor to expose barbarity.

[basicbasic]

TECH outside COS: Another Account or Ron's Org
UK inaugural meeting.

This last week was the first meeting called to establish a Rons Org for the UK. It was held near Gatwick and was well attended. Around 30 to 40 people packed into the meeting room for an all day session.

Bill Ryan chaired the proceedings and things got underway with attendees introducing themselves. They had come from near and far, some travelling more than 400 miles overnight to be there.

Otfried Krumholtz the Senior C/S from Frankfurt Org then spoke about Scientology and covered the history and development into the early 1980s and how Rons Orgs came to be. Surprising details of technical alterations in the CofS were bought to light. Much discussion ensued on the points raised.

The establishment and expansion of Rons Orgs in Russia over the last few years was especially startling and it does show what can be done when there is an enthusiasm to get the tech applied.

After lunch, with numbers swelling, Erica Hauri Senior C/S of Bern Org (in passing she does the same duty for the Russian Orgs!) gave a talk on the elements of the Bridge. Life Repair, Grades, Dianetics and lower Bridge actions were covered. Also covered were materials of the upper (Pre-OT and OT) levels to those who were qualified for them. The way in which the 'NOTs Case' was handled in Rons Orgs was explained and it became clear how this approach was more in alignment with basic tech than was the case in 'some other organisations' and how this factor accounts for the capability to deal terminatedly with this aspect of a person's case which has been reported by so many people who have done it.

Towards the end of the meeting plans were discussed to capitalise on the enthuisiasm that had been generated to make a start on getting some delivery in the UK, particularly training but auditing too and this is now on-going. Already suitable premises have been identified and many of the attendees were chipping in with offers of help and participation.


For more information on services in the Freezone,
mail me, Terril Park, at bbaf...@hotmail.com
This address can also be found in the next URL.

To find out more about us and to join our
forums see our websites at
http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs

http://internationalfreezone.net

For those who are quite new to the subjects of
Dianetics and Scientology, we have a forum where
your questions can be answered, and their is a minimum
of the quite extensive specialised terminology of these
subjects. The forum website also has a couple of dictionaries
of scientology terms.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Freezone101/

[basicbasic]

TECH outside COS: They audit just like the females!

> Started a new Pc on
> ARCSW today! My
> First male pc; they
> audit just like the
> females!
> I am beginning to
> see why auditors say
> they love to audit! It's
> fun!
>
>
> ARC,
> SH
>
> OK TO Publish SH


For more information on services in the Freezone,
mail me, Terril Park, at bbaf...@hotmail.com
This address can also be found in the next URL.

To find out more about us and to join our
forums see our websites at
http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs

http://internationalfreezone.net

For those who are quite new to the subjects of
Dianetics and Scientology, we have a forum where
your questions can be answered, and their is a minimum
of the quite extensive specialised terminology of these
subjects. The forum website also has a couple of dictionaries
of scientology terms.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Freezone101/

[basicbasic]

TECH outside COS: Short but sweet.

"I had begun Grade 0 in 1976 and was happy to finally complete it
1/24/06. I feel fully able in all areas of communication.

GK"


For more information on services in the Freezone,
mail me, Terril Park, at bbaf...@hotmail.com
This address can also be found in the next URL.

To find out more about us and to join our
forums see our websites at
http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs

http://internationalfreezone.net

For those who are quite new to the subjects of
Dianetics and Scientology, we have a forum where
your questions can be answered, and their is a minimum
of the quite extensive specialised terminology of these
subjects. The forum website also has a couple of dictionaries
of scientology terms.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Freezone101/

[basicbasic]

TECH outside COS: It is great to be OT!

I just come back from leave in Tasmania.

A beautiful island with a temperate climate and a very stress free
environment. A great enjoyable holiday.

A few years ago there was one of these mad crazy gunmen ran amuck in a
place called Port Arthur on the island. It is a tourist resort and a
historical landmark where, many years ago, convicts from England were
shipped many years ago when England used Australia as a prison.

Anyway, not long ago, some crazy person who was on psycho drugs took a
machine gun and
killed about 35 people there.

I mention this because I and my wife visited the resort as part of our
holiday.

While we were there, we walked through the spot were the massacre
happened.

I could still feel the shock even after, what ten years ago it happened?
Anyway I looked around and there were still beings sitting around in a
state of shock.

I could feel them. The emotion was distressful and they had not
recovered from what had happened after they had died.

I began to comm with them one by one and told them it is ok now, it is
over and you can leave now. Three picked up on this with great relief
and left the area immediately. Another one took a bit longer. I had to
take him through the incident about three times before he could end
cycle and felt up to
going. I told him to go and get another body then find an auditor and
get the incident fully run out and then he finally left. All this just
took
a few seconds but the relief was so great I could feel it myself.

The area felt much freer afterwards and I was real happy to have had the
opportunity and the ability to help.

I have read about this sort of thing in the early advance mags. Now I
know what it is like. It is great to be OT!

Michael
IFA


For more information on services in the Freezone,
mail me, Terril Park, at bbaf...@hotmail.com
This address can also be found in the next URL.

To find out more about us and to join our
forums see our websites at
http://www.freewebs.com/techoutsidethecofs

http://internationalfreezone.net

For those who are quite new to the subjects of
Dianetics and Scientology, we have a forum where
your questions can be answered, and their is a minimum
of the quite extensive specialised terminology of these
subjects. The forum website also has a couple of dictionaries
of scientology terms.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Freezone101/

[funkmr]

Terrill,

Are you telling me this "Michael" character will be putting the Ghostbusters out of business?

Once you stop posting these stories about delusional people who think they are exorcising the ghosts of the past, you can comment on my lewd joke concerning Tom Cruise and gay porn. Until then, save it. My 2 cents.
_________________
www.lisamcpherson.org

R.I.P. Lisa, we will never forget you or stop speaking up for you.

[Ltricha1]

Terril and all the other feezoners need to read this.
http://ocmb.xenu.net/ocmb/viewtopic.php?t=16563
_________________
$cientology's real product
Read
Tech is the Carrot,
Admin is the Cart,
Ethics is the whip,
Guess who the Horses are.

[basicbasic]

FUNKMR
Terrill
Are you telling me this "Michael" character will be putting the Ghostbusters out of business?

Once you stop posting these stories about delusional people who think they are exorcising the ghosts of the past, you can comment on my lewd joke concerning Tom Cruise and gay porn. Until then, save it. My 2 cents.
BB
My comments weren't directed to you or that post particularly. There is
reams of dribble commenting on Tom Cruises personal life, and Travolta's
and others. They are rather pointless as criticism of COS or even tech.
Makes critics look silly IMO. Of course when he points fingers on TV at another movie star, he opens the door for valid criticism of his actions.

Who exactly are the "delusional" people who deal with excorcism?

First up you need to consider anyone who calls him/herself a christian.
The new testament is full of references to exorcism. The catholic Church still does excorcism. A not so well known fact is that protestent branches also do this. My father, an Episcopalian Minister was an excorcist.

Hinduism, Bhuddhism, and islam, ( video below) also practice excorcism, as does Wicca and probably most Shamanistic and new age religions. Disdain of excorcism is perhaps a minority viewpoint.
You may sit there and state everyone else with a viewpoint different to yours is delusional. Don't make it so.

http://www.fazed.org/video/view/?id=113

[Escaped]

Terril:

Do people have "wins" with the Freezone Tech? Sure. But only those that really want to believe. Those that are skeptics are unlikely to have these "wins". There is a name for that. It's called the placebo effect and has been known for centuries. It matters not what the technique is, only that one really believes in it. It can be so powerful as to "cure" almost any illness. The problem is that most people want to know more about what they are doing and will finally realize what it is and leave because it won’t work anymore. Others will continue to believe in the dream no matter what and it will work for them as long as they believe. Part of that is also trying to get others to believe. That's why the church doesn't want anyone to associate with critics (they're called suppressives).

So what's wrong with believing in a fantasy? Well, nothing until you try and get others to believe it as well, make money with it, and it replaces scientifically proven methods. Scientifically proven procedures work whether one believes in them or not. That’s because the procedure is proven to work in itself. Not true at all for the “tech�.

So why are you constantly being attacked on OCMB? Other than the fact that it's a critic site, I think there is something in human nature that cannot stand a deluded person going about their lives in ignorance of the obvious truth. Especially if the deluded person has a self satisfying air of superiority and condescension (not you personally) while trying to get others to believe (yes you personally). This is a manifestation of a desperate attempt to prolong the fantasy in the mind of the protagonist.

Escaped

[funkmr]

Terril,

I apologize for getting nasty with you simply because you believe in exorcism. I do believe that exorcism is an antiquated belief best left in the annals of history, but I unconditionally support your right to believe anything you wish. I try to stay out of your hair, I just felt personally assailed when my crudeness was called out. I responded in an "eye for an eye" regard in your thread and for that I apologize. We are even and we are clear.

In the same spirit, your suggesting that commenting on Tom's personal life is counterproductive has some merit in fact. I do not have anything against anyone who exercises their right to be homosexual or bisexual. It is a personal choice that is irrelevant to a person's overall character. Two of my favorite musicians are bisexual and one is homosexual.

The reason I make a point to barb at Tom as if he were homosexual is because he threatened a reporter with a 100 MILLION dollar lawsuit. He might as well have sued for a kajillion dollars. Even if they are wholly in the wrong by either lying or exposing his personal life choices, any person who feels entitled to launch a suit for 100 million dollars in reprisal needs to be checked. This level of malicious litigiousness is the reason that I feel that every person who champions free speech should spit in Tom's face for trying to be a censoring bully. I do not know or care if Tom is gay, I care that he has no sense of temperance when combatting such an allegation (true or not). For someone who is a pushy proselytizer for a criminal organization to be so thin-skinned when he is attacked is the ultimate in hypocrisy. I make crude and lewd jokes about Mr. Cruise not because I have a crude or lewd sense of humor, but simply because I feel stronger and more controversial speech are necessary in such an affront to free speech. For someone like him to ask us to take it down a notch or shut up alltogether deserves a response that was more offensive than the initial incident.

In my opinion, you would be better off using your posts to defend your right to the Freezone and establish yourself as an ally of the critics, rather than try to promote the Free Zone here. You are severely out of your element. It is like trying to sell Nazi armbands to a synagogue. Your repeated proselytization for the Free Zone implies that you wish to convert us. Many of us feel that there are a million better places you could undertake such an endeavor. As it is, you are entering the line of fire by coming on the boards as any kind of scientologist. The best thing you can do is live and let live and join us against the church rather than preach for the Free Zone. You do what you want, as is your right, but I am of the opinion that trying to preach here is foolhardy. My 2 cents.

Added in Edit: Tom = Tom Cruise, obviously, not Tom Padgett
_________________
www.lisamcpherson.org

R.I.P. Lisa, we will never forget you or stop speaking up for you.

[basicbasic]

FUNKMR
Terril,

I apologize for getting nasty with you simply because you believe in exorcism. I do believe that exorcism is an antiquated belief best left in the annals of history,
BB
Thanks for the politeness and good manners of your apology. It
reflects well on you. I take no offence.

I will though continue to take issue with you at times.

Why is excorcism an antiquated belief? It is sort of mainstream, as I hope my previous post demonstrates.
F
but I unconditionally support your right to believe anything you wish. I try to stay out of your hair, I just felt personally assailed when my crudeness was called out. I responded in an "eye for an eye" regard in your thread and for that I apologize. We are even and we are clear.
BB
Wasn't specifically calling you out. Apart from other posts, there are dozens upon dozens of threads on ARS on similar lines.
F
In the same spirit, your suggesting that commenting on Tom's personal life is counterproductive has some merit in fact. I do not have anything against anyone who exercises their right to be homosexual or bisexual. It is a personal choice that is irrelevant to a person's overall character. Two of my favorite musicians are bisexual and one is homosexual.
BB
It has not been demonstrated that TC is homosexual. He's dated and screwed the most delicious babes in hollywood!
F
The reason I make a point to barb at Tom as if he were homosexual is because he threatened a reporter with a 100 MILLION dollar lawsuit. He might as well have sued for a kajillion dollars. Even if they are wholly in the wrong by either lying or exposing his personal life choices, any person who feels entitled to launch a suit for 100 million dollars in reprisal needs to be checked. This level of malicious litigiousness is the reason that I feel that every person who champions free speech should spit in Tom's face for trying to be a censoring bully.
BB
Not sure if I know details of this lawsuit. He has used legal resources against claims he had a homosexual relationship with someone. This is to be expected. He is a big movie star with many young female fans. And
male ones for that matter. Claims of a homosexual relationship attack his earning capacity, and his ability to take the roles, work, as he wishes.

He would be stupid to not take action! His previous wife Mimi Rogers,
who one presumes has no special reason to take his side has pointed out with excellent logic that he is not gay, and has no reason to lie about his relationship with Katie.
F
I do not know or care if Tom is gay, I care that he has no sense of temperance when combatting such an allegation (true or not).
BB
And if Pierce Brosnan is accused of being Gay he should do what?

F
For someone who is a pushy proselytizer for a criminal organization to be so thin-skinned when he is attacked is the ultimate in hypocrisy.
BB
I consider that is his hat as movie star. Not a scientologist. For history buffs, the first official clear, and earlier brilliant prosyletiser was John
McMasters. Gay!!
F
I make crude and lewd jokes about Mr. Cruise not because I have a crude or lewd sense of humor, but simply because I feel stronger and more controversial speech are necessary in such an affront to free speech. For someone like him to ask us to take it down a notch or shut up alltogether deserves a response that was more offensive than the initial incident.
BB
I'd say stick to facts. I've seen no evidence he is gay. Its an irrelevancy. Such statements are in fact discrimanatory to gays.
Bash him for attacks on Brooke Shields. Solid ground.
F
In my opinion, you would be better off using your posts to defend your right to the Freezone and establish yourself as an ally of the critics, rather than try to promote the Free Zone here. You are severely out of your element.
BB
I am an ally of critics where COS is attacked by and large. I'm
quite in my element. Have been promoting for 5 years or so.

F
It is like trying to sell Nazi armbands to a synagogue. Your repeated proselytization for the Free Zone implies that you wish to convert us.
BB
Only trying to convert those in COS to find a better path. Not trying to convert critics.
F
Many of us feel that there are a million better places you could undertake such an endeavor.
BB
Name one.

F
As it is, you are entering the line of fire by coming on the boards as any kind of scientologist. The best thing you can do is live and let live and join us against the church rather than preach for the Free Zone.
BB
I do both.
F
You do what you want, as is your right, but I am of the opinion that trying to preach here is foolhardy. My 2 cents.
BB
In fact I get 30+ contacts per month.

Added in Edit: Tom = Tom Cruise, obviously, not Tom Padgett Cool