The failure of the tech

From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
Subject: The Failure of the Tech
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 10:36:12 GMT
Message-ID: <344b6d6f.26123057@snews.zippo.com>

Bernie:
>>    Is it correct for David Mayo to just disappear without even giving any kind of reasons, explanations, any kind of communications to people who supported him in the past? I don't think so. I mentioned it before already, and now am telling it loud and clear:

>>What happened with David Mayo? Where is David Mayo?

Bernie:
In Ralph Hilton's answer below, we have quite a good example of the reaction of an ex-scientologist, freezoner, who didn't free himself from the cultic mindset, nor the Scn mindset, and a good, additional, example of the uselessness of the so-called tech.

Ralph Hilton:
>I read this because I forgot to kf you on a.c.t.

The preceding mention of Hilton about killfiling me was when I criticized him about a post he made in which he was using the illness a person admitted to have against this person.

Now you would expect this from a low level arser, but not from an high-ranking ex-member who is one of the prominent representative of the freezone in ars, right? So I asked him to clarify this or apologize.

This was the very first critical post I made about Hilton, and the first time I put such a question to him. So, what was his *first* and immediate reaction? To send me an e-mail saying "There is no need for you to mail me further copies of your posts. Nor am I interested in further communication with you."

Now you would expect any sensible person, even more so someone who is supposed to know how to "handle" upsets, to at least try to clarify the situation, right? Yet, we see here the typical reaction of a Scientologist, in the bad sense of the term, immediately disconnecting upon the slightest sign of criticism or questioning.

We could already observe this with Hilton when Monica questioned the validity of Sarge Gerbode work. Instead of arguing the issue, he engaged in vile attacks against her. Such as "you are much dimmer than I thought. I can but laugh at your stupid pretentiousness. " or "you are full of shit. As long as you post this sort of garbage I will point out what a criminal you are." Kind of style that sounds familiar, isn't?

The point is this: because freezoners are criticizing the CoS, they are on ars "side". The moment you put them under pressure and start questioning the very basis of what they do, which would include the use of the tech but also following a lot of LRH mindset as well, then they reveal how far they still are conditioned by this mindset, and they will react just like many Scientologists would when they are being attacked as well.

>Why continue to enhance your image as the village idiot?

Again, Hilton is not discussing the issue, but rather uses generalities and tries to diminish his opponents. My questions are perfectly valid ones. Why doesn't he address them? Because they may reflect badly to his buddy, David Mayo, and the whole of the freezone and the tech.

>You are now kf'd on a.c.t. too so your reply will drift into the sky.

Avoidance of discussing the issue, and of hearing what he does not want to hear or discuss.

>If you really want to know why not email mayo@lightlink.com Ask the man himself.

Hilton doesn't want an issue that is potentially damaging to the pursuit of his own illusions being discussed publicly. David Mayo was a public figure, and I raise a question of general interest, not a personal question. I think that I speak for many others who supported him along the years and feel betrayed by his failing to make even a single public statement of what the situation is and giving in to the CoS for what is probably considerable amounts of money.

>Dickbrain. Flunk for OSA style TRs.

More illustration of the Scn mindset in addressing questions when it relates to freezoners and not to the CoS.

The biggest failing of the CoS is upon addressing criticism, both from the outside and from the inside. This, however, is related to the tech as well, because the tech simply doesn't speak for itself. Even though some spectacular effects are possible via the tech, it ultimately doesn't deliver what it promises at all.

If it was, then the CoS wouldn't need such a totalitarian structure to "protect" it, then David Mayo would have succeeded to create a "new Church", and high-level tech people and super OTs such as Hilton, now supposed to be free from the cultic mindset of the CoS, would be able to address the most simple questions and criticisms.

This speaks loud and clear: the tech doesn't work. It may be able to produce spectacular results, part of it may be valuable if used in another context than Scn, but it clearly doesn't deliver what it promises. The individual fundamentally remains the same ignorant human being. From this perspective, Scn and the Scn tech is a waste of time.

Thank you, Ralph Hilton, for providing yet another example of this fact.


From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,alt.clearing.technology
Subject: Re: The Failure of the Tech
Date: Sun, 05 Oct 1997 20:26:33 GMT
Message-ID: <346bf17e.56956742@news.ping.be>

Bernie:
>>    This speaks loud and clear: the tech doesn't work.

Zane Thomas:
>I have to agree with that basic conclusion, or at least that there has been no showing that there is even enough substance to subject to reasonable studies. In any event there haven't been any such studies.

This is not a new position on my part. I have been saying that the tech doesn't work from day one as I came in ars. It stays right there in the first lines of the story I posted back then and which is webbed in several places.

Ralph Hilton's attitude just reminded me about this fact and made a further confirmation of it in my eyes. Jon Zegel is also correct in his tape 4 when he assess the failure of the AAC. The difference of course is that he thinks that the AAC failed because what was applied wasn't the "standard tech". I think that it failed simply because the tech doesn't, ultimately, work.

>>It may be able to produce spectacular results, part of it may be valuable if used in another context than Scn

>But that sort of got my attention bernie old stick. Are you saying that to be nice

To be nice? To whom?

>(highly unlikely)

I don't try "to be nice" when it comes to serious matter. I say what is on my mind.

>or do you actually believe that "it" (whatever tf _it_ is)

The tech.

>may have "spectacular results" or value?

I do.

>If so what do you base that conclusion on?

On my experience during five years in Scn and the results I could observe. It can have a powerful (positive) effect on both the psychological and the spiritual level. That's why people stick with it, not because it is "hypnosis".

However, in the same way as I make a difference between "influence" and "mind-control", I do it between "effect" and "work". It isn't because something has an effect that it necessarily works. As always, it is the *faith_leap* between the two notions that creates the illusion.


From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: The Failure of the Tech
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 1997 22:58:51 GMT
Message-ID: <344e84ed.1435007@snews.zippo.com>

Bernie:
>> Even though some spectacular effects are possible via the tech, it ultimately doesn't deliver what it promises at all.

>> This speaks loud and clear: the tech doesn't work. It may be able to produce spectacular results, part of it may be valuable if used in another context than Scn, but it clearly doesn't deliver what it promises. The individual fundamentally remains the same ignorant human being. From this perspective, Scn and the Scn tech is a waste of time.

inducto@aol.com (Inducto):
>If I understand correctly, Bernie makes a good point here that is often missed.

Bernie:
I am glad you see it. It is an important one, IMO.

> If you dismissing dianetics/scientology's effects, you miss understanding part of its attraction, and then don't have some points of understanding that are important to debunking it.

Exactly. The tech is the attractor. People are not interested in "critical" information because they have experienced the effect of the tech and want more of it. It's enough for the CoS to depict the opposition as biased to get CoS member's attention away from it. With the "quality" of some of the opposition, this isn't very difficult to achieve either.

>First, some spectacular "effects" are delivered: "past life recall", euphoric states, new senses of personal power and well-being, etc. These may be illusions, just like in magic. But magic obviously fools the uninformed, and entertains adults to the point that they are willing to spend quite of bit of money in pursuing its experience. How would one of the millionaire magician/entertainers would answer the question of whether magic "works"?

I don't think it's a magical trick. I think that the effects obtained by the tech are tangible. The problem I have with it is that it is superficial and temporary, and that it is entangled in a whole cultic philosophy that people buy largely because they make a faith leap from the effects of the tech to the claims of LRH.

Scientologists (and Freezoners) think that the tech change fundamentally an individual. That's where they have it wrong. I have seen bright and ignorant people in the CoS, bright and ignorant people in the Freezone, and bright and ignorant people on the outside (for example in this newsgroup). I have not seen anyone change fundamentally for better or for worse other than have occasional visibly high experiences, and other than behaving occasionally like fanatics.

I have to make an exception to that. I have seen *one* person who have attained what I consider as a stable spiritual state comparable to an "enlightened" being (she called herself a "native state". It's considerably higher than OT). This person claims that she achieved that through the tech, but this may not be certain either in my eyes. Also, I didn't know the person before, so it's hard to compare.

The quasi totality of the tech is based on the Axiomes and Logics, which were written in one go by LRH in 1938 (so I gather) after he had an NDE (near death experience). I believe that the quasi totality of Scn is to be found in this single book. The rest is a mixture of LRH interpretations from his vision, mixed with his own totalitarian tendencies and with attempt to reproduce the spiritual state with auditing and
possibly with drugs.

The above paragraph obviously contains a lot of assumptions, but I believe that the effect contained in the tech comes from this source. LRH, however, failed to make it "work", and instead mixed it with his own ego.

So the tech does have an effect, that makes people come back to for more, but it doesn't "work" because the individual isn't fundamentally changed, except that he buys into the Scientology cultic mindset. A bright Scientologist will stay bright, a dumb one will stay dumb, and the difference will probably stay as they get out as well, with the corresponding variation in interpretation with witness between ex-members.

All in all, it's really like a spiritual drug: effect without really tackling with the basic causes of illusion and ignorance, but the development of dependence instead.

This being said, the effects are sometimes quite astounding, just like with a drug trip. I believe that the effects can actually be even stronger than with drugs, with near to zero *immediate* backfiring. I would describe it as real fun and, in some way, comparable to the experiences and benefit some find in drugs. I would even advise to try auditing, if it wasn't for the dependency aspect, hard to avoid.

Check for example the looney Roland account about his exteriorization. With his rants about the Xenu business, you will not expect that he will be the one to invent such a story. I personally had experience that went even beyond that. That's only some of the "effects" the tech is able to deliver. They are effects, though, and in the long run not worth the dependency you get into. You can live without it just as you can live without drugs. The depth and variety of alternative spiritual paths that exist outside of Scn are almost overwhelming.

I particularly like the notion of as-is, to be found in the Axiomes and Logics, and which I believe to be the most fundamental notion in Scn. It is linked to the notion of what you resist you become, and other similar principles. I have read a statement from the pilot that this particular bit (as-is) was taken from Krishnamurti. It is a sensible statement because it summarizes rather well Krishnamurti's own teaching, but I personally don't think LRH took it from there. I believe it comes straight from LRH's NDE and the vision he had then. You may call it a strange belief if you want, but it makes sense to me compared with other knowledge and experiences of mine.

>Secondly, some results are produced for some individuals via common mechanisms. Much of dianetics/scientology has the same effects as any good sales or motivational course. Improving someone's attitued and motivation does produce "results".

Yes, I could agree with that. That's the other aspect. many Scn principles (tech principles) are actually rather sound. The problem I have with them, however, is that they also tend to condition people, especially when coupled with the CoS totalitarian tendencies. People tend to interpret everything through the Scn principles, instead of looking at things for themselves. The principle initially helps them, but after a while act as a limit, as a crutch that prevents them to move further.

As you say, Scientologists may be more confident indeed because of their idea of the superiority of the tech and the training they follow, but I think the auditing part is really what keeps people in Scn. The effects (not the results) created by auditing is what is keeping the whole thing together and going through decades of opposition and trouble.

I don't believe that the level of "opposition" some of this newsgroup has shrunken to will succeed either. You need a considerably more elaborate approach than to say that the tech is "all crap" or to say that it is "hypnosis" and "mind-control".

The distinction between effects and results is considerably closer to what happens and considerably more efficient in terms of bringing Scientologists to reflect on their experience. It doesn't go against what they obviously experienced, but it also puts it in perspective and provides a context in which the tech and the doctrine isn't all-mighty anymore. It frees up some of the dependencies, which is one of the most important aspect one has to free oneself from.


From: Bernie@bernie.cncfamily.com (Bernie)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: The Failure of the Tech
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 1997 22:13:40 GMT
Message-ID: <3468c239.45077355@snews.zippo.com>

Bernie:
>>    The quasi totality of the tech is based on the Axiomes and Logics, which were written in one go by LRH in 1938 (so I gather) after he had an NDE (near death experience). I believe that the quasi totality of Scn is to be found in this single book. The rest is a mixture of LRH interpretations from his vision, mixed with his own totalitarian tendencies and with attempt to reproduce the spiritual state with auditing and possibly with drugs.

Rob Clark:
>i am not certain LRH ever had a transcendental experience in his life, and suspect that if he did, it was through pure drugs and nothing else. LRH's ravings about "body thetans" resemble the jabbering of a cocaine-crazed psychotic screaming about bugs all over him.

NoGoot made a good point that there is a kind of disruption between the BT levels and the lower levels Scn principles. I can't really see where the Xenu and BT stories fit int the Axioms and Logics.

>>All in all, it's really like a spiritual drug: effect without really tackling with the basic causes of illusion and ignorance, but the development of dependence instead.

>like LSD. granted, LSD can give you a transitory feeling of enlightenment, but like a nitrous oxide trip it is nothing more than chemically-induced illusion.

That's only one interpretation. There are other theories. There is a whole field of which we know little about and I personally don't block out any possible explanations.

>without interpretation and exegesis, there are no "spiritual experiences" which are useful.

>>  This being said, the effects are sometimes quite astounding, just like with a drug trip. I believe that the effects can actually be even stronger than with drugs, with near to zero *immediate* backfiring. I would describe it as real fun and, in some way, comparable to the experiences and benefit some find in drugs. I would even advise to try auditing, if it wasn't for the dependency aspect, hard to avoid.

>i'd agree on that as well, because with a drug trip, one is full aware that the experience has been artificial. with a "cult trip," though, that artificial experience is then invoked as a bludgeon to attempt to convince the new person that whatever cult gave them that experience is now by some magic worthy of all sorts of respect, and even that the cult leader is god for being able to do such things.

That's what I call the faith leap, which is at the basis of many illusion. We see the presents at the feet of the Christmas tree, and therefore Santa Claus must necessarily exist.

What many critics don't realise, however, is that this works both way. The believe in "mind-control" is also a faith leap from valid elements to an unwarranted assumption. The closeness between both is what creates the illusion.

>> I particularly like the notion of as-is, to be found in the Axiomes and Logics, and which I believe to be the most fundamental notion in Scn. It is linked to the notion of what you resist you become, and other similar principles. I have read a statement from the pilot that this particular bit (as-is) was taken from Krishnamurti. It is a sensible statement because it summarizes rather well Krishnamurti's own teaching, but I personally don't think LRH took it from there. I believe it comes straight from LRH's NDE and the vision he had then. You may call it a strange belief if you want, but it makes sense to me compared with other knowledge and experiences of mine.

>i find krishnamurti far more admirable than a character like LRH. krishnamurti was raised in an environment where he was supposed to play the role of a cult leader, and was showered with praise for shit he hadn't yet even done.

>he responded eventually by disbanding the cult that had been arranged about him. you posted his own explanation about why he did this. to me, krishnamurti's action was itself a far more noble goal to follow than anything l. ron hubbard ever did. LRH encouraged the development of a cult around himself, krishnamurti was horrified by the very notion of such a thing.

>i can tell you which of the two was more enlightened. it was krishnamurti.

>he could see the lies which surrounded him and he ended the lies

I can't miss this opportunity to quote another K fragment related to the issue at end. It is taken from a 1928 booklet (before he disolved the organization) called "The Search". Those not interested can skip the quote:

    In order to attain liberation it is not necessary to join any organization, any religion, because they are binding, they are limiting, they hold you to a particular form of worship and belief. If you long for freedom you will fight, as I have fought, against authority of any kind, for authority is the antithesis of spirituality.

If I were to use authority today and you accepted my authority, it would not make you free, you would be merely following the freedom of another. In following the freedom of another, you are binding yourself more strongly to the wheel of limitation. Do not allow your mind or your heart to be bound by anything or by anyone. If you do, you will establish another religion, another temple. While destroying one set of beliefs you will establish another set of beliefs. I am fighting against all traditions that bind, all worship that narrows, all following that corrupts the heart. If you would find that freedom to which I would point the way, you will begin as I began, by being discontented, by being in revolt, in inner dissent with everything about you. You frequently use the phrase "We will obey our leaders". Who are your leaders? I never want to be a leader. I never want to have authority. I want you to become your own leaders.

Life is simple and magnificent, lovely and divine, but you want all the beauty and the freshness of the dawn and of the still night to be caught and held in a narrow circle so that you can worship it. Go down to the sea-beach of an evening when the fresh breezes are blowing and all the blades of grass are in motion and the particles of sand are flying about and the trees are waving their branches, and the waves of the sea are breaking over each other. You want to gather and bind all that beauty into a narrow temple. You need have no beliefs in order to live nobly. And yet you say, "I must worship gods, I must perform rites, I must go to shrines, I must follow this and do that". It is an eternal *must*. That way of living is not living at all.

I could type down the whole booklet, but I doubt anyone would be interested.

>LRH saw the lies surrounding him, and not only went out of his way to hide them, but indeed went out of his way to spread yet more lies.

My point of contention with other critics about that is whether this is intentional or not. They affirm it is intentional. How do they know?

I tend to think it is just a matter of illusion. The illusions "gurus" can fall into is about as numerous as the ones followers can.

Light mixed with an imperfect ego can be dangerous, because it gives power to these imperfection. Followers are bond to the leader's imperfections by the light he provides them. That's what happens, IMO. Of course this is just a theory.

>>Yes, I could agree with that. That's the other aspect. many Scn principles (tech principles) are actually rather sound. The  problem I have with them, however, is that they also tend to condition people, especially when coupled with the CoS totalitarian tendencies. People tend to interpret everything through the Scn principles, instead of looking at things for themselves. The principle initially helps them, but after a while act as a limit, as a crutch that prevents them to move further.

>i think that they are intended to do just that, to "help" you, then to cripple you and make you dependent to the cult. a real church does not do this.

I have observed the same phenomenon in a variety of other practices. It's human. People tend to reduce life to a series of principles they can easily comprehend and thereby condition themselves through them. I think that this has more to do with that than with any initial intent.

It's also rather individual. The same principle applied by two different person can be very different. Some people manage to make a rather coherent whole of the Scn principles. Contrary to what most people think here, there are plenty of good ideas to be found. The trick is only that those who manage to make an attractive whole, probably don't need Scn in the first place, while Scn itself won't give this ability to those who are lacking of it.

I personally view Scn more as a non mandatory stage in personal evolution rather than an absolute either/or. LRH could have made something considerably better with what he had in hand, that's for sure.

>> I don't believe that the level of "opposition" some of this newsgroup has shrunken to will succeed either. You need a considerably more elaborate approach than to say that the tech is "all crap" or to say that it is "hypnosis" and "mind-control".

>if someone uses these methods, and creates "peak experiences" in others, than uses those to manipulate the person so affected, can it not be seen as some form of "mind control?"

>it is certainly as real of an effect as when junkies rob to get heroin, and i do not believe it can be simply ignored. i think cults use these effects to control people.

Again, the whole point is whether it is intentional or not. In such a scenario we have a manipulator knowing what he is doing and an innocent victim. What happens is considerably more complex than that, IMO. It's a bit like when you are lying to yourself. Are you doing that counsciously?


Return to Bernie's Posts Page

Return to alt.religion.scientology Page

 


Random Quote :

Disclaimer :

This web site is NOT created by a Scientologist. It is created by a Scientology EX-MEMBER who is critical of Scientology. However, this ex-member is ALSO critical of the anti-Scientology movement. This does not make him a Scientologist, nor a defender of Scientology.

Quick Map :

About Myths Bigotry Anti-Cultism Criticism Third Way Links
Home
Site map
Search
What's New
Contact

Story
Q&A

 

Overview
2Questions
3Types
What

Doctrine
Xenu
Gays

Control
Kills
McPherson
Bashaw
Manson
RPF

Harrassment
Bomb
Sporgeries
Earthlink
Profit
Legal

 

Logic
Cat
Critic

 

Attacks
Clams
Hate
Christmas
Invasion
Trolling
Harassment
Violence
Award
OSA


Dissenters
Attacks
IRC
Plants
ARS

Tenets
Mind-Control
Subliminal
ACM

Discrimination
Jews
Kids
Germany
France
Trafalgar
Deprogramming

Who's Who
Cooper
Minton
Henson
Hartwig
Who

 

Experiences
Pro&Con
Dream

Questions
What Is?
Works?
Scam?

Testimonies
Sasha
Robin
Unindoctrinated

Cultism
Mirrors
Manhatan

The Tech
Key
Medical
Excalibur

Celebrities
Cruise
Celebrities

 

Scholars
Article
FBI
Papers

Moderates

Critics
Rebecca
Diane
Peter
DeadAgent1
Judy
Newbies

Ex-Members
Wolf
Jack
Claire
David
Kymus
Bernie
Interviews 

Scientologists
Enzo
Freddie
RonsAmigo
Wonderflur
Whippersnapper

Scientologists Speak
Freddie
EJ

 

ACM
Personal
Pathless