Scientology and Presentiment

 

human-presentiment

More than thirty years of research has demonstrated rather conclusively that the average human being when connected to a galvanic skin response detection device (generic name for a Hubbard Electro-psychometer) routinely registers presentiment of about five seconds.  That is,  the meter reads on average 5 second prior to the subject being provided with a concept to respond to.  This research has been performed on people taken off the street, with no previous psychic or spiritual training or study.  It has been conducted applying exacting scientific standards.

What do you reckon the implications of these findings are to someone who has received hundreds of hours of standard Scientology auditing?   That is, a process in which the practitioner is only permitted to address those concepts or incidents that react on the meter only at the precise end of the major thought as expressed in words by the auditor. 

 A few books off the top of my head where the referred to research is discussed:

The Field by Linda McTaggart

The Intention Experiment by Linda McTaggart

The End of Suffering by Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak

Entangled Minds by Dean Radin

460 responses to “Scientology and Presentiment

  1. Wish I had known this before wasting 30 years of my life.

    • You understand this? I don’t. Please explain to me in simple words what this posting means.

      Marty is saying that skin but not the mind or person (thetan/spirit/soul) reacts to the pinch test?

      Scientologists are thinking that the mind and the person reacts to the meter but Marty thinks they are mistaken?

      Isn’t there a different between mind and brain? What reacts? Nerves? Skin? Mind? Brain? Person?

      • martyrathbun09

        I reject your characterizations of what ‘Marty is saying’ and what ‘Marty thinks.’

        • Sorry, didn’t mean to offend you. Daisy made a comment indicating that she understood you, so I addressed her. She didn’t answer, maybe she didn’t understood you well enough. Please be so kind and explain your posting.

        • Marty,

          Just one more comment re your recent post on the E meter.
          Just my attempt to get you (and others) to help out or at least to cool it. You may believe that you are helping to graduate scios to a “higher than Scio level” but in the process you (and Rinder) are blocking the lower parts of the bridge. The process of “reading books” does not effectively “as-is” bank.

          Here’s my point on the meter.

          If the meter just read on “body changes” from sweat on the skin, how does that explain:

          1) Rock Slams – I have seen 3 of them out of approx 400 different people I have had as PC’s or students in Qual, possibly true 2 1/2 per centers, as these people were all evil people who had criminal pasts.
          These RS’s are violent and explosive when they do occur.

          2) How about a dial wide floating needle on a PC whose skin is glowing, eyes are bright and just sitting there in the glow of their cognition, and – possibly exterior?

          3) How about the long fall blowdown with the TA dropping so much that you can hardly keep the needle on the dial —– 10 seconds BEFORE the PC has even grasped their cog??? Its amazing to see!!

          Do you personally believe that the easily observable phenomena listed above are caused by changes in the skin?

          The “non scio experts” have no reality on the Emeter, they can study it for as long as they like. In the hands of a skilled auditor – it works as it should. However, unfortunately there are “no case gain PC’s” around, that have to have the bridge undercut enough to bite, hence mest work, objectives, RPF etc. — it is what it is!

          • martyrathbun09

            Your scientology literalism has blinded you. For example, you noted ‘The process of “reading books” does not effectively “as-is” bank.’ If you read your own God you would know that he himself stated that study and understanding constitutes 50% of case gain. Arguing with a scientologist is much like arguing with a 1950’s era psychiatrist. When the latter was cornered, he’d trump you with ‘well, your crazy.’ The former escape through juvenile cliches like ‘you are blocking the bridge.’ You also obsessively identify. In this case trying to argue with me about what somebody else wrote. Jeez, take a walk.

            • Marty,

              Just got back from my walk..

              Once again, with all due respect, it seems to me that it is you with the A=A=A – it is you who is attempting to project your construct; but you have no stats – not one! At least LRH backed up his observations and study with a workable routine that, for the most part, produced good results. The “Independent Scientologists” (an oxymoron by the way) and the FZ (freeze zone) went no where. You judge a person and an organization by their products and their stats.

              The books that you refer to make for good reading I suppose, if you have a few months of leisure to “get into them”, but there is not much data that one would find that is very “workable” in today’s world, and most only stick to one lifetime (Buddhism being the exception). It seems your intention in referring out these spinney metaphysical, philosophical books would be to create doubt and uncertainty in the readers. Not to say that there are not some sentences that one could “ponder about” in them.

              The SO is funded by the public buying services from the Orgs. The public paid for your food, housing, clothing, travel, medical and dental bills for 34 years (along with many thousands of other SO members) in exchange for your honor and fidelity. You have the A=A=A my old friend, your construct was to be a traitor (once again – possibly snapped terminals – someday it can be handled).

              97.5% of SO, Org staff and public scios are decent, honest, hardworking human beings that LRH has provided a workable, drug free path to better their lives.

              Many, many of the 97% gladly donate to help others, many scios are extremely rich, money is not a problem for them. If you don’t have the money to donate, just say NO!

              IAS = desperate times = desperate measures (you and Rinder solicit donations too, but from the haters, the more hate that is generated the more money for you two).

              I know all communication on your blog only generates more “hits for you”. I know that you are attempting to provoke. But seems to me that there are other world issues (drugs, justice system, education) that deserve attention that our time could be better invested in, especially now that you are a father. Please cool it Marty, it is not a good scene for you to be involved in, it is hurting people of good will – and I believe that you know that. We may not agree now – but at one time, and for many years – we did agree.

              • martyrathbun09

                Thanks for your august opinions. For the record, I don’t and never have solicited donations – least of all from haters.

                • Harol, I know you are in the bubble of the false notion of your importance in trying to “save” Marty. But this is how we hear you and perceive you:

                  Brainwashed, ridgid and fixed, self deluded……. A well trained scientologist. Educated with the myopic malady of arrogance, self righteousness, an over complicated mind.

                  But actually I feel a but sorry for you. Because you are not yet aware of your condition.

                  Actually I think these posts by “real scientologists” to Marty are a sign of desperation inside the bubble.

                  • Brian,

                    Peace out man.

                    I love the holistic approach, big fan of alternative methods. 100%.

                    I never wrote the Mc Taggart post – I copied it from a website after I googled her name. The only reason I did that was in response to Marty’s post about the meter. I wanted to see who she was, I was trying to point out that she may not be the best source to evaluate a Scientology E-meter, I never heard of her or TED before.

                    I thought that it was evident that I did not write the bottom part of the post.

                    Yes, I would like to “save” Marty! He actually was a very good SO member, in my opinion he pulled off some major accomplishments for the CofS. For that I am extremely grateful. Someone that has been SO for 34 years really could be doing more in my opinion (but he does not have to) – or at least “let it be”.

                    You ripped me up with your eval – but I do not think I am in a bubble, I’ve played in Rock Bands for 20 years, most band mates were druggies. For what its worth I was in the military for 3 years (never saw combat) but still seen lots of sick, misguided stuff, also was in jail for 9 months (weed possession).

                    Re smoking – I heard the volcano statement before, I think he wrote that in the 50’s, could be true. I also heard it was an attempt to control white energy – could be. I do not have a big problem with his claim. For me, the claims were made during the Dianetic era, then he seemed to conclude that there was no point in just handling the body, the GE, and then moved on to the spirit and Scientology. I’ve not done the upper levels, just to OT3. I loved it all – major life changing wins. Loved the old R3R, I feel like I blew out on R3R and never returned. So, I am fine with Scientology. And it is not for everyone – I agree.

                    I do not accept that smoking causes cancer, there are plenty of old people that have smoked their entire life with little problems. It’s a personal choice. The ED at the old celeb center did die of a tumor, not sure why, she was a sweetheart. I guess some GE’s are more prone than others to disease – I do not know. Have not really given it much thought to be honest.

                    Just wanted to set the record straight re McTaggart as best as I could and express my views.

                    Peace..

                    • Thank you for your clarification Harol.

                      Regarding Yvonne, it wasn’t so much the cause for her cancer. It was just that she went to get it handed at flag. Not an oncologist. Then she died.

                      Lisa McPherson died. Scientology can kill.

                      The claims made, and this is why I reacted to your trivializing Ted, of curing people, have put them in danger of not getting the right treatment.

                      LRH was terrified of doctors. His phobias are the burden of his students.Sometimes a fatal burden.

              • Hi again;

                “It seems your intention in referring out these spinney metaphysical, philosophical books would be to create doubt and uncertainty in the readers. ”

                Just as an aside, the book, ‘The Tao of Physics’, which I am presently reading, answered a question for me regarding the trouble I’ve had in auditing for decades, the intuitive grasp of an answer to a question as compared to the mental construct of the response to the question. This has plagued me in my solo for 30 years, on and off. I am quite excited understanding this blockbuster of understanding in my next series of solo sessions.

                “The Art of Living” by Epictetus was a stream of gold.

                There is gold of great magnitude in some of these books, gold, the alignment of experiences.

                bob

                • martyrathbun09

                  Thanks Bob. Of all the books on my correspondence course – and recommended in the book that I am in progress on – The Tao of Physics is the most integral in my view. It alone can free someone from eternal mind-f____ from the OT levels.

          • spyrosillusionist

            No case gain could also mean incopetent auditor/CS, SP auditor/CS, squirreled up process, bad process –other than dishonest PC.

            LRH scrapped many more processes than are currently in use now. He examined them in his hands and the hands of auditors and changed them accordingly, for the purpose of working on everybody and be used by auditors easily. Now, instead of that you get a ‘If you can’t get helped by me, it must mean you’re SP’. So, one has to admit he has been helped, or else he is SP.

            • Harol, many of the phenomena described in DN and SCN have been very real to me. I have put them to test and verified them on my own self. Let’s say engrams for example: There was an incident where a supervisor (also trained auditor) wanted to exhibit a theta bop to a student, and she put me inside a surgery engram so that I would give that read. I dramatised it. I put my hands in front of my mouth to resemble the oxygen mask, and felt anesthesia etc. And I theta boped too. That’s just one incident to mention.

              About 4-5 years ago I started practicing something other than SCN. When I went Clear (I mean something equivelant to SCN Clear), my cog was that I had been creating those masses myself, that they weren’t there all by themselves, so I stopped doing that. I was having Floating TA for over a month after that, if not constantly, most of the time. I also coged that I never had that reactive mind, as HAVING is also irresponsible creation. The reactive mind was there for as long and only when I created it, and so were the engrams etc.

              In the SCN axioms there is the condition of alter-isness. Alter-isness is also when you consider you have something, when you don’t or when you consider that you create something when you don’t. I believe what Marty tries to point out (the constructs of Clear and the pre-OT incidents), is so very well in agreement with the SCN axioms. If I had gone Clear, and yet insisted on running engrams (I didn’t really run any incidents), I would get charge and reads even just because of that, as it would be an alteration of the fact that there weren’t any engrams. Example: prior to my local Church, I didn’t have any evil intentions. After an evil intended person pointed out to me that I had, I got one. Another example: Prior to my local Church, I wasn’t obsessed with withholds, I became. It was alter/not isness. I believed I had something, and I got something of that sort. In truth, I had nothing prior to believing it.

              I have LRH in high esteem, although I believe it wasn’t asked from me by him. Some people might have things against him as they have suffered in SCN groups and they attribute it all on him. I think he didn’t mean for SCN to be over-applied or used to make people suffer. And I think -as he himself has said- he did make mistakes, but was capable of self criticism. One mistake was the DMSMH mentality that the reactive mind is there untill you erase it. He later on recall that. ‘You’ put it there, if you do…

          • Hi;

            You’re quite right about the various emeter reads, and that they are predictable and can be created at will by mocking up what is needed to produce those reads, puts the emeter pretty much into a different field all together. As a matter of fact, I use the various emeter reads as proof that the meter DOESN’T read solely on body reactions, sweat, whatever.

            The difficulty in determining ‘what’ the meter actually reacted to compels a question;

            How would the researcher ‘know’ that this idea the research subject has NOW is a cognitive response to what the meter reacted to five seconds ago?

            I presume the researchers found a way to figure that out, and that to me would be a very major step in the field of mental/spiritual therapy, a step of very great importance, either that or mind reading, preferably the former.

            As far as should those who question the validity of the meter as used in Scientology auditing, just look at your own experiences; did the ‘reads’ steer you in the direction of a cognition? If so, all else be damned.

            bob

    • Not too sure if Ms McTaggart is a “reliable source” to eval the meter.

      It was therefore something of a surprise yesterday to see that a TEDx event in Brussels had invited someone by the name of Lynne McTaggart to speak on the ‘science of spirituality’. McTaggart is well known to this blog as a leading publisher of misinformation about health, and as someone who sells to those with serious, chronic and terminal illnesses, doubtful devices, dubious seminars and absurd advice. Her appearance goes against the core values of the TED conferences where they “believe passionately in the power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and ultimately, the world” – unless, of course, they don’t mean necessarily for the better.

      Before we continue, it is worth noting that the TEDx talks are independently run events, separate from the main high impact conferences, and run by local groups along the same themes as the main TED events. Nonetheless, they carry the TED brand and such a mistake will impact the credibility of the whole venture.

      McTaggart runs the What Doctors Don’t Tell You web site and calls herself a ‘pioneer of medicine’. The stated goal of this site is to provide “Independent information on medicine’s dangers and the alternatives that work”. In fact, McTaggart is not a doctor, but a journalist and writer, and the WDDTY site is a classic expression of the pseudoscientific fantasy of the conspiracy of ‘allopathy’ and the suppression of ‘natural’ alternatives. It is full of attempts to downplay the benefits of medical treatments, highlight side effects and uncertainties, and to push people towards quack alternatives. The site serves as a wedge to be driven between people with chronic and serious illness and medical professionals. It pushes them into the hands of the ill-informed, the delusional and the unscrupulous.

      As well as running this site. Lynne McTaggart has some quite staggering ideas about how the world works. She also has a site called the Intention Experiment where she tries to use mass meditation from her paying followers to affect the results of experiments in remote laboratories. Its classic pseudoscience and her ideas have gained her the dubious honour of appearing in the classic nonsense film, What the Bleep Do we Know? She also claims Dan Brown based a novel on these experiments. You can join in her in her latest thinkathon to clean up the world’s water using the power of love on December 11th.

      These sort of ideas could be easily dismissed as mere crankiness. But her sales web site is somewhat darker. Here McTaggart sells, as well as the usual vitamins and minerals, a range of devices that at best can be described as doubtful and, for some, indistinguishable from fraudulent. Various pain relieving devices based on unproven magnetic techniques appear on the front page of her shop as well as the nonsensical and highly dubious QLink pendant. There are quack devices that remove unhealthy electromagnetic signals from your home and water filters that “put back healthy frequencies that are lost in its processing and treatment.”

      Most disgustingly, in a few days time, McTaggart is holding a teleconference (£86 to join) where an ex-doctor will tell listeners that he has a way to beat incurable cancer,

      • martyrathbun09

        Pass on the ‘dead agent’ drill. An integral part of the thought stopping process.

        • That’s how I feel about some Scientology critics – not all, but many of them.

        • I have a comment to insert here. It is utterly impossible to philosophize with this data. It’s like trying to determine if carrots taste good to thee and me. Go out and eat some, then report the findings. Or will the new mustang really drive smoothly at 180 miles per hour. Go drive one and see.

          Perhaps a bad analogy, but one would have to sit down with a fairly large number of people and see if the facts bear out in practice. Opinions often shudder in the face of hard cold facts, regardless of which so-called authority one deems to have the superior opinion.

          There are so many people who have opinions on what an auditor can and can’t help a pc with. People who have never tried either side of the meter, well, their opinions have no value me.

          • martyrathbun09

            Me either.

          • LDW,

            A few operating daums to keep in mind are:

            The truth is not determined by authority, opinions, beliefs.

            The truth is the truth.
            The truth is nothing more or less than the most right answer to any problem.
            The truth is the exact time, place, description of any event or anything.

            The truth is the facts.
            The truth is that wich solves the most problems.

            Every subject has a true “truth, many partial truths, many sometimes truths, many almost truths, many false truths and many lies.

            For everything genuine, there is a perfect counterfeit.

            The real truths on this planet are hidden and protected by many layers of lies, deceptions and traps, to protect it from fools, swine, the profane, and prostitutes. Lest they trample it beneath their feet into their manure.

            Most people are not qualified to comment on anything.

            Most people are only intelligent enough to argue to defend their ignorance, stupidity, overts and their right to be that way.

            Dio

            • Gerhard Waterkamp

              Dio, I think there was a slip. “The truth is nothing more or less than the most right answer to any problem.” or “The truth is that which solves the most problems..”
              The truth is what has actually happened or is happening right now.
              The observation that a certain datum did solve a problem in the past or is solving a problem in the present is truth. But that does not make the datum that solved the problem the truth.
              That is why people get stuck in fixed solutions, they saw it working and extrapolate what solved it must have been the truth and will be truth in the future and stop observing the actual truth, which is what is happening and what has happened.
              There is no truth in the future.

        • But Marty, with all due respect seems that you are attempting to “dead agent” LRH? I think he was a good guy? He certainly did not live a lavish lfe style considering he very well could have. He worked very hard for us all – I believe that that observation is self evident. Seems your blog went from DM hating to LRH/Scientology hating. Check out the data on GPMs and snapping terminals – many of the old SO bunch have simply snapped terminals. It was and still is a “tough gig”, I’m not sure if there is another way to approach this dwindling society. And they (SO) still may not get the job done – LRH made that point clear too.
          Its only a blink of an eye chance. He has been sooooo correct on so many of his predictions (for want of a better word).

          When the org gained a tax free status – that triggered an LRH program, hence “ideal orgs”, “Lobby groups”, and an IAS push into the 4th D. The public (Gov’t) knows us by our mest.

          Seems Psych “tech” does not work at all, seems their only soution is to push drugs – why the big deal with what the Scios are doing?

          I would like to see all Scientologists help LRH by doing what Ron would do. I do not think he would just quit and natter about how “bad” things are.

          Thanks. Post this if you want, I will not be offended if you do not. This comm is from me to you.
          arc man..

          • martyrathbun09

            A does not equal A. You may be confusing me with comments by others.

            • Fair enough – but why refer out other unworkable paths…. why not just “let it be”, let the new generation of scios do what needs to be done – I can not accept that LRH would just “die” and not leave “EDs” to be triggered as things decline – most 1st D’s now are fucked – wait until your child goes to pubic school – 60-70% are on meds – gotta get a grip on the 4th or is over!!!!
              What else is -m o n e y- good for?????. What’s the button if the org gets it.

              • martyrathbun09

                I’m all for them peacefully practicing their religious rituals according to their firmly held religious beliefs. If you read the history of this blog, I am helping folks who wanted more out of Scientology than that to graduate to where they might find it. As far as the fourth is concerned, as noted in previous essays here Scientology masquerades a regressive brand of intense ethnocentrism (3D) as world centrism (4th). So, you aren’t really impinging on me with that pitch.

                • rathbun: harol is challenging you and is ‘right on’ with your games condition. Go ahead make him wrong also and twist it. Make him wrong so that others miss it. You are for nothing that gives results you Dick. If there is a hell you will suffer for years on out – before being fried. You’d wish you sang a different tune then you are now. God help us all if people like you return. And don’t think that we do not know that you pulled a number on Monique.

                  Guy

                  • Clearmenow, you cannot be serious about Harol’s challenge:

                    “McTaggart is well known to this blog as a leading publisher of misinformation about health”

                    L Ron Hubbard:

                    1) smoking won’t give you cancer it is dramatizing volcanos.
                    2) Dianetic auditing and throw away your glasses
                    3) Leukemia is an engram

                    And you know the false claims go on and on. It is why the Feds went after him.

                    It is sadly laughable that a Scientologist can make the argument against alternative therapies.

                    Actually the words that discribe this attempt at reason are : brainwashed, delusional and scientific sophistry.

                  • A lot of people are subject to confusion. LRH said that if this society does not make it, then it will be because Scientologists have not done their job of applying tech. I have met people that were never members of the church and shown that “this is what LRH wrote but this is what the Church of Scientology says LRH wrote and people should do”. I am a pretty OT person and I say that without boasting and I do not support morally, ethically or legally anything that is a fake spiritual healing center (like today’s Churches of Scientology are). On the other hand, I know at least one person that is a former student from the Church of Scientology that IS and actual alcoholic, IN ADDITION to being a drug user and heavy smoker. This person told me just the other day how wonderful the Church of Scientology is and that people should like them more. You don’t have to believe me. Disbelief does not make it a lie.🙂 Churches of Scientology are not possible to trust or support financially.🙂

                    • Lawrence says:

                      “I say that without boasting and I do not support morally, ethically or legally anything that is a fake spiritual healing center (like today’s Churches of Scientology are).”

                      One of the false reasonings that people out of the church have is:

                      All the trouble started with DM and how the church is now.

                      Lawrence, have you ever heard or read Ron’s false claims of healing?

                      You and many more people have blinders on. You are fooling youselves and doing your intellegence a great diservice by thinking that all of these craziness started with DM

                      No matter how you twist and think it:

                      The most abke OT. The biggest being in the universe, the wisest philosopher, doctor, physicist, liar, tomatoe auditor, war hero, vestal virgin charmer………. Chose or allowed DM to have the power to take over the church.

                      The buck stops with Hubbard, not DM. And until scientologists get that, they will see Scientology’s insane present predicament as being the victim.

                      Victim of DM
                      Victim of SPs
                      Victim of bad press
                      Victim of SP psyches
                      Victim of Marcabs
                      Victim of House of Parliament
                      Victim of IRS
                      Victim of wrong item
                      Victim of out list
                      Victim of wrong tech
                      Victim of journalists
                      Victim of Marty
                      Victim of AMA
                      Victim of FDA
                      Victim of Psychologists
                      Victim of Mayo
                      Victim of Warner Erhart
                      Victim of Invader Forces
                      Victim of Implants
                      Victim of Implant stations on Mars
                      Victim of pictures of Volcanos
                      Victim of R6
                      Victim of the reactive mind
                      Victim of governments

                      Victim victim victim!

                      Lawrence…. Read DMSMH and contemplate his claims of healing. He made more false claims publically then, when he as alive, then the church does today.

                      Wake up!!

                  • Basketballjane

                    Dear OSA Troll aka Clearmenow1,
                    We are not affected by your craziness. Please report back to base and plug back into the Borg.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      You are sharp. In fact, he is part of the Allender/Silicon valley squirrelbusters crew. Card carrying. I let some of his posts through to see if anybody is watching. You are sharp.

                • “…practicing their religious rituals according to their firmly held religious beliefs.”

                  Objection, Your Honor! Inflammatory!🙂

                  But as for the rest of your comment, which I consider to be outside the boundaries of tech proper – you can confidently rest your case.

              • Basketballjane

                Harol,
                I have to chime in here. Your data is so far off reality it can only have come from one place, CCHR. Let me say their data is not only wrong it is completely biased and not based in any scientific fact. My sons are in public school. My oldest son has been in three different public schools. I can tell you definitely that the percentage of students on any sort of medication is really around 1%. 1%. That’s it. Additionally the school doesn’t push drugs on anyone. My oldest son has Aspergers, which is on the Autism Spectrum and children are often medicated for that. Not one of his teachers, school administrators or anyone else ever even asked me if I wanted to do that. Instead they gave him hours of free therapy. Audio therapy to help his balance, physical therapy to help him be more in control of his body and help him to be able to sit and listen, and yes all of this therapy was given to him by a dreaded psych. My son went from being a loud, screaming, noncommunicative, mess to a happy bright student that was able to be part of his group and learn and have fun. Also at home he started to give me eye contact and tell me more things like, I would like some juice, or even I love you. To have a child who doesn’t or can’t look at you and say I love you is more than heart breaking. And then with some help to have him saying that to me and giving hugs and kisses was magic. Those “psychs” saved my son.
                Also as a note for the kids who are on the drugs, I hate to break this to you I have personally see them do better as well. To have a kid go from being upset all the time and violent towards themselves and their parents and other kids, to being happy, I mean really happy not I’m high on drugs happy, feeling in control of their lives for the first time. That is a real result.
                Will that happen for every kid? No. Will they be lucky enough to have the miracle that my son did? No. Every kid is different. Every kid needs to be listened to and helped. My son got help. He is better now and improving every day because of his therapy. I am beyond grateful.
                Cursing all psychs as evil or whatever is denying children, like my son, from being actually helped.

                • BBJ (short for Basketball Jane!)🙂 Such a miracle of truth comes from you. I noticed this right away myself as I live near a school (2 of them) and I see tons of children coming to and from the schools every day and not one of them looks drugged. As a matter of fact, I have even been into the school and spoken to the Principal and her assistant, they are not running a “Psych Opium Den for Kids” up the street. Very observant and well stated. Fact will always win over fiction.🙂

                • I commend you and think you are a pillar of goodness.

              • I’m sorry but I had to reply…You got me with the ” what else is money good for” reply. I kinda gather that you don’t have respect for those that aren’t Scientologist. I have a “button” on those that think my tax dollars should go to funding their non existant medical insurance. Why should I have to pay for you? I’m not against your religion….just those that treat you sub-human. I should be welcomed by you actually…because I want for you what you want. As any compassionate human being would. Perhaps you should think about this in detail.

          • “I would like to see all Scientologists help LRH by doing what Ron would do. I do not think he would just quit and natter about how “bad” things are.”

            I do not think that either. Nevertheless, although the SO asks from it’s staff to rejoin the SO when they reach a certain age, there seems to be no such prospect for LRH. If he died in ’86, and if he only had one body (see ‘theta body’ and ‘theta line’) and then took a new one, how old is he now?

            I don’t know what LRH’s plan is. But logically speaking, considering what happened to MSH in 1980, no, he didn’t leave any EDs behind. LRH had goals that could be reached through SCN or not –the same stands for SO missionaires and others who have such goals. And if you think that LRH was Siddhartha, consider that SCN is a small (in terms of members), newborn baby compared to Buddhism. For me SCN was a way. Not the only possible way. It could be repaired or not. Good people can go on doing good or not with or without it.

            Considering what happened to MSH in ’80, and the shady circumpstances in which he disappeared, logically speaking, he probably didn’t leave any such ED’s behind.

            Thanx for the good chat🙂

            • Oh if somebody thinks that what I say ‘against’ SCN means I’m SP.

              The ‘against’ is what is perceived by yourself. It is your own viewpoint alone, and maybe the viewpoint of those who agree with you –those who have -like yourself- been indocrinated to think like that.

              I am ‘against’ as much as I think that t is against itself. And because I’ve done my homework and don’t parrot like an idiot, what I say is out of SCN itself, when I evaluate SCN. I condemn the endless existence of case for that reason –because I don’t profit from people’s case. I am not a merchant of chaos. Yes, to create case so that you will have something to run is chaos merchantilism, if done on purpose.

              You can search my non existent time track (and thus create some), or cosciously mock some up to make me guilty –even make websites about it and publish them online. Because you like so much to run people’s case out.

              Phew. As much as I like to, it’s hard to avoid the joy of a little fighting against idiocy :p Maybe I will quit again soon.😛

      • Brian Thoms Lambert

        So Harol, if scientific workability is your pleasure, what experience with alternative medicine do you have that would bring you to your present understanding?

        • Or for that matter, what experience with conventional allopathic medicine?

          At 69 years old, I’ve had enough to have some opinions based on my experience without necessarily falling into baseless alternatives.

          • I am 61 and have only been to the doctors once since I was 18.

            Allopathic and alternatives have their place. Allopathic is sickness management and good for certain things.

            True health is in the alternative fields. I have direct experience with both. I have seen more harm done by doctors in hospitals than any other practicioner. And I have stories of vibrant health from those who take there health into their own hands by the facts.

            I know of none harmed by true health professionals.

            OK, ha ha……. Here is cognitive dissonance at it’s best:

            Scientologists invalidating alternative medicine while people have died trying to audit cancer or other sickness.

            The brainwashing is so deep that a Scientologist will actually put down alternative medicine while Hubbard made claims in Dianetics that probably killed Yvonne Jensch.

            Smoke your cigs, it’s dramatizing volcanos! Leukemia is from an implant.

            This is why Sciwntology is considered dangerous and insane. A Scientologist cannot here the craziness.

            Putting down alternative medicine: cannot get more nuts then that one.

            • And I should include alternative therapy of the mind and spirit. This guy Harol must still think scientology is a science. That is why is feels he has the intellectual gravitas to decry other practices.

              The alternative field of spirituality, cognitive therapy and body health is a huge field. Putting them down is only evidence of being a psychological antique or simply just out of the church and ignorant to the facts.

      • TEDx blah blah. All the TED stuff has just become a “thing”. They will ruin their own credibility soon enough.

        • Tedx is amazing.

          Ruined credibility? Are you serious. Scientology is considered a dangerous pariah around the world.

          Scientologists have been trained to view other therapies as “old school” “not workable” “not scientific” etc.

          And the main reason?

          The Old Man wanted to take over the planet and take over all mental therapies.

          Just think if he got his wish. Where do you think he’d establish his thought reform planetary RPF gulag?

          For the greatest good of course. For their own good thought criminals would be thanking Ron for the theta opportunity to be punished.

          L Ron Hubbard third partied the very therapies and practices that can help you unravel your hypnotic state of being brainwashed.

          Where is that Piñata bat?? The Brian Piñata is ready!!

          • It’s entirely possible to agree with what you said about LRH and Scientology, and *also* to think TED has become cliched and tired (the live presentation version of Upworthy-style articles) and that TEDx has serious quality control issues.

            • Tedx is what it is. Free communication about cutting edge issue. There may be things you disagree with. There may be things not true. Big deal.

              Tedx has some amazing topics. You may not agree with everything. So what?

              It is completetly revelatory of the twisted views and blindfolds on Scientologists.

              Jon H, are you a scientologist? You actually have the nerve to question a free forum of diverse opinions?

              LRH: smoking doesn’t cause cancer, smoking is dramatizing friggn volcanos????? And all the bogus claims he made.

              Not only made bogus insane delusional claims that got the Feds after him but instituted a punishment system to those who dare challenge or disagree.

              I can watch TED and learn or disagree. In Scientology you must only learn what Ron says is true. Ans then get punished for being free.

              LRonHubbard brainwashed his cult followers. That is a fact.

              TED talks are an open forum about a gazzillion topics. You resonate with the topic or you do not.

              L Ron Hubbard is the quack. He is the one that needs some serious confronting. Not an open forum of diverse opinions.

              Diverse opinions………… Something made into a High Crime in Scientology.

              I am amazed how people can hang on to equating TED talks and it’s credibility and L Ron Hubbard and Xenu, smoking is dramatizing volcanos, Ron’s trip to heaven etc.

              Some people say that “oh Ron was just a human” “oh Ron had flaws” etc.

              Say what you want. People still worship Ron. People are still using his troubled mind to think with.

              L Ron Hubbard has mental problems. And a lot of people still don’t get that.

              A person can be brilliant and intelligent and still have some important screws loose en la cabasa.

              Judging TEDx as a Scientologist is simply bat shit crazy.

              Smoking is the dramatization of volcanos!!!!!! Have you any idea how nuts that is?

              Credibility??? Give me a break.

  2. basketballjane

    Well after receiving hundreds of those hours myself from auditors variously trained, some Original Class VIII’s trained by Ron, some GAT I Auditors, some 70’s Auditors and some RDD (Read it Drill it Do it) from the RPF, I can tell you unequivocally that the results were all the same. None. Did I have a good time doing some of the processes? Yes. Were some of the Auditors actually present and wanting to help me and listen? Yes. But mostly, as soon as the process was laid out I “knew” what needed to be done or said in order to get it over with. Especially after a year or so on the RPF. You come to know right away that you are going to have to run rudiments every time, that it is expected. That if you are happy and F/Ning at the start of session something must be off with you. Additionally I was considered a “fast” PC. I would get through process’ in record time. ALWAYS. This was always chalked up to me being a Last Lifetime Clear. So of course I had probably done them before. But honestly the processes were mostly of no use. On the RPF trying to find out why I wanted to kiss a girl seemed to be the only goal. And no matter the answer I gave them, no matter how many reassurances I gave them that I no longer felt that way it didn’t matter. Maybe all those prior reads of me saying no would make sense now. But it doesn’t matter. The processes weren’t valid in the first place. One thing I have learned from the VERY taboo subject, According to Scientology, of Meditation is that the past is over. It isn’t here. It never was here. I am here. I am now. I exist. The past has no affect on now, nor can it ever since it is not now. So the scientific fact that those meters “read” 5 seconds before now, makes sense. Since it couldn’t possibly read now, since now is always changing. It is not stationary as Scientology would like to you believe. It is not even back there as they want you to believe. You cannot look back at the past, really, because it is gone. Even if you stare at yourself in a mirror for 10 minutes straight, you aren’t looking at the same person ever.
    I am glad there is some science now to show people that the meter, amongst other things is not a tool at all.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for the interesting post. I’m glad to see that you got it all sorted out – especially after receiving plenty of curve balls that could have made that next to impossible.

      • basketballjane

        Thanks Marty,
        I am still working on it that is for sure. I have to remind myself of those things every day. And that helps. Seeing truth helps like what you put here on your blog really has helped me tremendously. Also knowing who I am helps. And that has been a discovery all in itself. The only thing that makes me sad, really, is that growing up in Scientology, the way my mom presented it to me, it was ALWAYS my choice. I could have chosen any religion and she would have been happy. She never decided she wasn’t an Episcopalian, she was that AND a Scientologist. My father was another story. He was an “Auditor” and from and early age he would put me on the cans trying to get me to recall past lives and all that. When I attested to Last Lifetime Clear in 1990 at the age of 14 he cried. He was right all along. He was sure I was a Last Lifetime OT and Sea Org member. When I would come visit him in the summers he would shop me around to all the SO orgs to be recruited. My mom never let me join. When I was 18 I finally joined without telling her. You know because she was “horrible” and “counter intention” and all that. My dad was convinced I was gonna zoom up the ranks and go to RTC and work side by side with DM and run the whole thing. Then he died when I was 19. I wanted to leave SO badly. I even put myself on the leaving staff routing form. The CO CCI, Dave Petit, basically told me I was NEVER leaving. NEVER. Unless I wanted to be an SP. That was the only way. So with my mom living across the street from CC now, getting ready to train on the SHSBC (a dream of her’s since she got into Scientology) and my little sister going to a Scientology School, I considered that I had no choice. But to stay. So I got trained, I word cleared a LOT of people. Some of them I hope I helped in the small way that I could. Mostly with just conversation, I worked very hard. And then I committed carnal sin in Scientology, I did what quite a few red blooded, college age girls do, I fell in love with my roommate. We both went to the RPF. After realizing that I was never going to be released from that hell (WAY too long a story to put here) I vowed to make sure she graduated at least. I thought that would be a good amends. And she did. Shortly after she left, seeing no other way to leave (I had gotten a standard Fitness Board Approved, finished my leaving Sec Check, but the RPF I/C Alex wouldn’t let me go. I had blown several times and even that didn’t work.) I locked myself in a cleaning closet and I drank bleach. (As a side not DO NOT EVER DO THAT. IT WILL KILL YOU.) I was offloaded less than a week later. Finally able to go home and see my mother and family I started the VERY long, since 2002, process of finding out who I am really and what I am truly made of. I found love, got married, and have two beautiful children, who every day remind me of the true meaning of life. My story has a happy ending. I am not alcoholic, a drug addict or homeless. I have my whole family. We have all escaped. We are all helping each other to live and to learn to live as humans on planet Earth for real. It is interesting to do that, after years of not every being in control of anything that you did, to be able to chose what you want in every aspect of your life is freedom. That is what I have now. Freedom.

        • martyrathbun09

          Beautiful. This caught my eye, “When I attested to Last Lifetime Clear in 1990 at the age of 14 he cried. He was right all along.” This sort of sums up the essence of the trap. The route to cessation of ‘mocking it up’ becomes a far more intense variety of ‘mocking it up.’

          • Forever Lurker

            “This sort of sums up the essence of the trap. The route to cessation of ‘mocking it up’ because a far more intense variety of ‘mocking it up.’”

            Marty, could you briefly say a bit more about this? Read it quite a few times and it’s just a blank for me. Supremely curious about what you’re getting at. Seems slightly cryptic. Have an idea but can’t put it together for some reason. Much thanks!

            Forever Lurker
            Old & new OT7; v experienced auditor pre-1980; out for 20 years

            PS: Maybe I just need more coffee today.

            • martyrathbun09

              In short, construct and cosmology is inoculated as fast as previous construct and cosmology is run out in Scientology. Those constructs and that cosmology requires a tremendous amount of energy to continue to create in the place of reality.

              • Robert Almblad

                Marty, is the word in your 1st line inculcated instead of inoculated? Sometimes the spellchecker tricks you….

                • martyrathbun09

                  No, I meant to use inoculate. Webster’s: to cause (as a person) to become filled or saturated with a certain quality or principle

              • Forever Lurker

                Thank you, much better.

                I stopped “creating all of it” about twenty years ago and turned in my materials for good and have been doing fine ever since. I realized I had realistically gotten all there was to get on the bridge. I had had many behind-closed-doors conversations with Class 12s and flag auditors and realized they knew no more than I did. I saw they were equally in the dark and confused about the end game, where all this ends up. In fact, they were asking me about my opinions about what’s above OT VIII.

                So I quit, pending others’ attainment of OT 9-15 (wink) and visible evidence of superpowers. I actually told flag this. (They promised OT 9 would be released in about two years.) I used the subsequent years to not expend “tremendous amount of energy” creating it and instead created a great life and retirement. That’s what people should do.

                I guess I could say I have a “twenty-year presentiment” of sorts. I saw all this coming about twenty years ago and acted, keeping any gains (and monies) and avoiding what was to follow. Thank god!

              • basketballjane

                EXACTLY Marty. Exactly. That was one of the first things I discovered. This TRUTH, that we all knew, that we drilled day in and day out, Chinese schooled till our voices were raw, that TRUTH was in fact not truth, but a lie. And that is SCARY. Terrifying. To think that you were totally certain about everything. Where we came from, where we go when we die, how many times you have been on this planet and others and now nothing. You know nothing about anything.
                I was worried. I felt lost. Then I started looking into Buddhism and actually watching Ancient Aliens on H2. MAN I love that show. I started watching all kinds of shows on Science (the other TABOO AS HELL subject as far as LRH was concerned) and realized that what Ron knew about Science wasn’t any more than I had learned in 7th grade.
                That the universe was filled with wonder. And that I was a part of that universe. And that we are all a part of it. All of us come from the stars and when we die I have NO GODDAMN idea what happens. And I won’t find out till I get there. But that is WAY down the line. I realized that what is important isn’t Target 2 or clearing this planet or anything like that. What is important is right now. This moment, this very second of my life. And making that moment, every heartbeat count and mean something, to me.

                • Beautiful and inspiring — thanks basketballjane. (And your whole story is riveting. Thank you for sharing it.)

                • Very nice and a great way to live. That false certainty is the finest set of blinders known to man. Enjoy the wonder!

              • So as one loses old baggage one picks up more and then must work really hard to keep it there (since it is now ‘real’) instead of simply seeing reality in the here and now?

                • If this is so, then it would explain why leaving that ‘reality’ to get to the real reality would be so hard (as it is in part keeping away the part one worked so hard to lose) and the emotional roller-coaster of lousing ‘reality’ would make perfect sense.

            • I think the word ‘because’ was meant to be ‘becomes’? (auto-correct devils at work?)

          • Marty, in, “The route to cessation of ‘mocking it up’ because a far more intense variety of ‘mocking it up.” is “because” supposed to be “became”?

        • Basketball Jane – Wow – thank you for sharing your story and I am so disgusted at this Organization for doing to you what they do to many good hearted people! To think that many have to resort to drinking bleach (Laura DeCrenscenzo did that too and she is suing Scientology right now for forced abortions) to get out of that hell hole is unforgivable.

          We all are human beings that deserve humanity in a Church. Sea Org members are special because they are willing to give up their goals to help others and on one deserves to be neglected, abused and terrorized.

          Thank you Marty for doing your part to expose this monster hiding behind their religious cloak! You took us through your entire route out and through! We all appreciate everything you are doing!

          • basketballjane

            Dear Idle Morgue,
            Thank you for those kind words. I appreciate it. Yes I had a rough go of it. Yes I was desperate and my desperation served a means to an end. Laura actually got the bleach idea from me. She was an Exec in the RPF when I did that. So she knew what happened.
            It is sad that so many of us have similar stories of having to almost or actually commit suicide in order to escape. It is a cruel, heartless, maniacal organization that preys on the weak and vulnerable.
            This is why I get so angered by them.
            When “friends” of mine, even AFTER I tell them what I went through, what I had to do to escape, look me in the eyes and say, “Well that was just a misapplication of tech by that person. It is a shame that happened to you. Maybe if you had written a KR further up the line something could have been done before you had to try to hurt yourself to “Make” them let you go. If standard tech had been applied to you I am sure you would feel totally differently about the Church.”
            I am no longer friends with those people. They are too far gone for me to waste my time with them. I realized that a year ago. If ANYONE reading this doesn’t think that these tactics, of bullying, lying, torture, physical and mental abuse, didn’t originate with LRH and become worse with David Miscavige, PLEASE do some research. Please. The Church of Scientology has one goal, TOTAL CONTROL. Total. Of your mind, your body, your bank account, your marriage, your children, your life, everything. There is nothing they don’t want to control.
            They can’t control me any more. They DON’T control me anymore. I hope you are reading this Mera Daniels and Amy Olsen. Please keep telling people on Facebook that I am “Bad News”. (That makes me sound like the bad girl character from 80’s movies who is always smoking in the bathroom during class.) Because guess what? You have already lost. I am free.

            • Wow and bravo! (Or perhaps I should say brava!)

            • Thank you BasketballJane. What a story. It needs to be told.

            • Good anecdotal stories BasketBallJane.
              One expects a *Church* to be some kind of sanctuary, a place of safety, a safe harbor.
              So it is always an eye opener that inmates have to threaten suicide or feign suicide or call 911 and get police escorts to actually depart (happened 4x at INT Base). Imagine having to flee a Church with a police escort,.
              Imagine having to swallow some bleach as a drastic call for help as with Laura and Jane.

            • Basketballjane,

              What an impressive story you have, and welcome to freedom! You earned the right to speak, and I hope you do, as you are one intelligent and articulated woman. Thanks

            • BasketballJane,
              Thanks for sharing. My wife and I escaped over 25 years ago after having only been public.
              It was much easier from that level. Your story is well expressed.

              George M. White

    • Hi Jane. It’s amazing that you stayed probably then only to help others despite getting none your self. I’m happy to read you are doing well now🙂
      It’s too bad one was not allowed to do yoga etc. I did my morning yoga exercise and was KRed. I did it every morning anyway. Ron would have done better for humanity if he only sold his books and people could so what they wanted because it for sure did/does not work for everyone.

      • basketballjane

        Cece,
        I just recently started doing Yoga as well. It is really amazing. It makes me feel so good. I remember thinking how “other practicy” it was and so forbidden. But it really helps. I tell everybody to do it. So good for you! I agree he should have stuck to the books. Then at least people would have more of a choice in how it impacts their life. Especially kids.

    • Ditto everything you just said about the auditing experiences I had too. Especially on the RPF. Very rarely was an auditor interested enough in me and there enough to actually keep me interested 100% in myself. Most of the time, I was performing for the meter or for the auditor. Not because I wanted to get out of anything, but because I was too goddamn distracted by what was expected of me, what I was supposed to do next, what the expected EP was that I had to achieve, etc. Hardly every did I feel like I was actually in the session for just me. A horrible experience. I will never ever pick up those cans again. i get much more out of just talking to someone who is really interested in what I have to say and cares about how I’m doing. Way more.

      • I agree totally with you Chris about the auditing experiences. I was a public and not in the RPF and the auditing got weirder and weirder. I spent tons of money and time going up the Bridge and the further up I got – the worse I really felt.

        Of course, my needle would float (according to the auditor) even though I did not feel like it should be floating.

        THIS tactic got me to doubt my own certainty about how I felt and who I was…and it messed me up for a while. Not any more thanks for people that speak out.

        The stories we all share with each other help us understand what happened to us. Thank you everyone for sharing your stories.

        My gains from auditing – I learned to write a success story so I could be done with the auditing level. If I told them that I was not VVVVGI’s – the auditing would go on and on and on and would ruin me financially not to mention work, family and other commitments.

        This turns out to be very profitable for $ciendollatry.

        The only other gain I had was that I could FAKE IT – that I was VGI’s. If I did not – I would pay and pay and pay!

      • basketballjane

        Yeah Chris, I think at some point in our careers we all learn to perform. To know what we need to do to make everyone happy. That was how all auditing was for me pretty much. Except LX lists.That was the most fun I ever had. And like everything else on the RPF I got to do it 3 times!! The 3 times wasn’t a program. They just weren’t getting the desired results with me. I didn’t fit in the mold so they kept doing the same questions, just one word difference in it over and over. I had to L and N all lists at least 3 times. Some times more than that. Which of course is a total violation of the L and N HCOB’s. But ah, such is life on the RPF. It doesn’t really matter what happens to the scum there. They deserve it. They pulled it in.
        And that is what you tell yourself. Every day when you wake up in a stinky, shit hole room filled with 30 other people, and fight (quite literally) for hot food and work for 16 hours a day for $11 a WEEK or less, that is what you tell yourself. I deserve this.
        Thank (insert deity here) we are outta there. Thank god we have ourselves back. And when I wake up in the morning, next to my husband with one or both of my kids in bed next to me snuggling, all I can do is smile. Because I DESERVE that.

      • Chris,
        Well said. I’ve been following your evolution, and I appreciate very much what you are communicating. Thanks

      • Hi Chris, here is a short story. I was on the RPF for
        3 years and my twin was reprieved (got out of the RPF).
        My new twin had been in for 9 years and was beaten
        down mentally and spiritually. Did not want any more
        auditing. So I poured over all his folders (more than 100)
        and basically wrote him a program that was OK’ed by 3
        C/S’s and auditing him on it he woke up and really
        enjoyed this new auditing. AND he very shortly thereafter
        had his RPF assignment cancelled (got out of the RPF
        after 10 years).
        This new program was nothing else than a life repair.
        Chris, not only do you have to have an auditor who cares
        but also not a C/S (and P/C program) that is dictated
        by an SO policy and an LRH reference that was obviously
        uttered when Ron was in a bad mood and then expanded
        upon by the SO.
        It’s totally OK to not ever wanting to pick up the cans again.
        I also have no real desire to do so but that’s only because
        I know what I got out of processing is all I will get (I am mid
        OT IV). My main over the top blow out win was ARC S/W.
        Actually, funny enough as we are on this blog at this very
        specific time, I would safely say that if you want a win in
        auditing you might ask Marty.

    • What a story. When I think of Scientology the way I believe it should be, then an auditor should locate and run what bothers you, not what bothers somebody else. But then of course with overt/withhold “technology,” all of that is changed where someone else looks for something they think that should be there because of some disagreeable viewpoints or behavioral expression by the PC or whatever may be the case. This now becomes a control mechanism and “auditing” on another’s determinism which is not auditing at all. Is a PC willing participant of something like this or more like following orders because not wanting to get in trouble or whatever the case may be? How can anything work in such a scenario when a PC is actually being bypassed? Jane, were you ever even interested in your own case when you were doing a session? If not, then you were never IN session to begin with. Were you operating on someone else’s determinism all through-out your Scientology journey? If so, then how could anything become real to you in that “universe?” I sounds like you only started participating and gaining your own sense of reality once you got out of Scientology.

      • basketballjane

        LTC,
        Like I said there were good times and bad ones. Good Auditors and shitty ones. But, my “case” doesn’t need fixing. Being “in” or not in session has nothing to do with it. And this is the point that Marty is making as well. This “case” that everyone is supposed to be addressing and fixing and confronting and realizing that they mocked up in the first place and all that isn’t theirs to begin with. It never was. It was put there by a egomaniacal, self absorbed psychopath. It is a control mechanism. Being “in” session and introverting myself into my deepest darkest fears, the voids of existence if you will, is not beneficial to anyone, willing or unwilling.
        Scientology processing promises freedom from the burdens and pain (physical and emotional) of your past and to be at cause over all dynamics of life. The processes produce the exact opposite result. Even when applied standardly by a good natured person. Because they are designed to do only one thing. To drive you into the past, imagined or real, and to show you how EVERYTHING that you do now and everything that happens to you is because YOU did it to yourself already with all your overts and withholds. You will never escape your past. It will come up and find you where ever you are. You will suffer the consequences, unless of course you sit down right here with this person, confess all these horrible things about yourself while they write it all down and preserve it forever. To make sure that if you ever do that again or think about doing something like it they can hold up that paper and say “SEE everyone. See what a filthy piece of shit you are.” Until you believe that. Until there is no other reality except what they tell you is true. Because they “know” the truth about you so all the crazy stories they tell you about the world, and it’s “History” and how man got here and why we have bodies and all that is the ONLY truth. Everything else is a lie. Don’t talk to people who aren’t Scientologists, don’t employ them, don’t befriend them and god forbid DON’T marry them. They are agents of the Psych’s, the intergalactic bad guys who have been destroying lives since time was invented. Anyone who is not us is EVIL and must be stopped.
        That is the sad, pathetic truth of Scientology. That is the truth that I have slowly discovered over the past decade plus. The real sadness for me isn’t even that this is the Scientology mythology. Every religion has their version of crazy events that holds the whole story and control over its followers together. But what was sad is that I believed it. I fought for it. I lost years of my life for it.
        The good news is I am no longer a victim of it.

        I hope that answers your highly invalidative and inappropriate questions regarding my “case” and if you are still practicing Scientology I suggest M9ing the Auditor’s Code and doing each point in Clay. I am pretty sure you have more than one “MU” in that HCOB. Just a piece of friendly advice from a seasoned Academy W/Cer and Supervisor.

        • lol Jane, I think you are on the right track.

          “Scientology processing promises freedom from the burdens and pain (physical and emotional) of your past and to be at cause over all dynamics of life. The processes produce the exact opposite result.”

          That’s something I have been trying to understand myself, and my attention too zeroed in on overts/withholds “technology.” I was just trying to understand how one shifts through the dynamics the other day and realized that overts/witholds “technology” actually shifts one BELOW a dynamic to which it is directed. So “what have you done to the group” will shift one BELOW the 3rd dynamic and make that being effect of the 3rd dynamic. This is down through the dynamics to a point when one cannot even control oneself – below the 1st dynamic – ending up in what I recognized was an actual dynamic below an Individual – a dynamic of robotism which is where I believe “in-house” Scientologists really reside – programmed mechanisms. That is with an expanded view of a robot as not just something that follows simple orders but can be programmed with “goals and purposes” and given a “patter” for per-programmed responses. Such as:

          – IF “hear criticism” THEN “disregard as black PR” OR “PTSness” OR “SP” depending on additional factors.

          – IF “declared SP” THEN “cut all comm”

          This is straight out of a computer programming language, and I assume that Scientology auditor training follows similar patterns to produce “Robo-auditors” and not actually aware beings able to perceive and exercise self-determinism along the many dynamics.

          This is a dynamic BELOW INDIVIDUAL so when I see Scientologists getting out of the Church and protesting against the entirety of “Scientology universe” I see it as a being trying to shed super-imposed “programming” and move up to genuine self-determinism with respect to oneself, one’s intimate relationships, with respect to other people and so on.

          BUT having said all that I still find a lot of value in Scientology especially in the earlier material in the 50’s. I think with the introduction of the overt->withhold->motivator->justification “technology” what looks like in the late 50’s Scientology took a drastic turn from liberating spiritual practice to programmed robotism now disguised as a “spiritual practice.”

          Overt/withhold “auditing” is NOT auditing since Overt is an evaluation so another person evaluating PC’s actions takes away PC’s own power to evaluate and so makes him/her subject to someone else’s determinism.

          Also, the very act of inflicting “harm” on any dynamic is a causative action. Trying to monitor people for their “harmful actions” is reducing a being’s causative influence. It is a false idea that “overts” is a reason why a being descends into lower states. Almost, the exact opposite is true – concern over “overts” is what reduced a being down. So it is an act of making one feel guilty of being cause (LRH even talks about this very principle somewhere – making one guilty of being cause). I mean obviously there are additional considerations around all of this, but this is what I realized when I did my exercise of shifting UPWARD through the dynamics. When you get up to the 6th – that is being cause over MEST – being able to generate any amount of brute force, organize and transform or crush matter, warp space, etc then inflicting destruction to lower dynamics may look like amusing effects and then it’s like there are no “overts” – just cause and effect. “Overt” is a subjective evaluation. It is when you start thinking of “overts” and feeling “bad” about them – THEN you become LESS ABLE to be cause and actually shift to lower dynamics all the way down into robotism.

          You can try and test it on yourself. If you feel “bad” about having caused something withdrawing to the degree, mock-up doing it again and in greater intensities and different variations. You should feel less bad about it and more at cause.

          Even, I was listening to PDC’s the other day, and there LRH spoke about the principle of whatever you felt you could not destroy could have an aberrative effect on you so the question was:
          “What could you not destroy?” or something like that to illuminate the things that were effecting the PC.

          So for Scientologists getting out of the Church and trying to “shed the programming” a therapeutic process could be:

          How could you destroy the Church?

          That’s my application of Scientology! lol

          Also, I found this reference to be very helpful. It seems to put a different and in my view more correct slant on “overt/withhold”:

          HCOB OF 21 JANUARY 1960
          RESPONSIBILITY

          Responsibility is often misdefined by the pc.

          The definition for auditing of responsibility is “Admit causing,” “able to withhold.” Usable commands would be “What about a (terminal) could you admit causing?” “What could you withhold from a (terminal)?” “What could you admit causing?”

          Responsibility as a word can still be used as itself in an auditing command.

          L. Ron Hubbard

          • martyrathbun09

            A lot simpler, and by all visible indications more effective, program would entail taking to heart the experience communicated by basketballjane. She is wise beyond her years.

            • LOL And what advice is that? Be your own individual and start up a family? – very groundbreaking.

              Scientology with all its downsides was still an “entertaining” experience that I learned a lot from both in terms of the things that do work and the things that don’t. Plus, I’m not very good at following authority. When I read about “self-determinism” I really took to mean self-determinism, not Hubbard determinism, or Church staff determinism, or Jane determinism… I take materials under Hubbard’s name as a knowledge base to be evaluated so I filter through it. I think it is a mistake to discard the entire thing just because some of it is may work to produce “bad results” since there are plenty of things which could be used to produce good results.

              • martyrathbun09

                As noted in posts about judgmentalism, scientologists can act like a pack of unqualified, arrogant psychiatrists.

                • Totally agree, but I think this logic could very well extent to those who claim that have left Scientology as well😉

                  • Basketballjane

                    LTC,
                    From your continued wild quoting of LRH and adherence to his very narrow view of the world I can only assume that you are still very much a Scientologist, but not one who is out of the church doing independent Scientology but one who is still a very active member, possibly even a Sea Org member. Why would I think that of you? Well pretty much all your comments back to me and Marty here but particularly your last comment about “being your own individual and starting up a family? – very groundbreaking”
                    Only a Sea Org member would dare to even say that. When the issue changed years after I joined the Sea Org I was crushed. I was told to shit or get off the pot. I stayed because I was trapped. I always wanted a family. I remember well how anyone was spoken of who dared to get pregnant and NOT abort the baby. How vilified they were.
                    And I feel very sad for you. That the only resort you have left is to belittle people for finding happiness. And part of that happiness is of having children. I am sorry that you can’t do that. I am sorry that you are stuck in a group that uses your basic Human desire to procreate against you. It is one of the most awful tricks that the church uses to destroy self determinism.

                    • LTC Forever

                      Wrong!!! I am university graduate. I lived on my own since 17. I worked since 16 in all kinds of places from scrubbing plates (my first job) to corporate offices of large corporations (after graduating in accounting and computer programming). I read most of the books Marty advised here like Biology of Belief and The Field years ago. There are many good books out there with many great ideas, but there is a serious lack of clear practical applications to directly experience something for yourself. That’s where Scientology differs in its basic principle. I started taking interest in the subject of mind, reality, enlightenment, etc since I was a kid and pursued searching in that direction ever since. I was never in the Sea Org and I was in Scientology for only a few years. It is in fact because I had so much prior knowledge and experience that I found a lot of value in Scientology and at the same time recognized many outpoints that I was experiencing and observing in the organization. Yeah, I did not embrace the authoritarian culture in the group (for the lack of a better term), but the concepts of taking greater responsibility, becoming more self-determined, working toward higher states of consciousness and being cause – all that is great stuff, and I have gained a lot from Hubbard’s works along that line.

                      How ex-members like yourself come out and then claim Scientology to be completely worthless and invalid is beyond me – something I am still trying to understand. That’s one, and two – how many continue to stay or have stayed in the organization for years when it is so full of hypocrisy and rigid conflicts with the basic principles of Scientology philosophy – again beyond me, but that’s not my fault, and there is no reason to antagonize against me just because I agree with some things in Scientology. In my universe, no one is forcing anyone to accept anything from Scientology, but at the same time trying to invalidate and somehow degrade others who see some value in it – that really makes you no better then in-house Scientologists doing the same toward those that have some disagreements with it.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      sigh

                    • This is a note to LTC Forever – not sure if I have it in the right place.

                      LTCF – on 24 October 2012 (round about then) Marty posted about the incident where a Sea Org member was made to lick bathroom floors and you commented that “this was getting old” and who cares “who slapped who” which evoked a number of WTF comments, including from myself.

                      Now today you rain on BBJ and “gently” try to make her responsible for everything that happened to her in the SO / hint about her taking responsibility.

                      Then you gleefully tell her she is “Wrong !!!” when she suggests you are still in. If you expect people to know who you are why don’t you post under your own name? If you prefer not to, then what’s with the gleeful response?

                      There are two possibilities as I see it: 1) either you are posting here at the behest of OSA, or 2) you are just having difficulty communicating (as demonstrated by your insensitive comments and the responses you elicit). If it is the latter, you make a strong case for Marty is trying to say : “There is no substitute for understanding.”

                      No amount of tech, and no e-meter can teach humanity, kindness, tolerance, understanding. I fully get that value of the tech and what can be learned from it. It is not the only road. It is not a road that has reached a destination. Life and living is a road, too.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      Thanks for pointing out that earlier LTCF comment Wendy. I found it yesterday too; but shrugged my shoulders and moved on to something else.

                    • LTC Forever

                      Interesting. That was not the only comment I made which was a while back. I made many comments, but then I was getting tired with all the endless emphasis on “abuse.” I thought there were other angles to explore in looking at the situation and the potential causes of that abuse in the Church. Also, there is plenty of abuse in almost any sphere of life one can look at. Endlessly talking about how terrible it is isn’t really a way to resolve it. I am not saying that this is still happening, but that what it looked like to me when I made the comment. Once you have seen a dozen people sharing the story, it becomes an “old story” and the attention shifts on trying to understand why that sort of culture developed in the first place. Also, when you look at what goes on around the world of people being trafficked for real within criminal structure and under a threat of being killed and physical torture, when you look at all the murder that goes on in wars and torture of people in war prisons, and even domestic abuse with children being abused to death, many of the stories coming out of Scientology may seem mild by comparison. This is not to say that it is right, but this is to say that there are far worse forms of abuse taking place around the world that also need to be addressed with some solutions. And what are these solutions? Scientology seemed to be offering them on the surface, yet it in itself appeared to have descended into madness at least to some degree. But it is not ALL bad and invalid and should be fought against. Some good value can be extracted from it, and that’s my viewpoint on this.

                      Anyway, how do you find someone’s comments like that? I know there is a function like that in Disquis, but how do you do it on WordPress? I want to be able to see all my dialogs as well without having to go through every article I chose to follow and look for my comments.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      This told me all I need to know: …”when you look at what goes on around the world of people being trafficked for real within criminal structure and under a threat of being killed and physical torture, when you look at all the murder that goes on in wars and torture of people in war prisons, and even domestic abuse with children being abused to death, many of the stories coming out of Scientology may seem mild by comparison.”

                    • LTC Forever

                      Marty, you are still a “corporate Scientologist” attacking free opinions only now of those directed at your own agenda as opposed to that of the Church. I have enjoyed some of your analysis, but in personal conversation, I see that not much has really changed in the behavior pattern. It is still the same approach of trying to demonize, invalidate, and attack anyone who does not toe some narrow line that you represent. Not everyone in Scientology is like that. You may have changed in some of your views on Scientology logic, but you have not changed in your basic attitude toward other people which you yourself have accused “corporate Scientologists” of doing. It’s not the Church, Marty, or Miscavige, or Hubbard and his works whatever they may be. It’s just Marty Rathbun, and until you recognize that, I don’t think there will be any substantial “moving up” in your universe.

                    • LTC Forever

                      Listen, what is your problem? You guys are totally stuck on attacking. You think someone is attacking someone when they are just sharing their viewpoint and then you get into attacking yourself – trying to put some kind of a negative label on a communicator and “grant” some evil purpose to them. Wendy, are you sure that you are still not operating under Church’s “programming” yourself? That what it seems like to me.

                      Also, it appears that anyone who responded to me have not really read what I wrote in response to Jane including Jane herself because I actually expressed my agreement with Jane on how Scientology processing may lead to a worsening condition, and I offered my analysis to why that could be the case.

                      “I think with the introduction of the overt->withhold->motivator->justification “technology” what looks like in the late 50′s Scientology took a drastic turn from liberating spiritual practice to programmed robotism now disguised as a “spiritual practice.””

                      Did you read that? Nearly all of my comm has to do with analyzing on how Scientology practice changed to produce robotism as opposed to greater degrees of self-determinism. Where is “wild quoting of Hubbard?” I just quoted one re-deference at the end to demonstrate that there is a version of o/w process that does not contain an evaluation of whether it is an “overt” since “cause” could be any causative influence including a decision. And then it seems to indicate that being able to withhold is a good thing, so why then processing changed into the concept that if you did withhold then that was bad? That’s why I quoted Hubbard to show that one of his references which I think is more correct is in conflict with concepts in other references such as on Blow-offs that say withholding is bad and so you should “tell all.” If in one place he says that “ability to withhold” is a part of responsibility, then how did it become that “getting off one’s withholds” became a “therapeutic exercise?” That’s what I was trying to point out as one of the things that seemed to change for the worse. Is this any more clear? How was that attacking anybody or making someone “responsible?” But really there is always a degree of responsibility on someone’s part in terms of their decisions, agreements, actions taken… etc. If you are advocating for no responsibility at all then you are advocating for robotism – that’s what a robot is – someone/something that just follows some instructions or some pre-determined “programming.” Hey, maybe someone enjoys that level of beingness. I don’t, so the concept of recognizing cause on my own part is quite valid in my view.

                      Do you get it? Can you evaluate or will you continue with your robo-responses of labelling and attacking any semblance of a divergent viewpoint? If so, you have never left in-house Scientology programming.

                      “No amount of tech, and no e-meter can teach humanity, kindness, tolerance, understanding.” – you could start by being an example of that yourself.

                    • martyrathbun09

                      I think Wendy has graduated quite gracefully.

                    • Again I hope I am posting this in its correct place.

                      LTCF – I have many faults – of that there is no doubt – point taken. I am just pointing out that you seem to minimise / make nothing of the experience of people in the SO. Yes there are many atrocities around the world, but what is more insidious than an organisation posing as the “good guys”, mentally and emotionally abusing people, breaking up families and – for real – destroying or entrapping their souls. There are things worse than death. If it is old news to you – what about saying nothing and moving on until a topic grabs your interest? Why react to me – rather than setting it straight with BBJ who felt belittled by what you said? If you jump on decent people, you might expect to be pulled off. My point at the end is that not everything can be learned or resolved by the tech or the or tech alone. “Real life” is a taskmaster of note – “being your own individual and starting up a family” is a lesson many have not learned, and some (probably many/?most) are in it and out of their depth. For every person going through it, real life is – day by day – full of groundbreaking lessons.

                      (Thanks Marty for your kind words a bit further up.)

                    • LTC Forever

                      Moderated out. – Moderator

                    • martyrathbun09

                      You hit the streets with Allender and co with this one.

                    • LTC Forever

                      Ok. bye bye. Was nice chatting here. I have gathered some good insight from this dialog (if you can call it that) and what the Scientology inverted dynamic is made of.

                  • If you are truly out of the church LTC, for you……….. if you continue to not be connected to cult members………….. for you, maybe 10 more years before you start the essential work of cognitive deconstruction of the brainwashing.

                    Your mind is so noisey with standard tech! You have so many fixes ideas supporting your self imposed limitations while at the same time the ego trumpets a “superior” understanding.

                    Maybe less time for you if you fall in love with a wog! Those wog wives are super for helping cult prisoners to go free.

                    • This is amusing. I suggest you take a minute to contemplate who it is that you are really talking to. Definitely sounds like some general image of an identity existing in your mind. You don’t know who I am yet here you are posing to be an expert on all my problems and my thinking style. “Mind noisy with standard tech” – no, I just happen to think with data and see how it could apply. I do that in many different areas of life, not just Scientology.

                      On a side note, I have to say that it is you who are (still) acting like a brainwashed cult member. You are really not doing anything different that what many here blame the in-house Scientologists doing – labelling and attacking other people for disagreements. See, you have never changed your “programming” just its direction. Instead of me, you should be thinking about deconstructing your own “brainwashing.”

                    • Yes LTC, I agree with you. I do not know you. And yes I did evaluate. And most definitely I am working on my own unbrainwashing. It is a daily responsibility for me. Thank you for the reminder. We all need the reminder from time to time.

                      I’ll take the reminder when ever it presents itself. Thank you LTC!

                      It is a tricky beast the mind isn’t it.

                      We are all in this together. How wonderful that we get a chance to share these controversies.

                      I learn so much from them. The edgy ones especially.

                      Until we meet again LTC.

                    • LTC Forever

                      I’m glad you were able to self-reflect and see that there was some sense in what I was communicating after all. I wish more people took that route of reflecting and trying to understand as opposed to continue operating on Hubbard’s programming of attacking the critics or anything that may resemble it. I don’t comment here very often (anymore), but it is amazing to see how so many have not really “graduated” anywhere.

            • LTC = Knows and applies a lot of complicated shit and seems troubled

              BBJ = Used to know and no longer applies a lot of complicated shit and seems happy.

              Mmmmm… I’m with Jane… Wise indeed.

              btw… that Harol and clearmenow1 are class A trolls…

    • Cooper J Kessel

      BBJ,
      You are a very sharp cookie! That is meant to be a compliment on your awareness and intelligence and I thank you for telling your story. You are obviously also a very courageous person and I am so glad you have persevered through your experiences with the cult.

      I have kids still in and your story gives me hope they too will one day snap out of it. Thank you.

      • basketballjane

        Cooper,
        I hope they do. It is very hard to. Once you are assimilated by the Borg it is near impossible to escape. Especially after growing up in it. That is part of what you have to look at as well. What kind of environment did they grow up in?
        Did you have your kids do conditions? Did you use the phrase “downstat” with them? Did they go to Scientology schools? Are they in the Sea Org now? Have they been in for more than 10 years?
        The more yes answers to those questions usually means it will be harder. Harder but not impossible. Sometimes yeses to those questions means they will run as fast as they can away from the church. Mostly in secret. I know of so many “Scientology Kids” and ExSO kids that are well out of the church but flying under the radar so they don’t upset the apple cart.
        My advice, keep talking to them. Send them letters. Call them, email them. NEVER stop talking to them. It will pay off.

  3. Good question.

    The only correct answer has to be:

    Probably a lot of the readings and results are wrong…

    This could open up a big can of very bad worms.

    Like requests for a lot of refunds…..

    Dio

    • Dio – You probably know this already but if you read the “Application for Enrollment forms” – there are no refunds ever unless you do the CVB Routing form which is designed to make you pay for more auditing until you are back in.
      David Miscavige has worked with the highest paid attorney’s in the land to cleverly keep all of your money – always. REFUND is a dirty word in Scientology.

      How strange and corrupt it is to think about this scam Scientology has set up regarding services from a CHURCH.

      Start by paying up front then signing legal dox with no legal representation, then going to the MAA to pay for sins before one is allowed to have the service one pays for. A lot of waiting occurs to make sure there is ultimate upset for the PC. It is such a scam!

      The courts may help us with REFUNDS but Scientology loves money way to much to ever do the right thing and refund us all of our money. It is totally criminal and the law of the land needs to shut it down.

      We bought $cientology after LRH says “don’t mix money with religion” and then continues to mix money with religion and that tradition has carried on for 64 years.

      Now it is out of control and will be its demise.

      • Idle Morgue,

        In hind sight that should of been “law suits”, not refunds.

        This world will screw you and punish you and steal from you, and, and , and …until you smarten up!

        A fool and his money are soon separated.

        Dio

        • Clay pigeon I was

        • Dio – So true – but I don’t think we were fools. We entered a “church” where people trust. We were lied to and had manipulation tactics done on us beyond belief to get our money, our children, our free labor and our trust. Scientology manipulated us to do it to each other. That is what is shocking – but that is what cults do.

          Yes, there are scams out there but Scientology took the scam to a whole new level of evil. The lies of are bold, brazen and beyond belief.

          I met evil head on and survived – we all did.

          I am grateful for Marty, Mike Rinder, Karen and others who are helping expose the evil for what it is – evil.

          Now lets take the cult down so no one else gets hurt!

          • IM,

            1. The maxim ” a fool and his money are soon separated” still holds true.

            You never totally trust anyone, especially people you don’t know.

            Always be vigilant.

            Any amount of trust given should always be conditional.

            2. If you do not use your own mind to run your life and destiny, someone will use it for you.

            3. The word “church” is the first level of deception.

            That is just one more reason why I said that nothing the cos says or does is bonafide (free of fraud or deception). None of their copy rights are bonafide either. None.

            Their legal status of “church” was conceived in iniquity. The legal process of getting legal status as a “church” was obtained by manipulating covert means and ulterior motives and, and , and. One of the many things it was, was a Trojan horse. The effort had a very good valence.

            I read Dianetics first. (I learned about Dianetics from a tv commercial.)

            Within a few days after I got into the church, (1997) all kinds of inconsistencies and red flags began to become apparent. My guard went up. I began to raise questions.
            I had seen many strange phenomena.

            I attended a fund raising event, where I saw a hot shot expert fund raising team from California, masturbate all of every fools financial resources. All the while I could not believe what I was seeing and hearing. It was truly amazing. I kept my vigilance at it’s highest level, my mouth shut, and my hand on my wallet very tight.

            One day they showed me a video of DM talking and asked me what I thought of him?

            I said, to be honest, I am not too sure about him? There is something about him that does not look or feel right?

            Then one day I was sent to qual for what seemed as the umpteenth time, ( for course checks and sec checks) and
            Qual had a certificate on the wall for 18 yrs of dedicated service or something, which was bottering me.

            I asked qual (JOCK McDonald) (If I recall correctly) why if scientology is so good, (I mean, I read dianetics and had a demo that gave me a great key out, so I knew it was good stuff) , why there was still something evidently wrong with him, after being in the cos for 18 yrs?

            You should of seen the reaction. It was quite a performance. He boiled over instantly, and shouted; THIS IS IT! At the top of his voice. There was smoke and flames coming out of all his head orfices. (maybe the other body orfices too for all I know, I never checked)

            All at the same time, he bolted up from his chair, his chair went flying back against the wall, picked up his papers and slammed them on his desk, picked them up again, told me to wait right there, and stormed out of the room. He came back about an hour and half later and handed me several sheets of orange papers. Told me to read them. They were full of lies. I asked who wrote this? He said Pat Felske (if I recall correctly). I said; I want to talk to her. He said that is not possible. And after routing me through book sales, he escorted me out the building.

            Dio

  4. Wow 5 sec is a long time. One of the first issues I ever read in Scientology was that I was responsible for the session. I exerted my self determinism and if s/g was not right I spoke up. Either I am still blind to ‘hypnosis’ and thus stupid to that degree or It just worked for me most every bit of it. I left sessions with VGIs and a level of awareness and appreciation for others and the world which often lasted days and in some cases years. I was ill only 2 days in 25 years. I gave birth to two children in my berthing both with no midwife or Doctor and was up and running in hours. I continuously did well on my posts. I attribute that to my auditing and me. My auditors were ’74 My 1 first husband that introduced me to Scientology, Doc Rolland who was at least there if not asleep or nibbling on his sprouts he kept in the corner and then the rest ’77 at AOLA with its booming Class 8 course students all needing a practice PC. And then there was Annie Tasket ~ an angel who stuck by me till OT 1. As for the one in 2004…well I don’t regret that 87hours of something not auditing and feel sorry for the auditor that had to deliver it. Joan Heller – hadn’t been in SO long.

    I have no clue how the tech worked so good for me despite all (seeming) odds but this certainly is not my biggest problem in life to solve … or maybe it is?

    I have the highest respect for Auditors. (not TC). Thank you for another deep thought provoking post Marty.

  5. What I suspect is simple amplified noise.

    The emeter circuitry is designed to be what is called ‘bouncy’ – that is, it might start producing an oscillating electrical response from any electrical noise (all sensors produce a certain amount of noise).

    The alternative would be a filter that does not respect causality in the physical sense – and that does not exist.

  6. I have no idea? Where is this research about it registering 5 seconds prior?

    • martyrathbun09

      Post updated as follows:
      A few books off the top of my head where the referred to research is discussed:

      The Field by Linda McTaggart

      The Intention Experiment by Linda McTaggart

      The End of Suffering by Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak

      Entangled Minds by Dean Radin

      a) Does the datum indicate to you?
      b) Before engaging in a lengthy study, can you assume for a moment that the datum is true and consider the implications to the Scientology auditing experience?

    • knatherthomas

      E-Meter Essentials says the meter reads “just below the pc’s awareness” which is precognitively. Thus, the meter “knows” best.

      • martyrathbun09

        It has also been acknowledged variously in Scientology scripture that:
        a) The only thing that a meter read tells an auditor is that the meter read.
        b) The first thing a meter will read on in a session is the auditor, and not the preclear.
        c) That the meter reads just as well on conscious thought as ‘just below the pc’s awareness’- read, dating drills and hcob on the meter reading on the conscious thought’no’ on clears.

        • My understanding of the above points:

          a) There is such a thing as false reads (reads some thought unrelated to the question), which can be ascertained as false – by the meter. In other words, a true read on the specific item will read again when re-checked by the auditor.
          b) If I remember right, the meter reading on the auditor occurs because the auditor’s TRs are out, i.e. standard tech is not occurring.
          c) Conscious thoughts can read but rarely coincide instantly with an auditing question. If it’s a thought in direct response to the question, the read isn’t instant – it’s latent. The significant thing, however, is that the meter usually reads when the pc has had no conscious thought about the question and only realizes he has an “answer” when the auditor directly asks the question again (after first getting the instant read).

  7. I was thinking the other day about Listing and Nulling and how it was also a way of controlling ones thoughts…you were always told “not to list on this or that, you might get sick or fall into something you couldn’t get out of”
    Amazing the way Ron figured this all out….He was mad and brilliant, but mostly mad.

    • Summerwind

      Yes, I definitively find some inaccuracies in the “Listing and Nulling” tech, and the warnings about not using it on yourself.

      Personally I have always found that “listing”, and “why finding”, (variation on Listing and Nulling) is a very primary method of dealing with my environment. For me it has always been the way that I select answers. It is an investigative technlogy for evaluating information and finding the “Why’s, Who’s and What’s” of anything and everything. I was doing it consistently before I ever heard Ron talk about it.

      Yes, it is a bit “dangerous”, as in, if you have made an incorrect evaluation your “handling(s)” based upon it are likely to produce less that ideal results, in your own estimation. But to allow someone else, or some mechanical object (an e-meter,for instance) to “tell” you what is right for you, is hugely more dangerous.

      The concept of the e-meter reading “just below a person’s awareness” is a very dangerous concept. Once a person has accepted that, they have actually created a “hidden data line” with their own case, or mind, or memory, even to their own “beingness”.

      It is also a clear invalidation of a being’s own awareness and ability to evaluate correctly.

      How, in any construct, is that going to make the being involved more self-determined? It is totally antipathetic to self-determinism. It also, covertly or overtly, demonstrates that MEST (the e-meter) knows more about you than you yourself do. You are indoctrinated into allowing it to evaluate for you. You can easily become its slave.

      “Ahhh… this sure stirs up a lot of stuff for me…”

      But enough for the moment.

      Eric

      • Listing and Nulling was just another form of “don’t investigate, I know what’s best for you” Funny thing is…..All one has to do is question those thoughts, question the whole damn story of Scientology and one will eventually see that the story remains because people are believing their thoughts about it and not questioning them….I find when I question my thoughts I don’t have to let go, they let go of me!🙂

        • Hi Summerwind

          Yes, “constant questioning”, perhaps as a form of “constant vigilance”, seems to be vital to freedom.

          Eric

  8. threefeetback

    Hubbard resorted to rear view mirrors, too.

  9. Gerhard Waterkamp

    Hi Marty, I think I see where you are going. I do not think though there is enough data to answer that question.

    a) The read presentment

    if a read occurs in average of 5 seconds prior to a concept, the question would be what was the read about? Was it a read on anticipation of being introduced to a concept? Was it a read connected to the concept? (interesting telepathy if that was the case, with a whole number of additional implications)

    Without knowing more about the studies, it is hard to say.

    b) Finding of an “average” of 5 seconds prior

    “Average ‘ is always a tough one as it could hide different types of reads (i.e. anticipation, or reaction)
    It is possible that reads caused by an timeless automaticity in the mind of a person reacts instantly, while other reads are more connected to a different kind of thinking resulting in an average.

    Focusing just on one type of read (instant) would be a method to only address one type of thought process in auditing.

    In any case it always baffled me how in Scientology the meter was the holy grail and was never defined or explained other than in a descriptive way (types of reads, body motion..) I wondered if there was ever any true scientific foundational research done on the subject of galvanic skin response.

    • martyrathbun09

      The device has been used in consciousness studies for several decades. Actually, more than a century if you consider Jung’s studies. I think one of the reasons he dropped that line of exploration was because it tended to focus consciousness on a linear plane – a potentially disastrous focus limitation in the quest to expand consciousness or awareness.

      • Gerhard Waterkamp

        I realize I will need to read and review the data of the research you mentioned.
        Thanks for bringing this up. Very Interesting I had no idea this research existed.

      • Marty,
        I was intrigued reading here about a ‘device’ based on Jung’s studies.
        Looking into this a bit more I found if anything it refers to the ‘Myers-Briggs Type Indicator’ or ‘MBTI’, which was or is a psychometric QUESTIONAIRE extrapolated from the typological theories proposed by Carl G. Jung (per Wikipedia). There was/is NO actual DEVICE involved so really should not be compared to an E-Meter and its reads. It is simply not comparable.
        Greta

    • Hi, I have personally performed academic research with GSR as part of my Electrical Engineering PhD thesis work–and also done further research with many other human electrophysiological responses including EEG, EMG, ECG, EOG (if interested, these acronyms should be sufficient for googling). Simple disclaimer: I’m not yet done, so I’m not yet a PhD. I am also an avid scientology watcher (another simple disclaimer), as the subject and its systematic psychological effect on a person over time continues to fascinate me, and the stories of success from those coming forward that have beaten the beast are both awing and inspiring to me.

      I wanted to inject a bit more science into the discussion to help build a bit more understanding about the science behind the galvanometers and the e-meter itself, and also shed some light on the biological contributors to galvanometric signals. In other words, what is it that the e-meter is really measuring anyway and how does it do it?

      Over the past 4 years, I have studied countless papers (new and old) on galvanic skin response (GSR), aka electrodermal activity (EDA), or skin conductance, in addition to the other semi-related topics mentioned above. I am an engineer, not a medical doctor or psychologist, but I do have a level of domain-expertise in both of these areas that I have acquired in order to help to drive my system design. Academic papers really are the nuts and bolts level behind any research topic, and I highly recommend for anyone (including you, Marty!) to go to them first as the most reliable source when forming an opinion about any scientific topic. Reading books written *about* a scientific topic often are based on carefully selected collections of scientific papers. This is a helpful starting point, but you must be very careful to form opinions from them as you are really only receiving an author’s interpretation of fact, which can be extremely dangerous. Such an interpretation is highly dependent on the author’s biases and level of academic training and experience had in the particular field in question. Book authors (not talking about textbook authors here) also often have a bad habit of cherry picking the papers that help reinforce any pre-existing biases or misunderstandings. There are many free resources available online for gaining access to quality research including scientific paper abstracts with reported results, or even the full text. A very useful tool to get started is Google scholar which is a gold mine for freely available papers and itself is quite easy to use.

      Back to my own background, I have designed and built from scratch my own miniaturized (wearable) GSR, EMG, ECG, EOG, and EEG hardwaer/software sensor systems from common electrical components such as RLC passives, amplifiers, analog signal converters, and wireless microprocessors, which I have used in my own experiments on myself and others. For example, I’ve analyzed data taken while watching movie scenes that illicit strong emotional responses in viewers, during pairwise word associations testing, and taken data during many types of learning exercises or just over long periods of time. Regarding the E-meter used in scientology, it is a fairly crude version of what could be built today given the literal decades of integrated circuit innovation and miniturization that has occured while the scientology version itself has not really changed. This is just my estimation, but I could likely design and manufacture a comparable E-meter with a bill of materials totalling under $25 (including the fancy plastic injection molded casing, amortized over volume production), while the church is still hustling there’s for more than 100x the price. For my version, at the same price, I’d also throw in wireless connectivity and free iOS and Android apps. =]

      Back to the topic at hand. What does an e-meter, or galvanometer, measure? Well, changes in conductance in the skin over time. To do this, you send a small current from one electrode, which travels through the body and then out through the other electrode. From the galvanometer’s perspective, it treats the entire pathway the same, not knowing which of the 3 parts (skin-electrode1 interface, inside the body, or skin-electrode2 interface) contributes the most to changes in the signal. What’s really being measured here is the impedance (1/conductance) of the entire system, which is calculated by taking the known injected current value and dividing by the measured resulting voltage difference between electrodes (it’s simply Ohm’s Law, or Voltage=Current*Resitance). So, of the 3 parts mentioned, what contributes the most to changes in the resulting measured signal? By a large margin, the skin-electrode interfaces for electrodes 1 and 2. The impedance inside the body is very nearly a constant 500 or so Ohms, and does not change very much under different emotions or thought processes. The skin-electrode side however, changes a lot–from 50K to 1M Ohms in most dry electrode systems (like the e-meter). Thats many orders of magnitude larger than any changes in the body itself. So, since the electrodes don’t change much (the metal has a constant conductivity), the change is happening in the skin. What is changing in the skin to make the impedance change? Again, let’s look at the most dominant contributors. This time, the biggest contributor is the area of contact with the skin and the electrode (the cans in the e-meter). Larger area creates more opportunity for ionic flow (since the interface forms a half-cell battery, which is an electro-chemical charge transfer interface). Therefore, even very slight changes in the way you grab on to the electrodes (adding more force and creating a lower impedance connection), or slight changes in the way your hands hold the electrodes (more or less contact area), gives you a corresponding change in the measured signal. These changes are not actually the galvanic skin response, which is a much smaller contributor to the signal. Changes in the way you hold the electrodes can, however, come as a result of your emotional state. If, for example, I tell you that your friend passed away, or I pinch you, you might flinch a bit, which would be visible in the resulting signal.

      Now let’s suppose that you are able to maintain a perfectly unchanging skin-electrode interface. This is possible when placing the electrodes in locations of the body with less movement, say, the wrist. To further enforce imobility, electrodes are often taped down. Then, the next greatest contributor to signal changes is the change of skin-conductance, or again said another way, impedance. What are the reasons for skin to change its conductance or impedance? Electolyte concentrations, for example when a eccrine gland opens to release sweat (which contains dissolved ions such as sodium, calcium, and potassium). These ions act as charge carriers, reduce the impedance in the skin-electrode interface and therefore facillitate the injected current transfer from the e-meter. Sweat glands open and close largely at the command of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), as an involuntary response mechanism. The ANS operates from below your cognitive level, and has been connected with responding to the deep levels of your emotional state, e.g. fear, anxiety, and others. More minor effects to the signal can come from things like blood volume flow in the hands or digestive effects in the blood, although these are far away in amplitude from the more dominant contributors. Therefore, with GSR and the e-meter, what you are measuring (assuming a perfectly unchanging can grip) is a response in the skin itself, as controlled through neural pathways and originating from the ANS.

      So, what does it all mean? The e-meter and galvanometer can indeed detect emotional changes, but not in the way you may have thought. The e-meter is not and cannot detect any emotional “charge” or flow. It is–at best, and under perfect circumstance–detecting an indirect effect of an emotional state. So, then what about the spirit? Well, since this is a topic outside the bounds of science, I won’t give my comment. However, I do hope that when you think about the supernatural coupled to as basic a machine as what has been described here, I hope what I have said can help guide you a bit towards your conclusion, whatever that may be. And, again, please take some time to read a few highly cited papers on the topic. If you truly seek truth, there is no better place to start.

      • martyrathbun09

        Thanks. Your input is appreciated.
        You note, “Book authors (not talking about textbook authors here) also often have a bad habit of cherry picking the papers that help reinforce any pre-existing biases or misunderstandings.” My experience is precisely the opposite. Text book authors must cherry pick papers that help reinforce pre-existing biases or misunderstandings, or they do not get published.
        You note, ” So, then what about the spirit? Well, since this is a topic outside the bounds of science, I won’t give my comment.” It is the dozens who have recognized through exploring the outer regions of advanced theoretical physics that we can no longer engage in denialism such as ‘spirit is outside the bounds of science’ that I am exploring. Decidedly not the text book author sort.
        Your chosen constructs prohibit consideration of spirit. In that wise, your chance of appreciating my quest are about as good as hard core Scientologists who are unwilling to recognize their own constructs as just that.

        • Thanks for the reply. The best textbooks normally include hundreds of citations, sometimes one hundred or more per chapter–not really cherry picking as I’d define it. On the other hand, authors targeting the mainstream, rarely exhibit a similar level of rigor or have a similar level of knowledge gained through training or experience in the field. My choice not to address the spirit in my post does not imply that I don’t believe in a supernatural or that I believe it would not have any impact on the physical universe. I can only assume your comment about advanced physics is a suggestion that particle-level effects can be measured through a galvanometer, which is simply untrue. Take a look at the published noise floors of all the components used in the e-meter or even the most precise of scientific instrumentation available, and a simple calculation would reveal the impossibility of this idea. That said, I would never stand in the way of your spiritual pursuits, but I would point out only the physical reality that I have knowledge of for any physical device you may believe has a capability in the spiritual realm, and let you decide what to believe from that point forward.

          • martyrathbun09

            Thanks. Not sure what you mean by particle level effects. I conceptualize the universe as consisting of interacting energies. Are not particle level effects present in your original description of what the meter reacts to? Somewhere there there is a bridge – invisible to the five senses – from emotion or feeler of emotion (spirit) to ‘energies’ or ‘particle level effects’. Granted, no meter measures spirit. I don’t think anyone in this conversation thinks other than that the meter detects an effect generated indirectly by decision.

            • Particle-level effects means particles at the quantum level, i.e. subatomic particles, which is the major area for advances made in recent modern theoretical physics. The particles I referenced in my post are ionic charges which reside in the molecular level, a separation in scale of many orders of magnitude away from the quantum level. Regarding energies, any emitted from within the body pass through and then radiate outward. These are also detectable with equipment with much greater sensitivity than a galvanometer, such as with magnetoencephalography, or MEG (which detects electromagnetic flows generated by neuronal firing in the brain). As an aside, the signals detected through MEG are on the order of 10^-14 baseline with 10^-15 fluctuations. With electromagnetic wave decay being 1/r (even without), again there is no way a galvanometer could detect these fields. I am however in firm agreement with you that galvanometers have worth at indirectly measuring emotion, otherwise I would be wasting a large amount of time on a PhD in a related field. I think our difference is just in the method of transport, for which I stand firm about my assertions on the influence of the autonomic system.

              • martyrathbun09

                What were the assertions you were referring to with this?: “my assertions on the influence of the autonomic system.”

                • Still Awakening

                  Marty – with no intent to derail or intrude I believe his assertions were in his first post above. It is probably this:
                  “What are the reasons for skin to change its conductance or impedance? Electolyte concentrations, for example when a eccrine gland opens to release sweat (which contains dissolved ions such as sodium, calcium, and potassium). These ions act as charge carriers, reduce the impedance in the skin-electrode interface and therefore facillitate the injected current transfer from the e-meter. Sweat glands open and close largely at the command of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), as an involuntary response mechanism. The ANS operates from below your cognitive level, and has been connected with responding to the deep levels of your emotional state, e.g. fear, anxiety, and others. More minor effects to the signal can come from things like blood volume flow in the hands or digestive effects in the blood, although these are far away in amplitude from the more dominant contributors. Therefore, with GSR and the e-meter, what you are measuring (assuming a perfectly unchanging can grip) is a response in the skin itself, as controlled through neural pathways and originating from the ANS.

                  So, what does it all mean? The e-meter and galvanometer can indeed detect emotional changes, but not in the way you may have thought. The e-meter is not and cannot detect any emotional “charge” or flow. It is–at best, and under perfect circumstance–detecting an indirect effect of an emotional state.”

                  I would hope that Wisher could contribute more if this wasn’t his full statement of assertions. I, too, have been following his data presentation.

          • Hi Wisher,

            I have a lot of practical experience with e-meters as a technician and engineer. Thanks for your very clear and practical explanation of the actual physical basics of the phenomena. To summarize for others who may not have followed the technical discussion, the meter measures physiological phenomena that, like heartbeat, endocrine levels, blood pressure and many other items that can be measured in the body, change in response to mental or emotional reactions. It does not measure any spiritual or mental phenomena at all, only the effects that these phenomena have on the body.

            I did a series of experiments to study the meter reactions and found that they all seem to be very low frequency in nature. Even a so-called “instant read” starts out with a smooth transition, not a sudden step. I was never able to capture a true rock slam so maybe there is an exception there, but probably not. The theta bop and stage four are definitely not exceptions to this rule. There is a fair amount of capacitance involved just from the metal cans and the low impedance inside the body, and this slows things down in addition to the naturally slow responses of the phenomena being measured. If you are ever curious, hook up a square wave generator (with a 1K or so resistor) to the cans and look at it on the scope while holding them. You will see the corners of the wave rounded off by the capacitance of the system. So real mental responses are read on the meter as slow changes. If you fiddle with the cans it is almost impossible to fool a good auditor as he is looking for the very smooth slow reactions, not the sudden steps. There is even a meter drill to train the auditor to distinguish real reactions from can fiddles, though it does not actually describe or explain the difference so I suspect many never get the point.

            So the meter “bounciness” described above by Kemist is not really a factor. The actual physiological responses you are looking for are too slow to excite the undamped step response of the meter. It is basically an underdamped one hertz filter. Real “reads” are thus well below one hertz. There were meters made by Pat Flanagan (of the pyramids that sharpen razor blades fame) that were so loosey goosey that everyone thought they had floating needles all the time. But I digress.

            Thanks again for adding to the discussion.

        • Robert Almblad

          Good call on the book vs text book. I experienced the same thing but I couldn’t explain why. I just realized there is dual problem with the “peer reviewed” publications that scientists have to get their research papers in. 1) They need some level of agreement to get published and 2) The fact of it being peer reviewed makes it “authorized” and more “true”. When I pointed out to a well known (and well paid) scientist the error in his peer reviewed paper he would not look at my observation because I was not his peer. Scientific papers have some inbred thought-stopping going on, especially when you go deep into their territory.

      • Interesting research… but also “interesting” ways to miss the target since hands full of cream or covered with hardened callouses will still “transmit” reads…

        The basic design of the e-meter is a Wheatstone bridge [http:/~/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheatstone_bridge] working on DC batteries (1,5 V) with a potentiometer to increase or decrease the voltage to equalize the circuit where one of the resistance (Rx) is the “PC’s” body:

        A Wheatstone bridge is an electrical circuit used to measure an unknown electrical resistance by balancing two legs of a bridge circuit, one leg of which includes the unknown component. Its operation is similar to the original potentiometer. It was invented by Samuel Hunter Christie in 1833 and improved and popularized by Sir Charles Wheatstone in 1843. One of the Wheatstone bridge’s initial uses was for the purpose of soils analysis and comparison.

        The operation of the e-meter doesn’t even care about the value of that resistance.

        The auditor only cares if the “PC’s” body resistance suddenly increases or decreases…

        A “lie detector,” like an e-meter, addresses the changes occurring within an individual in the here and now in reaction/response to questions.

        Trouble is, and for most people, the here and now contains everything from the past as well as the “automatic” future on top of the “now”. Hence a lie detector is unreliable since “reads/registers” can come from past lives, current life, automatic current future (+ future lives?).

        People operating lie detectors neglect past and future, thinking that any read can only be due to current life. Also, they do not differentiate between a past reality gone unconscious and a virtual, fictitious reality consciously imagined/”mocked up”/thought about by an individual in his/her thoughts.

        E-meter operators, considered current life and past lives but neglected “futures” except as “intentions” in the present. However, e-meter operators do differentiate, between unconscious storage and conscious imagining of such, in determining whether a “read/register” is instant or not.

        Now, the e-meter kept being modified and became a “sophisticated” Wheatstone Bridge because there are a number of ways a “read/register” can occur.

        The two main ones being and addition or reduction of mass (ridge*) which modifies the overall resistance of the body (Rx) holding the “meter’s” electrodes and/or an addition (feeding) or removal (sucking) of electrical energy in the Rx circuit by the “thetan” or by induction due to an electromagnetic “mass” moving around within the individual’s field or, also, by electromagnetic signals from TV, radio, cell towers, cell phones, truck, cars, ghosts and/or UFOs (🙂 ), etc., passing by…

        The “sophistication” in the e-meter is mainly due to the latter with additions of filters to eliminate environmental “parasites”/interferences. These are the “frequency filters” added to the basic Wheatstone Bridge of the e-meter circuit.

        The e-meter operator can only see what happens on the meter unless also “psychic” or a very keen observer able to notice subtle changes in the individual holding the meter’s electrodes.

        LRH being both psychic and gifted with a very keen sense of observation, realized that most “auditors” weren’t or wouldn’t be either (psychics and/or keen observers) and threw the idea — for anyone to grab on — of being able to measure what was happening to “ridges” in an individual’s field when these “ridges”* are re-activated (“looked”/beamed at or displaced/moved around) blown or vanished (as-ised).

        Mathieson grab the ball and ran with it and LRH being able to “see” what was happening in people’s field as well as corroborate the subtle energy behaviour with physical observation of the “Rx” body holding the “cans”/electrodes was able to modify, suggest improvements and calibrate the e-meter down to what was only necessary to measure or “read” on its dial.

        So, being “In Session” and therefore being “interested in one’s own ‘case’ and willing to talk to the auditor” rather than playing with one’s energy field to “see” what it would do on the meter is the optimum condition for the use of an e-meter as a tool to help locate where a “ridge”* is causing troubles in one’s life.

        As for the “5 seconds prior,” well, that’s one of those PC’s origination left unhandled unless the auditor being a real auditor (i.e. not a Cyborg clone) queried it to understand it and/or allow PC to cognite and either got PC in session or returned PC to session🙂

        * Ridge:
        A . a solid body of energy caused by various flows and dispersals which has a duration longer than the duration of flow. Any piece of matter could be considered to be a ridge in its last stage. Ridges, however, exist in suspension around a person and are the foundation upon which facsimiles are built. (Scn 8-8008, p. 49)

        B . facsimiles, or pictures, of motion. (Scn 8-80, p. 45)

        C . areas of dense waves. (Scn 8-8008, p. 78)

        D . electronic densities. (Scn Jour 6-G)

        • Great post, Amzer Zo. You’ve explained the most significant points about the e-meter, included its development and history, and here’s the key point, IMO:

          “LRH being both psychic and gifted with a very keen sense of observation, realized that most ‘auditors’ weren’t or wouldn’t be either (psychics and/or keen observers) and threw [out] the idea — for anyone to grab on — of being able to measure what was happening to ‘ridges’ in an individual’s field when these ‘ridges’* are re-activated (‘looked’/beamed at or displaced/moved around) blown or vanished (as-ised). Mathison grabbed the ball and ran with it…”

          There may very well be gifted, perceptive practitioners who are “psychics and/or keen observers” and can accomplish as much for their clients as an auditor – but the problem LRH was trying to solve was that there weren’t enough of those to make the kind of difference he envisioned.

      • So, how do you explain very specific and predictable meter reactions? A rock slam, floating needled, theta bop, stage four, and so forth can all be created by mocking up specific conditions as described in the literature that produces those meter reactions. I think you’ve missed something?

        b

        • martyrathbun09

          Bob, to fully appreciate just how far he’s missed, I suggest reading up on Cleve Backster’s plant experiments. They led to much of the decades of research I alluded to in the post. Almost none of the physical process Wisher refers to occurs in plant life.

  10. Folks,
    I know there’s a valid point in Marty’s post, but I think I’m missing it.

    All I know about The emeter is that it did respond below the level of my awareness. I would feel bad (sad, angry etc) and not know where it came from. Using the emeter the auditor would help me locate the incident in restimulation, and discharge it.

    Is the point of this post that the emeter wasn’t necessary to help me locate the incident in session?

  11. I have noticed presentiment in general, but not on a meter. But again I’ve mostly soloed, not audited others.

    Maybe the audited person perceives the auditor’s communication before the auditor makes it verbal and reacts to it.

  12. The original purpose of the e-meter was to assist the auditor in guiding the PC toward whatever had not quite surfaced in the PC’s awareness. Then came the rule about never taking up an un-reading item, and like so much else in Scientology, what started out as help became a method of control.

    • martyrathbun09

      Then came a lot of absolutist rules elevating constructs senior to reality.

      • Marty said, “constructs senior to reality.” That about sums it up. It is what I have been saying these past years: technique worship

        The meter, in my opinion, led Ron into the rocky shoals of his unconscious. He overlayed the feelings he brought up with the symbols and familiarity of his conscious mind: science fiction

        • Brian, I think you are right.

          We know enough about the human mind now (such as through neuroscience) to know that instruments can even detect a decision has been made before the person has consciously decided anything.

          We know that memory is not fixed and “photographic” — it is malleable and continually revised as to certain aspects.

          We know that the mind, by imagining real things, can recreate the actual physical sensations of those things. That’s probably why the pinch test works. Or why if you imagine touching your tongue to a 9-v battery, you (many people) can actually feel the current again — and it may actually be there and be measurable.

          And we know that the human mind is very prone to pattern recognition — even when the pattern does not exist except in how the mind connects the dots. It seems to me that Hubbard made some conscious or unconscious assumptions that were very fundamentally — and possibly fundamentally wrong.

          For example, if one commits to the belief that any unpleasant sensation in the now is a lock on a chain going back to past pain and unconsciousness, then the mind will quite capably organize events into such a pattern. For Hubbard, with his belief in Xenu and space opera and all, everything in the present got interpreted, in his mind, to be a dramatization of the far past. Our airplanes were just like the ancient ones. Xenu’s society dressed just like Earth around 1950. Venus had freight trains. The Marcabians had taxes and an IRS. There were race cars. And judges. There were psychs. And hydrogen bombs. And so on.

          In other words, a strong argument could be made that the past that Hubbard saw extending all those improbable if not impossible billions, trillions, and quadrillions of years into the past, well, those were not memories: they were Hubbard projecting the present — his 1950s — onto a blank slate where he felt a pattern _should_ appear, and thus the mind, nimble monkey that it is, filled in the blanks.

          Five seconds ago, some part of my mind decided that was enough to write. Now I am conscious of the decision and so sign off.

          • FOTF, I have thought from time to time that if Ron’s Scientological time track were multi trillion trillion trillion years old, why did he choose objects from this tiny time?

            DC8, fedora hats etc. It seems almost mathematically impossible that he would choose familiar objects from a generation or two. HIS GENERATION.

            And the track dating with the needle down to the second??

            There is one way to test the time dating needle. Use a known experience in this life and verify with records etc.

            But testing and scrutinizing could get you kicked out. Proof to Ron was an aberration. He prefered the imaginative ape in the back seat of the taxi to an empty seat. Bare-Faced Messiah, the book Marty promoted recently is a good record of Ron’s pathological love of fantasy over reality.

            Read it before you take a wack at the Brian piñata.

            I remember getting auditing in the Sea Org when my mind just caved to the commands and I just went into reason shut down and belief in Ron and his dichotomous tech. Then it was like my imagination took over and matched the imagery that I had been studying and learning from Ron.

            I do believe that I did in fact contact past life and embryonic experiences. I verified some recall with my mom concerning my birth. But that is where the cheese is layed in the trap of buying into Ron’s delusive mindset.

            An admixture of reality and fantasy. That is when the meter becomes a dangerous brainwashing cult machine.

            If it reads, it must be true.

            I am glad I never paid much money for the brainwashing.

            No doubt that looking within, in an organized way will positive cognitive results. And spiritual progress.

            But the History of Man, R6, between live implant stations stuff is where Scientologists loose touch with reality. Because this stuff is Ron’s imagination. He convinced himself of his own delusions.

            Then he convinced us.

            We trusted, then we lost our critical reason to needle reactions.

          • FOTF2012

            Hi

            I have also had thoughts along those lines.

            One thing that came up on this blog, some time back, was something someone said about “near death incidents”. You know, where people say what they experienced after they revive after being pronounced “dead”. It seems that the accounts are colored by the constructs “beliefs” adhered to by the individual subject.

            Christians often see angels and such, Hindu’s see Diva’s, others see demons, or space aliens, etc. That tends to leave me with the concept that the “subject” has not experienced a “universal” truth, but rather their own “truth”.

            Personally I have come to consider that there is no “universal” truth in anything. All “truth” actually seems to be composed of each individual’s own postulated truths. There are various levels of agreement, but it seems to me, that all “truth” is created and held in place on an individual basis. The MEST universe itself, is perhaps an exception, but not one’s perception of it.

            What is true for an individual is what he has come to consider is true, by whatever means…. Science… auditing… meditation… voodoo… medicine… religion,… politics… force.. .experience… reason… etc. The being has found HIS “WHY” (truth) and creates and handles his universe accordingly.

            A being appears to create his universe with his own postulates, and he also resolves it with his own postulates.

            Eric

  13. Dean Radin (consciousness researcher) conducted experiments on presentiment.

    0:12:40 What are presentiment / precognition experiments about ?
    0:21:40 Do experiments show that participants have awareness about the future?

    • “What do you reckon the implications of these findings are to someone who has received hundreds of hours of standard Scientology auditing? That is, a process in which the practitioner is only permitted to address those concepts or incidents that react on the meter only at the precise end of the major thought as expressed in words by the auditor.”

      I would say the reason the auditor isn’t generally permitted to address random reads is simply because that wouldn’t follow the particular system – i.e. Scientology tech – which a pc’s case is being addressed with. That doesn’t mean there couldn’t be other systems for doing so – in fact, LRH stated that Scientology isn’t the only possible route, just that it is a workable one (irrespective of the fact that he didn’t think there were other workable systems – and for all I know, in that time period there wasn’t.)

      • martyrathbun09

        Nobody said anything about random reads. Can you consider the implications as originally asked?

        • Ah, okay. I got the idea you were focusing on the charge represented by random reads (as an example of bank that would be “bypassed”) because of the word ONLY in this part: “…concepts or incidents that react on the meter only at the precise end of the major thought as expressed in words by the auditor.” But now I think I get what you mean by “implications.”

          Somewhere LRH stated (in a tape, I think) that a given pc would respond differently with different auditors (like what LDW described in his post). My idea at this point in time is that this phenomenon might relate to the principle of the Law of Attraction, because I think there are probably physics-type laws that apply to mental energy creations. That just seems “Occam’s razor” to me.

          Here’s how I picture it: When there’s a read, the auditor is communicating a certain thought/concept which he himself has charge on which then gets activated – and if the pc also has also charge on that concept, then that charge, or “energy pattern,” would be set in motion (restimulated) as well and the meter will read.

          A friend of mine who had audited a lot when he was in the CoS told me that he would often be seeing his own pictures while the pc was running the process – and only TR’s kept the session intact.

          So what do I think are the implications of all this? That we are all interconnected, and in terms of the tech, the pc would become more and more self- and pan-determined if LRH was right that banks are basically alike – which it seems they would have to be if it’s true that we’re all interconnected and in that sense “One.”

          • After reading Bryon’s and Still Awakening’s comments about intention, I want to revise one point of my “theory”🙂

            It probably isn’t a matter of the auditor’s own charge matching the charge of the pc – which could occur at times but not always, because that specific charge wouldn’t necessarily be real enough to the auditor for it to impinge on him when he himself thinks the concept. Rather, the matching charge creating a read is more likely to be related to the degree of the auditor’s intention – i.e. how strong the intention was in delivering the concept of a particular auditing question.

            Intention itself manifests as energy, so the strength or power of the intention would seem to be one factor in whether or not the delivery of the concept would bring forth a similar energy creation (which of course would have to be real to the pc too, as another factor) and thus result in a read.

  14. My english it not that good. So I repeat in my words: The skin of the body registers 5 seconds before the fact. Do I understand this right here?
    Lets make an example:
    At 6:00:05 my car crashes into a tree while driving. At 6:00:00 my skin resistance changes. Lets say from 5123 Ohm to 5200 Ohm.
    Correct?

    I had made tests with Mark 5, 6 and 7 E-Meter. I did make some tests with professional electronic measurement devices that register micro volts. Purpose of those tests: If it is possible to “look into the future”. May it be one second, one minute or a day.

    It did not work.

    So, whoever told this story, according my own tests this is a wrong story. Not by opinion but by actual testing.

    • Schorsch

      Just for fun, let’s revisit your car crash example.

      Had you had an e-meter, uploading to a running log of its needle reactions, Is it possible that you may have had some distinct needle reaction at the exact point where you first sensed that you may crash? I would be so bold as to say that this would usually be the case. Of course, the actual crash would likely also produce needle phenomena, but does that invalidate the “prior” read?

      Have you ever experienced one of those times when something is about to happen, like stumbling perhaps, where time seems to go into slow motion? Would it be safe to say that in such an incident, at some level, you are already bracing for, or trying to prevent, the predicted outcome? ( or maybe just resigned to it occurring.)

      I think I can see where you are coming from, but perhaps there is the possibility of an “earlier beginning” in this, and perhaps many cases.

      Try another test…. get someone on the cans and then stand in front of them and initiate the motions that clearly demonstrate to the subject that you are about to slap them in the face. Watch the meter… did you get a “prior read” ( possibly at the point when they picked up on your intention) and then another, perhaps, when they confirmed it from your actions?

      During your reading of this, did you happen to figure you knew where I was going with this, before you got to this point? If your response to my comm were charged, is it possible that there might have been a “prior read” at that point, but by now you may have moved on somewhat and would not have the same reaction?

      I am just playing with you here. To me it does not matter the “truth” or “falsity” of Marty’s post or the “dox” referenced. What matters is whether or not we have allowed ourselves to consider another reality, and to be willing to incorporate whatever we consider is now true for us.

      • Hallo Eric,
        so, lets built a meter that delays the reads exactly 5 seconds.

        The real problem here is: if you only have the needle reaction to evaluate then you cannot tell which reaction is based on what thought. If you have more data like the needle reaction and what the auditor did ask the preclear then you can assume that this reaction is based on the question. But if it is really that way you cannot know. The only person that could say more is the person himself. Same is true for other experimental situations. 5 seconds experiment or others.

        The theory is “for a beginner auditor” that the instant read is taken and prior and latent are not taken. But, there are very big but’s. Even if you have an instant read you do not know if this is a read of the bank of the preclear or not. Could be a read of another identity. Could also be that the master body identity itself is responding. For more informations read History of Man.
        Could also be that the preclear in front of you is picking up your major thought long before you are using your mouth.

        So, basically you cannot audit someone with the E-Meter (5 seconds delay meter or no delay meter) as you do not know by the read and the question asked who or what is causing the read.

        The only way to use those tools is learning how to observe. An auditor that cannot see the mind and the time track (pictures, masses …) the entities of the preclear and the preclear himself cannot audit. In Scientology you need to know which rules to follow and which to throw overboard.

        • Hi Schorsch

          You pretty much reflect my way of thinking.

          I will comment on this though… You said: “An auditor that cannot see the mind and the time track (pictures, masses …) the entities of the preclear and the preclear himself cannot audit.”

          I would not be quite so “harsh”. I consider it is a gradient thing. I would agree that the better the auditor is at those perceptions the better he will be as an auditor. (supposing he doesn’t allow “standard tech” to overrule his observations.) I don’t however feel that a less perceptive auditor cannot produce results on “PCs”. I would suggest that the best match between auditor and “PC” might be when their levels of awareness and perception most closely match, with the auditor leading slightly.

          Regarding the e-meter, I keep something that Ron said in mind at all times. Basically he said…”when the meter reads, the only thing that you know is that the meter read. Now it is the auditor’s job to determine what made the meter read.” …Same as having a conversation and suddenly getting a smile from the other person. Without further communication you really can not be certain what made the person smile.

          To me, communication is the key to auditing. Not the e-meter, the tech, or anything else. (having good questions helps though)

          Eric

  15. Interested Party

    I’m with those who want more data here. You say there has been research that has gone on for 30 years or more. Your summary of it is very short and I would like to know more about it and what the researchers believe it means. Could you provide the name of a researcher or a link to a study?

    • martyrathbun09

      Post updated as follows:
      A few books off the top of my head where the referred to research is discussed:

      The Field by Linda McTaggart

      The Intention Experiment by Linda McTaggart

      The End of Suffering by Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak

      Entangled Minds by Dean Radin

      a) Does the datum indicate to you?
      b) Before engaging in a lengthy study, can you assume for a moment that the datum is true and consider the implications to the Scientology auditing experience?

      • Interested Party

        Okay. I haven’t read any of those works but I did just watch the video that Marildi posted above.

        I found what the guy in the video said about his presentiment experiments very interesting and I have no dog in the race. It’s just interesting.

        As to what it means to auditing I really don’t know and I’m still not 100% certain I understand exactly what you are asking;

        Auditor: Have you ever eaten catfish?
        PC’s meter: LF at end of question

        Marty is your question asking if that read was a presentiment, a reaction to something that is about to occur 5 seconds after the question was asked? And does that mean the read had nothing to do with what the auditor asked (assuming good TRs)?

        I think not. At least not in my experience both as an auditor nor as a PC. If the read had to do with something that is still 5 seconds away then it seems to me sessions would have rarely worked out well.

        I’m with the idea that Scientologists in session might be responding to suggestions that have been made in their studies and discussions of the subject prior to getting auditing, at least to some degree. But I don’t see how a read that is a response to a future event would in any way help sessions go smoothly. In fact I can only see them as having the effect that it would be remarkable that there could ever be a smooth session for anyone.

        As I am not certain I have understood your question I have tried to explain my answer in such a way that any misunderstanding on my part is hopefully glaringly obvious to you so you can correct it.

        • Interested Party

          I’d also like to add that this might be a crucial question for me very soon. I’m about to buy a new meter and do the solo course and then go on to the OT levels very soon.

        • IP, in this video Tom Campbell explains the 5-second comm lag. He’s another consciousness researcher, as well as a physicist. From his 3-decade research as a scientist using scientific protocol, he and others conducted almost daily research on out-of-body experiences. His conclusion was that reality is virtual (other physicists have come to the same conclusion, through different routes) – in other words, physical reality is a computer simulation.

          The computer is actually the information system of “Big C (C = Consciousness) and each of us is a “Little C.” Big C has all the data of the Little C’s – i.e. all data about this universe – in its data banks, or data bases as Tom calls them, and thus knows the almost certain “probable future.” In the video, Tom gives his idea of why the comm lag comes about.

          • p.s. My understanding of why it is a “probable” future is that Free Will can sometimes change the probable future. The other factor involved is the “networked communications” between individuals.

          • Interested Party

            I don’t think he explained anything to do with meter reads in session. I need to see more of his stuff but the impression I’m getting is imprecise language and labeling. I’m not really getting the mass on what he’s saying. I don’t think it’s because I haven’t done a clay demo but more like he hasn’t done one and therefore he isn’t being as precise as he probably could be. I believe he understands what he is saying but not well enough to explain it to others.

          • Hey marildi,

            Have you ever seen the 2009 movie Mr. Nobody? If you haven’t I highly recommend doing so. It’s such a good demo of some of Tom Campbell’s views regarding choices, actualizing probabilities, virtual reality and more. You can live stream it from Netflix.

            • Hey Monte. I just read about the movie in Wikipedia and it does sound like Campbell’s theories. I’ll have to check it out. Thanks!

        • I absolutely saw reads before any indication of any awareness on the part of the PC. Here’s a true example, sanitized of anything personally identifiable.

          PC is sitting with eyes closed. Has just recounted an incident of pain and unconsciousness. TA has moved but no F/N. No VGIs or cognition. TA rising slightly.

          I ask if there is an earlier similar incident. PC contemplates but says nothing. The needle reads. I say “That.” PC says there is nothing there. Needle reads again. I say “That.” PC continues to contemplate.

          I observe a LFBD (long fall blowdown) indicating a release of charge. I observe the PC and wait. Several seconds go by. The needle starts floating (and none of the BS three sweeps rule — it is just obviously a floating needle). The PC opens the eyes, has VGIs, and voices a cognition along the lines of, “Wow — I just remembered a time when … [relates the whole story].” I acknowledge the PC, indicate the F/N and end the session. I then write up some general notes where my contemporary notes were sketch. Turn in the folder to the C/S. And later see that the session was marked by the C/S as VWD.

          So, what happened there? I was indeed “seeing” (or at least inferring) events in the PC’s mind several seconds before the PC became aware. In fact, it was clear to me as an auditor that I knew the PC had a cognition coming well before the PC gave any indication of a cognition.

          This is where I would literally beseech the Church to get off its high horse and open up auditing to research. If it is the real deal or even if it is only partly the real deal, is it not a crime to withhold such knowledge from external validation?

          And if it is not the real deal, is it not a crime to fail to disclose that?

          And here is some documentation of part of what I am referring to: http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide.

          The implications of all this for auditing might be that e-meter phenomena do occur, but Hubbard did not have the scientific understanding being developed today to understand what that means in terms of cognitive function, consciousness, and memory.

          • Interested Party

            I have experienced what you describe in your session many times as both PC and auditor. I don’t see any need or reason to postulate these reads as anything other than LRH described. The PC has yet to become aware of what you are predicting from the meter phenomena but it makes more sense to me to describe this as mass moving off or as-ising and the PC becoming aware of it as the mass goes away.

            I’ve seen a documentary on the decision 5 second comm lag. It isn’t necessarily the same thing as a cognition or a description of what read. What I saw were meter type indications that a decision had been made without the person being aware of the decision. It even went as far as predicting what the decision was with a great deal of accuracy. The documentary I saw then proceeded to jump to the conclusion that the brain had made a decision and there was a comm lag before the “illusion” known as “I” became aware of it. This is Daniel Dennet’s territory and theorizing as I recall.

            I agree these things are interesting. I’m waiting to be shown how and/or why they are relevant to the subject of auditing and somehow change what we consider auditing to be. I’m not saying that can’t be the case. Just that I haven’t seen anything as yet that gives me any pause for thought.

            • Hi;

              I commented earlier up above about the ‘difference’ between an intuitive recognition of an answer to a question, and the mental construct answer to a question. The intuitive flash is probably an as-ising of some sort where there is no ‘time’ involved, whereas the mental construct that follows is ‘thought’ which requires time.

              To me, this delay between the ‘read’ and the ‘thought’ is because the read occurs when the Being first gets it, but is ‘unaware’ that he has it. The thought is just his acknowledging he knows, and to me, that is the reason for the delay.

              my opinion.

              bob

          • On Tony’s blog a few stories ago, the evil SP Jon Atack, had an expert say that the old meters had carbon build up and cause false reads. The needle would be reacting to debris in the potentiometers.

            How many “incidents” were actually false reads.

            This is the danger to surrendering one’s cognitive process to a machine.

            • Interested Party

              Crap can certainly get into the pots just as it does in an audio amplifier volume control. Just as in an audio amplifier that crap doesn’t sound like any kind of music and is easy to detect and remove just by twiddling the knob for a bit, it is incredibly unlikely to show up as a perfect instant read in a session.

              What kind of “expert” would know this can happen but wouldn’t tell you how to solve it?

              • The person checking the meter was not a practicing, or he was not a scientologist. Chect it out on Tony’s blog. It is the post about the e meter by Jon Atack

                The correct question should be:
                why didn’t Doctor/Professor/Physicist/Engineer/Messiah LRH not know or test. Maybe he would not have had to kick Otto Roose for revealing rock slams.

                The other unsettling question is:

                How much money was spent and delusional track run by hard working and believing Scientologists because of dirty pots?

                I believe every Scientologist who got auditing went through a process from time to time, in their auditing, wherby they defaulted to imgination because of belief in Scientology/Ron and the scientific sophistry of auditing and the e meter.

                Not all experiences. Because, obviously actual chains of associated events, when experienced consciously, has the effect of bringing light to dark or painful experiences.

                But I know in the depths of my being, that all Scientologists have run imagintion as reality. And I believe you know that as well.

                But accepting that consciously, and knowing it fully, requires a reasoned criticism you are not ready to do yet. Because to do that reasoned criticism, is to see Ron without the mind filters that protect him from criticism. A criticism that you have at one time agreed was a High Crime that could threaten your life.

                Piñata anyone?

                • Interested Party, here is the link to that post on the Bunker about the E meter problems.

                  http://tonyortega.org/2014/02/01/jon-atack-takes-apart-the-scientology-emeter/

                  • Interested Party

                    Just read it Brian. There was nothing there that changes anything I said above. I used a MkV for a couple of years back in the 80s. Anyone who mistook an R/S for dirty pots was a fool. There was a test – disconnect the cans from the meter and see if the “R/S” continued. Apart from that the article does not describe what was meant by “reads”. Were these supposed meter component caused reads mistook for instant reads? It doesn’t say. As I said above, dirty pots can cause noise but noise doesn’t in any way look like an instant read.

                    Please skip the personal attacks. Point out errors in my logic and back it up with something other than my being unwilling to accept LRH as my great unquestionable authority. He isn’t and I don’t think he ever was.

                    • No personal attacks. Thanks for the reply.

                      My point is: there are times when these needle reactions do not represent what they say they do.

                      Also, I am a professional audio engineer. I have seen what dirty pots do to VU meters. I have seen what dirty voltage does to VU meters.

                      The point is that the meter is falible. And it has been used as an infalible microscoping into the cognitive functioning of human beings.

                      i believe that to be a dangerous belief: false scientism

                      That is my whole point. Nothing more, nothing less.

                    • Interested Party

                      This is a reply to Brian’s reply to me. For some reason there wasn’t a “reply” button attached to his comment.

                      “The point is that the meter is falible. And it has been used as an infalible microscoping into the cognitive functioning of human beings.”

                      In an absolute sense I daresay any meter is fallible. A ruler is fallible – it is an approximation of a certain distance between points and there is a standard that is only ever approximated.

                      I’m guessing you mean something more significant but you haven’t said exactly what and how it affects auditing.

                      Exactly what phenomena of an e-meter is not as LRH described?

                      Older meters were far more subject to dirt and dust and possibly other environmental conditions than modern ones. I’m not aware of any that were not known about at the time and that did not have handlings so as not to be fooled by them.

                      Give me some kind of test I can do that will prove what you mean.

                    • Interested Party, these are some of my thoughts:

                      All of our introduction into the meters qualification and importance was the pinch test right? At that moment we went into agreement that the e meter could reflect our inner memory of the past by recalling it right?

                      It was a “a huh” moment. We all smiled and said, “wow how cool is that, it works”

                      Now I am not saying that the meter does not reflect reactions, and those reactions can be a reflection of an accurate memory. But the problem comes in when there is an agreement that it always reflects standardly, all the time and is more accurate than the person sitting in front of you.

                      There is surrendering of power and intellectual sovereignty to Ron’s understanding of the time track when we grant infallibility to his tech and meter.

                      For instance, It is my conviction that R6 and all the space opera OT 3 stuff is Ron’s creative delusive imagination. Yet it reads for people.

                      The pinch test has now been ramped up on steroids whereby energies of mind and emotion may be reacting, and because we have surrendered our critical reason to Ron and needle reactions, because of blowing charge, we now conclude that the images, implanted by Ron, are real.

                      Scientologists claim they are considering the pc’s reality. But the truth is Ron is implanting a reality, once agreed to, now freely associates or A=As with real internal emotional and mental and physical energies, but with the superimposition of Hubbard’s imagery: space opera Xenu etc.

                      All of this is “verified” by needle reactions. And needle reactions become the arbiter of truth. Needle reactions become a sort of hypnotic command which lays in Ron’s imaginative delusions.

                      I hope I have been clear. This is my experience of the e meter in relation to the stories Ron tells us is all of our pasts, and the reason, “this sector” is doo doo.

                    • Interested Party

                      Brian: The pinch test might be the first exposure and it might provide an aha moment but it is far from the last test and absolute proof of anything else Hubbard ever said about meters.

                      There is another drill “consider the events of the day” or some such that gives a much better idea than the pinch test alone.

                      Then there are drills 23 and 25 that are somewhat more challenging. I can do those procedures with a very high degree of confidence on anyone I give the cans to.

                      The idea ” there is an agreement that it always reflects standardly, all the time and is more accurate than the person sitting in front of you.” is not an idea I recognize and I strongly doubt there are any auditors, outside those only trained since GAT1 at least, who believe that. It was never taught that way either. All you know when you see a read is that you saw a read. You don’t know anything else until further investigation.

                      “There is surrendering of power and intellectual sovereignty to Ron’s understanding of the time track when we grant infallibility to his tech and meter.” THAT is certainly something that I can agree with and would apply it to everything he said. I do not agree he was lying or just plain wrong about everything he ever said or wrote but I do agree he wasn’t right about everything. I’m working through much of what I’ve previously studied and sifting out as I go but I’m not throwing out everything. There are still major chunks that are perfectly valid for me.

                      That “surrendering of … intellectual sovereignty” is a great way of describing it. It is far, far from being the exclusive aberration of Scientologists. It is a surrender rather than a conquest as well.

                      I’m no longer part of the CofS but I had disagreements with Ron that go back many years. I have never regarded him as infallible. What has shocked me so much recently is how much other people do.

            • Brian,
              My meter was R/Sing recently and unfortunately is still in the local ‘shop’
              WITH the manual. Since I researched all mentions of R/Ses in it I clearly remember that it covers this aspect of build up -though it mentioned it in
              regards to dust- and the proposed handling was to vigorously turn the knobs back and forth to get rid of this build up.
              Hope this helps.
              Greta

  16. Robert Splawn

    Hmm. If a thought comes to mind, then speak up & tell The auditor . It’s a search to get the right item(s). Instant reads are important. Latent reads are still reads.

    Very nice comparative data Marty!

  17. It implies what I have suspected for a long time , that everyone knows how to do the upper OT levels, which is why he did not leave instructions on how to do the OT levels above OT VIII .

  18. Could you be more specific? Where is this study written up?

    • martyrathbun09

      Post updated as follows:
      A few books off the top of my head where the referred to research is discussed:

      The Field by Linda McTaggart

      The Intention Experiment by Linda McTaggart

      The End of Suffering by Russell Targ and J.J. Hurtak

      Entangled Minds by Dean Radin

      a) Does the datum indicate to you?
      b) Before engaging in a lengthy study, can you assume for a moment that the datum is true and consider the implications to the Scientology auditing experience?

  19. Here’s an interesting experiment for anyone who really wants to know the truth. Have a pc with an issue and have several different auditors assess a CS 53 on that pc in the same day, let the pc know up front that this is what’s being done. Then, compare what does and doesn’t read on that pc. Then ask the pc if there was anything he felt should have read…what was he interested in.

    My result: Each auditor got different reads. The pc was interested in some of them, but more interested in other things that did not read.

    I’ve been experimenting with life repairs on people who have no interest in scientology. I’ve been using an interview to find out what the pc is interested in handling. With that I’ve been selecting processes that might help the pc sort out that issue. Instead of using the meter, I’ve been deciding on which processes to run by ensuring the pc understands the commands or questions, then asking him if he’s interested in running it. If he says no, then I move on to the next one. Great results, consistently.

    But then, we really don’t need to worry about any of this because the new warehouse VIII meter is 50,000 times more accurate than the crap meters we’ve all been using for 30 years.

    It’s just impossible for me to deny the positive gains I got from much of my own auditing. It’s refreshing to be able to stand back and look at the wasted hours where I was silently protesting because I wasn’t interested in the first place. It’s also refreshing to be able to discuss all of this openly and compare notes and weed out the bull.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for the interesting stuff Les. The 64 thousand dollar question is, is what you described fairly called ‘scientology?’

      • No. It denies that the auditor and C/S and L Ron Hubbard know more about the pc than the pc does. It postulates that the pc does in fact know full well what’s at the bottom of his difficulties and that skilled questioning by another can allow him to have the knowledge he’s suppressing.

        Hubbard alluded to that in some of his early material, paraphrased “all the knowledge you have lies within you.” But then he seemed to forget about that concept.

        And yet, knowing all of that, I can still use many of the processes developed over the years and put into the “standard tech” bucket and they will help the pc to allow himself to see what he essentially already knows.

        The more willing a pc is to LOOK, the quicker he exhausts any usefulness of scientology processes and procedures.

        Is Dianetics really Dianetics, or is it Freudian analysis made easy?

        Lots and lots of looking and analyzing and comparing results to be done.
        Jury is out on a lot of assumptions masquerading as facts. Personally, I’m at the beginning of the learning curve here.

      • Still Awakening

        “The 64 thousand dollar question” – hmmm…. and behind that door is the beginning of building a better “bridge” of sorts. Use what is valid and true and maintain a client-centered viewpoint. Upside limits – none! downside limits are the demise of cult-centered think.

  20. LRH said that a thetan communicates by telepathy. I think he mentioned somewhere that the ability to send and receive information telepathically is related to affinity. That makes sense to me, since it seems to happen often with my mom, my wife and my kids. Although the church seems to focus almost exclusively on the mechanics of auditing, actual results in session depend mostly on the intention of the auditor. I assume that would apply to the experiments you are doing – in other words, you are influencing the results. The five second time frame is calibrated to your own thought process and speech patterns.

  21. Marty,

    The value of any datum is not determined by authority or custom.

    The value of any datum is determined by the number of problems it solves and how well it solves them?

    A rose by any other name smells just the same.

    I think that it is best that as many other people as possible use their nuggins, do their homework (research) and build new and better bridges and call it something different. The sooner the better.

    Get away from the disrepute and stench of scn.

    That will do the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.

    To only to be able to parrot someone is a form of aberration.

    The biggest room in the world is room for improvement.

    If you can’t build a better bridge, you flunked scientology.

    It is a disgrace to everything that is right and good that there are so many auditors in the fz and there does not appear to be anyone capable of getting out there with a professional hat and credibility to help all the people suffering from mental illness, especially the military.

    Particularly referring to the latest at Fort Hood.

    Dio

    • spyrosillusionist

      Maybe the ‘professional hat’ and ‘credibility’ are means to inhibit help, in this case and others. Why would anybody need those? If I got trained by a credible person would I be more credible that if I had been trained by another or myself? What makes that person credible –that he got trained in a group that lies to and fights it’s own members?

      I do trust good people, but regardless of such credits. That is no invalidation for people, but for credits.

      I think you just answered your question. Because if FZ people and others seek such guidance in others, they ask for a license to be able to help. IF somebody should guide in SCN trainning (I mean specifically in SCN) it should be LRH.

      • spyrosillusionist

        Many times I have heard stuff like “I in the Church did this and that”. Some implied they’re above others because of that. I don’t answer to them, but I personaly have regretted having assisted a group that backstabbed me and others more than once. I don’t think it’s something to be proud of. Beyond the value personal efforts to help, there is also the matter of the outcome of those efforts. So, I helped my local translations unit among other things. I was sleepless etc helping for a ‘good cause’. So what? I don’t want anyone to read and then get involved with the org I was in. That’s just an example, of course, out of my own experience.

        Some judge you by how much you have. In SCN we agreed to mostly judge by the stats. I think it’s best to judge by the being. I like good people. I get good ‘stats’ by good people. I don’t care how many trillions of hours one has audited, if he’s an ass –and visa versa.

        What first got my attention -about 10 years ago- is that a man apologised in public for having his share of slapping others. That’s some good indicator for me. I know some others who haven’t regret shit.

      • Spyro,

        I think you misunderstood me.

        I meant put on a hat what will get you respected and get out there and help people.

        You need a sales and marketing hat too.

        My heart goes out to the military people.

        They need so much help.

        To start with: Get into the military somehow and set up book one classes and teach them how to co audit book one.

        RE: IF somebody should guide in SCN trainning (I mean specifically in SCN) it should be LRH.

        Forget about authorities, gurus, and parroting,

        and hanging on to shirt tails.

        Become your own guru or become your own “LRH”.

        Dio

  22. “the meter reads on average 5 second prior to the subject being provided with a concept to respond to”.
    Then does it read again at the end of the question? I mean it worked for me in Solo auditing and my 1st session ever my PC had a stuck needle and she was greatly relived to have THAT handled!
    My 1st session ever (at 22) we handled an incident which was causing my knees extreme pain when going down hill especially with a load. Baggage gone never to re-occur again – I’m 61 now.

  23. As a never-in who has followed another teaching altogether, my answer to the question posed in the opening (if I have understood the things I have read here and at Mike Rinder’s blog in the past 9 months or so) would be Self-Doubt and Slavery…

    [Forgive me if this is way off the mark; don’t post if it would intrude on the flow of the discussion.]

    • Aurora, it doesn’t matter what you post. It’s always a comfort to know that others care enough to attempt to understand the Scientology Trap. I hope your teaching is going better then my last one went🙂

  24. Perhaps then unmetered auditing may be an alternative.

  25. knatherthomas

    So instant reads are not reliable indicators of what’s really going on with a given person? Whoa. This is mind blowing.

  26. Robert Almblad

    “That is, the meter reads on average 5 second prior to the subject being provided with a concept to respond to.”

    Maybe it takes 5 seconds to mock up the universe? So, present time is really 5 seconds ago? So, “get into PT” is a command to get into a mocked up reality composed of matter, energy, space and time?

    I don’t know. I am stretching. But I know for a fact that I am not an “older” being because when I am exterior I am myself and I am not composed of time or any MEST.

    On the other hand, as someone else mentioned, the 5 seconds could be because of the auditor’s telepathic communication 5 seconds before he presents a concept to the PC, but I think that would have been discovered by now if it were true?

    I will stick with the theory it takes 5 you seconds to mock up the universe and then you will have something to run in the auditing session.

    • Robert Almblad

      correction “I will stick with the theory it takes you 5 seconds to mock…”

    • I’d say it is a little more like it takes a few seconds for the holistic nature of your self to become aware at the conscious level of the construct your mind is generating.

      The latency is the lag between construct generation and awareness of the construct.

  27. If this has been scientifically researched and, if the presentiment is 5 seconds prior, then one has been handling what is called ‘latent reads’, thus uncharged items, thus creation of charge in order to answer a question.

    I will review the materials you noted and will explore it a bit further, but that is the first answer that came to mind.

    • martyrathbun09

      And, perhaps the creation of the habit of creating the construct, over and over, of that which tends to ‘read’? Imagine you used the meter in the context of pure person-centered philosophy. That is something I know that you know something about. Where might that lead?

      • From what I’m seeing so far, it leads to resolution and happy people.

      • Mary Rathernotsay

        Mmmm,
        Counselor is leading the witness

      • Correct, using the e meter with a specific question and MAKE the pc answer it would be evaluative and directing the person to an area that he may not even be interested in, nor may have attention either. It is judgmental and, in a nutshell, leads to a total control of the person’s thoughts and life. It puts the auditor as the “one who knows better” sort of speaking and will lead to creation of something that is not there with an ultimate introversion.

        If I were to use the meter in the context of a pure person-centered philosophy I could be exterior to ‘what is expected’ from the person, would be able to really listen and understand and direct his attention to what he considers needs to be analyzed/looked at from his own universe so he could arrive to his own conclusions.

        • Silvia: “Correct, using the e meter with a specific question and MAKE the pc answer it would be evaluative and directing the person to an area that he may not even be interested in, nor may have attention either.”

          Firstly, forcing a pc would not be standard tech. Secondly, from my experience, a pc does have interest in what reads on the meter because there is interest in what has charge on it. So in that sense, the tech does seem to be person-centered.

          • martyrathbun09

            You are wrong.

            • Okay, but can you be more specific? I only stated what was my experience.

              Roughly, in your own experience, how often did you find – for yourself as a pc and/or others – that the pc was not interested in what read on the meter? I know it can happen, and there is even a correction list question, something like “No interest in the first place?”

              I’m sincerely interested (read! LOL) in what percentage of the time, roughly, you found that you yourself as well as other pc’s were not interested in the reading question (excluding where a false read was later determined, such as on the question “Was it a false read?”).

              • martyrathbun09

                You have no idea what person centered therapy is.

                • Not true, Marty. I do have an idea what it is. My comment above was simply that if pc’s are interested in what reads then “in that sense” (quoting myself) – or, in other words, to that degree – auditing could be viewed as client oriented. In other words, for all intents and purposes, the pc is “asked” about his interest via the meter – although I agree that this isn’t necessarily getting a full answer to the question.

                  The reason I was asking about your own experience is that I would like to know how often it occurred with a well-trained auditor such as yourself that people didn’t get what they were interested in handling. Can you please answer this question? Whatever the answer, the data would be illuminating.

                  • martyrathbun09

                    No. There is no duplication or understanding possible on that end as long as you keep asserting knowing all, particularly about things you demonstrably know little about. Read other discussions here. Mechanics are not the answer. There is no substitute for understanding.

              • Marildi

                Hi

                You asked this question: “Roughly, in your own experience, how often did you find – for yourself as a pc and/or others – that the pc was not interested in what read on the meter?”

                I offer my experience, as a PC.

                Often I had little or no interest in things that supposedly read. In some cases I was asked if I had any interest in running the item, but in many, perhaps even most, the auditor continued to direct my attention into the area because he had supposedly seen a “read”,(and he is trained to believe that pretty much means that there is “charge” there.) In such cases I found I was having to “find” something (read “create” something) to satisfy the auditor’s continued direction into that area. …And I could mock things up real good, pictures, pains, tears, the whole lot, and finally to end it all off, a nice cognition FOR THE AUDITOR, and a big smile. Case gain for me in such cases…. minimal to none at all.

                But I understand…I was “just not in session”. No wonder I didn’t get a win.

                The correction lists go on and on about all the possible causes for this EXCEPT looking for flaws in the processes or the procedures themselves.

                Also, on the Grades, I suspect that a lot of processes that I would have liked to address were ignored simply because the auditor apparently did not get an appropriate “read” and so HE was not interested in pursuing them. Never even asked me.

                And then there is the “false read” and the “nothing wrong in the first place”. If there really were “nothing wrong in the first place”, why would the PC have gone there, unless he had been directed to do so? For one thing, he had been indoctrinated into believing that the e-meter was reading below his awareness, and therefor he really didn’t know what he was thinking, and so had to trust the auditor and the e-meter to access his true thoughts.

                No “force” there though, right? But the PC had already, to some degree, given over the determinism of his own mind to the auditor and the e-meter, by that point, so down the rabbit hole he “willingly” went.

                I am not saying that I think e-meters are totally useless. What I AM saying is that, in my opinion, the more one RELIES on the e-meter in addressing an individual, the less the self-determinism of that individual is being addressed.

                There seem to be some flaws in the “auditing construct” that have not been confronted. But the “auditing construct”, the “tech”, allows for no self inspection (of itself).

                In my opinion a re-inspection of the auditing construct is in order.

                Eric

                • Hi Eric,
                  Thanks for answering my question. One thing that wasn’t clear was whether the auditing you were reflecting on related to Bridge actions or to sec checks. The latter isn’t truly auditing and the R-factor “I am not auditing you” is factually the case as it violates auditing principles.

                  As regards Bridge actions, the following is from HCOB “Checking Questions on Grade Processes.”

                  “One doesn’t make a big production of checking as it distracts the PC. There is a system, one of many one can use. One can say, ‘The next process is (state wording of the auditing question)’ and see if it reads. This does not take more than a glance. If no read but, more likely, if it isn’t charged, an F/N or smoothly null needle, one hardly pauses and adds ‘but are you interested in it?’ pc will consider it and if not charged and the pc in session, it will f/n or f/n more widely.”

                  The above requirement is why I have the impression that pc’s ARE auditing what is of interest to them. However, the question that remains is whether or not there were things of interest, things that pc’s wanted handled, that did not get addressed on the standard Bridge route, at least eventually. And if so, was this common or uncommon. Now that I think of it, I guess that question would need to be asked of someone who has audited a lot, or perhaps someone who has done a legitimate survey.

                  • p.s. I would agree with what you said here: “In my opinion a re-inspection of the auditing construct is in order.”

                    I do recognize that this is the only intelligent approach to take and have had that viewpoint for a good while – I’m not the “fundamentalist” some people (not you) assume I am.🙂

                    • Hi Marildi

                      Thanks for that.

                      I wasn’t really counting sec checking because it violates many auditing principles, as you say.

                      I was referring to Dianetics, in particular. As I recall we just took up any item that read (as an auditor). As a PC I never really knew whether they read or not, but assumed they had because the auditor was taking them up.

                      Personally I did not like, or get much out of Dianetics. During pretty much the lot of it I felt like it was not me that was being addressed at all. I ended up having to do the work, but didn’t seem to be the one who was having the problem. (similar to sec checking, in that regard)

                      I have always taken exception to “Book One” Dianetics on several counts, but one in particular was using the “file clerk” and bypassing the PC totally. Why not just come clean and audit the “file Clerk” directly, and leave me out of it. (and let him pay for it too)

                      In spite of all that, I see value in Dianetics, applied sensibly, to someone who is tangled up in “dianetic case”. I no longer consider that the whole construct, upon which Dianetics is based, to be valid. However, with a PC indoctrinated into the “truth” ( and I say that very tongue-in-cheek at this point) of the whole “reactive mind/analytical mind… track construct, he somehow finds a way to address his real concerns and get some relief.

                      I had some totally universe altering enlightenments on the Grades. I tend to align better with creative type processes than rummaging around in the “past”. (At one point on my Grades I totally unmocked the construct of “past” and “future” track, and that there was actually any time but “now”. – you may be interested to know that I got this “win” doing “self analysis.”)

                      OOps… gone on a bit long here…

                      Of course these are just my opinions, and I thank you for sharing yours.

                      Eric

                    • Eric, for some reason I don’t think I got the email notification of the above post of yours, but just happened to discover it when looking for something else on this thread. Anyhow, thanks for all the interesting thoughts, including the following:

                      “Personally I did not like, or get much out of Dianetics. During pretty much the lot of it I felt like it was not me that was being addressed at all. I ended up having to do the work, but didn’t seem to be the one who was having the problem.”

                      It may not fit for you and I don’t mean to evaluate, but I will say that others had a similar experience of not feeling they themselves were being addressed. From reading David St. Lawrence’s articles based on his experience auditing others, I’ve learned that it wasn’t all that unusual for pc’s on lower levels (below OT) to have their “spiritual entities” be the source of auditing difficulties. Actually, in a comment on this same thread, Schorsch wrote about this too:

                      “Even if you have an instant read you do not know if this is a read of the bank of the preclear or not. Could be a read of another identity. Could also be that the master body identity itself is responding. For more information read History of Man.”

                      Another especially interesting thing you wrote was this: “At one point on my Grades I totally unmocked the construct of ‘past’ and ‘future’ track, and that there was actually any time but ‘now’. – you may be interested to know that I got this ‘win’ doing ‘self analysis.’”

                      OMG, for you, SA was an OT process! Incredible.

                      As usual, thanks for the comm. See you on the next go ’round.😉

            • But thetan can be right.

      • A hall of mirrors?

      • Forever Lurker

        So taking this further, the Clearing Course, old school style (all those complex platens) . . . is basically just a complicated construct and LRH’s imagined, made up incident?

        To wit, if the incident is real, like LRH claims . . . then we are essentially “running it out.” If the incident is not real, but rather an LRH “construct” . . . then we are essentially doing a form of early 50′s mock up processing or “creative processing.” And our capability of making a mock up is what is making the meter read or react essentially.

        Old OT IV was sort of a reprise, a creative processing step, if you will. Your mock up made the meter read.

        What is real and actual . . . gets “run out.” What is not real and not actual . . . takes on more of a form of creative processing (early 50′s) . . . or could even loosely be compared to “creative visualization” in other practices, but with more of a format or series of steps.

        Do I understand this “construct concept” you’re talking about correctly?

        PS: Sorry if I missed out on something earlier, but I’m not a regular visitor on this blog. In time, you’ll have to lower the gradient so even slower people like me get it. (wink)

        • The Clearing Course, and OT 2, and OT 3 – the implant content parts – are not simply mocking it up. When a person does “mocks up” processing he knows he’s doing so. On the Clearing Course, etc., one is *told* from an authoritative source (THE Source, in fact, in Scientology) that it’s the key content of your mind and/or space, and that your next endless trillions will be good or bad depending on whether you happily complete these levels.

          Old OT 4 served to convince the person even further that the CC implants were real, by instructing the person that, by mocking up the actual implants, he’ll be free from possible future whole track implanting.

          The joke is that Hubbard was being the implanter.

          He used the abreactive process – mostly earlier on the Grade Chart – to delete old mental programs leaving a kind of vacuum.

          Then inserted new programs – filling the vacuum.

          • B Partz,
            Having completed one of the earlier clearing courses in the early 1970’s, I have reached basically the same conclusion as you have. The abreaction process created by Freud in 1893 is an important key to Dianetics and to Scientology on the OT levels. The transition from Dianetics to Scientology was a form of mind control based on the idea of amnesia and implants, not consciousness.
            Kind Regards,
            George M. White

        • Forever Lurker

          Hi.

          I think that you have fairly accurately summed up my current viewpoint on how much of auditing works. I think that what the being is doing with the process isn’t necessarily aligned with what the auditor thinks is going on.

          Although “PCs” still make gains, I feel sometimes it is in spite of the construct that they are being told is responsible. I also feel that unfortunately the construct into which the being has been indoctrinated may inhibit or limit the gains of a “PC”, where they are not aligned with the “PC’s” own working constructs. ( I define “construct” as “an integrated set of postulates.”)

          Having said that, I also consider it true that the “truth” or “falsity” of the construct of the “PC” likely has little bearing on whether or not the being makes gain, but rather depends more upon the certainty of the being in his own postulates. It seems that where a being has “difficulties”, it is when he has misalignments and uncertainties in his own postulates.

          Just my 2 cents.

          Eric

          • Spot on Eric!
            I feel that Scientology is a move on from Dianetics…. which is a completly unrelated topic! Dianetics is ‘dumping your old crap’
            whereas Scinetology…. ‘supposedly’…. is a move on to Positive proccessing…. Scientology for me certainly is that.
            However the ‘semi Scientology’ is the practice in the Cos.

            Scientology is nothing really to do with mind… unless you fancy one … just for fun. …. fancy one ?….. one what! ?…….. a mind.
            like a nice sort of gadget thing with loops and ifs and buts and maybes…… excellant fun!
            then chuck that mind thing out the window…. put it down and stop playing with it!….. like a play station…. put down the playstation and come out an LIVE!…. and even living is just for fun too!…. you can be a monkey thing on a planet and pretend you are one…. living ?… great fun!
            or of course you could just be a magic sparkle thetan that experiences anything it wants to experience.

            True Scientology… or is it ‘Thexia’ as I call it.
            brilliant Eric!
            Ian Interdimensional Wizard

  28. Still Awakening

    Your OP – “What do you reckon the implications of these findings are to someone who has received hundreds of hours of standard Scientology auditing? That is, a process in which the practitioner is only permitted to address those concepts or incidents that react on the meter only at the precise end of the major thought as expressed in words by the auditor.”

    I will make some comments on this. If we agree for this example that the meter read does not match the time of thought then the person receiving the auditing would have had his true personal thoughts invalidated and over-run. The charge would have increased not decreased. That person would have doubted their own perceptions and have a decrease in certainty. Any increase in awareness may have been incomplete.

    Furthermore I believe that person over time would have lowered their awareness threshold to the point that the only observation accepted as true and real is one that was given to them by another, or one that matched what another told them the truth was to be.

    You would then have a person who started on the journey to increase awareness, beingness and enlightenment – finally reach a point where the only “enlightenment” would be when their thoughts mirrored those they were following and placing on a higher status.

    I also believe the meter would be reading on the thoughts and expectations of the auditor. Which would align with comments above about gains many have had in auditing. It could be that the gains were in the most part due to the intent of the auditor to truly help the person in front of them and the willingness to have gains and look at things on the part of the pc.

    Having read 3 of your 4 references I would totally concur that the intention of all parties concerned are far more valid and exact that any physical universe measurement. The measure of any change in energy will always have a time factor, comm lag, or whatever you want to call it. The meter could be a great tool and guide but the enforced reliance on a machine over the observable and palpable on an awareness level of the change in the pc is what is really bringing about the gains. This would also concur with the comments by LDW.

    The inherent intent and purpose of the auditor performing the auditing session is key. I believe many of you have experienced helping another person who didn’t understand the same language you spoke. The intent came through no matter the words.

    I see this is getting rather long so will end off here.

  29. Not too sure about where this post is going but it is interesting.

    As far as presentiment goes this is very real to me and has saved me many 100 $s when driving, respectively speeding. I suddenly think ‘cop’, (that’s a ‘hunting cop’) and slow down and there is the cop car a few miles ahead or just around the corner. Or ‘deer’ comes up and there it is or they are. Slowing down accordingly has been a money and possibly life saver. When upset or otherwise preoccupied these messages do not come through so an open ‘in PT-ness’ is crucial. This is NOT a 100% reliable but significant enough to act accordingly to avoid unpleasant experiences.

    My mother often predicted death of friends and family members. No prediction of higher toned events. She was often right and wrong at other times.

    There would be much more data needed about the training of these scientists to be able to compare to the training of an auditor to say anything about that.

    The E-Meter does read below the pc’s awareness level and an auditor does not care about how many seconds go by before the pc comes up with the appropriate answer and likely shows the duplicative read on the meter.
    It is a question of the communication lag.

    Amongst other issues and Class VIII tapes, LRH expressed it quite clearly in HCOB 23 AUGUST 1968 ARBITRARIES:
    “when the needle on an e-meter read in response to an auditor’s question, all you know is that the needle on the e-meter read. That is all you know. Now in the next few seconds you will prove out to whether the read was to the question or to something else like a protest. To assume anything else in regard to meter reads is an arbitrary and will close up that pc with a bang.
    No matter what crap was otherwise going on in the cult the wins in auditing
    were amazing enough to keep many of us going.
    Greta

  30. Does that mean that a being knows more than it’s brain?

    Brain Scans Can Reveal Your Decisions 7 Seconds Before You “Decide”
    In a kind of spooky experiment, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences reveal that our decisions are made seconds before we become aware of them.

    In the study, participants could freely decide if they wanted to press a button with their right or left hand.

    The only condition was that they had to remember when they made the decision to either use their right hand or left hand.

    Using fMRI, researchers would scan the brains of the participants while all of this was going on in order to find out if they could in fact predict which hand the participants would use BEFORE they were consciously aware of the decision.

    Read Full Story: http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind…ore-you-decide

    • Hi;

      Be wary of anything published by the ‘Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences’, because this is the institution and philosophy formerly known as the ‘Max Planck Institute for Terrestrial Hygiene.’ The later name became ‘unpopular’ due to its attempts to purify the human race by eradicating all those who didn’t fit in with it’s Aryan philosophy before and during Nazi Germany. I suppose maybe the monsters who populated the institution are now all dead, hopefully, -probably working for DM this time around- but their motivations and philosophy is still questionable.

      If any one here knows what I am saying is presently untrue, please correct me.

      bob

      • martyrathbun09

        And I suppose you would also caution against anything issued in the United States of America, since it was founded as a slave nation?

      • Hi Bob,
        You are correct as to the unsavory source and I would add to that a suspicion HOW the results of this research would be used in future.
        Reminds me of a Sci-Fi movie where, in a prison the thoughts of the prisoners were being ‘read’.

        Nazi ideals were exported to US with ‘Operation Paperclip’ to the US at the end of or just after WWII so these ideas are still being disseminated more or less covertly.
        ‘Ethnic cleansing’, ‘Eugenics’ are going on globally and a study of
        UN’s Area 21 will give you more data.

        However the scientific experiment is simply the scientic experiment,
        whether done at MPI or elsewhere.
        Greta

        • Bob and Greta,

          What is wrong with: attempts to purify the human race by eradicating all those who didn’t fit …..?
          Well over half of the population of the earth consists of such degraded beings that are beyond help, that if something is not done about the problem, they may well destroy the planet. They will take everyone with them.

  31. You are confusing a number of unrelated things. Anything done during/with RPF auditing must IMMEDIATELY be held suspect because no matter how you look at it, people in the RPF are there under duress – whether they admit it or not. Virtually any processes delivered under that context will not work the way they were intended; unless may the process was INTENDED for an RPF’er – in which case it would not be used on anyone OTHER than an RPF’er.
    Let us remember that the ORIGINAL use of GSR to find “reading items” was conducted by none other than Carl Jung in 1906 (see his book “Studies in Word Analysis”.)
    Evidently you don’t understand the difference between a read, a prior read and a latent read. Sounds like you need to RETREAD your e-meter drills – using drill books from the 1960’s.

  32. From what I am reading, this conversation is getting dangerously close a realization I once had:

    Scientology is a huge self-referential thought-apparatus that traps a person’s thinking inside it’s own cage and never lets it out.

    If you are told that your “reactive mind” is composed of “charged items” (“engrams”, “secondaries”, and “locks”, “serv facs”, “BTs”, “GPMs”, “False Purposes”, etc) , and that “charge” is arranged in “flows”, “dispersals” and “ridges” (etc), then that is what you are going to offer up to the auditor to run during a session.

    You are going to use all the correct words with him, and you are going to show, show, show him how things are supposed to be in your Scientology-adorned mind.

    If you don’t, then you don’t fit inside the thought-apparatus of Scientology.

    And we know the types of people who do not fit inside Scientology’s thought apparatus:

    They’re SPs!

    So you always answer the questions you are asked in the right way, and with the right “charged items” the way you have been told they should be.

    THIS SCIENTOLOGY THOUGHT-APPARATUS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A UNIQUE HUMAN BEING AND HOW HE ACTUALLY SEES HIMSELF AND HIS OWN PROBLEMS.

    Thus, the Scientology “case” is a manufactured case.

    Thus, the “case gain” you have in Scientology rarely has anything to do with who you really are, how you really think, and what your real problems are. They mostly have to do with what the Scientology thought-apparatus recognizes as real, and nothing else.

    Thus, Scientology, over time, alienates you from your own thoughts, and your own true and unique self.

    Thus, after all that time and all that auditing in Scientology, once you get out and dump the thought-apparatus and start seeing things as they really are without all that mumbo-jumbo, you and your problems are all still there.

    But this time, you are wiser and much more equipped to deal with your own real self, and your own real problems.

    So ya got that goin for ya.

    Which is nice.

    Alanzo

    • If LRH told you he broke his back running out the Electronic Pork Rind implant and it is what is causing cholesterol to build up in your blood stream, there would be reads on the meter, people would be running the incident according to Ron’s instructions and have cognitions.

      R6, between life implants, all of OT3 is the Electronic Pork Rind.

      When people’s cholesterol levels did not go down, LRH would then come up with the reason through more reseach as the cause: The Sizzling Bacon Incident.

      It keeps going and going. DM is doing the same thing. Only his imagination is not Rons.

      Reason for why you never achieved exterior with full perception: he never did and he keeped you hopeful with the latest “breakthrough.” And that kept the cash flowing in.

      • Robert Almblad

        Brian, for what it’s worth, I went exterior with full perception in my early Dianetic auditing. And, a friend, not a Scientologist, died on the health club floor but was revived by the staff. Afterwards he told me in detail how he was exterior with full perception.

        • Robert, no doubt you did. But so did people being hit by a car. I experienced it at age 16. I was not exterior to my body, I went exterior to this whole material cosmos and saw it as ecstastic waves of conscious light: undifferenciated awareness, the furnace of creation.

          I experienced that without drugs or auditor. I was meditation.

          But Ron promoted “stable” exterior with full perception. Ron promoted that his bridge would take you to “total” freedom. What you and I experienced was what Ron called “keyed out.”

          He boasted that other sages were only keyed out, or inverted 8th dynamic.

          Spiritiual states are an inherent natural capacity of us all, under the correct set of circumstances.

          Just because I counter Ron’s claims does not mean I counter the states of being he promoted.

          Those states of being are ancient. And found in many wisdom schools.

          Ron was a bit of a dilettante as regards his undertanding of the conditions required to attain those states.

          Not the least of which was his moral depravity. He honored no higher common decency, acknowledged by all true liberated sages and saints to be the essential foundation for supporting the unlimited power released during liberation.

          • Robert Almblad

            Got it Brian
            LRH delivered quite a package of goods. To sort it out has been a real challenge compared to other “gurus” I have studied. Whatever he was or did, he was certainly putting his discoveries, intentions and observations into a form you could practice to get some change.

            • Brian Thoms Lambert

              Any valid practice brings change.

              LRH had the dubious distinction of convincing his followers that other practices do not bring about “real” change.

              That is part of the brainwashing and arrogance.

    • Hi Alanzo

      I want to “opine” on this statement, that you made: “Thus, the “case gain” you have in Scientology rarely has anything to do with who you really are, how you really think, and what your real problems are.”

      I have had “real” case gain from some of my auditing. Most of these gains were achieved with positive type processes. (processes that do not directly call for some disability, or unwanted condition, that the auditor then pursues.)

      To alter your statement a bit, to better fit my experience, I would say, “I have had “real case gain” but only when it addressed who I really am, how I think, and what I think.”

      In my case, I really held no value for the other stuff in the first place, so I had very little to shed. I mostly considered it very expensive wasted time.

      But what I found real was something that Ron said somewhere. He said, and I paraphrase here, …that a being will attempt to use whatever process that he is being run on, in order to deal with what HE is trying to deal with…. So… the idea was that it is therefore best to actually run the PC on the correct process in the first place. A good plan, if you really do have a way of determining what the PC is trying to deal with at any given time.

      In my personal experience I have found that to be true, and I know that at least some of the results that I achieved had little to do with the stated intention of the processes being used at the time.

      If this has been true for others as well, it could account for some percentage of auditor’s and CS’s mistaken impressions that a particular process “worked”, when in fact it wasn’t the process that worked “as it was supposed to” at all, but more that the PC found some use for it anyway.

      Just some thoughts…

      Eric

      • Hi Eric,
        Oh , I really like your post here…. I utterly agree that almost all my gains , wins cognitions have been with ‘positive’ auditing… or should I say proccessing… like the old HAS co-Audit ‘get the idea of having a problem’ and ‘get the idea of not having a problem’ brilliant little proccess.. not really looking for charge or the PAST… but looking NOW.. at how you mind is right now…. what rapid change I had on that one… then blew my mind… hahaha…
        I love your comment about .. the PC will use a proccess to run what he needs to run….. deffinatly has truth in that!
        best wishes
        ian in England.

      • Hi Eric –

        To alter your statement a bit, to better fit my experience, I would say, “I have had “real case gain” but only when it addressed who I really am, how I think, and what I think.”

        I always enjoy your well-written and thoughtful posts.

        I hear what you are saying, and I want to add another 3 ways of looking at this problem of the way that Scientology was constructed.

        1. Look at how Scientology was delivered BEFORE there was a Bridge to Total Freedom in it. Try to put yourself in the place of auditors and pcs at the time that LRH introduced the Bridge and told Scientologists “this is how your mind is constructed, and we have achieved 100% uniform results when you put your pc through this exact sequence, and ask him these exact questions, and ONLY these exact questions.”

        Think of all the wasted time and effort getting asked questions that have nothing to do with your real case. And the effort you had to make to put aside your own thoughts about yourself and accept LRH’s thoughts about yourself.

        2. Think of the original promise that was made to us about NO EVALUATION OF YOUR CASE, and the effort it took for you to accept that whatever you said you wanted handled would always be on your next level, even though that level mostly had nothing to do with what you wanted handled.

        I know that I put aside what I wanted handled so many times that I forgot what it was that I got into Scientology for in the first place, and simply accepted what LRH told me I wanted handled.

        3. Compare how standard LRH Scientology is constructed to how Roger’s Person Centered Therapy is constructed in terms of how the therapy addresses who the pc is, what the pc wants therapy on, and when what they want will get addressed.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-centered_therapy

        When I have done the above, I have seen Scientology as a huge artificial apparatus that alienated me from myself, and placed an artificially constructed personality there to audit instead of me.

        Maybe this wasn’t your experience and you got results for yourself in spite of this. So did I. But look at all the wasted time and effort there. And the frikking Dev-T. And the missed opportunities for all that time and money and effort I spent doing Scientology when I could have done something else that didn’t evaluate for me with a Bridge to Total Freedom.

        I mean how frikking hokey can you get?

        I think that the Opportunity Cost of being a Scientologist is the highest cost of all.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost.

        Alanzo

        • Hi Alanzo

          I can certainly understand where you are coming from. Your thoughts on this largely align with my own.

          Eric

  33. Robert Almblad

    Using a meter in Pure person centered philosophy would tend to let the PC lead the way instead of using reads from assessment lists?

    • martyrathbun09

      Not exactly, otherwise what use for the meter being in the equation. However, you are hitting up against – perhaps inadvertently – what is more precisely and more fundamentally wrong, ultimately, with Scientology.

      • Robert Almblad

        Well, I thought the same “otherwise what use for the meter being in the equation”

        Well, I do know too many absolutes are fed to you study and drill in Scientology for months and years with little inspection or reflection on what you are doing. And, precious few seconds are ever spent in pure person centered philosophy and discovery. In Scientology, the group is über alles and the individual is dispensable. I know this is true because I experienced it for 40 years.

        But, I am still working on this e-meter question.

        • Hey Robert,
          Here is a few paragraphs from a Level O bulletin. HOW TO GET TONE ARM ACTION HCOB 1.10.63. This data was NEVER used by any case supervisor I had while on my internship. It might help you resolve some of the confusion:

          “HOW TO GET TONE ARM ACTION
          The most vital necessity of auditing at any level of Scientology is to get Tone Arm Action Not to worry the pc about it but just to get TA action. Not to find something that will get future TA. But just to get TA now.
          Many auditors are still measuring their successes by things found or accomplished in the session. Though this is important too (mainly at Level IV), it is secondary to Tone Arm Action.
          l. Get good Tone Arm Action.
          2. Get things done in the session to increase Tone Arm Action.
          ____________________
          NEW DATA ON THE E-METER
          The most elementary error in trying to get Tone Arm action is, of course, found under the fundamentals of auditing – reading an E-Meter.
          This point is so easily skipped over and seems so obvious that auditors routinely miss it. Until they understand this one point, an auditor will continue to get minimal TA and be content with 15 Divisions down per session – which in my book isn’t TA but a meter stuck most of the session.
          There is something to know about meter reading and getting TA. Until this is known nothing else can be known.
          TONE ARM ASSESSMENT
          The Tone Arm provides assessment actions. Like the needle reacts on list items, so does the Tone Arm react on things that will give TA.
          You don’t usually needle assess in doing Levels I, II and III. You Tone Arm Assess.
          The Rule is: That which moves the Tone Arm down will give Tone Arm Action.

          Conversely, another rule: That which moves only the needle seldom gives good TA.
          So for Levels I, II and III (and not Level IV) you can actually paste a paper over the needle dial, leaving only the bottom of the needle shaft visible so the TA can be set by it and do all assessments needed with the Tone Arm. If the TA moves on a subject then that subject will produce TA if the pc is permitted to talk about it (Itsa it).
          Almost all auditors, when the Itsa Line first came out, tried only to find future TA action and never took any present TA action. The result was continuous listing of problems and needle nulling in an endless search to find something that “would produce TA action”.
          They looked frantically all around to find some subject that would produce TA action and never looked at the Tone Arm of their meter or tried to find what was moving it now. This seems almost a foolish thing to stress – that what is producing TA will produce TA. But it is the first lesson to learn. And it takes a lot of learning.”

          This reference was one technical reason why I left the church. It NEVER gets used. And when I wanted to USE it I was rebuffed and rebuked. “Just do the grade chart” I was told. Who cares what the pc is interested in handling, we know best. The pc was bored shitless with Self Analysis and the tone arm action was virtually nothing. Ahhhhh, the C/S wisely crams me on “no TA = problem”. Run the pc on problems. Yea he had problems…we were not addressing HIM or what HE was interested in.

          • Robert Almblad

            Yes, Les, I remember this HCOB and it worked very well for me as an auditor on new PCs where you filled out a PC assessment form before getting Dianetic auditing circa 1971… tone arm blowdowns were easy to spot and always ran well…

        • Robert,
          “precious few seconds are ever spent in pure person centered philosophy and discovery”
          And especially when on staff. The time was all messed up with hill-10s, threats, post and 2D responsibilities, now I’m supposed too’s and at times simply trying to find a few dollars for tampons or a substitute and not be late to muster! So much too little too late and bad planning was rampant. I ran my Treasury like clockwork and could have reported my stats on Wed evening & gone to study Thurs ams except for the frantic crew that ‘needed’ me for the last min FSMC/SCA line and then when the FBO waited to give me the FP sum that should have come Friday 6 days later on Thur morning! That was all part of the staff trap. There was no time to think outside the box.
          I’ve very much appreciated Marty & commenters taking this time to let me think again and there buried deep down was a very nice person I’m learning to love again. And I don’t think I’m the only one going thru shit.
          I’m able to read Jeff Hawkins reviews of the ethics book and see it for what it is only because I am there looking for instance.
          But I loved auditing because then I could think. The only thing yet that was crammed down my mind was the sec checking (all reads were to be handled) and then the OT III stuff. After OT III I flat out refused to run auditing OT III style and my auditors were all OK with that. I may have handled my own mind OT III style now and then but that was my business.
          The hard part and where I lost it (myself) was after all the eval and inval from mostly admin things but then I caved to that along with not enough sleep, nutrition and exercise etc.
          So part of the way staff, at least, are trapped is they are tortured physically and mentally with inval & eval & given no time to figure it out.
          Even after leaving and catching up on sleep, nutrition etc. then there was the false data, wrong whys, judgmental glasses and cant let it go without a session crap. All the baggage that replaced the baggage!
          I could not for the life of me figure out what ‘I did’ wrong to end up in such shape mentally. I simply had to enjoy what I could of life knowing that there are still answers and truth out there somewhere and when the student is ready the teacher/lesson will come. All I could do for myself for years was Pab 6 stuff and a process of elimination of what doesn’t work knowing the vacuum will be filled at some point – all between beer breaks🙂
          What an interesting day of discussions.

          • Robert Almblad

            Thank you Cece. I too read Jeff Hawkins review of the ethics book and it very much opened my eyes. An unbelievable look from 50,000 ft. And, this was a very interesting day of discussions.

      • Still Awakening

        Marty & Robert. If I may – the meter is but one tool. It is not the ultimate answer to the question in my opinion. But, the other question is – how do we know, truly know, that the assessment lists are even leading in the correct direction. One must agree to the paradigm given and make it central in order for all lists to fit correctly.

        I find that we are individual and different, and yet at the same time similar and connected. The crux of the issue could be what is determined to be the major stable datum aligning all else. If that is off then we are leading the thought process, blocking other thoughts, and can be way way off the mark of what is truth.

        What is assumed to be true about the meter may not be. The changes enforced directly or indirectly by the pc may not be fully known. If the listing question has no basis in fact, and yet the pc believes the meter more than himself, there is either a WTF moment – or more probably more common – an agreement as to a new altered state. A true decrease in awareness and truth and not an enlightenment.

        What I have personally experience is that the data given in the Intention Experiment has some validity and whether or not the meter shows it is not pertinent. I have watched all 4 DVDs on this and read the book. Any person on this blog reading the book and coming to understand that total strangers hundreds of miles away can demonstrate a change in thought on another must come to conclusion about what the hell has just read on the meter. Is it me, my thoughts, anothers’ thoughts, etc. That is instantly a question of ownership of whatever significance just read.

        We are also operating here on earth as a warm living body made up of trillions of cells. Each cell has a life energy, life force, and can send or receive thoughts. Unless one is willing to question the cosmology and paradigm as given by LRH how can you come to a personal understanding of what you actually experience and observe to be true.

        I may be way off the mark with this. I only know I am still learning. Many on this blog have helped and many outside of scn entirely have helped. The rest is the journey of life and I find myself enjoying it. I might not like the final outcome, but then that is making a judgement of it. I also know we just live this very moment and can only speculate on the next. I have enjoyed this subject.

        • Still Awakening, according to LRH the Grade Chart is not an arbitrary list in an arbitrary sequence of areas to address in a pc. I remember reading about the theory of the Grade Chart when I did auditor training, but I don’t recall which bulletin explained it. However, I found an early bulletin that does describe it briefly. Here is an excerpt (emphasis in caps is mine):

          “…This discovery came out of a survey of THE ONLY THINGS THAT COULD BALK A CASE. These also are the main things an auditor has to be careful about in pcs. Further study revealed the state of Release to be available on each of these points and therefore, both to make Releases and better trained auditors, these were fitted into the Gradation Chart in NATURAL SEQUENCE as the dominant points stressed on each level.

          “The points are the same as those covered in the current ‘Out Tech’ Bulletins and lecture. They are:

          “Communication
          ARC Breaks
          PTPs
          O/Ws
          Continuous Overts

          […]
          “This then is the new Grading:

          “Type of Release——- Type of Process
          Grade VII —————- CLEAR
          Grade VI Release —– R6 EW
          Grade V Release —– Power Processes
          Grade IV Release —- Service Facsimiles
          Grade III Release —– ARC Break Processes…
          Grade II Release —– O/W Processes…
          Grade I Release —– Problems Processes…
          Grade 0 Release —- Communication Processes.”

          (HCOB 22 Sept 65 “Release Gradation, New Levels of Release”)

          • Still Awakening

            marildi – “according to LRH” IS the arbitrary. This may be a great guideline but why assume it is an absolute. You do NOT know if this fits me, or many others. I appreciate the tech as far as it gets results. But the “bridge” and “gradechart” are not based upon a client centered approach. They are based upon an arbitrary enforced fact that another thinks they may push into my world.

            Please, just reread the last 5 postings by Marty. You are still reading and answering everything through tinted glasses. Just ask yourself how this could be true, false, etc. Don’t just think it doesn’t match my preconceived idea based upon HCOB blah blah or LRH lecture of blah blah.

            I got a lot of gains from the bridge. But there is so much more available by rising above it. Include the things you find that work but don’t get up every day with blinders on to all the other things to observe.

            • Still Awakening, you are reading something into my words that I did not intend – in fact, the opposite. I wrote “according to LRH” so as to indicate just that, not that it meant what he said was necessarily true. And there’s no need to get personal and tell me your evaluation of how I am looking at things. Please just reply directly to what I’ve stated. That makes for a rational discussion.

              Basically, I simply thought it was something to think about that LRH said the Grade Chart came about as a result of a SURVEY and that there was a natural sequence to the levels. Another interesting point is that alongside the grades on the Chart are the “Awareness Characteristics,” which supposedly align with the grades. I have come across very little data about those characteristics. in Scientology texts or otherwise. But for all we know, it may eventually turn out to be like the “Know to Mystery Scale,” about which Marty stated the following:

              “I have found plenty outside of scientology that explains and validates the sequence of Hubbard’s [Know to Mystery] scale…” https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/awakening-part-ii/

              In other words, LRH may have also been on to something about the Awareness Characteristics and their alignment with the grades on the Grade Chart, and thus about the validity and sequence of the grades.

              • Still Awakening

                marildi – I understand your response. I was talking about assessment lists could be way off the mark and that fits the subject of auditing wherein the meter is assumed to be correctly finding what is on the correction list assessment. You quote back to me the grade chart, names of levels, etc. I never doubted the general subjects of the grades nor what they do.

                I do question that one must assume that a no interest means xyz, or anything else. If the meter is used as the stable datum for the auditor then they are not in live comm with the pc. In a patient centered approach the actual person receiving auditing is the key and the auditor is there to use their training and skill to help that person, and the meter is but one tool.

                But LRH requires the grade chart to be followed exactly. Not as a guide but as an absolute fenced in route. And that route requires at various places, especially in the OT levels, for you to run incidents which may or may not be yours. Those are the types of things I consider arbitrary. Awareness characteristics and everything else has nothing to do with what I wrote. You made a blend there of what I consider the philosophy side of scn, its rational, etc – with the technical side. Both sides include dogma which must be agreed upon in order to follow the game plan.

                My comment that you took as an evaluation was based upon the fact that almost every response from you is based upon some LRH reference. I didn’t take it personal. My point was that if you could attempt to answer, respond or originate without comparing your thoughts to what LRH had written then your outcome could be different.

                • Still Awakening,

                  Okay, that was my error in not addressing your point about assessment lists specifically. But when you mentioned “the paradigm” and “the major stable datum aligning all else,” it brought to mind the same thing you wrote about in the comment just above – the fact that, in essence, the whole Bridge has been questioned on this thread in terms of it being the “standard route” and one that doesn’t necessarily handle what the pc wants handled. That’s why I quoted the reference regarding it (allegedly) being the handling for the universal “buttons,” as LRH described it somewhere. I thought you or someone else might have had experience one way or the other, which I would be interested in hearing about either way.

                  You wrote above: “If the meter is used as the stable datum for the auditor then they are not in live comm with the pc.”

                  From what I know, TRs are even more basic to the session, and unless TRs are out the auditor IS in live comm with the pc. That’s why I don’t see the meter as the “stable datum” – at least it’s not supposed to be.

                  You also wrote: “My comment that you took as an evaluation was based upon the fact that almost every response from you is based upon some LRH reference. I didn’t take it personal. My point was that if you could attempt to answer, respond or originate without comparing your thoughts to what LRH had written then your outcome could be different.”

                  Almost every response? I just looked through my comments on this thread and in only about a fifth of them (5 out of 25) do I refer to anything that is stated in a reference – and when I do, it’s pretty much because I’m replying to some comment that itself refers (supposedly) to the materials. The majority of the others ARE my own thoughts, or things I’ve read or videos I’ve watched. I’m actually very much interested in other things besides Scientology, as can be seen from my posts.

                  And I didn’t mean that YOU had taken anything personal but that your remarks were personal to ME – where, for example, you stated: “You are still reading and answering everything through tinted glasses.” That’s unnecessary evaluation, to be frank. Truthfully, I might still catch myself doing that at times, but it’s usually momentary and not generally the case any longer. I hope you aren’t assuming that it is, just because I have positive things to say about Scientology. That would be a matter of your own tinted glasses.😉

                  Anyway, I’ll try to speak to your comments better than I did. Cheers.

      • Robert wrote:

        Using a meter in Pure person centered philosophy would tend to let the PC lead the way instead of using reads from assessment lists?

        Marty replied:

        Not exactly, otherwise what use for the meter being in the equation. However, you are hitting up against – perhaps inadvertently – what is more precisely and more fundamentally wrong, ultimately, with Scientology.

        Excellent point, Marty.

        In Scientology, underneath it all is the assumption a Scientologist must accept that “they tell me what is wrong with me and whenever I have an idea that is different from theirs, I am just unconsciously dramatizing my bank, and I need to just shut up because I can not know what I really want out of my own life.”

        I have regularly seen Scientologists, operating on this complete invalidation of themselves, put off their whole lives until they get “Clear” because they can not trust themselves any more.

        It’s very bad.

        Alanzo

    • Robert

      Your question leads me to ask “What is wrong with letting the PC lead the way? Why is it so gawdawful inportant to never let the PC do what the PC wants? (unless the almighty e-meter has told you it is OK.)

      Is auditing being done for the PC or is it being done for some other reason?

      Auditing was stated as a way to make the “PC” more able. But at NO point that I have ever seen or heard about, does the “tech” (Ron) ever allow the “PC” to chart his own path. Even OT VIIIs, who are supposed to be the most able beings on the planet, are not entrusted with pursuing their own path.

      It gives one pause….

      Eric

  34. 5 second earlier 🙂 Actually it changes the all story about scientology.
    May be it is good time to stop focusing at lower consciousness and look at the opposite direction !

  35. I don’t use a meter in my practice, but I do use one with friends and family who want to see what it’s about, or with people who are comfortable with it. It can be useful, it can be a distraction. I’d rather use one than not, just because it’s another “indicator” to use, but I don’t weight it as more important than the person’s interest or emotional response, or any other factor. I’ve had lots of hours “in the chair” and as a “pc”. Unlike some other posters, I found my sessions valuable, and I find value in delivering them to other people. People get really hung up on the significance of auditing. It’s an activity that helps people to organize and comprehend their experiences. It doesn’t take the place of living a full life and it doesn’t solve life’s problems. That requires experience and action.

  36. I read the research. Marty, thank you very much for pointing it out. I suspected this long ago and experienced it in my auditing. There was definitely a telepathic connection between me and my auditor. At one point I came up with the name Xemu, never having heard it before in session or out of session. I also came up with the incident and believe it came from the mind of my auditor Merril Mayo. In another experience on the meter I came up with a 28 digit number with which was written down by my auditor. I believed it was a telepathic connection from then on.

  37. Hm. Hubbard said (I forget where, maybe Route to Infinity?) something along the lines of the sane only ever being in the future, the psychotic being in the present and the neurotic in the past.
    This would indicate that by his own definition, virtually everyone is already sane.
    Why delve into the past when understanding and decisions come from the future?

    On a different level, if we do create our reality to some degree then Scientology processes help one become more disciplined in creating a very particular and specialised reality.

    • “Hubbard said (I forget where, maybe Route to Infinity?) something along the lines of the sane only ever being in the future, the psychotic being in the present and the neurotic in the past.”

      The way I remember it is that the neurotic was in the present and the psychotic was in the past – and, as you said, the sane are in the future.

  38. As a related point, if you like to increase your ‘green thumb’ reading the book “THE SECRED LAIFE OF PLANTS” by Peter Thompkins and Christopher Bird contains fascinating accounts of plants hooked up to a galvanometer by Clive Backster, a polygraph instructor. Backster was amazed to find that his having just the intention to burn a leaf with a match would get an instant read, larger than when he actually DID burn the leaf.

    Also, on another experiment by the same expert, a person doing crual deeds to the plants in a room -the identity of the plant killer being withheld from the other staff- when the staff were made to walk through that room, one at the time, the plants connected to galvanometers clearly identified the ‘killer’.
    So an awareness and connectedness to the environment is certainly not limited to humans at all.
    Greta

    • martyrathbun09

      Yes, another good read.

    • So do it your self Greta. Try to sneak up on a fly. You soon learn you have to get tricky. I have a bird feeder 6″ outside my window. The birds come and go but there is a noticeable difference on some days that coincides with my affinity level. This morning after reading Marty’s post I watched 2 fully grown squirrels playing like kids together below my window. A rare site when there are kids and cars moving around where I am parked this week but I knew it was only because they sensed the space was safe. There is an hour video at the NPR site about crows and how smart they are called ‘A Murder of Crows’ (a group of crows is called a murder). The Indians were well aware that the Ravens knew. In the just the last 2 weeks In my wanderings around the hills here I found 2 graves atop a hill and an old jail buried 1/2 under ground. I just ‘wander’ where it ‘feels’ good. My mentally challenged daughter (one I stayed on LOA to help) has an incredible ability to pick-up on others thoughts. Her trouble starts up when she thinks that the thoughts are hers.
      It’s really good the scientist are acknowledging this now and doing it the correct way for this day and age by doing controlled studies. Remote viewing has proven useful but apparently is not re-developed enough to find flight 370 but in the near future it will be.
      By the fact we have all been through this particular trap of LRH’s we actually have an advantage in that I don’t think we will go back there or similar. And we got lots of friends🙂

    • Perhaps getting a bit off topic, but your post re plants reminded me of this very interesting article on plant communication,
      https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20131216-the-secret-language-of-plants/

  39. Luis Agostini

    I first became aware of my ‘creatingness” of the false construct of the “Scientology case” and the “unreliableness” of the e-meter while doing OT VII and getting a correction list that asked (don’t remember the exact wording) whether I had restimulated a higher level above OT VII. The question read.

    I freaked out thinking that now I would remain with the awful condition I was feeling, that the list was intending to handle, for a very long time as there was no solution and I would have to wait until that particular OT level addressed it.

    I ended up realizing, a very long time later, that what read was my resistance to that question being true. It was an existing fear ridge about having an unsolvable negative condition that the e-meter read on and not that the condition existed. I had not “restimed a higher level”.

    It was so easy, in my experience, when I empowered the E-meter with infallibility, to grant it immunity from wrongness, and so I enabled it with creating in me false and destructive constructs.

    Regards,
    Luis

    • “…getting a correction list that asked (don’t remember the exact wording) whether I had restimulated a higher level above OT VII. The question read.”

      Hi Luis.
      I have a question – how was that read handled?

      • Luis Agostini

        Hi Marildi.

        A compassionate auditor (I do remember his approach) indicating it would get handled later (I don’t remember his exact wording as I was in shock).

        Regards,
        Luis

        • Thanks, Luis. That’s interesting data.

          What you wrote here was also interesting: “I ended up realizing, a very long time later, that what read was my resistance to that question being true.”

          In considering that, I can’t help but think it was a false read. What do you think?

          • Luis Agostini

            Hi Marildi.

            You are placing my awareness, my realization and my knowingness over the e-meter, the “sin” that I discussed in my original e-mail.

            I am aware you seek to do your best to exculpate the tech and I admire the consistent quest you show to have Scientology be or stay valuable, but check to see you that the quest has not become your quest.

            Regards,
            Luis

            • Luis Agostini

              The last paragraph is better stated as:
              …check tp see that you have not become the quest.

            • Thanks, Luis. What you wrote originally was what I had in mind:

              “It was an existing fear ridge about having an unsolvable negative condition that the e-meter read on and not that the condition existed.”

              The fact that “the condition” didn’t actually exist made me think of it as a false read, since it was reading on something other than the question per se. I had no intention of invalidating your knowingness as I fully agree that is senior!

              And thanks for your other comment too, your good will. I guess in my case, the way out is the way through. Maybe I’ll transcend that modus operandi one of these days.😉

              • Luis Agostini

                Hi Marildi.

                Commenting on your comments:
                “The fact that “the condition” didn’t actually exist made me think of it as a false read, since it was reading on something other than the question per se. I had no intention of invalidating your knowingness as I fully agree that is senior!”

                To me, the e-meter does not read on the question but on the interpretation by the person and his/her case of the question. Mechanics are NOT senior to what the soul is doing.

                If I am resisting experiencing or having a condition, whether an overt, withhold or any unwanted condition, and thus have created a ridge, that ridge will be activated by the question.

                Although you have no intentlon of invalidating knowingness you do, in my view, have the intention of making the tech right over what a soul is stating that makes the tech wrong.

                In your quest to make Scientology valuable you do and will invalidate as long as you are, in my view, trapped in the Scientology universe by virtue that letting go of it and the awesome valuableness you see in it is a loss to painful and too terrifying to experience.

                I don’t want to be gentle with you here as, to me, you are promoting and trying to make valuable, a very, to me, ultimately destructive, soul vampiring technology created by a man intending to rob us of our essence.

                I strongly know that once you are able to let go of Scientology and are willing to experience what will happen in your world because of having done so, you will be one of the strongest, happiest, freest beings I know.

                You are incredibly briliant and knowledgeable and lovable🙂 and so adding awesomely free will make you irresistible🙂

                Regards,
                Luis

                • Hi again Luis,

                  I get the idea we’re having a semantics problem because what you wrote here is what I consider to be the basis of auditing tech:

                  “If I am resisting experiencing or having a condition, whether an overt, withhold or any unwanted condition, and thus have created a ridge, that ridge will be activated by the question.”

                  You also wrote: “Although you have no intention of invalidating knowingness you do, in my view, have the intention of making the tech right OVER what a soul is stating that makes the tech wrong.”

                  No, that really isn’t the case. In this instance, for example, I didn’t actually get that you, the soul, were making the tech wrong, at least not per my understanding of it.

                  As for your view that I am “trapped in the Scientology universe by virtue that letting go of it and the awesome valuableness you see in it is a loss too painful and too terrifying to experience” – conceivably, that is no less an assumption on your part that if I were to assume that you yourself were in a “belief trap” as regards the conviction you have about the “soul vampiring technology created by a man intending to rob us of our essence.”

                  Even on this one discussion thread alone, it’s obvious that there are some who have my “belief” about Scientology and some who have yours. Presumably, each of our viewpoints is based on personal experience on whichever of the dynamics were involved in that experience.

                  I do appreciate the kind way you express your views, and I will keep in mind what you have presented to me. Thanks again – our R’s are different but on a higher level the A is way up there!🙂

                  • HI Marildi.

                    You touched here one of my basic disagreements with many of the principles in Scientology and its worship of “mechanics”; this one my disagreement with the ARC triangle.

                    I (we as you are stating) obviously do not need to have R to have a high affinilty for each other. What I admire and respect and enjoy MUCH MUCH more than having the same agreement, what raises my affinity up tremendously is being connected with someone who is being faithful to what are being his/her truths at the moment and is willing to evolve those truths, despite the condition that those truths, he/she is being faithful to or expousing may be not mine.

                    ARC, to me, does not exist in the spiritual universe and I like to think I connect to people on a spiritual level and so I don’t go around measuring each part and seeing which one needs to be raised,,, that then becomes manipulation and a slavery to mechanics which lowers, in my view, the intensity of the spiritual connection.

                    What, to me, establishes a genuine and strong and warm and wonderul and beautiful connection is two souls opening up and connecting thru the heart, ARC be damned.

                    Second, the basis of auditing tech is that whatever question the e-meter instant reads on is taken up.

                    What I am saying is that that tech creates false case as what coudl be lying behind the question, for example, “Has a withhold being missed?” could be, specially under unsafe circumstances, a ridge formed by the fear of the question reading, so that when the pc hears the question what reads is the ridge placed in front that he/she has formed on the question reading, and not on that there is a withhold there.

                    I can only imagine what Scientologists put it a security check and being made to feel unsafe (which is definitely a ridge creating environment) had to mock up in order to satisfy a question that read on the fear created ridge of having overts, and then once the question read, to have to mock up overts and past lives overts in order to satisfy the question.. a “nice” case creating circumstance.

                    Lastly. to me, growing demands I open up myself up to all viewpoints, especially to criticism or labeling of my views or my actions.

                    My duty is, no matter how painful it is (and when it is painful I know there is some truth to the criticism as it is letting me know there is a ridge trying to stop that criticism or viewpoint from being ccepted as true or experienced and examined for truth).

                    And so if someone would tell me I am in “belief trap” I will not allow any ridge to stop me from examining it objectively and would be tremendously appreciative as, if I am in one, that person has just contributed greatly to my being freed from it.

                    When being free, when willingly accepting and objectively seeking to establish the truthness of viewpoints being received as one is choosing to see them as opportunities to evolve is being stopped by the attachment to and need to have one’s viewpoints be correct, one gets souls who live in pain, who seek to inflict pain in others in an attempt to free themselves from their own self created pain producing ridges. The culprit then becomes the person restimulating the ridges and not the ridges themselves (a good example is CLEARMENOW1’s postiing) .

                    So what do I want to communicate to you: I am very sure nothing can diminish the admiration and the affinity that I have for you for I perceive your heart,

                    There is nothing you can say that will lessen it as all that you can do to me is help me grow.

                    Regards,
                    Luis

                    • Hi Luis,

                      As to your first point about the ARC triangle, I of course agree – it is only an expression of mechanics and beings can rise above those basic mechanics.

                      On your second point about auditing, I hear what you’re saying and don’t deny such things could happen. That said, Bob Grant’s reply to me today articulated my own overall sense of the tech better than I myself have ever been able to express it.

                      Nevertheless, apart from what is true or not true about the tech and regardless of whether or not we agree that it can take a person above the level of mechanics – your post did take me there!🙂

                      Love,
                      marildi

                    • p.s. Specifically, I want to acknowledge your generosity of spirit, Luis. You da man.😉

                    • Hello Luis.
                      Good to hear from you.
                      It has been my observation that ALL the mechanics of theta operating within MEST are considerations, postulates, opinions, whatever the wording. The more they are understood, the less important they become. That includes mass, energy flows, ridges, engrams, Karma, exchange, the dynamics, etc. etc.

                      Once they are fully understood, and their origination recalled, they disappear as laws altogether. In order to escape the foibles of this universe, you must master every aspect of it. Might take awhile. I’ve got time.

                      I would like to know who came up with the idea that change equals persistence, and give him a piece of my “mind”.

    • Luis,
      I wonder what year that was.
      Fortunately there is no such question on the current OT VII correction list nor on any other correction list that I know of.
      Greta

      • HI Greta.
        Sorry I could not answer before as I sometimes stop visiting blogs.
        The year was about 1983.
        Regards,
        Luis.

  40. mimsey borogrove

    Have you ever seen the tv show – “Through the Wormhole narrated by Morgan Freeman? In the episode called the 6th sense, it discusses two tests of pre-knowledge.

    One, the researcher had a laptop that had the screen divided into two parts the test subject would pick one or the other, a split second later the computer would randomly put a picture in one of the two parts of the screen. The computer did not base it’s selection on which screen the subject chose. They got a 50% response. But – if it was a picture involving sexual (or romantic if I recall correctly) content, they got 53%

    Another researcher found that when a subject, wearing an electrode, was showed random pictures displayed on a laptop, there was a 5 second anticipation of a charged photo that the electrode picked up. This can be repeated with any subject.

    Then they ran off into anti matter and quantum mechanics to try and maybe explain it. They also mentioned how a certain # of people stop a car just prior to an accident, thus saving themselves, (as well as documented universal anticipation of 9/11 – I missed most of that part)

    I have experienced that myself, running down a flight of stairs in college, I suddenly reached out and caught my camera – the strap had snapped and it flew into my waiting hand. My wife countered with perhaps you were aware of the change of weight as the leather strap broke. It didn’t seem that way at all. I just suddenly out my hand out and caught it.

    Which brings me to my cognition – perhaps we are not 100% in present time. Perhaps consciousness is a bit like the old bell curve – a part of it is in the future (possibly creating it), most is in the present (or what we think is the present) and some in the past. That would explain this phenomena, yes?

    Mimsey

  41. Presentiment. Interesting. I have not observed this phenomenon. I have seen a lot of reads. Instant reads. Prior reads on a thought the PC had before the major thought when voiced. Latent reads when the PC had an additional thought, realization, or misunderstanding. Perhaps I ignored them when they occurred.

    I have had reactions before an event, and they have become much more common since I have been doing my work. Knowing there is something in the road before I get to it, avoiding accidents just before they occur. Things such as that. But there was no conscious thought before the event, just an instant reaction. Never put much attention on it. Just smile and go on. Time is a bit fluid. Makes life more fun.

    What I didn’t expect was how much it would cost to have a 650cc engine custom designed and manufactured. Even if I ordered 100, the first one would cost nearly $90,000. The premier of the Sea-Nami (reg.) watercraft may be a bit delayed. Tse-Nami (reg.) Sea-Nomi (reg.) Tse-Nomi (reg.

    Just covering my bases.
    Mark)

  42. Hi Marty.
    Now we both know that some prior reads are reactions to a thought that is recognized by the PC before the completion of the major thought. These are, of course, recognized by the skillful auditor, if he is really on the ball, and has good peripheral vision. Questions, commands are designed to avoid this as much as is practical, but it cannot be eliminated completely. These are handled as appropriate to the session.

    Have you experienced preconception that was recognizably not a prior read? What are the details, indicators? This would be valuable data to auditors worldwide. In fact, a series of Rathbun Communications Office Bulletins, or something similar, (not a joke) would be very valuable. The information you have acquired and gathered could be helpful to many. Failing to disseminate data due to a false sense of modesty is no virtue. I am not trying to put you on a pedestal, just that I consider you valuable, as I do a few others. I am not the only one who see’s things this way.

    Just sayin’.
    Mark

  43. It’s an interesting topic of discussion, and there are quite a number of scenarios possible. The meter could be reading on the auditor’s influence, a non-material co-existence connection, anticipation by the pc, body motion, etc.

    But what I take away from this is the INVERSION of form over substance, the idea that if the meter didn’t read instantly, then there is nothing to handle. Lost is the Art of two way comm, granting of beingness, duplication, the timelessness of As-is-ness. I am often surprised by how fast beings can as-is stuff and move on….if allowed to. To then beat it into the ground just acts as a direct invalidation of the person’s ability. And there is another factor: the frame of reference used in handling a case will determine its form. If a person comes to you having read Dianetics, then they will be all about running engrams, etc.
    If they were listening to the PDC’s then it would be about exteriorizaion, flows, ridges, etc. Nots band – entities, etc. And while each may have workability, they are limited by the frame of reference used. So what, for example, does the RPF communicate as a “frame of reference” for handling “case”? Not a very conducive environ for “growth”.

  44. Someone above commented on the super-duper power of the latest e-meter (jokingly of course).

    This link talks about the use of skin galvanometers for more than a century, including by Jung and others: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_conductance

    One line from the link amused me greatly: “As of 2010, some skin conductance monitoring devices, such as galvanometers, are still in use because they are inexpensive.”

    So how much does a Scientologist have to pay for these inexpensive devices?

  45. I’d like to know if Hubbard’s e-meter is the same that Marty’s resources were using. Hubbard’s is modified.

    An Electropsychometer, abbreviated to E-meter, is a modified ohmmeter used during Dianetics and Scientology auditing. The device is a variation of a Wheatstone bridge, which dates to 1833 and measures electrical resistance.

  46. Marty

    You asked: “What do you reckon the implications of these findings are to someone who has received hundreds of hours of standard Scientology auditing?”

    Well, that tends to direct one to the possibility that perhaps some, if not most, of that auditing may have been misdirected. I consider that someone who has cognited, HAS cognited. The problem can occur when the “subject” was directed to a limited range of data, and perhaps much of it incorrectly included.

    This is how indoctrination is carried out. (could be called brainwashing in severe instances) A person’s attention is directed to selected data that supports the goal or the construct or view of the indoctrinator. Eventually, enough “data” will be presented, in such a manner, that the “subject” goes into agreement with it and adopts it as his own “truth”.

    Should the “subject” have looked at it from a different construct, he could well have cognited on a diametrically opposed “truth”.

    This leads me to consider that one’s FLEXIBILITY in observation and evaluation is more valuable than any “truths” acquired.

    This leads back to the reason I looked into Scientology in the first place. I was not particularly interested in “wants handled” items. (things that you want handled or don’t like about yourself, your life, etc.)

    My interest was that I had recently had a “transcendental” experience on LSD through which I was introduced to a vast new reality.

    I was interested in Scientology as an avenue to explore different realities, and also I wanted to expose any other of my realities that I was still viewing through “rose colored glasses”, or totally wrong assumptions and mis-observations.

    I generally felt that much of my auditing was not addressing ME at all, and found myself having to go into agreement with the various constructs of the auditing procedure and the individual processes….. But when I was offered a process that I COULD USE… BAM!… Fireworks!

    But, to be totally honest, I never recall totally giving over the control of my mind (or even the sessions themselves) to the auditor. By whatever luck, or good sense, (or not), I have always been exterior enough to deal with it (at least somewhat) on my own terms. In retrospect, this seems to have served me well.

    Eric

  47. I have a feeling… Wait for it… Nah, forget about it.

    Wait a second… What is the definition of “prediction”?

  48. Recently I was taking a look at this very subject in a new unit of time because I am practicing meter drills. The LRH definition of instant read that we all learned “verbatim”, “that reaction of the needle that occurs at the precise end of any major thought when voiced by the auditor”, came from a BC tape recorded in the early 1960’s. There were two tapes entitled “E-Meter Instant Reads” from this era, I think. In these tapes he goes back and forth as to when a proper “instant read” occurs. He admits at one point that there is some lag but then discounts it. He also admits that he was still figuring out how the machine worked back then. Yet one thing he stated categorically in these tapes is that the meter reads on THOUGHT, NOT WORDS. This was startling to me in light of the standard definition stating that the instant read occurs when “voiced”. And this also happens to agree with the observations made by many of the non-Scientology researchers in this article. One thing I got is that at the time he was trying to teach auditors how to use these contraptions while he was figuring them out himself. He later figured out a lot more stuff, but this later information has never been integrated into the definition. There were the needle “surges” he described in the bulletin “Needle Reactions Above Grade IV” for one. Also, “false reads”. Another was the development of solo auditing. Solo auditors don’t speak when auditing themselves, but they sure as heck do look for instant reads, don’t they? So the 1960’s definition of an instant read cannot be precisely correct, can it?
    Long story short, I came up with a new definition for an instant read. I invite people to think about this, see what you think, and perhaps regard it as something like a Board Technical Bulletin if you want to …which means that no-one can ever be disciplined for not following it. 🙂
    In any event here it is:
    “Instant Read – that reaction of the meter which occurs at the precise end of any major thought when received by a PC or PreOT and a reactive mind. “

  49. Hi Folks,
    I’ve made several galvanic response meters…e meters over many years.
    the latest is handheld with usb and digital screen like a mobile phone.
    The meter does not respond 5 seconds before!!!
    Im sorry I simply dont understand this post Marty.
    The meter responds to the emotional content of the concept. and certainly not 5 seconds before. ???
    meters are an excellant ‘fishing tool’ for emotional content, perhaps that could be called reactivity… I guess a 100 forms of ‘therapy’ could use these meters for aiding counseling and helping to identify a source of upset.. or even ‘solo’ counseling to help unscramble ones own intentions or thoughts. I really dont see what the problem is that you are refering to Marty. I’ve done all the OT levels…well up to OT3 and then researched myself up to OT8 what a lot of fascinating explorations, learnings and expansions….. stunning! I even spotted a genuine mistake of LRH… a real live mistake on OT2, when using the ‘platen’ there is one set of dicotomies that are simply left out by mistake because it goes over from one page to another…. interesting to see Ron’s mistake.

    Anyway… back to the subject in hand…. what are you talking about …the meter reads 5 seconds before ??? do you mean that there is infinate telepathy already present ??? before the words ??? what ?? haha…
    cheers from Ian in England…

  50. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/presentiment

    Full Definition of PRESENTIMENT
    : a feeling that something will or is about to happen : premonition

    First, Your mind plays trick on you, it’s not perfect.

    Second, The E-meter has never been a pricese devoice and it’s inner workings are antiquated.

    Third,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

    Magical thinking is the attributing of causal relationships between actions and events where scientific consensus says that there are none. In religion, folk religion, and superstition beliefs, the correlation posited is often between religious ritual, prayer, sacrifice, or the observance of a taboo, and an expected benefit or recompense. In clinical psychology, magical thinking can cause a patient to experience fear of performing certain acts or having certain thoughts because of an assumed correlation between doing so and threatening calamities. Magical thinking may lead people to believe that their thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it.[1] It is a type of causal reasoning or causal fallacy that looks for meaningful relationships of grouped phenomena (coincidence) between acts and events.

    “Quasi-magical thinking” describes “cases in which people act as if they erroneously believe that their action influences the outcome, even though they do not really hold that belief”.[2]

    • To counter my own comment. The reason Freud got to distrust Jung was because Jung supposingly fortold something that was about to happen. It’s in his book somewhere:

      Carl Jung – Approaching the Unconscious

    • Magical thinking has become royal taboo these days. The more we fall upon magic, telepathy, sending pictures through space, (Facebook, email, etc) the worse “magical thinking” becomes, socially. It is practically listed as an insanity issue at this point. . As we wallow in magic we discount it. That doesn’t throw me into a doubt condition about it. I do agree I am responsible for my own condition. I have only recently risen above thinking I am not responsible for other people’s conditions. I can’t tell you why. We make it harder than it has to be.

      • Facebook and email are technological marvels, not magic wonders.

        Magic and God or Gods are indeed product of your own mind.

        Reality is a bunch of lunatics screaming at your doorstep

        Why do your postulates come through?

        Because you make it so by hard work,action and attention, Push through and follow through if you will.

        Thomas Edison did magic on a scientific basis, that’s how far I would go.

        And no the Berlin wall didn’t fall because Scientologists postulated it.

  51. I’m very simple. I like mashed potatoes. I know somewhere in the back of my mind some farmer probably tossed chicken shit on the dirt as fertilizer, and probably while I am eating mashed potatoes I am eating chicken shit on some level. And then, there is the butter and milk to consider……….. Still, mashed potatoes are mashed potatoes. It is a kind of magic to make something out of nothing, and nothing out of something. Doesn’t mean the mashed potatoes are anything more or less than mashed potatoes to me. If I picked apart all of the food I would probably starve to death.

  52. Since I’m familiar with paranormal scientific research (and I’m also knowledgeable of scientific data modeling and statistic), I would like to point out some issues with this OP.

    The scientific studies have shown that human physiology (cardiopulmonary, skin, and/or nervous systems) is able to anticipate important (unpredictable) future events, 1 to 10 seconds before dichotomous future stimuli, such as emotional vs. neutral images or sound vs. silence. This phenomenon is sometimes called presentiment.
    http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00146/full#h1 http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00390/full#h1

    Note that this kind of presentiment (PAA in the image) is ONLY for IMPORTANT events. It is NOT for every concept which the subject is provided. Also, it is a FUZZY prediction.

    OP: “the average human being when connected to a galvanic skin response detection device (generic name for a Hubbard Electro-psychometer) routinely registers presentiment of about five seconds. That is, the meter reads on average 5 second prior to the subject being provided with a concept to respond to.”

    It looks like this OP has been (wrongly) interpreted by many readers as (none or low fuzzy) precognition of (almost every) concept which the subject is provided, leading to false conclusions when applied to non-black Scn auditing, as evidenced by many comments in this blog page.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precognition

    • martyrathbun09

      If that is their conclusion, it differs from the research I referenced. Most of it is conducted by those grounded in higher consciousness study. Those conclusions I have observed myself in thousands of hours of e-meter use. Without the personal observation I wouldn’t have bothered with the post in the first place.

      • OP: “This research has been performed on people taken off the street, with no previous psychic or spiritual training or study.”
        In my previous comment, I was also referring to this kind of average people.
        (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Average_Joe)

        I haven’t read about any research where the average people routinely registers (unconscious anticipatory physiological) presentiment for every concept which the subject is provided.

        All the researches I have read of show that the average people routinely registers (unconscious anticipatory physiological) presentiment for only some kind of “important” (unpredictable) future events (usually dichotomous future stimuli, such as emotional vs. neutral images, or sound vs. silence).

        Note that the OP is not (explicitly) saying that the presentiment is for every concept which the average subject is provided. But, what I was (and I’m) pointing out is that this is something that many readers are implying.

        The above distinction is very important because it leads to diametrically opposite conclusions.

        IF the average people routinely were physiologically registering presentiment for every concept which (s)he is provided, THEN most of Scn auditing may be unconscious anticipatory mocking up. The same argument also applies to the “wog” lie detectors, making them completely useless, which is not the case.

        But, IF the average people does not routinely physiologically registers presentiment for every concept which (s)he is provided, THEN
        a) People starting receiving and delivering (non-black) Scn auditing, mostly are not doing unconscious anticipatory mocking up.
        b) Since experienced (receiving or delivering Scn auditing) people are reporting anticipatory phenomena to a certain degree, THEN the auditing itself has increased (more accurately, liberated) paranormal abilities of these people.
        I’m also including the auditor in (a) and (b) because an auditor with paranormal abilities may unconsciously telepathically influence the pc.

        (By the way, since I’m an experienced dowser – with a specific kind of equipment -, I’m able to routinely have paranormal physiological response in my own body to a lot of concepts. But, this is not what an average people is able to do).

        Books about paranormal phenomena, including higher consciousness, etc., usually are leaving out the technical details of the researches because not many people would understand it anyway. However, while making it more palatable to the readers they are also over-simplifying data which may lead readers to a non-completely accurate interpretation.

        Since these books are not showing enough actual scientific research info, they are not scientific research references in itself. A scientific reference must show sampled data, sampling methodologies, calculation methodologies, hypothesis testing info, and counter-hypothesis testing. (E.g.: Unconscious Perception of Future Emotions, An Experiment in Presentiment: http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_11_2_radin.pdf (280 KB)).

        The conclusion of the paranormal, higher consciousness, etc., books I have read is that the average people have latent (non-developed or non-liberated) paranormal abilities, and/or that the average people have paranormal abilities which only manifest physically when some kind of (unconscious) threshold is reached (i.e.: “important” event happens or will happen).

        I’m interested (although I doubt it) if somebody could provide a reference to an actual scientific research showing that average people routinely registers (unconscious anticipatory physiological) presentiment for (almost) every concept which the subject is provided.

        • martyrathbun09

          The problem with your ‘actual scientific’ qualifier is that it betrays your demand for reductionist (regressive), conformist standards of science. Being utterly incapable and/or unwilling to factor in the observer (spirit) makes such blind to the entire subject matter we’re discussing here.

  53. Hmmm, I am not tech trained or particularly bright. I don’t really get the point of the 5 second ahead of time read. If the pc is reacting to something other than the question to be asked, then the wrong reads would result in a mess. If the pc is reacting by “knowing ahead of time” what will be asked, then it doesn’t matter. But I will say that reads from meters (right or wrong-good or bad auditing) ultimately made me decide to never go in session again and that was the beginning of my journey out of the asylum. On the other hand, is the meter of value in directing the auditor and recalcitrant PC in confronting O/W’s. And if there are o/w’s missed, how effective can the counseling be. I was thinking back to Les and his successful counseling off the meter. Can one run rudiments without a meter with success. Or is running rudiments even needed to a successful session.

  54. Hi Marty,
    My observations as an auditor have shown what you say
    to be true in certain situations for me.
    First being over time a pc does figure out that if the needle
    doesn’t float at SOS he/she knows that I will be checking for
    out ruds. I do SOS and no GI’s/VGI’s with no fn. The next question
    is going to be the ARCX question. They know this.
    Before I ever ask the ARCX question the needle goes bang….reads.
    Am I not going to take that up or rotely check the ARCX question?
    Or do I ask the PC (not the meter) if there is an ARCX. This can happen
    on PTP’s and WH’s as well. I just let it flow into what the PC says which
    ususally is an ARCX or other out rud. This happens before the instant rudiment read because I never ask the question….they are just there ready to
    get off whatever out rud it might be. I even think LRH talks about this in an HCOB somewhere….I couldn’t begin to give the name or date and I might
    not be correct but in the back of my mind he talks about this on ruds.
    Also when clearing a command with the PC they then know the question.
    Sometimes the meter will read in that moment of silence between clearing the
    question and checking it for a read. Why would I not query that read and take it up if it indeed was connected to the question we just cleared. It is a no brainer to me to run it….meter reads, pc interested….run it. After all Ron did
    say there is nothing that can go wrong in a session that can’t be fixed…ie; auditor mistakes. As an interned VI, my point of view was to run it and if it bogs then fix it and get on with it.
    Another area where I feel your comments apply are doing a Two Way Comm. Are we not fishing for areas of charge to address? Those areas show themselves as reads when a PC voices it….and more often than not right before the Pc voices it. One more….doing a L&N, once again that read can occur in the silence between clearing the question and before checking it on the meter. Now the L&N question is reading….pc is probably listing at that point
    so why check it for an instant read? My opinion is that is why he put….Was it the first item on the list? question on the L4. I think that is the first question on the L4. That item is missed because the auditor was checking the L&N question for a read after the question read and the pc was already listing it.
    Don’t get me wrong here, I was a good little auditor who did what LRH said to do including instant reads, but in some instances it just made no sense.
    I think this is a point where auditor TR’s go out in session….they see a read that seems odd to them and not in the right place….then they try to figure out what the hell is going on. I would say in a lot of cases this is where a session goes wrong and out comes the correction lists.
    I think what you say makes sense and does indeed open the door for even more charge off the case.
    Major league baseball has adopted the replay rule this year. I watch games and have noticed that the managers are not now running out and arguing a call but rather going out and causally chatting with the ump on a close call while the assistant manager is checking the replay to figure out if they want to query the call. No screaming and yelling….just chatting sometimes smiling and laughing. A major change if you have watched MLB all your life. Your comments represent a major change in auditing that can as well create a more pleasant and pleasing result for the PC.

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for this. One of the most important operating stable datums in auditing for me was taken from the St Hill Special Briefing Course lecture where Hubbard talked of there being no substitute for understanding. He noted that the day when ritual trumped understanding scientology would be lost. From the sounds of it you are of an old dying breed of auditor who really took this to heart.

  55. Hi Marty,
    I still dont full understand what you are refering to, 5 seconds ahead ?
    If you are suggesting that the person might not react for 5 seconds… that I can understand….
    but how can the meter react 5 seconds before the question is asked ?
    this is nonsence…
    And certainly not what i’ve observed, every time i’ve used a meter.
    I must have missed the point of this post… can you explain please Marty… thanks
    Ian

    • martyrathbun09

      None of it will make much sense absent some exploration of the fourth dimension, the growing world of science of consciousness recognizing time and space as human mind constructs.

      • Hiya, well if we are purely coming from the 4th dimentional perspective… then sure… all beings know everthing! past present and future… hahaha… but on an ‘understanding level’ rather than a ‘knowing level’ I can only think this 5 seconds being refered to is nothing other than a being ‘intuiting’
        the direction of questioning and so the ‘anticipated’ question…
        otherwise … hahaha… yeah sure its all a 4th dimentional phoenomena… and all things are known…. even all the replies that are to follow on this post…. so no one need really write any….. cos we are all 4th dimentional beings…. hahaha…. it’s true… I do agree… but somehow knowingness and ‘understanding’ are on different levels…. no ? :o) Ian

        • martyrathbun09

          you note: “all beings know everthing! past present and future… hahaha…” It is perfectly predictable that a scientologist would laugh at this notion. That you laugh at this evidences the need to graduate from scientology in my view. If you got industrious about finding answers, you might learn that this statement of yours that you scoff at is far more validated by science than your scientology constructs.

          • Hiya…. my laughing is laughing with agreement… not scoffing at the idea that all beings know everything… I KNOW ALL BEINGS KNOW EVERYTHING…. funny in’it….! but there is a difference between that statement on a 4th dimentional…theta perspective… however that doesn’t mean that if you went up to someone and said…. what object am I thinking of…. that they could answer it…. or should I say ‘that they -would answer it’ … I guess we could say there is ‘fundamental knowing’ and then there is ‘understanding’ understanding is a a lower level I suppose. Anyway Marty…. all lots of fun to look at these concepts.
            But I still really don’t get this 5 second idea….
            you mean if I ask someone to hold the cans and before I have asked them… lets say ‘ get the idea of conceptualising’ followed by ‘get the idea of knowing’ as some sort of interesting dicotomy to run… are you saying that before either of these were asked… that 5 seconds before the meter would read with the appropriate readings for these ?
            really ?
            Ive not really seen that…. not even with Solo auditing…
            Sure I get readings in milliseconds from even considering a concept… but not before…

            Well let me think about that…. mmmmm…. actually I have OFTEN had that come to think of it…. because sometimes you look at the meter… bang there is a read…. what was that !… then investigating it I may realise…. yes some 5 seconds later what it was that was lurking there in the background….
            so….. YES I agree that readings happen before you are aware of the source…. YES…. otherwise… whats the point in the meter!
            and I’ve had gazzilions of amaizzzzing cognitions from using meters over the years.
            But Im still not sure that a reading that was the -correct reading to a concept that was given by an auditor… would occure 5 seconds before the question was asked….
            all fascinating stuff though….
            Ian :o)

            • martyrathbun09

              Another problem with using 5 senses mechanics in attempting to empower the sixth sense and beyond.

  56. “What do you reckon the implications of these findings are…” Well my first thought which occurred before I even could really think about it was, “Well hell, that means that I had thousands of hours of auditing in essence taking up ‘latent reads’ which means all my auditing was based on ‘handling’ uncharged areas, which would mean I only added mental mass as compared to removing it…” So that which is meant to remove constructs would (if the 5 second rule was an invariable truth) in essence be installing new constructs.

    This didn’t seem like a correct indication so to speak though I can also say that through my own RPF program auditing experience and my own empirical observations of instant reads there is either missing data or faulty data because the results were not invariable to my attempt at looking at it logically. Of course any results are always explained away by lack of TR’s and Metering, but I don’t believe it is the full answer.

    I cannot contribute to the subject matter you shared because I haven’t read the references nor have any personal experience with a 5 second premonition read.

    I can attest that the RPF auditing created constructs rather than removing them and this was both a result of the tech itself as well as how the tech was being used by the RPF and the way the technical staff and execs over the RPF implemented and enforced it.

    I haven’t analyzed enough to see where instant reads play a part but I personally found that doing NED auditing created a tremendous sense of relief in the PC and I experienced this on all flows. I cannot say the same for FPRD, with the exception of someone finally getting off a real withhold and experiencing relief. I never really saw it on the evil purpose aspect of it though. I saw much (insincere) gleeful speeches and success stories about the tremendous wins of blowing an evil purpose, but as the supervisor or auditor I didn’t see it as such when it occurred – like I did when I audited NED or received NED. I only saw it when a PC originated his or her own evil purpose or felt the hunch that they had one in a certain area. These would create real and observable relief once addressed with regular procedure. Yes, those taken up read instantly on origination…

    So, regardless of the validity of the 5 second rule, if it is factual, there is some work-ability to the instant read as well from what I observed mainly in NED. But, true too, it was working the incident over and over until its full content and underlying decisions/intentions/postulates were located that the TA went from 5 to 2.5 and not so much the actions of the Instant read. So, don’t know – not enough real scientific tests to really say.

    As a side note on the instant reads I discovered something on the RPF – as myself and my PC(s) learned the various procedures and correction lists and lists in general, I started getting large reads that were prior. Sometimes after the question or assessment the PC would originate about the same subject that got a large prior read. In these circumstances I took it up as it just seemed right to me, despite knowing it was “technically” incorrect. This created in most of those cases a lot of TA action plus real and sincere relief and removal of mass. Of course upon supervisor or C/S review I would get crammed. But it really made me think if there wasn’t something off with the definition of an instant read because I remember working on LRH taped lectures from the early 60’s where he explained that the meter reads on when a thought is received and not the words. So it would make sense to me that the more a PC would be familiar with the question I was asking them, the sooner the thought would register with the PC as he/she already knew what the question was as soon as I started to ask it. So wouldn’t this be a valid read as the thought was actually received though it was a prior read relative to the spoken words?

    Anyway, this is not related to your question – just something that bothered me and nobody dared even listening to me when I brought it up, except for Power, my twin, who observed the same thing in auditing me. But then again his conclusions were as highly regarded as mine🙂

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks Warewhulf. Indeed, how could it be anything other than when the pc receives the concept? Thinking with what you communicated here, it seems there are vast time implications (time spent in the running of case) minimally.

      • Exactly! LRH tried to codify everything but it is (to me) completely logical that a brand new PC would react to a sentence in a much different way than a person who had received thousands of hours of auditing and knew exactly what the auditor would do and ask next. Especially as it is already acknowledged by LRH that the meter reacts on thought, it becomes more and more obvious that a huge amounts of uncharged reads are taken up, and some reads, possibly very charged are never even bothered about… Now you need a meter to help the auditor figure out exactly when the thought registered with the PC, and if you take the 4th dimension into account, you may as well skip the meter all together… Of develop a 4D meter that reads the meter reads relative to how the PC received the thought🙂

        • martyrathbun09

          The ultimate problem is that mechanics wind up trumping understanding. The meter is a crude tool. In understanding hands it can seem to do miraculous work. In 2-value logic thinking hands it can turn a beautiful, organic, undefinable process (a human being) into a deployable, black-and-white seeing and believing robot.

          • OMG, this is the very point that some of us have tried to make – that it takes understanding to get the miraculous results auditing is capable of. LRH said it himself: “There’s no substitute for understanding.”

            The next question is – why does it get applied in a black and white way? I’d say the answer to that lies in out-tech training, which is the other thing that has been expressed.

            And the (rhetorical) question after that is – why couldn’t training be done correctly, per the tech of training? In other words, it seems to me that inherent in the tech is a workability for very beneficial results.

            • martyrathbun09

              Jeez, I’m sorry it took me so long to get it. Report to Idaho for flattening of grade iv please.

              • hey Marty, its an interesting topic here…. but that answer you just gave here…just looks …. like you are being rude. ‘report to idaho for flattening of grade iv please’
                no need to talk to people like that… I really like what you are doing and this website.

                • martyrathbun09

                  Ian, before judging me – go back and look at the ‘conversations’ I have put up with with this person for more than a year. She’s only remained current to serve as an ongoing demonstration of the literal scientology mind.

          • Glad you said that as that is what I feel to. I even think the old man made a lecture somewhere on the BC where he states exactly that – no technique in the world can replace good basic understanding and sense.

          • Hello Marty.
            Good to see you getting into the fray.

            You have seen my opinions on the meter. They are not completely different from yours. Odor is an indicator, skin reactions are an indicator. Sitting position, facial expressions, crying, laughing, emotional disposition, speech mannerisms, etc, etc…………And meter reactions. One indicator out of many. Discerning all these indicators and when to follow them is called skill. My article on Affinity and Auditing explains this fully.

            You said; “The ultimate problem is that mechanics wind up trumping understanding. ” My wording was Affinity was more important than correct procedure, but I then went more in depth. I will send the article, a couple of pages, in case you might like to post any excerpts in your comments.

            Thanks for your work
            Mark

            • martyrathbun09

              Thanks. Yes, there are numerous other five-senses perceivable indicators. What gets lost in the elevation-to-worship of the meter is the most important indicators of all. None of them can be read through the five senses; but only through the sixth (conscience) and seventh (intuition). That in a nutshell is a why for ‘no OTs.’

              • spyrosillusionist

                Like you said, the E-meter connects to a body. So, logically, it couldn’t measure a spirit, but maybe some interactions between spirit and body (the interaction center or else ‘communications center’ being the ‘mind’), or some manifestations of the body alone.

              • Marty

                Yes. I think that if one really is producing an upward shift in the perceptions and awarenesses of a person, “auditors”, and the “auditing” technology would need to also make a matching upward shift in awareness and ability to communicate at the higher level.

                Alternately, gradiently, but as soon as possible, pass the reins over to the “subject” completely. It would require a totally open ended construct, the latter part of which would be totally conceived of by the “subject”.

                Eric

                • what do we mean ‘Total Spiritual Freedom ‘ ?

                  Ian Interdimensional Wizard

                  • Hi Ian

                    Oops… I do not see where you read me saying “Total Spiritual Freedom”.
                    I can tell you what I would mean by saying it though.

                    I would think that “Total Spiritual Freedom” would occur at the point where a being was willing to experience anything, but felt no need to experience anything at all. “He” could choose to Be, Do and Have, or not Be Do and Have anything, everything, or nothing at all.

                    Eric

              • Marty.
                It appears that you gave away your next post with this comment. It may not always appear so, but I agree thoroughly with your comment. It aligns completely with my essay, Affinity and Auditing.

                Auditors have to do the best they can until they get to the point where they can actually audit. It’s a process. (sorry for the pun) There just are not 100k highly skilled high ARC auditors.

                I knew I was done with TR-0 when I realized I could sit there easily forever should I decide so. No worries, no feeling of wasted time, no hurry. I now take auditing the same way. I take and retain my wins. If I head down a wrong path, or am led that way, I’m not the least bit concerned. I consider it like a nice little walk. If I am looking for something and don’t find it, no trouble, I’ll find it later if there is anything to find. I love being here and I love this quest I’m on. I haven’t had trouble with bypass charge in a long time. Just TR-0 with serenity and ‘no effort’ during and after a session and most of the troubles I read about don’t occur.

                Of course if one is paying cash it’s a different story. Go co-audit or solo and that takes care of it. Cost your auditor some of his time? No problem, more auditing experience for him.

                It just doesn’t have to be bad. Have fun with it.
                Mark

  57. Marty,

    Well done on this post. I do appreciate what you are doing here.

    By the way a lot Scientologists do need to wrap their brains around the top level considerations about reality, to move on.

    These perceptions, opinions or ideas of what constitute reality were extensively researched and articulated by Hubbard throughout the 50s.

    They have a lot in common with the top views of Eastern thought, if you know what you are looking for, the answers are there.

    These answers however do not lead to the Scientology Hubbard finally packaged and sold everybody on.

    They actually lead you in the opposite direction, and they show Hubbard’s sacred cows as a mockery of his own research.

  58. Thank you for your reply Marty….I do remember that tape.

  59. Surely this is only… the PC can reason, and so reasonably predict a question before the words are spoken…. and so the emotional content can present itself before the question is spoken. It is well known that a PC can present emotional content to a question that was not actually spoken… but rather the PC has ‘erronously predicted’ what the auditor was going to ask.
    isnt this simply….’Self Auditing’ ?

  60. As one’s band of present time widens, expands and contracts, what is supposedly in the ‘future’ is merely being sensed or experienced in one’s now.
    If one can move forward into future time, see change and alter inbound items about to occur could auditing be developed to audit negative aspects in the impending future whether pre-postulated ahead on one’s future track, or what will be the result of fate?
    This could make more space along one” future track to create/postulate what effect one really wants to have occur and have it arrive in the present time. It would allow one to know he was about to experience a car accident – decide no – then un-mock the events, ridge, postulates that put it there on the future track. Now he can mock up a new scenario to experience.
    Positive gain type auditing of the Future theta universe in order to bring about a higher level theta create in the physical universe.

    • martyrathbun09

      If one could do what you noted in the first two sentences, I would suggest he steer as far clear of auditing as possible.

    • billy,
      2 things coming to mind immediately, not related to auditing directly:

      1) The movie clip where Bruce Lee played ping-pong not with the normal round ‘plate on a handle’ as we normally use but with a stick and his ‘present time’ is so wide that he has ample time to play with his stick while WAITING for the little ball to be return.
      2) Raymond Grace, mountain man and master dowser gives various examples of altering the future in his book “THE FUTURE IS YOURS, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT”, replacing negative future events with more acceptable ones.
      Greta

  61. Most anyone who has ever used an Emeter with another person has seen the cause and effect of questions and meter response seemingly in direct correlation.

    Because researchers in other methodologies have recorded presentiment would seem to be a different issue than the workability of the emeter.

    Generally the kind of presentiment in those studies is distributed on a bell curve also, rather than being at 5 seconds, starting its rise a few seconds out, peaking and dropping sharper. The data is derived from a large base of aggregated sources, but if there were a more reliable means of observing presentiment, it would probably extend far beyond both sides of the curve. The curve being only the most common or available data points.

    I think the way an Emeter is used is likely a different effect than presentiment. If it was reacting 5 seconds in advance, someone would have noticed years ago.

    Apples and oranges, but provocative!

    Now if you were to evaluate TA in this regard, perhaps you would be on to something.

    • martyrathbun09

      Your words:
      “Most anyone who has ever used an Emeter with another person has seen the cause and effect of questions and meter response seemingly in direct correlation.
      Because researchers in other methodologies have recorded presentiment would seem to be a different issue than the workability of the emeter.”
      The post makes no judgment nor even implication about the workability of the meter. Straw dogging it yet again.

  62. I’m not an expert .

  63. The other side of the coin is the ‘indoctrination’ of the auditor. Before GAT the auditing was a bit more relaxed, in comm with the pc, somehow less authoritarian. PCs at least could communicate without the fear of going to ethics as it seems to be the norm now.The C/Ss did understand what the pc was saying and C/S’d accordingly.

    After GAT the ruthlessness to BE as dictated by RTC Reps, who were the last in authority to pass videos, Internships and so on; had to be followed or ethics-Comm Evs and even RPFs would ensue if the auditor didn’t conform.
    Thus auditing became solid and the absence of that natural warm caring auditor attitude to work with his pc was evident on both sides. Somehow the team pc-auditor disappeared.

    Comm Cycle can be a basic only when not done robotically or ‘only by the rules’. By now (GAT I) any read had to be beaten to death by a zillion use of buttons, varied questions and so on. But there was no comm cycle really, just a ‘procedure’ expected to be followed.

    Add the above to the presentment aspect noted by you based on scientific researches and we could conclude that current auditing is not only just running uncharged areas, evaluated by a tool (the e-meter), enforced by the auditor and you have a solid, solid pc’s space which can’t think by himself no longer.

    PCs also got ‘used to’ patterns; needle does not float, auditor checks rudiments, pc is expected to answer. The routines were well known to the pc and obviously didn’t help him as he could have had started to create “x” charge in order to be able to answer whatever read next.

    Caring, honest warm with a personal true intention to see another get better by arriving at his own conclusions can’t be supplanted by a tool.
    We created what is called ‘meter dependence’, both the auditor and pc alike.

    So, time to start reading the recommended books and learn more.

  64. You probably all know how great it would have been to be free to have this kind of discussions at any org. I would have loved to get a Latte at the rose cafe, seat by the fountain at CCInt and just shoot the sh!@ like this. I think that alone would have been worth showing up for.

  65. If a being is AWARE of the presentiment that creates a read, that is very different to a presentiment that the person is not aware of.
    At a fundamental level a being is ‘fully aware of everything.’
    However I quite like the definition of ‘Aware of Being Aware’, an ‘Awareness of Awareness unit’….. amusing but seems to look right to me.

    But so far… the original idea of this post just doesnt ring true to me..
    Yep Im right up for full on Telepathy, Full knowingess of a being, a being is full cause knowingly or unknowingly… etc etc and yes also bearing in mind all other tricks that a being can play on itself… delusion, dub-in etc etc… but nevertheless a being is still full cause regardless of whether he is aware of it or not…. Including ‘causativly —-not being cause– ‘ he’s still causing that.
    So are we suggesting that the being in full native state is making the meter read , 5 seconds before any auditing concept ? even if the person is not aware of it…..
    cos if that is so….. wow! that means that I could answer EVERY QUESTION IN THE UNIVERSE.
    where’s my meter!
    I’ll try it! no kidding…. surely it can’t just be as simple as that…
    maybe I’ve just simply overlooked this…. do you mean anything like this ?
    cos if this is so… it’s just about the most important thing I’ve ever heard..
    surely not ?
    Ian

  66. well, thats interesting! just set myself up on my meter…. got a huge read…
    then …. yep about 5 seconds later i thought ‘ thats because this IS true!’ and bingo! another big read… mmmmm…
    holy smoke…. where the heck do you take that one!

    • The meter reads on things other than timeless engramic bypassed charge items.

      For example, the book of E-meter essentials tells us that “The meter registers before the pc become conscious of the datum. It is therefore a “preconscious” meter. The meter passes a tiny current through the body. … This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and machinery of the preclear. When the pc thinks of something, these mental items shift and this registers on the meter.”

      In fact, the meter reads the body itself (not necessarily mental reactions). In HCOB 30 April 1960 ACC TRs says
      “Free needle [floating needle]: A needle which shows none of the reactions described above. It floats back and forth easily, registering only the body, its breathing, heartbeats, etc. While needle free, no facsimiles are being impinged on the body.” So (unlike what Miscavige thinks) floating needles are *not* a mental phenomena, but instead are a specialized class of body read.

      Miscavige’s whole fixation on three-sweep F/Ns came from his erroneous belief that F/Ns were a mental meter reaction. The rest of the auditing world knew (from actual auditing experience) that having a pc with sufficient food, vitamins, and rest resulted in a pc whose F/Ns could be easily read.

      In HCOB 18 April 1960 NEEDLE REACTIONS ABOVE GRADE IV, LRH says that “As a Clear’s postulates read as a surge, usually fairly long (Over 1”), “no” can read if the pc says it to himself as an answer to the question asked. … A read, therefore, does not mean invariably “yes” or that the question is charged. All it means is that the Meter has read.”

      What I’m picking up from the commentary on this post is that the in-sessionness of the preclear, the sessionability of the preclear, and the ARC and communication level between auditor and pc might be situational factors that remain untested outside the auditing room, and those factors may affect the timing of reads.

      My best guess is that your second thought read on a postulate, not something “charged”.

      In fact, I used the datum on “postulates” reading while coaching people on EM-25. I could get a person through EM-25 fairly reliably, fairly rapidly, and no “charge” was needed. Just postulates.

      • Hiya… yes overall I would say that It’s about creating a read…
        Im very fluid on a meter and mostly able to create falls … more or less at will. … so yeah… I agree… it’s a read on a postulate…. followed by a recognition of the postulate….
        I dont think this really indicates this 5 second presentiment idea….
        I ain’t seen any evidence of this myself….. other than… usual…’guessing the question to come’…. and that just seems like ‘self auditing’…
        so … for me… the ‘presentiment idea is… simply … not true.
        :o) cheers for you great reply…. Ian

  67. When the auditor and pc are in good communication one can observe a telepathic bond in action. In my years of private practice, I have verified that spyrosillusionist’s comment is true:

    I have noticed presentiment in general, but not on a meter. But again I’ve mostly soloed, not audited others.
    Maybe the audited person perceives the auditor’s communication before the auditor makes it verbal and reacts to it.
    spyrosillusionist | April 4, 2014 at 1:58 pm | Reply
    …which is why an auditor shouldn’t even think something like “now he is dramatasing”😛

    I have frequently seen a LFBD upon formulating a question instead of asking it outright. Even thinking,”Guess he has a withhold on that topic”, will produce a read.

    Scientology has gotten away from validating telepathy, but it certainly exists. The fact that some good auditors can see their pc’s pictures supports that idea.

    • David St Lawrence: “telepathy, but it certainly exists.”

      As a matter of fact, if a friend (or a friend’s relative, etc.) has a (big) grief, upset, etc., I just do them some telepathic processing until (s)he feels ok. It doesn’t matter if they are kilometers/miles away, or close to me. (Also, it doesn’t matter if they are atheist or not). Usually, I don’t tell them what I’m doing or did. For me, it’s a lot easier and faster to contact their thetan (spirit) telepathically than verbally handling or auditing them via the body.

  68. I haven’t read all of the comments, so hopefully not repeating something already voiced.

    Here are some implications: If the meter is reading on just about anything, and yet this device is used to focus the auditor and the PC on only one type of thing (that subject that read at the precise end of a question or statement being voiced by the auditor) then could this mean that the meter is a strong agreement point for both auditor and pc to begin to build that construct as dictated by the auditor’s question that read?

    Thus the more auditing you got, the more focused and real the construct becomes, until you may very well stand a good chance to end up like one of these robotic, strange OT8 people.

    Mine is a very simple statement of something that has so many nuances that I think there is vast latitude for all kinds of variation in these constructs.

    It would seem to explain why the OT 3 materials are pretty scant on details and have remained so, probably by design.

  69. “..I cannot say the same for FPRD, with the exception of someone finally getting off a real withhold and experiencing relief. I never really saw it on the evil purpose aspect of it though. I saw much (insincere) gleeful speeches and success stories about the tremendous wins of blowing an evil purpose, but as the supervisor or auditor I didn’t see it as such when it occurred – ”

    Was your delivery of FPRD mainly on OT 7 sec checks?

    On those unwilling?

    Mine was self elected because all this life O/Ws had been
    done to death. I was still restraining myself. Having read the issues
    I elected to do an FPRD. Was perhaps the best auditing I ever did.
    Up there with OT 2, better than OT 3 which was tremendous. And I
    did this action with incredible intention.

    I also used creative processing to some degree.On the house GPM
    for example. I mocked up a wife. Got me more reads.🙂

    Evil purps are addressed on some of the most powerful Scn processes.
    L’s and expanded Dianetics.

    Also did L-11 with Trey Lotz. Was great! However the 5 hours or so
    dosn’t equate to 3-4 intensives on the FPRD.

    http://scientologyreviews.com/independent-auditors/trey-lotz

    • Unwilling, Co$ style, FPRD is Black Scn.
      Unfortunately many people who have been subjected to Black Scn are unable to recognize it and are unable differentiate between Black & Non-Black Scn.

  70. I’ve been thinking off and on the last day about Marty’s question:

    “What do you reckon the implications of these findings are to someone who has received hundreds of hours of standard Scientology auditing? That is, a process in which the practitioner is only permitted to address those concepts or incidents that react on the meter only at the precise end of the major thought as expressed in words by the auditor.”

    I’ve been mulling over the questions, taking whacks at it from different angles. At the first level, presentiment within self (loosely speaking) it seems there is pretty solid evidence that the mind or even brain processes things in a way that is not immediately available to the conscious self.

    I actually still hold that one of the permanent gains from auditing for me was greater ability to self-reflect and actually observe some of those peripheral or otherwise subliminal processes.

    Then there is presentiment in the broader sense. I would guess that a lot of us have experienced something that amounts to precognition or a perception for which we have no physical explanation. I liked what Marildi mentioned above our all being connected in some way. I don’t know of scientific proof of that, but it is something that I believe as probably true based on various experiences.

    So I’ve thought of that from a scientific point of view (Charles Tart’s “End of Materialism” is another good read — a skeptical parapsychological researcher who eventually became persuaded that some things cannot be explained by material factors alone). Many physicists would hold that time is an illusion. I believe Hubbard himself called it an “apparency,” too.

    So let’s say time doesn’t really exist. Maybe there is only the spotlight of the consciousness in “now” shining around on an already existing four-or-more dimensional reality. In that scenario, maybe some of that already existing “future” leaks into our perceptions. Maybe like a boulder in a stream will push a standing ripple _upstream_ (into the past?), perhaps a significant event pushes a ripple like that into our presentiment.

    I remember a disaster in UK (Wales — see http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/21/newsid_2705000/2705335.stm) a bunch of children were buried and killed under coal. Apparently, some children had horrible nightmares the night before the event about being buried alive and such. Coincidental or valid presentiment?

    Then there are theories about the holographic nature of the universe — roughly, each part contained in the whole and vice versa in some way.

    So now, going back to Marty’s question: What is the implication of this for someone who has done lots of auditing based on things that react on the meter just at the precise end of the concept expressed in words by the auditor? Here are my thoughts:
    1. The meter may actually be reading on the next item in the list, not yet read, and therefore it is misinterpreted. Result: invalidation, overruns, by-passed charge, etc. Or,
    2. The meter may actually be reading on something unrelated to auditing, something transpiring totally separately, but a thing which has some level of impingement on the PC’s universe.
    3. Enough auditing under those conditions would seem to be enough to bog down a case, drive someone out of valence, find false “whys,” train the PC to invalidate his or her own reality, and train people to be robotically VGIs and create an F/N at will (which I believe many of us can do — we’ve been conditioned to do it).

    So thank you Marty for tolerating my posts as I meandered around this subject and then circled back in on your key question — which is extremely provocative in a way that demands a lot of reasoning, in my opinion.

    • OMG. I just went to another site, and on the way realized that a 4th implication is that presentiment factor applied to e-meter reads could explain a lot of the mental servitude, lack of sense of self-worth, and robotic behavior that enables the sheeple to ignore reality and believe the lies of Miscavige. They have been deeply conditioned to push aside their own truth.

  71. I’ve read all the comments. I’ve been a lot on both sides of the meter. On the p.c. side, there was rarely a process that I did not find interesting. If something was checked, and it did not read, I’d exclaim and then it would be taken up. In the rare cases that I was not interested and it read, I’d exclaim again and, moments later it would be dropped. To me, meters were always a prop; the least essential item in all Scientology.

    Security checks – well that’s a different story. As long as they were real withholds about having hurt another (as in the “Craftsmanship” tape), or there was embarrassment, there was relief in the revelation; when it became obvious that they were a control tool, it became only a tool to indoctrinate or coerce allegiance, their value dropped to nil. That area of the tech really got well out of hand.

    In regards to auditing and meters, a few thoughts. There’s magic in people: there’s all sorts of wonderful goings on “beyond the veil” that, while we are so physically oriented, we are not consciously aware of. And in some relationships between loving people, there’s sometimes even exponentially more magic. Some of the grades auditing, dianetics, for me, any of the things that pretty much was all about helping the pc look and figure it out for himself – well that was good loving stuff from my point of view. And I anticipated miraculous things from these sessions and I often got them.

    We all tingle when we hear about or see romanticized in films the “connectedness” between two lovers; their connection and various phenomena consequent to that are palpable, but science can explain fully little of that. There’s certainly chemical reactions going on, and the release of different compounds, etc., but I think that’s a long way from explaining all that’s occurring.

    Science pooh poohs Ouija and dowsers too, but I’ve seen beautiful words flow from an Ouija when guided by the hands of two people on the same platen that seemed far beyond what either were able to articulate in their regular communication. I have no personal experience with dowsing, but I have talked with people who seem very grounded who certainly attest to it.

    Faith and belief and love are all big players in the game and science knows little about it. I don’t distrust at all what these people are saying about GSR and prescience at all, but I think that we might have been getting all those meter phenomena we drilled over and even got truly instant, non-prescient reads when we were in session because the meter reading instantly was part of our agreement, it was something that we all wanted to be true, and we pretty much intended that reality and then created that reality. That’s OK with me. For me, I guess, meter reads are a “faith based initiative”.

    Best to you and all the other bright thinkers who congregate here. ¡Salud! To unfettered thought!

    • martyrathbun09

      Thanks for the great input Dan. I want to comment on this bit of what you said:
      ‘Security checks – well that’s a different story. As long as they were real withholds about having hurt another (as in the “Craftsmanship” tape), or there was embarrassment, there was relief in the revelation; when it became obvious that they were a control tool, it became only a tool to indoctrinate or coerce allegiance, their value dropped to nil. That area of the tech really got well out of hand.’
      In fact, I think digging for it with an electronic instrument is a form of control in and of itself. A competent, pure person-centered practitioner could create an environment sufficiently safe and open that the client would ultimately unburden any ’embarassing’ matter at cause, self-determinedly when the time was right. And by doing thus would have no feeling of owing or needing to cling to or belonging to the practitioner.

      • Good points. When confessional auditing was done in session, without the HCO R-factor, and the practitioner was more swinishly friendly (pigs are more friendly than suspicious) the meter did not bother me at all, as I thought that if it could help find something, well that’s fine.

        “Person centered” tells it all. With the focus on the benefit for the person, there’s cooperation and it’s pretty difficult for things not to turn out well.

    • “…the meter reading instantly was part of our agreement.”

      Dan, that wasn’t the case with my “raw” NED pc. She knew nothing about instant reads but got them anyway, and a lot of relief when they were taken up.

  72. Thank you for this thought-provoking post, Marty.
    Thank you to all the commenters, as well. Great crowdsourcing.

    I was just thinking about this subject (e-meter, etc.) yesterday
    and how it needs more research, discussion and explanation.

    I don’t think the e-meter is what Hubbard wanted people to believe is.
    However, I don’t think it all comes down to just body chemistry either.
    Because I audited others full time for 5 years using the e-meter.

    Whether it’s a 4th dimension matters or neuroscience, or both
    it sure is fascinating subject that deserves more attention, imo.

    Full scientific explanation of the e-meter related phenomena’
    in relation to human body and psyche is long overdue and will
    serve many well.

    Peace to all.

  73. Robert Almblad

    If you want to audit someone then you have to use the presentiment reads because the PC is not composed of MEST i.e. he is not composed of time.

    The presentiment can only come from the PC, because he/she is the only timeless thing in the room, besides the auditor, of course.

    I know I am not composed of time because when I am exterior I am not older or younger. Time is not part of me.

    I can’t explain presentiment in terms of time, because the source of presentiment has no time.

    Marty, it seems to me that you and others discovered a 5 second anomaly that can only come from something timeless.

    • martyrathbun09

      Which is exactly where scientology tops out – the tech requires the participants to keep mocking up time.

      • worth repeating. worth its own chapter.

      • That is true. That, and the need for a body.

      • Robert Almblad

        I am certain you are correct. As you as-is matter and energy in session, time and space is sticky, like trying to get rid of fly paper but it just moves from one hand to the other.

        If you are located in time and space then you are located in time and space. It’s a condition that we can describe and measure, that’s for sure. I just assumed the “absence of time and space” could not be measured or sensed. But it seems like this presentiment read is a “leak” between these two worlds (I am stretching the use of words here).

        • martyrathbun09

          Well put.

          • Robert Almblad

            Marty, if I can continue the analogy of the two worlds (the world not in time and space and the world in time and space), the thought that came to mind that maybe this is where the various stories of gods coming to earth originated? Greek gods, Scandinavian gods, angels, guardian angels, fallen angels and so on?

            Along this line, I was surprised to read a report that the early young man LRH thought he had a guardian angel with long red hair which he consulted (heaven knows if that is true, but I tend to think it is true today) but I do know that the 29 year old LRH wrote The Indigestible Triton which was a story of one of the mythological Greek god, Triton, jumping down the throat of a fisherman/accountant and taking control. Triton and the fisherman communicated telepathically and Triton could sometimes control the fisherman, causing all sorts of mischief in the fisherman’s life until the fisherman figured out he could partly sedate Triton with beer and be able to stay in control of his own life.

            Story sound familiar? That was 1940, when he was only 29.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triton_(collection)

            I think it is important to understand LRH’s early life (as it relates to Scientology) to be able to put things into perspective. This includes learning about the history of the E-meter and LRH. From Carl Jung to the warehouse E-meter and DM. I had NO idea of all this history. It’s important to know or it can become an object of worship.

            Thanks so much for this posting. It has given a lot back to me that I gained in earlier auditing and studies. I was an absolute slave to the next step on the Bridge and stopped looking at anything else for fear of loosing my way. Truth is, when you’re lost, there is no need to fear losing your way.

  74. Fools be trippin cuz you posted on the 4th.

    I played with the meter, thinkin and lookin. My thinkin bumps instant.

  75. Marty, I think this may be your most interesting post ever. Thank you.

  76. Man oh man. I read through many of the comments here – I read this post yesterday and needed to digest it for what it was.

    Ok – I’ll bite a little. If the meter reads on things five seconds early, then there are no instant reads. This means that listing and nulling is flawed, all ruds, all meter checks of commands before running them, all confessionals where you only take up reading items, all metered forms of word clearing, all forms of meter steering.

    So, here’s the scenario:

    Long Fall (wait three seconds). “Have you ever eaten an apple?”

    Obviously the question is charged. That is so obvious.

    I haven’t read Lynne McTaggart (by the way, it is Lynne, not Linda). Her stuff sounds interesting, but I know from the subjects she talks about (vitamin C cures AIDS, homeopathy) that whatever she writes will have to be taken with some salt – as does everyone, I suppose.

    But, you know, I do have loads of experience on the meter. I have never seen this “5 second” rule in place. I have seen prior reads, and latent reads, but never reads that happen five seconds prior to the question being asked or the subject broached.

    I have, however, seen instant reads, as both auditor and PC, and I know how to clear false reads, and take up actual reads. Metering is both simple and complex. As has been cited above, when the meter reads, all you know is that it read. I can see easily how people can screw this up, and I have seen myriad examples where it has been screwed up.

    On the other hand, you take a list – say a 53 or an L1C, assess it, take up the items that read, ascertain why the meter did what it did, and sort it out. I find that when these actions are done with discernment and love, you will find out what is going on, and help the person in front of you.

    I will leave it at that and assume, Marty, that you meant to publish this on April 1.

    • Although I haven’t as much auditing experience as Mark, I agree with his point that all we know about assessments, L&N, metered word clearing etc shows that the needle reacts at the instant the pc gets the concept or contacts the mass. A 5 second rule would be arbitrary, as PT is much broader for some peole than for others. And if the meter reads 5 seconds before the auditor calls an item, does the auditor then need to call the item at all? This is the paradox with all claims to perceive the actual future, as distinct from predicting a probable future based on past experience. The past exists, the future does not.

      Re the discussion above about needle phenomena being due to sweat – this was Volney Mathison’s first hypothesis and has surely been disproved. Sweat can break out on the skin in a fraction of a second, but it does not evaporate so quickly, especially when the skin is pressed to a can. Rocket reads, rockslams etc cannot be produced by fancy patterns of sweating. I once had a cat on the meter, its front paws standing on footplates. It stood there calmly, purring, and the needle was quivering rapidly and regularly almost like a slow tuning fork. Another person watching said this was an F/N, much more rapid than a human’s since cats live faster than we do. I think it was more like what Dennis Stephens called a pulse needle: in any case, it was far too rapid for sweat forming and drying. And cats don’t have sweat glands in their pads.

      A meter reads changes in impedance of the conduction path through the body. Impedance has three components: resistance, inductance and capacitance. We normally ignore the second two for DC circuits because they are only significant when the current is changing, hence the loose statement that the meter measures resistance. But they become significant when considering instantaneous phenomena. I suggest that the needle reacts to changes in capacitance as the pc pulls in an existing mass or suddenly mocks up a new bit of mass. Capacitance exists between the pc’s body and that mass, which are both conductors separated by air. It’s as if a capacitor had suddenly been connected across the cans, in parallel with the pc, and the needle falls while that capacitor is charging. TA can be explained as the longer-term effect of mocked-up mass impinging on the body and raising its density and consequently its electrical resistance.

      • Not capacitance or inductance. Simply physiological phenomena that happen between the cans and the skin. This is easily proved by the fact that solo cans work. In this case very little current flows through the rest of the body, it all happens in one hand. And what do you know – because there is less surface contact the TA is a bit higher. And the reads are a bit less. Just because it is physiological phenomena does not mean it is only sweat, there are reactions involving sweat glands that can open and close, also electrochemical phenomena. Go up and read the posts by Wisher above for details.

        Get over it, the meter does not react on the mind or spirit, only on the effects that the mind or spirit has on the body. This does not disprove or prove anything about Scientology auditing, it is just an interesting fact. I wish I could remember the reference, I think I saw it in an old red volume, but there was a very early statement that the current from the meter does not run through the mind, only the body. I thought it was “Electropsychometric Auditing” but the copies of that online don’t contain this sentence as I recall it. Anyway, he later changed his mind about it but I think his first idea was the true one in this case.

  77. wow Marty can you strike a match! Either for light or enlightenment you are and do illuminate. Thank you I really enjoy the blog. I never got to have this illuminated back in the seventies but I did get what I wanted. I read to find if there is something I missed or did not get. You have been a teacher, one who holds things up for all to see then moves higher. ARC Bill Dupree

  78. well , I’ve enjoyed reading this post but…
    1. I dont consider this ‘presentiment 5 seconds before’ idea is true.
    2. I’d have to go and read the 4 books you talked about… just to go find the information…. to consider it further, we all seem to be talking about this ‘presentiment idea’….. who is saying it, based on what observations.
    3. what value is this information, even if it were true ?
    4. if it were true… then it either shows that we are all ‘all knowing beings’ above mest etc, or it would show that auditing cannot work.
    5. if it is so that we are all ‘all knowing beings’ then this would mean auditing is valueless…

    Overall this post … although interesting…. looks to me like a mental ‘four letter word beginning with w’.
    How many of us have actualy read the research that is being refered to.?… there is no Data in this post.

    I’ve either really missed the point of this…
    or I think this is pointless anyway…
    but still a fascinating W all the same…. :o)

    • martyrathbun09

      You wouldn’t need to do all that. You could find out in thirty seconds with an emeter or similar galvanometer. 4 & 5 are glass-half-empty speculations that do no follow.

    • Ian: don’t give in-to an SP. Destroy them then crush them. You owe it to your 4TH.

      • PTS/SP tech said disconnect –at will, or no auditing for you. And auditor’s tech said ‘power processing’. And KSW 1 said you only get attacked…when you don’t produce results. And a newbie knows from the FOT book that by counter-creating you don’t destroy anything. ‘Destroy and crush them SPs’ is squirrel. You are 8 dynamics. You can only destroy yourself. One who coaxes for attacks is 3rd party –possobly SP too.

        Why don’t you stay for a coffee instead? You know, ARC and stuff? I promise you I’m not 1.1ing.

      • Hiya…
        thats for talking to me….
        thats a very powerful reply you have given me.
        this might seem daft… but im not sure which SP youre refering to …
        Marty ? or the Church ? or the banksters ?
        please reply
        Ian

        • Hiya…. no Im not 1.1ing either…
          its sometimes difficult to tell if that is how im being received…
          I feel ive made some interesting posts here… some directly for Marty.. although he has replied sometimes… I still wonder if im received as intended. is it worth asking here… ‘are you still in the Church?’ im not sure if church members are even allowed to use the internet… let alone comment here..
          Scientology is far more interesting to me… and I mean ‘knowing how to know’ and that comes from a multiple of sources… not only rons tech…
          only some of that is useful to me now…. a couple of primary axioms…
          thats about all I opperate on now….
          ive done all the OT levels and yes the question of ‘attacking SPs’ and ‘encouraging any attack’ are interesting topics but of course relate to self.
          however they could also simply be a dycotomy that one can stew on for a few years and end up with frazzled noodles instead of a mind.
          im in the UK…. you ?
          ian

        • The guy you are contending with. He only posted it because this time his name was not mentioned. And now that you are on to what I am saying this comment will not be posted. Guy

      • For Clear Meow

        “Strength lies not in defense but in attack.”
        – Adolf Hitler

        “Don’t ever defend.
        Always attack”
        – L Ron Hubbard

        “The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!”
        – Adolf Hitler

        “We’re playing for blood, the stake is EARTH.”
        – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 7 November 1962

  79. hiya….
    would you not agree that ‘ if this presentiment of 5 seconds were true’ then this would make auditing impossible ?
    { I understand Presentiment to mean… The meter reads before the concept is recieved by the person holding the cans.}

    Are you just testing us Marty ?….. seeing if there is anyone out here with any wits about ’em ? :o) …. can I win!… can I win! :o)

  80. No. he says…
    Yeah…. it is definatly a test Marty…. got ya! :o)
    Cos even your original post is just filled with ambiguity… where is this ‘actual scientific research’… you mention that some books… ‘Discuss’ it…
    Who cares… where is ‘da hevidence!’ this … so called ‘exacting scientific methods’ you is havin’ a larf Marty…
    cos my meter doesn’t do that…. sure you can make postulates… create reads… but…. come on…. spill the beans Marty… it’s a test to see if anyone out here is ABLE TO LOOK.
    I Win!
    :o) love it! Very funny….. genuinly…. funny… come on admit it.. dare ya!

  81. I read “The Secret Life Of Plants” many years ago. And remember reading about the galvanometer experiments. I now wonder if Baxter or Tomkins were scientologists? Does any one know?

    Dio

    • I’m pretty sure neither were ever in. Cleve Backster learned how to use a polygraph while in the CIA and tried it out on plants, later claiming that plants and even such things as eggs and semen were ‘telepathic’. Peter Tompkins (coincidentally or otherwise) also had a backround in an American secret agency, the OSS. He was a writer of potboilers of the ‘Secrets of …’ genre.

      What happens when a plant is put on an E-meter needs some research, of the controlled and duplicatable variety. Any impedance changes happening in a living plant from natural causes might not be easy to measure. Sticking electrodes into a plant (as in that famous photo of LRH and the tomato) is more likely to detect phenomena due to the damage that the electrodes are causing. Putting the leads on loose clips that hold cotton pads moistened with an electrolyte against the plant would be better. But running an electrical current through a plant for any length of time will also cause changes by electrolysis and causing different molecules to move toward one electric pole or the other. Plants use electric fields to organise their form; they are not as well buffered against electricity as our own bodies seem to be.

      In any experiment, the problem is to avoid influencing the very things we are trying to measure.

  82. Hi Marty;

    Well, quite an interesting thread, I don’t know if you will actually read down this far!

    I’m not entirely sure what to think regarding the consequences of the ‘five second presentiment’ read.

    Personally, I’d not go into doubt about my experiences and the results of those experiences of the ”Standard Scientology” metered auditing I gave and received.

    The existence of a presentiment read doesn’t exclude the ‘instant read’ of Scientology. In the thousands of hours I’ve audited, I’ve never noticed any presentiment read getting in the way of using instant reads. Thus, I doubt such would happen in the future. I doubt if I would even notice a presentiment read because when that read occurs five seconds or so before I ask the question, I’d be paying attention to the pc, not the meter, and could easily miss it since I didn’t know about it, I wasn’t looking for it, and it could be seen as just one more meaningless random read that happens. In future auditing, I’d pay no attention to it.

    The ‘pc’ always comes first, and one takes the data of the pc above the readings on the meter. I know some times it is the meter that gets audited, not the pc. The meter is just another pc indicator, that’s all. So, just ask the pc the question and go from there and not ‘assume’ the pc got the question before you even brought it up, that leads nowhere.

    To me, that the meter reads prior to the pc being ‘aware’ of the answer is because Being knows, but is unaware that it knows, and the read is the result of the Being’s knowingness. There is no thought involved at that point, static perhaps. It takes time for the whole incident to ‘dawn’ on the Being, so that is why the meter reads ‘below’ the awareness of the Being, perhaps more accurately put, above the awareness of the Being, it makes the Being aware, I guess. Thought takes time, as-is, alter-is, is-ness? That is the reason for the delay between the read and the pcs becoming aware of what the read is about, and also the reason for the FN before the pc cogs, and so forth.

    If the above paragraph is true, then presentiment reads are probably quite common.

    Scientology doesn’t advance any Being; it backs the Being up out of the mud it got itself entangled in, it doesn’t impart any understanding or knowingness to a Being, the Being already has it, but … shit happened.

    All my opinion of course.

    bob

    • Bob, what about the possibility that the presentiment read IS the instant read. That would go along with what you wrote here:

      “To me, that the meter reads prior to the pc being ‘aware’ of the answer is because Being knows, but is unaware that it knows, and the read is the result of the Being’s knowingness. There is no thought involved at that point, static perhaps. It takes time for the whole incident to ‘dawn’ on the Being, so that is why the meter reads ‘below’ the awareness of the Being, perhaps more accurately put, above the awareness of the Being, it makes the Being aware, I guess. Thought takes time, as-is, alter-is, is-ness? That is the reason for the delay between the read and the pcs becoming aware of what the read is about, and also the reason for the FN before the pc cogs, and so forth.”

      So basically, then, an instant read is reading on the pc’s knowingness and, as you say, it takes time for him to become aware of the incident – which would be the “average” 5-second) delay discovered by the researchers.

      The other thing that occurred to me, which I don’t think has been mentioned so far, is the notable difference between what is reading on an e-meter vs. the “reads” in the research experiments. That is to say, with regard to most processes, the reads of a pc relate directly to what he himself has experienced in the past and which he has “memories” of; whereas, the reads of the research subjects do not directly relate to past experience. Thus, these experiments may not apply to auditing.

  83. Hi Marildi;

    There are a few points in Scientology which must be declared to be true even if it is obvious they aren’t true, such as ‘no case on post’, ‘the auditor has no case’, ‘Scientology always works’, and so forth. These must be held to be true because to allow them to not be true introduces arbitraries which can lead to chaos and undermine the entire subject. If we acknowledge that maybe there are cases that Scientology can’t help, or there are certain procedures that are ineffective, where does this end? If it is true that some procedures don’t work, on some pcs, what happens when a session fails? What do you do, assume this is one of those cases where the procedure is ineffective, and so make no attempt to repair it as an auditing goof? The door is wide open; therefore, Scientology ‘always’ works when applied standardly, staff never have a case on post, if your breathe appears on a mirror you can audit, and so forth. To deny these as axiomatic puts everything on a slippery slope, all control is forfeit.

    Same with instant reads. A stable datum is needed. All auditors know that the read at the last breathe of a command is valid to take up, but we also know that the pc can be thinking of the question before it is asked, such as when it is being cleared. If the pc spots the question on the third word being cleared of a 8 word command, that is where a valid read can appear. Also, this phenomenon of a presentiment read could be considered instant, but how can you EVER know? Here you are, grasping the question yourself so you can ask the pc, and the meter goes ‘pop’. Did it go pop because the pc’s knowingness picked up the intent of asking the question, or because of who knows what else? There is NO WAY OF KNOWING. And, are you sure it was exactly 5 seconds; could it have been 4.869854969 seconds? You see the impossibility?

    That there may be ‘other’ valid reads in no way nullifies the definition of instant read that we use. The likelihood of a presentiment read somehow causing an instant read not to happen per our use, who knows? As I said, in thousands and thousands of hours of auditing, never once am I aware of a problem popping up … doesn’t mean there was no conflict between the presentiment read and our instant read, only that there is no way to know about it.

    So, in my opinion, forget about it, and let the ‘researchers’ have their fun while we carry on actually doing something of actual value.

    bob

    • Robert Almblad

      Bob Grant,
      I also believe there are other valid reads, but to stay off the slippery slope of new discoveries or new research simply because it is “slippery” might not be the right course of action for you or your PC. LRH left us the technology to use, not a religion to believe in. IMHO

      • Hi Robert;

        New discoveries are obviously of value, especially in the area we are discussing; improving the abilities of Beings. New discovers that can have potential value in that area are to be welcomed, but not necessarily employed.

        What is important, to me, is that these discoveries need to be evaluated within the overall context; do they align data ‘more accurately,’ or align more data, whatever, keeping in mind the tech on confusion and the stable datum. A new and valid piece of tech which works, can also dislodge a stable datum and produce more confusion than it aligns.

        For example, this presentiment read info; how can it improve the overall activity? Can it be smoothly and seamlessly integrated with what we are already doing, can it be applied, and so forth. To start employing this new data without a very serious research in it’s consequences will cause confusion because a stable datum has been dislodged.

        I know you have most likely realized all that I just posted. I guess my point is until the seamless integration of new tech had been properly researched and piloted, it is of no value, and can cause confusion, and should be ignored, unless you are the one doing the required research.

        If it’s not broken, don’t fix it.

        I think the real value of Marty’s post here is the question;

        How to proceed when new understandings of the mind or new development of technologies can have an impact on the present day procedures.

        Now that is a very important question and is inevitable and needs discussing. (I was very nearly denied ‘invitation’ to the solo levels because in my interview, I made the comment that if a ‘better’ technique for a Being’s enhancement was developed, I’d leave Scientology and go join it. Boy, that sure didn’t go over very well.)

        bob

        • Robert Almblad

          Bob,

          I agree with everything you said.

          My main thought is that we need people to do this research. Both PC and auditor. Who else is going to do this?

          The senior C/S International, His Midgetship, has just group C/Sed PCs and auditors to start the Bridge over and run around a pole. Surely, what could be worse than that? There is NO hope for mankind in the robot factory. It is the fastest growing religion in the world IF you include the growing count of people who want to flush the whole subject of Scientology down the drain.

          I am hoping that talented auditors and PCs will make an advance using Scientology technology, which might be the only thing that can save this technology.

          As new people, I don’t think you or I would join this Church today. It’s history.

          Somebody has got to do something… there are lot of well trained and talented auditors that read these blogs. There are none left in the Church. We will not be saved by that bunch. All we’ve got is our boot straps. At least that is something to be hopeful about.

          • Hi Robert;

            If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

            There is no need to make any changes in the tech, it works quite fine if done right. If a person feels otherwise, that their experience compels them to deny it’s workability, then by all means they should go and find/do what they feel helps them ‘progress’, and if it doesn’t stop anyone else from achieving their spiritual goals, those people have my total support.

            Advances in meters are inevitable, and your comment about ‘us’ doing the research on them is quite true. New meters, digital on a computer screen or something else, will be checked out by you and I and others, and is in fact being done right now.

            But as far as the present Bridge is concerned, I see no need to start introducing new procedures in what now exists. However, the Bridge is obviously incomplete, so once you have taken the Bridge all the way it goes, including the earlier OT Levels, then you are on your own, and at that point, hopefully some Great Wise One will find a hole and we can all break through that ceiling.

            bob

            • Total spiritual freedom …. Cor this is a great topic!
              so lets define each of these words….
              just my own definitions…. see what we got…
              Total….. mmmm…. absolute ?
              Ron says ‘Absolutes are unobtainable’
              mmmmm….. So Ron says it is unobtainable to achieve TOTAL spiritual freedom.
              THEREFORE…. ‘The route to TOTAL spiritual freedom’ -cannot- include LRH.
              Simple logic.
              oh… with one exception….
              HE might have changed his mind about this ‘absolutes are unobtainable thing’…. especially after LRH has read my post here… I recon he would change his mind….
              what do you recon ?….. oh then later we could define ‘Spiritual’ and ‘Freedom’ …… then check out if 1. we want it , 2. its available 3. lets have it. oh that is after determining 0. do we have it already…

              oh this stuff is so much fun!
              wishes
              Ian Interdimensional Wizard

    • Bob, you are awesome. You’ve fully answered my question – in fact, make that “questions” plural. Bless you!🙂

  84. Marildi as usual is missing the point of this post.

    What Marty is pointing out is just to a crack in Reality. He is not making an argument against or pro the e-meter, beyond observing its relative importance to the auditing process.

    Reality is not what it seems. Consciousness creates reality, it is not the other way around. In this case Time is shown to be specious. It is an inconvenient Truth. That is all that it is.

    Auditing processes, e-meter and whatever else Hubbard produced, are no more than tools to lead you to recognize consciousness, and to bring it forth.

    But if you listen to the faithful Scientologist, you will think that we are all here to make Hubbard right and to prove that ONLY his methodology works.

    No, it is the other way around my dear, Hubbard was supposed to assist people in uncovering themselves and to bring consciousness into full view.

    For people who exteriorize, Time is just one of the anomalies to explore, they are a lot of dots to connect if we allow ourselves to own the experience and keep pushing the envelope.

    Energy, form and locality also yield themselves to exploration, they all crack under intense examination, particularly when exterior, and they all are shown to be specious and relative truths.

    They do make this reality, and the answers that Scientologists are seeking are found in our relationship to those supposedly unshakable pillars that make reality seem solid and permanent.

    • Still Awakening

      Conan – nice summation. I had just finished re-reading the post and comments and then got to yours.

      What I also get from this – in addition to what you noted – is that the cosmology and paradigm of Hubbard is either incomplete, incorrect or both. As one increases consciousness (becomes more OT) and rises above the agreements of the physical world we SHOULD see more of this. At that level of awareness and consciousness one can become to change the agreed upon world, including the concept of time.

      At which time the meter – of the physical world – would not be adequate or correct enough. As you noted, it is but a tool. The ability to observe, recognize and think from auditor training for the best benefit to the pc, and only for the pc’s good would continue to lead to increased consciousness.

      What this shows is that the is not the final arbitrator of anything, but merely a tool to assist the auditor/counseling provider. The bridge as laid out and enforced does not allow one to actually increase consciousness above a certain point and thus is a glass ceiling that hinders the very journey we got on for.

      Only by invalidation of consciousness can one begin to circulate around the fish bowl and think you will get out. One agrees upon the shadows in order to be held below this false ceiling.

      The way to really find our way to increased consciousness requires transcending that this agreed upon bubble is the final and absolute answer. This does not require invalidation of any gains but it does require a little WTFU, a friendly shake from a slumber, and a continued desire – if not fully beat out of us by then – that there are still more questions and more answers above it all.

      This subject has brought many of us to think about things in a new view. It has also definitely rattled some fixed ideas, other ideas and past unanswered thoughts in my opinion. Thanks to all who participated. We may be the good, the bad and the ugly but the fact is we are here and we can learn, change and ponder if that is our desire and we are open to the potentially wonderful new horizon.

      • Still Awakening,
        Thanks.
        You noted “What I also get from this – in addition to what you noted – is that the cosmology and paradigm of Hubbard is either incomplete, incorrect or both.”

        I think that’s what Marty has being beating the drum about for years.

        The cosmology, the seeming overwhelming reality of the so called “Bank Incidents” are the ladder we use to access consciousness, the fact that all of these phenomena seem formidably real, does not make it so.

        Therein lies the tragedy of Scientology. Hubbard found impressive methods to navigate and conquer these fabrications, but then turned around and stuck everybody with his own fabrications, foisted now as the ultimate reality.

    • Conan: “Marildi as usual is missing the point of this post. What Marty is pointing out is just a crack in Reality. He is not making an argument against or pro the e-meter, beyond observing its relative importance to the auditing process.”

      Actually, Conan, I don’t think it was me who missed the point, based on what Marty wrote in his new blog post:

      “Scientologists are trained into constructs – to the point of confusing the map for the territory. Their attention is focused with a great deal of intention and discipline on mental trauma. Conscious, two-valued logic based, and three-dimensional time-space construct based perception is finely disciplined. This results in increased focus and force of intention. The unthinking, yes/no binary device called the e-meter facilitates this training.”

      So would you please refrain from the disparaging remarks about me? You can tear down my viewpoints if you must, but stay in present time and leave the personal evaluations out of the discussion and I’ll try to do the same for you.😛

  85. “… the meter reads on average 5 second prior to the subject being provided with a concept to respond to.”

    Dis-articulating the above into bits (analysis), it indicates there is an electromagnetic flow/motion-induction (read) occurring in advance of a conscious awareness of a concept being formulated and transmitted/received.

    Yet, that read is an “instant” one as in: it is THE read having any actual meaning to the PC.

    So, a non-physical, timeless state (either from the “static” or the “bank” — both being “timeless”) impinged on the physical prior to the conscious machinery being aware of it… quite a comm-lag🙂

    There isn’t much of a reference frame to handle that one, so, let me introduce one into it:

    “Reality is a dream one managed to land in the physical universe.”

    It’s one I latched onto from that phenomenon called “déjà vu” I ran into and remembered that I dreamt the “déjà vu” the night before and which gives an avenue of dealing with such and that is of “recognizing” the “conditions” of the “experiment” as in an about-to-happen “déjà vu.”

    In other words, it’s all going according to script!

    Accordingly, the conscious transmitting of the concept is still in a physical future, however, it was already postulated into a probable reality 5 seconds prior, at least.

    That would mean that it may take an OT 5 seconds or less to land a dream🙂

    As for the e-meter and its reads, now that they’ve got all the attention, PCs are bunking off all the time😦 “No auditing”!

  86. Lynne McTaggart

  87. Hi Folks,
    I think this post is slowly turning into the resolution of Scientology…..
    perhaps we need a whole new topic of.. The resolution of Scientology’
    because that is what we are looking at.
    What is Scientology ?
    It is not Dianetics. Dianetics is an old study about ‘dumping your old crap’
    Scientology is quite different.
    Scientology is ‘knowing how to know’
    who can tell I’m Div 6 trained!…
    Anyway… back to what I was saying…..
    The Cos practices ‘Semi Scientology’ thats why people stay there….
    because it holds lots of truth.
    The thing that holds all the truth is Scientolgy itself…. or as I call it ‘Thexia’
    Thexia could either be a branch of Scientology … the word is self explanatory to any OT8 and anyone else with a sparkle for a soul.

    The resolution of Scientolgy is first to recognise what is defined as Scientology.
    something like ‘ That which recognises Theta’
    I am using a definition for ‘recognises’ as ‘Re-Cognise’
    However that has not been stated as the deffinition of Scientology… not by Ron Hubbard anyway.
    Scientology is a topic that could far exceed the ability of L Ron Hubbard to
    deliniate, and indicate to us.
    he gave a real good swing at it….certainly we are all here talking about life and soul and telepathy and all sorts…. all because at some time in our lives we came accross ron hubbard and his work.
    I would really Looooooveto meet up with ron and chat about his oppinion on all our chit chat here….. I wonder what he would say ?
    I mean when did this guy die exactly 1982-1983 or was it 1986 supposedly….
    We are still talkin about him and his works….
    If it was all lies …. we would have dropped it on day one and gone off and bought a house a car got carpets and lived a ‘normal life’…. instead of spending all these years wondering if we are all little sparkles of theta with magical ability and not a human afterall.

    • Ian, you are one unique individual.

      And I loved your post.

      • naw… dats a nice fing to say…. :o)
        well…. I sopose thes is more to life that asking are you an ‘ini’ or an ‘outi’
        … are you in the Cos or out….
        who really gives a stuff….
        what is important is spangle spingling everyfink so everone is just having a wonderful time….. and yeah hopefully discovering all the secrets of universes…..
        and the biggest secret of all……..
        ’tis you….
        but somehow we all know that already….
        hahaha….. nice laughing … not 1.1….

        cos I think many people would agree with the sentiment… ‘I’m Wonderful!’

        however how about ‘I’m magic!’…. OT is supposedly about magic… whereas Id say the Axioms are magic…
        magic to me is simply ‘The ability to change ones mind’
        oh Ive said enough….
        Ian Interdimensional Wizard :o)

    • I like your post Ian –all except the part about being little sparkles of theta. I believe what you said plus the idea of being inside a head are case, and were addressed to be resolved. Theta is not located in space and time. I’m not correcting you, it’s just that this idea caused me big trouble.

      I myself have no more analysis to do about SCN and resolve it. I am with the SCN idea that something is as good as it is workable. I do that. I use whatever I see is best for me. I’m happy lately about what I do. And I’m cool if people use SCN or other stuff, for as long as they don’t harm. I don’t think I do anything that contradicts LRH. And thus, all these ideas about graduating SCN appeal to me, and I support it, without attacking SCN as generality. Also, I like those old goals of cleared theta clear etc that LRH had set, and OT 8s report that they haven’t gotten those goals. So yeah, time to graduate. It seems to me Marty approaches those goals -or at least leans toward them- more than a fanatic SCNist would. Fanatics are glib, afterall.

      And I cannot tell what LRH would say or do. I think he is very unpredictable –doesn’t use the usual repeating past patterns etc. If you wanna chat, consider that he is basically, a spirit (for those who ‘believe in’ spirits), so maybe give it a try🙂

      • “I am with the SCN idea that something is as good as it is workable. I do that. I use whatever I see is best for me. I’m happy lately about what I do. And I’m cool if people use SCN or other stuff, for as long as they don’t harm. I don’t think I do anything that contradicts LRH. And thus, all these ideas about graduating SCN appeal to me, and I support it, without attacking SCN as generality.”

        Hey Spyros, I see that you intuited Marty’s next blog post – 5 seconds before he posted it!

        Seriously, you did.😛

        • Haha I noticed –or maybe he intuited mine! Or maybe I am Marty too. Hey, imagine being 8 dynamics🙂

          We can get content with saying ‘my viewpoint’ and ‘his viewpoint’ and ‘respect my viewpoint’ etc and that’s very alright. But nothing stops ‘you’ from having more than a single viewpoint🙂 I can get the viewpoint that all SCN is $@#$!%$ or that it is the only way or anything. Anybody can🙂

          That implant went like ‘we are all one’ or slices of one. I think more correctly it is ‘we are all potentialy everything’🙂
          .

          • “Hey, imagine being 8 dynamics :)…I think more correctly it is ‘we are all potentialy everything’”

            That was LRH’s original postulate – being each of the dynamics.

          • Spyro:
            “That implant went like ‘we are all one’ or slices of one. I think more correctly it is ‘we are all potentially everything’”
            Mark:
            Every implant has a bit of truth that you could latch on to. Once you say “Yea, you are right, that’s what I will do from now on”, then you are hooked.

            Once you find out when and realize how you got an idea, opinion, ‘consideration’, you are no longer a slave to it.

            Examining your past in quantity does have it’s hazards, but it DOES have it’s values. It is not an end all, and it must be balanced with PT work, but it’s value is genuine.
            Mark

            • “Every implant has a bit of truth that you could latch on to.”

              Indeed, you agree with a part of it, and then you buy the whole package. Like you go for love and compassion and you wind up with crusades against the heathen😛

              “Once you find out when and realize how you got an idea, opinion, ‘consideration’, you are no longer a slave to it.”

              Yes, but even in SCN, that’s just one approach. Creative processing, and accent on ability type processes didn’t address the lies/past as much, if at all.

              • In fact, at one point LRH was outright against trying to address all the facsimiles – they go on endlessly! He stated that the better approach was for the being get “up to speed” and thus not the EFFECT of his facsimiles.

                • Yes. If a being knows thoroughly that it is not a body, what’s the use in running out his being run over by a truck? He never got run over by a truck, nor will it ever get run over by a truck, it was some mammal that did with which the being identified. That being will not have such a fascimile -I think- as that fascimile was attached on another lie of the “I am a body”.

                  It seems that automatically, as awareness arises, fascimiles vanish. Thus the old exteriorisation techniques and other positive processing etc etc etc and why some meditation doesnt have to ever address any pictures, instead address the spiritual awareness of a person.

                • Marildi
                  “LRH was outright against trying to address all the facsimiles – they go on endlessly! ”
                  Mark
                  I’ve got plenty of time. Your past existence is ONE piece of the puzzle. Not to be obsessed over, not to be ignored.
                  Mark

              • Spyro
                Many tools, many gains. As I said, obsess over none, ignore none. I will use them all. If I make mistakes, I will smile and continue marching. I enjoy all of it.
                Thanks, Mark

              • Spyro
                Thanks for the reply. There is truth to that, as many have stated.

                It is my understanding from all I have read from and about Ron, and from my experience, that the reason he said, No pictures after clear.” and “Clears are at risk.” and OTs, for the most part are not to look at their past directly, but through via’s is because;
                When one loses the obsession to carry his past experiences around with him like a diary, even a bible of sorts, (so called ‘Clear’) then when one tries to look back, he gets confused which past is his and what past belongs to others. This combined with the fact that all past is ours in ONE RESPECT. All bank, facsimiles, MEST, can come crashing down on a person and completely overwhelm and confuse him. This has happened repeatedly. It is not pretty.

                Ron tried to handle the BT problem for many years, whether real or imagined, so that he could safely examine his past completely. At the end he was still saying “More BTs.”, according to reports. The precise relationship between individuality and oneness, Thetan and Theta never fully ‘clicked’ with him. He tried to find ways to handle past postulates, opinions, agreements en mass with some success and some failures. “All postulates are aberrative.” LRH Not a quote of his rightness, but a quote of his viewpoint.

                I’m certainly not saying that you must go over all 142.77 billion of your most basic considerations. Most will be cleared up in groups. But if you refuse to look directly at any of them, you will be forever crippled and crushed and enslaved.

                Feel yourself solidified by the past, that you are reinforcing your mass and significance? Then go to a mall, a park. Talk to people, build that chair, write that program, make love, do some positive processing, read Marty’s books. Work out what YOU need to do. Examining your past is JUST ONE part of enlightenment, but a necessary one.
                My observations
                Mark

                • Mark🙂 I love what you said ” This combined with the fact that all past is ours in ONE RESPECT”. Yes, from an 8th dynamic ‘viewpoint’ it is all yours, and thus, from such a viewpoint you can as-is all (hint hint).

                  My knowledge of the pre-OT levels is only surface, and I’m not an appropriate person to make evaluations. From knowing what I know about LRH and his SCN, I don’t believe he would want people to run things endlessly. I think -possibility- that there is some intentional squirrel cage involved, but not made by Ron. Consider, -for example- who trains/checks the C/Ses in the COS? It certainly isn’t LRH.

                  I have noticed that you have assigned some case to me with which i disagree. I wanted to ask you since your first message ‘why?’, but I wanted to stop blogging at that point. I don’t have any repulsion against running out past incidents that are indeed in restimulation and in effect. No. I just consider that I as a SCNists, and others too consider too much that their past is in restimulation and that they are the effect of it, and thus they do make it happen!. When I blog, I experience a tremendous increase in my case, which is the reason why I wanted to quit. It absorbed so much attention from me, and I wanted to focus on other things too. It should be the opposite, considering that SCNists are meant to as-is case, not create even more.

                  For me, to examine the past is a way, potentialy useful, but not a necessary one. Again I’m pointing out to you past Bridges wherein the past was not examined at all. I don’t believe that Ron quit of them because they were less workable. There is no such datum anywhere.
                  🙂

                  Spyros

  88. Tom Gallagher

    Perhaps the route to ‘total spiritual freedom’ doesn’t include LRH, himself…..

    Where does that leave the literal adherents? Ergo, aren’t they in a total trap? A spiritual one at that?

    Does a machine determine my freedom?

    Or Scientologically speaking, my paid for status……

  89. Pingback: Scientology and Intuition | Moving On Up a Little Higher

  90. Michael Fairman

    Many viewpoints have been expressed here – about Hubbard, the E-Meter, the “Tech” etc, etc, etc. I’ve been wrestling with a question for quite a while. Perhaps someone can answer with some concrete examples, because I don’t really see any. What has Dianetics/Scientology actually done for Humanity? I know what it professes it can do; but please someone tell me, after sixty or so years, how is the planet better? Is there less war, less famine, less religious persecution, less crime, less oppression? I see the effects of a MLK, Ghandi, Einstein, Schweitzer, M Teresa, Beethoven, Michelangelo on and on. Where does Hubbard and his work fit in?

    • Hiya…
      here is an answer for you…
      You and I would not be having this conversation if we had not encountered Ron Hubbard at some point.
      The list of genuine wins gains happinesses, problems dissapated.. that scientology over the years has accumalated… is breathtaking!… i must have written 50 success stories…. and yes maybe 10 of em were a little exadurated or even ‘im writing a success story but id rather be in the canteen right now’ but the other 40 or is it 400… are utterly true.
      Ive not seen soooooo much success over 50 years of any one person… or group that has really got so many successes from people…
      I hear about the crap too…. mmmm shame… but that is not Scientology.
      Scientology is ‘the study of knowingness’ … thats what we are all doing now!… here on Marty’s websit.
      Enjoying it ?
      I wonder if we would find less scientologists behind guns bazookas than ‘non scientologists’…. ?
      but then there are probably less ‘nuns’ too… and less ‘vinegar salesmen’
      for me personally ……?
      I am regularly out of the body ‘exterior’ my perceptions are clear… not as clear as the bodies eyes… and I need glasses on those…. but nevertheless.. bouncing over the sparkles at the beach is… beautiful.
      So Scientology for me has introduced me to a really huge amount of beauty…. for the last 40 years nearly!….

      • Tom Gallagher

        You are more full of shit than a Christmas goose.

        • is that simply that your mental constructs are inhibiting you ?
          or are you just unable to communicate with intelligence ?
          I did think the Christmass goose was funny…. but you could be more clear dont you think ? rather than just….. ‘ah your full of shit’… I dont really think you are that unintelligent…. Ian :o)

  91. BASKETBALL JANE Can you email me privately? Get my email address from Marty. Thanks, Cindy aka Jane Doe 2

  92. Hmmm. Interesting stuff. Now I want to play around with an e-meter. Anyone wanna sell me one for $25?

  93. Re: Kingsley and Bernie Wimbush:

    It appears that these guys did more and better stuff with scn tech than anyone else I know about.

    While all the many ex-scio lines I have been on in the last 17 yrs have only argued and parced Hubbard and scn, and fought, whined and bitched, and talked mostly nonsense, these two Wimbush guys were respectably applying it to and improving it and using it in the real world, ……that is the business world, while not mentioning the repulsive, disreputable word of scientology.

    I recall on one list some yrs ago that they were scorned and berated by some old timer arm chair fz’ er.

    I really knew little about them until now.

    Read here:

    http://obits.dignitymemorial.com/dignity-memorial/obituary.aspx?n=Kingsley-Wimbush&lc=2325&pid=163595290&mid=5455334

    http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl12a.shtml

    http://www.iscientology.org/scientology-blog/419-eulogy-to-kinsley-wimbus

    They did not sit around and talk about it, they went out and applied it.

    Well done guys!

    Dio

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s