(Page 1, Page 2, Page 3,
From: "Jane Allen" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2000 7:26 AM
Subject: Re: To any reasonable Scientologists
JA> The "win" I had is hereby
> While "on course" at the Manor Hotel in Hollywood, CA (Celebrity
Centre International) I received no "wins." I read Dianetics
there and filled out the pages of my workbook. I was audited and sec
checked and was able to fool them into thinking some progress had been
achieved. If there were absolute "wins" to be won then they
should have been just as effective on a skeptic as a enthusiast.
Mmmmm. . . , but I don't think there ~are~ any absolute "wins" in
Scientology. The gains that are to be had come from improving one's
understanding and familiarity with the various parts of life by doing the
procedures honestly. Now, that isn't to say that a skeptical attitude is bad;
actually I aim to start off with one when I'm doing anything new. Then at some
point I either get, or don't get, new understandings, interesting improvements
in my skills, etc.
However if you start off fooling the staff into thinking you are making gains
(shakes head dolefully) . . . I don't see how you can ~expect~ to get anything
from any of the courses or counseling you received.
Here's a loose example from another field:
Billy takes up a basic Buddhist meditation course. He doesn't really
believe in meditation although he's curious to see what it's like; and he's
particularly interested in things he's heard about more advanced meditations. However, rather than do the meditation that he's supposed to be doing, he sits in
the lotus position. plans the menu for his next dinner party and works out
his shopping list. Afterwards he spoofs the instructor into thinking that he
This is a shame for everyone because it means that Billy never gets corrected
and that the meditation never gets done right. Also Billy feels somewhat
disassociated from the the instructor and the whole subject, and in terms of his
progress he's just cut his own throat.
But for the moment all seems well and he progresses onto the next steps -
until he inevitably falls on his head and "realizes" that
Buddhism is all nonsense.
I could make up similar examples from Freudian analysis, Rogerian counseling,
etc. However whilst it might be possible to fool people for a time whilst doing
study or mental training or therapy, I just can't imagine that it would get
anyone anywhere. The only good thing is that it could be good
experience for the Buddhist priest or the org staff, and in the future they'll
probably be better at spotting similar people earlier.
JA> I don't believe in God because they (God-ists)
want you to believe first and get benefits second. (Even if I don't
"believe" in, say, gravity I still remain firmly attached to
Earth.) So I come in with the attitude of a scoffer (but secretly I
want to be shown something special). I was trying to get the
auditors to skip ahead, but they wouldn't and I was getting nowhere with their
low level methods. I don't say that to boast, but the fact remains, I was
able to see the intentions of their exercises and I wanted to move on.
One thing I've learned in my auditing is that it's very important to say exactly
what I think about something. Tell them that you're a scoffer but you want to be
shown something special! (Of course I know it wouldn't be a secret then). If I
think the process is boring or unnecessary - I say so. If nothing changes
and I still think so - I say it again.
I kind of always did this - but over the years I've gotten much better at
picking up (and communicating) exactly what I think is wrong (or right) - it
really speeds things up (and makes auditing cheaper).
Actually I just remembered three times when, at least initially, I
~didn't~ do this:
1. When I first had grades auditing, the auditor asked me if I was interested in
running the process. I always used to say "Yes" - but actually
sometimes I wasn't. Waste of everyone's time.
2. Another auditor, another time. He had an unfortunate habit of raising his
eyebrows every time he acknowledged me. I was embarrassed for him and didn't
really want to say what was bugging me - but of course I couldn't make any gains
in the session as my attention kept going onto waiting for his eyebrows to go up
- and also onto trying not to think about it. He could see from the meter
something was wrong and he finally got it out of me - big relief all round.
3. Final time. Many years ago. I was waiting in the HGC for my auditor and
this grumpy looking bloke walked though the doorway. I thought, "Wow, he's
an ugly, miserable looking fella."
Of course. . .
So in session I kept trying to keep my attention off that nasty thought
I'd had. I _really_ didn't want to have to tell him. But the pressure kept
building up, and he kept trying to find what was wrong - and finally I had to
hide my head behind the meter shield and 'fess up. Big relief all around (I
think/hope), and the session got on track, etc.
JA> So I switched to an exclusive diet of "Out-Tech" or "Black
PR" (or whatever you want to call it) in order to get a different
> This afforded me an overview of the higher levels and the grades and the
training routines and so forth. When I read about someone staring for an
hour non-stop I was curious if that could actually work so I tried it. Sure
enough it's possible, but did that give me any greater understanding over
myself? And if so is it to Ron's credit? I was glad that I could calm
myself, so there's the win, if any. But...
> If someone comes over to you while you are sitting in your own car and
shows you how to use the cruise control do they really deserve credit for the
> That's why I don't give credit to Scio for that. Just like I don't
give credit to X-ianity for advancing the concept of "peace and love."
> It may have been a win, but that's because I'm a human, nothing more.
Ascribing credit takes away from the study of the subject itself, as far as I'm
concerned. When I study Relativity I don't hang a picture of Einstein on
my wall to cry and applaud to.
> I don't join groups, I study them. I don't wage wars, I test
boundaries. I don't follow, I learn.
As far as I'm concerned - good hunting. It's your life.
JA> Besides I think that the territoriality that
has taken over the mindset of CoS is doing nothing but destructively influencing
the whole study and is detrimental to anyone interested in a pure field without
such distractions. The freezone exists, it seems, because some people saw the
need to separate the merits of the Tech, if there be any, from an atmosphere
unconducive for learning that the CoS has become.
As I said in my last post, it's a very interesting subject. Recently I've been
leaning over in favor of the church position because of the benefits that accrue
to promotion, workability and the volume of services delivered. (which is not to
say that some things don't need some tweaking).
> Call me stubborn or just call me:
> "Hello, Nurse!" ~Sappho
I hope I'm not being too mean in these letters. I hope you do find something
special one day. And I like the sig.