I notice that you seem to have somehow forgotten "auditing," or are they no
longer doing that?
I've known a couple of former auditors, who described the procedure briefly.
Basically, you hold on to two tin cans, which are the inputs to the
"E-Meter," which is a glorified skin resistance meter, as in the little
lie-detector kits you could buy from Radio Shack. The auditor asks you a
set of standardized questions and watches the E-Meter responses for
indications of tension related to a topic. Tension indicates an internal
state of conflict. Once the exact nature and source of the tension has been
isolated and identified, the person is asked to make a choice to do
something about the problem. Only when the person has genuinely committed
to positively resolving the underlying problem - as indicated by the
reduction of tension - are they allowed to continue.
Thru many, many expensive auditings, a person is lead systematically to
resolve all the internal contradictions and conflicts in their lives, until
they are "clear." At this point, nothing budges the needle on the E-Meter.
While this methodology sounds very good, and seems to work reasonably well
in practice, at least initially, in straitening out conflicted persons'
lives, the drawbacks and problems are severalfold. Here are a few of the
obvious problems:
First, it is very well established that the galvanic skin response is
extremely easy to condition. Thus, a person can learn to control the meter
without even realizing they are, just by the conditioning of the process
itself. Thus, going clear may simply indicate a person has learned to
control his GSR, not that anything has been solved.
Second, pathological lyers, sociopaths, psychotics, CIA and KGB agents,
among other nice people, are notorious for being able to ace much more
sophisticated polygraph tests, from training or pathology (or both). These
people may well quickly move to "clear" and become star members of any
organization that relies upon anything like an E-Meter - which could explain
some of the internal problems and purges I've heard rumors of from the
scientologists I currently know.
Third, the guidance by the auditor itself may lead or coerce the person into
decisions and acceptances that are contrary to reason or their real
interests, and may be a major part of a process of real hypnosis. See
"Explorations in Hypnosis," for a good explanation for how the process of
hypnosis actually works - and it does. It always requires the person to
first accept some minor breach with reality, which has the effect of
disconnecting the critical faculties.
>From: "Loree Thomas" <loreetg@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: Scientology (was: Re: Limits of tolerance)
>Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2000 02:12:21 -0700
>
>From: "altamira" <altamira@ecpi.com>
>
> > > [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of phil osborn
> > > Thus, a philosophically naive person, thru his or her willingness
> > > to accept
> > > such nonsense as part of the "training," could easilly lose all grip
>on
> > > reality as we know it, at least on a cognitive level.
> >
> > I don't know much about Scientology other than what I've seen on the
> > internet. but I've known a person who practiced it and lived for a while
>in
> > their Florida community. This person was one of the most disturbing
> > individuals I've ever talked to. Whenever he spoke of a topic related
>to
> > Scientology (and as their training is broad, many things in daily life
>seem
> > to be related to Scientology) he would begin to speak in a monotone, as
> > though he were reciting words that had been fed into his mind under
> > hypnosis.
>
>There is no hypnosis practiced in Scientology. People learn by the unique
>method of reading books and being tested on what they've read. The most
>esoteric thing they do is have people model key concepts in clay as part of
>the test.
>
>This is frightening, folks. You all seem fairly objective and level headed
>on most subjects... but on this one, I'd have to give the whole list an
>"F".
>
>Scientology is silly. It's eastern religion altered by a science fiction
>writer to take on the trappings of a "scientific" belief system.
>
>However... they don't hypnotize people, they don't tear families apart and
>they don't eat babies. They ARE over litigious and a bit paranoid... but
>they have ample reason to be that way. They have real enemies that use
>real
>nasty tactics.
>
>The cult of christianity in all it's forms, from catholics to mormons, is
>much much worse. You are wasting time and energy on the wrong target.
>
>Loree
>
>P.S. I've never met any scientologist who behaved like you describe,
>Barbara. I have met massive numbers of christians who fit that
>description,
>however.
>
>I'll bet we all have.
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:36:40 MDT