Just a scammed public,out 20 years but out 10 s of thousands.What can I do to return the “favor” and prevent others from being the dup I was ???

Yawn: “Beating the drum of the virtues of any technology incidental to Scientology is not its [the site’s] function.”

Nevertheless, “beating the drum for the FAILINGS of any technology incidental to Scientology…” does seem to have become the site’s function, at least in the view of many posters.

And rather than the technology being “incidental” to what you are calling “Scientology,” I see it as the organization being incidental to the technology. But in spite of those almost diametrically opposed views, I would agree that Mike makes it possible for all of us to get along pretty well.

Best of luck to you too. Cheers!

Thanks and best of luck in what you do. There is one thing that is relevant on this site and that is that it is monitored by Mike and he has plainly stated many times it is for the exposure of the abuses contained within and under the banner of Scientology. Beating the drum of the virtues of any technology incidental to Scientology is not its function. Much friction has been generated by some not adhering or understanding that concept. There are other places better suited to being pro-tech but we all seem to get along well here anyway, all with his good graces of course. Cheers.

PeaceMaker: “Pignotti and Gold are commenting on KTL and LOC as delivered and as you would have done it, not some possibly more pure Hubbard version that was rarely if ever delivered and that we have no way of evaluating on its own merits.”

Well, first of all, you don’t seem to have duplicated that in no way am I validating DM’s alterations of the tech – ever.

More to the point on this exchange: You are mushing together Pignotti’s and Gold’s comments about the two courses – whereas they said different things about each of them. And you are jumbling together my own comments regarding each. On KTL, I was specifically referring to Monica’s comments that it “re-programs the way a person uses language” and “age regresses the person.”

Regarding LOC, my only comment was to quote Marty, and you seem to have missed that he was only talking about LOC, not KTL – another jumble-up. Furthermore, when you say “as delivered” you are again mushing things up, in this case the way it was delivered in the beginning compared to the later Miscavige versions, which was Marty’s whole point.

Yawn, thanks for your enlightening comments. I have to defer to your experience as a technically trained and experienced Sup. You are in a much better position than I am to evaluate the pros and cons of KTL/LOC – or, for that matter, better than the majority of people. My experience with the two courses was in 1990, on what I believe were the original versions, so that may be the main factor in my having had great wins and no difficulties.

With regard to NOTs auditing, you indirectly validated my lack of interest in pursuing it further after I got some NOTs type auditing from an Independent. Nevertheless, I have direct knowledge of Independents who have had great wins on NOTs. Also on OT III. That said, as with other Scn tech, I go along with My 2 Cents’ view that others should pick up the ball and keep what works, throw out what doesn’t, and fix what needs fixing.

I also agree with your high opinion of Rehab tech – it generally saves the day when it comes to flaws in the tech or in its application. Yawn, you know as well as I do that miracles can be had with the tech, with both auditing and training, in addition to Rehab Tech.

Thanks so much for your nice ack regarding where I’m coming from. And I really liked what you wrote here:

“Go free on your own terms if you want to but be smart about it. Disregard this completely if you like and you’ll have my blessing if you do, but many things in Scientology aren’t what they claim or appear to be. Being solely Hubbard determined is not a healing or healthy thing.”

You are a wise old Aussie. 🙂

marildi, sorry if that seemed like “overload,” that wasn’t my intent, but I’m limited in what I can do when these threads get so deep that individual replies are impossible.

Pignotti may not have done those specific courses, but she has a lot of personal experience with Scientology, then has worked for decades with people recovering from experiences in Scientology and other cults, and on top of that has advanced academic training. That’s not an “appeal to authority,” just an experienced professional opinion to contrast with your personal anecdote.

Pignotti and Gold are commenting on KTL and LOC as delivered and as you would have done it, not some possibly more pure Hubbard version that was rarely if ever delivered and that we have no way of evaluating on its own merits. Marty Rathbun is also commenting on the recent implementations and seems to be essentially agreeing with Pignotti and Gold when he writes before the section you quoted, that

“David Miscavige has reversed L Ron Hubbard technology for purposes of creation of stupidity and tractability.”

and later refers to

“the Black Dianetics reversal Miscavige has implemented”

Rathbun elsewhere defines black or “reverse” Dianetics as being “utilized to control” and calls it “Miscavige Brand Brainwashing”.

The paragraph from him that you quoted may refer to a different proposed mechanism, but it also talks about how one of the courses was (and could be) manipulated to get individuals to come to different conclusions that they were supposed to believe or accept were their own decisions, but which were actually under the control of those running the course. That is indeed the sort of “indoctrination” that Pignotti is talking about, even if you don’t agree with her particular explanation of the mechanism at work, and, generally speaking, thought control/reform.

If your own source that says that the courses that you did and said that you enjoyed were not authentically Hubbard’s work, and agrees with my expert sources that the courses as delivered involved thought reform/control and even “brainwashing,” then it seems to me that you may want to take some time to ponder just where you stand.

So back to how these extended exchanges get “flattened” and hard to respond to, and in response to our host’s request to avoid having that limitation end up make topics hard to follow, I ask that we follow this up later on newer topics where the same issues might also be relevant to the discussion.

We can run around in circles forever with this direction of “education” and such things as KTL, but LOC is an evaluative process being run on you, just be aware of that and it gives you a listing question at the end of it which imo is a suppressive one. It’s way too general and defies the Laws of L&N the way it is presented to the student. However, regarding the KTL, learning the definitions of the basic words of your language and the grammatical implications of them should be fun but grammar is a fluid thing and changes on it’s own accord just as life does, one must be flexible with it. I won’t get into it but the sup’s course of how to run KTL/LOC is NOT what you’d think it should be or contains – if it is LRH who wrote it (I personally doubt it or it’s been severely altered) – imo he lost the plot with LOC! As an aside, the clay table work on the KTL is a de PTSing action, not everyone needed it at that point of time, so it evaluates for you that you are PTS. A great number of students took forever to get through it, it truly wasn’t needed for most students. The overall general CSing for it was a dog’s breakfast technically. As I’ve said many times one of the most important parts of Scn to know and know well is Rehab tech. Knowing when you’ve finished something is extremely important with any mental application imo, that’s applying being cause! Tricky to know if there’s more to do on something or maybe it shouldn’t have been done in the first place but that’s the game not many are successful with or very good at with Scientology. Playing around with things like medicine is a similar matter.
Being annoyed at something like parts of Scientology is not such a bad thing, same as being annoyed at bad liquor, both aren’t good for you and if you’re smart you ‘”will use that experience”. I know where you are coming from with your view of Scientology Marildi and I truly don’t have a problem with what you want to do with it and good luck to you, except for one thing! Please, imo, stay the fuck away from NOTs. Know what it is – sure, and even be able to recite it if you like but to run with it too much or expect it to solve your existence and it’s associated problems… well? It will lead you someplace else you may truly regret going. I don’t agree OT3 is Bridge level either. It’s just an engram at best and we only have Hubbard’s word for it how dangerous it is if not done. But sure, it reads on the meter, and if you like do the action as stated BUT move on and don’t O/R it. Any more significance placed on it than that, and you’ve played right into the hands of a never ending or badly ending scam.
You don’t run out all charge on all things, otherwise you wouldn’t have a mind to play with and you’d go nuts trying. Life likes a game too you know, don’t try to own all of it – It can’t be done (most people have a real button on and with the concept of ” being cause”) as that would involve having to own or trying to own all other people! Go free on your own terms if you want to but be smart about it. Disregard this completely if you like and you’ll have my blessing if you do, but many things in Scientology aren’t what they claim or appear to be. Being solely Hubbard determined is not a healing or healthy thing.

PeaceMaker, there’s a logical fallacy called Argument by Fast Talking / Information Overload / Bang-Bang-Bang. This may involve moving from subject to subject – each of which would take hours of research to verify or refute.

If you don’t want to come across as attempting the above, you’ll need to keep to a minimum the number of points you throw out all at once.

PeaceMaker, here’s some of what you quoted of Monica Pignotti: “These are relatively new courses that came out in 1990 and contain, in my opinion, the most powerful indoctrination techniques used to date, as they re-program the way a person uses language…On the Key to Life Course, the person is basically age regressed to a very early stage of their learning.”

I have no idea how she figures those courses “re-program the way a person uses language.” The Key to Life course begins with the clearing up of small, common words – each of which have so many definitions that they are the source of a lot of misunderstanding. If Monica wants to call this “age regressed to a very early stage of their learning” simply because the words are small and common, then she is ignorant of the fact that small common words are hardly ever cleared, let alone at an early stage of learning.

The next thing on KTL is to clear up all aspects of grammar, including parts of speech, sentence and paragraph structure, etc. These are explained in a new, simplified way, but by no means are the concepts different from standard English grammar or “the way a person uses language.” The end result of the course is that the student is far more literate in both understanding and being understood in communicating.

Monica Pignotti as a source of information about these courses is a good example of how such sources may sound convincing but don’t know what they’re talking about. At best, their opinions (at least Monica admitted it was her opinion) are based on their own or others’ bad experiences – while ignoring and not taking into account the good experiences of many, including myself and Yawn.

Similarly, as regards the Life Orientation Course, compare what Monica Pignotti and Ken Gold said about it to what Marty Rathbun had to say about it being “simple and workable” until Miscavige turned it into “a mass of confusions” –

“The Scientology Life Orientation course was designed by Hubbard to help people sort out the meaning of their individual lives – or as he put it to find his or her ‘hat’ (function) in life. Miscavige of course could not leave simple and workable alone and interjected arbitraries with resultant recalls (retreads in Scientology terminology) and a mass of confusions for students. Miscavige insisted that a person decide upon the post title he was currently assigned to as his function in life (which really equates to the purpose or the meaning of a person’s life), then canceled that with another arbitrary, then re-implemented the “post is hat in life” arbitrary – and who knows what else since.” https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/04/30/the-meaning-of-life-and-key-to-life/

I Y, thanks for that comment of yours – in which I don’t think that I caught any typos! I appreciate your reflections and the questions you brought up.

I remember hearing at the time, that LOC had the problem (for management) of having too many staff realize that working in the CofS environment was not their life purpose, and I think also that some public similarly backed off on their involvement. I didn’t pick up anything about KTL other than that just the clay demo took a vast amount of time, and people could be on it way too long. The two courses went hand in hand so if LOC had to go KTL was probably not beloved by managers who had to deal with its logistical demands, either.

I think it also says something that from what I can tell, none of the indies have ever wanted to touch these courses.

More for marildi (who may nonetheless appreciate it less) and anyone else interested in these courses, I want to quote some interesting critical perspectives on these courses. They fit with my interest, or growing interest, in hypnotic aspects of processing, though I’m not saying that I entirely agree with their perspective.

Monica Pignotti, who was famously on the first RPF on the Apollo, and who later went on to get a doctorate and is an activist against potentially harmful therapies, wrote:

“The Key to Life and Life Orientation Courses

These are relatively new courses that came out in 1990 and contain, in my opinion, the most powerful indoctrination techniques used to date, as they re-program the way a person uses language. These courses are now a required part of the Scientology program and are done early on. The Key to Life Course costs around $8,000.

On the Key to Life Course, the person is basically age regressed to a very early stage of their learning. All outside reading material and language are taken away from the person and they are given picture books and clay. They are then told to demonstrate key words in clay. The clay demo must be done until the person has the realization that the materials say that they must have. Sometimes a person can be on the same clay demo for days at a time and the people I’ve talked to who have been through it have found it a very frustrating experience. When words are introduced, only Scientology-approved dictionaries are used to look them up in. This course tears down the person’s earlier learning and replaces it with Scientology indoctrination. On the next course, called the “Life Orientation Course” the person is supposed to come up with their new Scientology life’s purpose, thus completing the indoctrination process and creating a very solid cult identity.”

Ken Gold, who helped compile KTL and LOC art RTRC, and who left and went on to work with ex-members coming out of various cults, is quoted as largely echoing the sorts of things that Pignotti said, and adding:

“The person’s entire thought process is taken away from them, and then re-built into what Hubbard thought it should be.
…..
Very few people realize what is being done to them on these courses. VERY few. So, of course they will write wins. Something has irrevocably changed within them. They think it is good, it feels nice to have had something removed, which makes them very close to their fellow Scientologists. “