The Missing Foundations of Scientology

It is interesting to me that some people who recognize the evil of the Church of Scientology, still believe that Scientology, itself, is good.

I see some folks talking about “rehabilitating Scientology’s and L. Ron Hubbard’s image”.  I see some wannabe Hubbards going on about which parts “Hubbard got right” and how they have “fixed” the mistakes made by Hubbard.

As if Scientology worked.  As if the promises made by Hubbard were real.  As if Scientology wasn’t just a long, long history of failed promises and successful fraud.

But in all this effort to “rehabilitate Scientology’s image” and “make Scientology work”, no one has given the slightest glance at the most important aspects of Scientology.

I am speaking of the foundations of Dianetics and Scientology.  The absolute basic and extremely key assumptions that all the Dianetic and Scientology “tech” is built on.

Let’s take “engrams”, for example.  Sure everyone has had “traumatic experiences” in their lives, that’s a given. But do those events match the very specific and detailed criteria for “engrams” as defined by Hubbard?  That is, does the “mind” make a full and accurate recording of everything that happens during unconsciousness? People running Dianetics believe they have “recalled” the content of such incidents, but has it ever been verified against the actual event?

The only time it was tested, it was a complete failure.  In 1958, a very scientific attempt was made to validate Hubbard’s assertion that “engrams” did exist and did contain a complete record of everything that went on.  A volunteer was rendered unconscious, pain was applied and text was read.  Then Dianeticists tried for months to recover the text — and failed completely and utterly.  They were unable to recover even one tiny part of the text that was read to the unconscious person.  According to that test, “engrams” do not exist.

Validating Hubbard’s basic assertions is absolutely the most important thing any Scientologist could do to “rehabilitate Scientology’s image” or to “improve Scientology’s tech.”  This is the foundation of all of Scientology.

Without “engrams”, there is no “Reactive Mind”. Without the “Reactive Mind” there is no “Clear” and much of the rest of Scientology “technology” falls apart as well.

The concept of “erasing engrams” permeates all of Scientology from the very lowest processes to the most “advanced” levels.  And engrams do not exist according to the only actual, scientific testing ever done.

It is astounding that no True Believer is working to revisit this information.  Despite the obvious importance, no True Believer is even considering testing and validating any of Hubbard’s foundational assertions.  There is nothing more important if one believes in Scientology.

Some believers might ask, “If people are being helped, what difference does it make?”

All the difference in the world. If someone is only imagining they are being helped, that isn’t much actual help, is it?  Also, if you don’t know how Dianetics and Scientology actually help (when it does), you won’t know why it doesn’t work, you won’t know how to make it more effective and you won’t have a clue where to go next.

What is the goal of Scientology processing when there is no “Reactive Mind” and there is no “State of Clear”?  What is the need for “engram processing” when there are no engrams?  What value is there in Scientology when its very foundations have been disproven?

For Scientologists, Dianetics and Scientology “tech” is just a black box, you crank the handle, you repeat the rote words and sometimes, something happens and, once in a while, that “something” is good.

Without “engrams” it is likely Dianetics and Scientology work like Visualization Therapy, self-hypnosis or Guided Imagery, people imagine they are “erasing” a bad incident and obtain some relief.  But no one knows what is going on with Scientology processing because no one looks at Hubbard’s unproven assertions about the basics of Scientology.

This is exactly why it is so accurate to call Scientology a “belief system”.  It is founded solely on a belief that certain assertions are true despite the fact that the only tests ever done showed those assertions to be false.

Bill

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to The Missing Foundations of Scientology

  1. AnonLover says:

    Excellent post! Although we are not “True Believers” earlier this year a few us Anons had the same thoughts in mind regarding the need for debunking the core concepts in Dianetics and exposing the truth. We put our heads together and launch this site a few months ago:

    http://thedianeticsscam.com

    • justbill001 says:

      Oooh! Great site! Love it! Well done!

      Bill

    • scnethics says:

      I just read the site and I’m floored. Outstanding work!

    • anon. says:

      What a crock of shit… anything so bias has to be a lie… what a joke.
      I’ve been an outside scientologist for 15 years and can absolutely state that the reactive mind does exist and I’ve experienced it for myself firsthand. It has changed my life and I now have an IQ of 142 from 100 previously. I don’t really get involved in the political BS, I just put in some time when I can and continue to quietly receive auditing. I can see how people don’t like some of there ways, and how it is presently run, but the truth of the matter is that LRH was a genius that uncovered many many truths that are undeniable. For anyone to say it is just all a bunch of hokey pokey, is an idiot that has not really experienced anything or had any training. Too many people are running around distracting and making issues about everything except the fact will always remain that the Tech works. Why do you think that Scientology is such a big subject and controversial… because it works!

      • justbill001 says:

        Well golly, you’ve made such a good, factual, reasoned case – we’ll just take your word for it!

        Naw! You are what I recognize as a True Believer. You believe what Hubbard, the “genius”, said because … well, because he said it. Proof? Nope. Read the description of “Clear” in Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. No, really, READ IT. No one got what was promised. Not one single, solitary Dianeticist or Scientologist received what was promised. That’s irrefutable.

        I was a True Believer for over 30 years. I’ve done much more Scientology training, much more reading of Hubbard’s works and much more auditing than you will ever do. I know tons more about Scientology and Dianetics than you do – obviously.

        Where is your proof of ANYTHING you claim? Where is ONE “Clear”? Just one. It has been 64 years since Hubbard posited this “Reactive Mind” and (pay attention) not one single shred of evidence has ever been presented to prove it.

        And it would be dead simple to prove, if it existed.

        I understand you believe in Scientology and believe in Hubbard and you are terribly upset that anyone would dare to doubt the “genius” of L. Ron Hubbard, but that’s tough. It’s all fake. None of it is real. You’ve been conned and badly.

        Some day you will wake up and realize it.

        Oh, and that “because it works!” catchphrase, write back and tell me what the word “works” means in this context. What is it that “works” and how can you tell?

        • anon. says:

          Well.. I don’t want to sound to much like a sea org, but the other catchphrase is “what is true for you, must be true”. I don’t need anyone to tell me that there is proof because I’am the proof and know what I’ve experienced. You can read and study all you want, I’ve actually done very little training except the Objectives, but had lots of auditing. I can say that when you have really handled something in your life you’ve struggled with and then it is suddenly gone, you no longer even have to put forth any effort or attention on the matter ever again. And when you have gone most of your life with a certain feeling or thoughts that you think are “normal”, because of all the justifications you make for them, and then are free to feel or think them, or not, as you choose instead of trying to compute through them… you will know… that will be your proof.. that is all I can say. And it feel pretty fucking good let me tell you!

          • justbill001 says:

            Not going to respond with anything actually worthwhile? I didn’t really expect you to. Here are the facts that you are carefully ignoring:

            • There are no Scientology “Releases”. None.
            • There are no Scientology “Clears”. None.
            • There are no Scientology “OTs”. None.

            You think that “Scientology works” because you experienced “some changes” in your life. Not unusual changes, nothing spectacular, just the kind of changes that happen to everyone – but you are a True Believer and so you think Scientology “works”.

            Yes, you might have felt better after some auditing — cool — but that doesn’t excuse the fact that Scientology’s promised results, “Release”, “Clear” and “OT” have never, ever been achieved by anyone.

            You’re not in Scientology, paying good money so that you’ll maybe “feel better” once in a while. If you’re like most people who get sucked in, you’re there because you really want “Clear” and “OT”. Who wouldn’t?

            So why do you keep trying when you can clearly see there are no “Clears” and there are no “OTs”? Are you just a masochist?

            Or have you gone so far down the Scientology indoctrination that you really don’t see it?

            By the way, the saying “what is true for you is true” is a statement of belief. It means you must ignore reality and only accept as “true” what Scientology would have you believe. It isn’t a good thing.

  2. Dave says:

    “Problems with the Engram Theory” by Jeff Jacobsen also addresses this issue.
    http://www.spaink.net/cos/essays/jacobsen_engram.html

  3. Great post, Bill. Scientology is stupid.

  4. scnethics says:

    This is a great point. The fact that a church with this much wealth hasn’t bothered to conduct studies to prove conclusively that Dianetics works speaks volumes.

    • justbill001 says:

      Well, the church has had a very bad time when they’ve attempted to prove some of Hubbard’s claims. They actually funded an independent study of Hubbard’s “Purification Rundown” for getting rid of drugs and toxins from the body. The study found that the Purif was useless.

      They funded an independent study of Hubbard’s “Study Tech” which Hubbard claimed was the solution to illiteracy. The study found no benefit from “Study Tech”.

      Is it any wonder that they probably won’t fund any more attempts to prove Hubbard’s claims?

      It is interesting that, now that they know for certain that their Study Tech and Purif positively do not work at all — they still claim they do and still sell them for lots of money.

      Bill

      • Jonathan says:

        Could you give us a link to where we could see these failed independent studies? No anecdotal evidence. I’d be very grateful.

        • justbill001 says:

          I know that the studies were commissioned by the church with the intention of finally having irrefutable proof that Hubbard’s “tech” worked. I also know that the studies included a confidentiality clause forbidding any publishing of the results unless the Church of Scientology approved it.
          And I know that the results, when the studies were completed, were buried as deep as possible by the church.
          The results are not available and will never be available.
          You can decide for yourself whether you think the results were positive or negative.
          Bill

          • Jonathan says:

            Well, all I have is your word that these studies happened so how can I decide for myself?

            Who did you find out about these studies from and is there anywhere online I can read about it that’s less . . . hearsay-ish?

            Forgive my skepticism, I’m just interested in confirming what your saying

        • LeadWrist says:

          Another way to look at it, if there was a study and it showed the tech to work, it would be plastered everywhere…

      • anon. says:

        Who the hell is “they”… haha.. nonsense. Again.. another joke without and personal or conclusive evidence…. hilarious. .. I’ve done the purify.. took me 3 weeks actually and wow.. I had some physical gains and at the end I had a mental release point when I finally didn’t have the drugs in my system anymore. Was quite dramatic actually. But I noticed that LOTS of old sunburns and radiation came out of my skin. Was pretty amazing, I’m 40 years old today and look like I’m easily still early to mid 30’s. Thinking of doing another one in my forties.

        • justbill001 says:

          Huh? Because you “felt better” after you did “the purify”, that’s proof of something? No it isn’t. Your little anecdote doesn’t mean anything to anyone but you. It does not prove any of Scientology’s claims for the Purification Rundown. None.

          There are no independent, scientific studies done of the Purif that verifies ANY of their claims – don’t you realize what that means? It means the church KNOWS their claims are bogus and will not let any tests be done.

          They depend on believers like you to forward their unproven claims. It doesn’t work. We know the truth – and so does the church.

  5. Strelnikov says:

    Just Bill, I thought you would like to know that the San Diego Scientologists sold their future Ideal Org property at 7380 Parkway Drive in La Mesa to a developer; they are going to make it into a jammed warren of 198 townhomes.

    http://lamesa.patch.com/groups/la-mesa-city-council/p/198unit-apartment-project-approved-for-parkway-drive-neighborhood-protests

    The President of SD Scientology, David Meyer, was there but he didn’t talk and the La Mesa city council made no mention of Scientology being involved. A huge number of residents were opposed to the construction due to the traffic because the street in a frontage road with a load of apartments and lots of parking problems.

    This is probably the end for Scientology in San Diego; they don’t have any missions left, no Scientology schools for the children, just one building on a narrow street.

    • justbill001 says:

      Fascinating. Thanks for letting me know about San Diego. They lost a fortune with that property and it was a terrible choice to begin with. Their local members simply don’t have the money to go through that whole “Fund your Ideal Org” thing again. The San Diego org is in bad shape.

      I expect they will use what money they got from the sale and they will do renovations on their existing building (and call that their “Ideal Org”).

      Bill

  6. An anon says:

    Regarding your claim that no true believer ever tried to have a more critical look at what’s going on, it is a truth with some modifications. After he got out, Geir Isene (only Norwegian to ever reach OTVIII) had a small forum with open tech discussion. It seems he did critically assay the tech. The result:

    http://isene.me/2013/03/26/fuck-it/

  7. Dave says:

    “As if Scientology wasn’t just a long, long history of failed promises and successful fraud.”
    Very well said.

  8. overall10 says:

    Love your post! Brilliant and spot on as usual. And I love that you keep coming back to the basic flaw. Engrams are a made-up fallacy. It took a long time for me to grasp that. They seemed so real and I was so sure I had erased them.
    I have come to realize that it is more likely that engrams are just painful memories “stored” in the subconscious. That isn’t even original. It’s Frued.
    Do you think it is possible that on the positive side of things that LRH improved on Freudian therapy by a) not looking for a particular kind of aberration i.e. incidents of a sexual nature b) asking the right questions that would bring the painful memories to surface and c) not analysing the patient’s answer but just having the patient tell and retell the incident? And when it works, that could be why…new and improved Freudian therapy.

    LRH was a science fiction writer with a wild imagination who was grandly ambitious. Such a man couldn’t write a book about improving Freudian theory. Yawn…

    Well, thems my 2 cents worth. A pleasure always to read your posts.

  9. posted here before says:

    Can we please have more posts about implosion? My schadenfruede needs feeding.

  10. Lady Squash says:

    Hi Bill, Hope you are still reading your comments. I’ve read and thought a lot in the last year and still the layers come off. Just when I think I’m done…there’s another fallacy.

    I’m reading “Flourish” by Dr. Seligman, a psychologist, who said he had a patient with whom he was very successful. He “cured” her of all her neurosis and he expected at the end of this he would have before him, a very happy person. This isn’t what happened. Instead he had before him an empty person. His patient did not know who she was or how to enjoy life.

    Ayn Rand is famous for saying “check your premise”. Assuming for the moment that there are engrams, the premise in SCN is that if you get rid of all your engrams, you will have in front of you a happy, able, free, fantastic person and that getting rid of all your engrams is a good thing. I would question even that.

    Dr. Seligman went on to found a movement in psychology called “Positive Psychology”. The idea is to teach individuals how to respond to situations in life in a way that will increase your happiness, I tried it and found it very helpful… “Learned Optimism”.

    It isn’t even that the goals of SCN processing are unattainable. Even more disturbing is that even if they were attainable, they will not result in happiness or a sense of well being. The fact the goals aren’t attainable, keeps people from finding out that the gold they seek is Fools Gold. Quite the mind fuck.

    • justbill001 says:

      Hi Lady Squash,
      Very nice to hear from you again. I never thought of it that way – that, if “engrams” actually did exist, it might not be a good thing to “erase” all of them. Strange and interesting idea.

      Obviously, not something to worry about in real life, eh?

      • Lady Squash says:

        Yeah, just one more lie i.e., that erasing your engrams will lead to health and authentic happiness and well-being. What a guy! Lady Squash

  11. Captain Daddy Rabbit says:

    I have been looking up misunderstood words for 30 years. Do I have more understanding u betcha! I had a touch assist for a head ache. No more head aches since then, not one. Some things are good, some are bad. ARC Straight wire led to incredible clear memories. Upper levels are for space cadets and not for me. Biggest problem for Scientology is ethics. Lying breeds irresponsibility and excuses. Pity the poor Sea Org members that don’t have a life. They cannot listen to anything negative or the will lose any case gains. They are like human slaves with no free will

    • justbill001 says:

      Um… Looking up words in a dictionary is not Scientology, it’s the standard way to define words you don’t know the meaning of. To think that “looking up words” is something that shows that “Scientology works” is not clear thinking.

      While you generally understand that most of Scientology does not do what was promised, you seem to still retain the Scientology “logic” that whatever good happened when you were in Scientology was directly caused by Scientology. It may be true but it may not be true.

      Here’s the point: Scientology does not consistently, reliably, predictably cause any good results. Therefore, what happens during Scientology may not be the result of Scientology at all.

      This could be tested but Scientology does not allow that.

  12. glenn says:

    I’m a pretty “nuts n bolts” kind of guy and after 35 years in auditing trying to handle the reactive mind I finally looked and saw it didn’t exist. I then challenged the Flag C/S and auditor to “show me the bank” but they never even tried. I walked out shortly after.

Leave a Reply. It will be moderated.

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