What is the E-meter and how does it work?

I read a bunch of nonsense this morning about what the e-meter is and how it works. The e-meter is used as part of Scientology auditing, read: spiritual counseling. It works as a measurement device. It measures emotional shifts and displays them on a scale, just like a thermometer measures the temperature or a lux meter the amount of light. It certainly does not “induce” anything, actually it does absolutely nothing by itself. Anyway, read on to get a proper description (from Scientology.org). You can also check the video to see e-metered auditing in action.

THE E-METER

Scientology auditing is assisted by use of a religious artifact that helps the auditor and preclear locate areas of spiritual distress or travail.This religious artifact is called an Electropsychometer or E-Meter. (Electro-psycho-meter from electrometer, a calibrated device used for measuring extremely low voltages and psyche, the human soul, spirit or mind.) The E-Meter measures the spiritual state or change of state of a person and thus is of enormous benefit to the auditor in helping the preclear locate areas to be handled. The reactive mind’s hidden nature requires the use of a device capable of registering its effects—a function the E-Meter does accurately.

HOW THE E-METER WORKS

When the E-Meter is operating and a person holds the meter’s electrodes, a very tiny flow of electrical energy (about 1.5 volts—less than a flashlight battery) passes down the wires of the E-Meter, through the person’s body and back into the E-Meter. The electrical flow is so small, there is no physical sensation when holding the electrodes.

The pictures in the mind contain energy and mass. The energy and force in pictures of painful or upsetting experiences can have a harmful effect upon an individual. This harmful energy or force is called charge.

When the person holding the E-Meter electrodes thinks a thought, looks at a picture, re-experiences an incident or shifts some part of the reactive mind, he is moving and changing actual mental mass and energy. These changes in the mind influence the tiny flow of electrical energy generated by the E-Meter, causing the needle on its dial to move. The needle reactions on the E-Meter tell the auditor where the charge is and that it should be addressed through auditing.

Different needle movements have exact meanings and the skill of an auditor includes a complete understanding of all meter reactions. Using the meter, the auditor ensures that the process covers the correct area in order to discharge the harmful energy connected with that portion of the preclear’s reactive mind. When charge lessens, the person heightens his ability to think clearly in the area being addressed and his survival potential increases proportionately. As a result, the preclear discovers things about himself and his life—new realizations about existence, the milestones that mark his gains.

These realizations result in a higher degree of spiritual awareness and consequently a greater ability to succeed.

Video (What is Auditing?):

109 Comments

  1. “Under what circumstances may one achieve the highest levels as an OT without spending a large sum of money? Is it possible to do by spending no money at all?”

    There are going to be some costs. Staff are awarded auditing as part of their service. Room and board for parts that have to be done at a higher org will have to be paid out of pocket usually. I know some staff who have been awarded that as well. So the “no money” would be for those who have contributed far beyond the ordinary requirements.

    Pat

  2. “I’m glad you brought up the placebo effect, because that raises several questions. If 20% are benefited due to such an effect, would that indicate that 80% find actual medical benefit? ”

    No, I mean that 20% of the people taking these drugs will experience improvement due to the placebo effect.

    Pat

  3. Perhaps, if this is more in your range of areas for discussion, as I’m sure there are public resources for it that I’m just unable to find:

    Under what circumstances may one achieve the highest levels as an OT without spending a large sum of money? Is it possible to do by spending no money at all?

  4. … But she brought up the subject, about misconceptions of the emeter…

    No matter, it was nice talking to you. I will look at other sources to learn more about this topic. Sadly, the ones you recommend don’t discuss any other reactive mind other than the one that is overcome, so I will again contact church points of contact.

  5. Comment by BigDaddy on March 22, 2011 1:04 pm

    The definition is the definition. I won’t discuss it any further. I’ve said all I wish to on the subject.

    Interestingly enough, this type of “discussion” does not belong on myths, according to Louanne

    From: myths.info
    Q: What is Scientology?

    A big question! Scientology is helping a person to gain spiritual freedom. It can and has to be learned thoroughly and applied, not debated. For me Scientology is help in all forms and more understanding about life and others. ScientologyMyths is not the right place to give lengthy descriptions of Scientology
    and I truly recommend to check one of the dozens of websites of the Church of Scientology to find out about theory and practice of Scientology. If you rather believe scholars and authorities, well, there are plenty of them who investigated Scientology and its practices and published their conclusions.

    The best recommendation that comes to mind is to check the videos on the Scientology.org Video Channel or on Youtube.com/churchofscientology. There is one called “Inside a Church of Scientology”
    – which is pretty good – and another one “What Scientologists Say About Scientology”. Those two give some first insight. Then for the practice and theoretical background of Scientology there are more videos and plenty of text on Scientology.org, Scientology Bona fide Religion and on What is Scientology?.

    Pat

  6. I’m assuming, as you replied, that you ended up reading my post? If it was indeed too long, you’ll note that it’s broken down in a single reply to your multiple posts, marked by time. If it’s easier, I could break it down into multiple postings?

    True that you never used the word critical. But you DID make special note of that phrase, as a modifier to the concept of the reactive mind. In context, the references we’ve all seen say that a clear overcomes “their own reactive mind”, but your statements indicate that after achieving clear, one is still impacted by a reactive mind, thus the use of the e-meter. I was only researching “what” reactive mind remains.

    I’m not asking you about this again, as you’ve quite politely stated that you don’t have a desire to further discuss that particular subject (if I understood you correctly). That’s fine, of course, you have a right to participate in any communications that you desire. But I feel that you would know the answer, and wish that I could share in that knowledge! :)

  7. Your response included the statement that the specific wording of “their own” was critical

    Not true. Absolutely did not say that anything in that was critical. Only wanted you to understand the full definition.

    Pat

  8. Break it down, BD. I don’t have a lot of time to wade through this long post.

    Pat

  9. Hello again, Pat!

    You ask: “What exactly in my communication there did you not fully get?” in regards to the “other” reactive mind.

    My question, the specific one to which you replied, was that Hubbard very carefully defined the reactive mind, and said also that when one is clear, they no longer have “their own reactive mind”. Your response included the statement that the specific wording of “their own” was critical. I was asking that, given Hubbard’s careful definition of the reactive mind and how it impacts the individual, if he ever defined how a reactive mind continues to effect a person after clear? I can’t find anything in dianetics about it.

    In my post, specifically, I was asking for clarification as to one of your previous comments, where you seemed to indicate that the effects of the reactive mind on a clear was not defined in any document or book that is publicly available, but that one had to “go clear” in order to find this out. Did I understand you correctly?

    re: Comment by Pat on March 21, 2011 3:34 am

    I can see that my question was flawed. If I may rephrase my question, is there a belief, espoused through official scientology resources or coursework, that there is a difference in the capabilities or inner senses between someone who goes clear and those that seek enlightenment through other means?

    The data that I’ve compiled seems to indicate, to me, that individuals can indeed find great benefit through the application of dianetics, as they can through other religions or self-help techniques. I’m not equating scientology or any religion to a secular self-help program, but noting that inner peace seems to be a rather subjective experience, as I believe we’ve covered before. DO you have any thoughts on this?

    re: Comment by Pat on March 21, 2011 3:27 am

    Interesting points.

    I’m glad you brought up the placebo effect, because that raises several questions. If 20% are benefited due to such an effect, would that indicate that 80% find actual medical benefit? Some would also say that those that find relief due to the placebo effect may not actual have a medical condition, but benefit from the attention given to them. Now, I do believe that psychiatric drugs are certainly over-prescribed, but I think that actual benefit can be realized in those that need it.

    You’re right, that there are certain side effects in a percentage of the population. But, it’s interesting to note that these side effects are not realized in all patients, indicating an “x factor” that causes certain people to experience these effects. Another thing to consider is that ALL drugs have side effects, including aspirin or allergy medicines.

    You’re right, also, that there is no proven “chemical imbalance”, as this is only one theory to the causes of mental illness. You’d have to agree that this is a far cry ahead of bleeding bad humours in order to restore health! Now, of course, the phrase is a collequal term that originated in the 1950’s based on the observation that neurotransmitter imbalances (which are measurable) are linked to certain psychiatric conditions, which can be restored and measured with ceramic medications. However, it’s widely regarded to be a simplification of a very complicated theory. I would agree that it’s definitely an oversimplification, but would apply the same standard to those that benefit from psychiatric drugs to which you said of auditing- surely there’s something to all those that have been able to lead normal healthy lives after pursuing healing through this avenue.

  10. Pat,

    I appreciate your well-reasoned and well-delivered thoughts! I’m traveling today, bit will give them the reply they deserve as soon as I can.

    Until then, have a good one!

  11. In your other post, are you saying that the only way to know about the “other” reactive mind is to experience it? Why is one able to be defined, but not the other?

    “are you saying” seems to be indicative that you didn’t understand some word.

    What exactly in my communication there did you not fully get?

    Pat

  12. “As a clear, are you able to do anything that I, as a non-scientologist, am not able to do? I’m not trying to be coy, but I sincerely wonder if there’s any difference based solely on that fact.”

    That’s a valid question. First of all, I don’t compare what I can do with what another can do. For me that would show either conceit or lack of self-confidence, would be evaluation of someone’s state of case. Scientology helps people find their own spiritual truth. Remember, it’s all about personal observation.

    What I can do is point you to the videos on http://www.dianetics.org for what others say about what Dianetics has helped them with. That’s by personal preference and not because I “have to”.

    Pat

  13. For example, if someone that was “on” psych drugs were to tell you that their experiences were unilaterally positive, and that you wouldn’t know unless you tried it yourself, would you accept that as valid?

    No, for three reasons

    1. The placebo effect means that 20% of people taking them would consider positive results.

    2. Medical science has proven that these drugs are harmful, thus the Black Box warnings that Congress ordered the FDA to require.

    3. There is no such evidence of a “chemical imbalance” in the brain that cause mental health issues. There’s no test for it. This was a marketing ploy by Big Pharma.

    All of this is thoroughly documented in the DVDs I mentioned. You should spend some time on the CCHR site, so you can see for yourself.

    Pat

  14. Pat,

    Please take this question as sincere, and if you don’t want to answer, I completely understand. I’m not trying to trap, attack or argue with you when I ask this.

    As a clear, are you able to do anything that I, as a non-scientologist, am not able to do? I’m not trying to be coy, but I sincerely wonder if there’s any difference based solely on that fact.

    Thanks for understanding!

  15. @Pat,

    No, actually I don’t think that the only way that you can know about the effects of drugs is to try them, but that was to set up my point.

    In certain elements, observed phenomenon is acceptable, such as by objectively (theoretically, without bias) observing the effects on others. Without the subjective experience, this is considered to be valid, as those that are entwined with the subjective experiences can not be necessarily relied upon due to their proximity to the subject matter.

    For example, if someone that was “on” psych drugs were to tell you that their experiences were unilaterally positive, and that you wouldn’t know unless you tried it yourself, would you accept that as valid? And yet, that’s what -some- (present company excluded) ask of some critics. But, much like you’re saying with drugs, you need to retain your objectivity in order to eliminate bias.

    So, that accounts for the source of all but the most ill-informed of the critical elements, who, like you, attempt to eliminate the bias of subjectivity. Similarly, most critics appear to have multiple interests and pursuits, so dedicating 40 years or so to obtain an answer, while being necessarily unable to avoid subjectivity, is certainly against their interests.

    In your other post, are you saying that the only way to know about the “other” reactive mind is to experience it? Why is one able to be defined, but not the other?

    I hope it doesn’t sound like I’m pestering you, Pat. In reality, I’m sincerely enjoying this very productive and mature conversation. I think that you and I, we’ve really started to have some great conversations- thank you.

  16. I’ve been a Scientologist for 40 years. In that time, as a trained Auditor and Case Supervisor, I saw the results of psychiatric drugs and I have heard personal horror stories that are documented by CCHR (video of people who’ve actually done the drugs or had ECT).

    It appears that in your mind, the only way I can know is if I’ve had the drugs myself. That’s not true. There are 4 main ways that one can observe —

    1 ) Done to self by another and experiencing the result.
    2) Self dong to another and seeing the result
    3) Another doing it to another and seeing the result
    4) Self doing it to self and seeing the result

    Pat

  17. @Comment by Bigdaddy on March 19, 2011 3:44 pm

    “Re: clear, thank you for the advice. I will consider it, unless I find someone that can explain a reactive mind, versus the one that one loses after going clear.”

    As in the subject of God, this is up to each individual to discover for himself in the course of doing the bridge.

    I believe that you have a confusion between understanding that there is more to learn as one progresses up the bridge, and having to know what it is without doing the requisite steps.(which is not possible). It’s like trying to understand Algebra without knowing how to add and subtract.

    Pat

  18. Pat,
    If I may ask, on a related note, how does a scientologist evaluate data which they’re unable to subjectively experience?
    For example, regarding psychiatric drugs and the effects on the individual, how is one able to evaluate such a thing? Similarly, regarding our previous conversation about criminon and it’s perceived benefits, how is one able to evaluate the effects on the individual if subjective experiences are preferable to objective analysis? Or, and I know this may sound like an odd question, but how can a scientologist state a belief that scientology benefits anyone other than them, if they’re the only ones that may validate their own experiences?
    I’m not trying to pry, I’m sincerely curious.

  19. Re: clear, thank you for the advice. I will consider it, unless I find someone that can explain a reactive mind, versus the one that one loses after going clear.

  20. Pat, so that we may more effectively communicate, aside from providing links and references, what are you able and/or willing to discuss in this blog?

  21. @Comment by BigDaddy on March 19, 2011 9:22 am

    “You’re right, I don’t understand “reactive mind” or how there is still on after clear. Sadly, there’s only two ways to find out: ask someone (who, as you point out, is not permitted to tell me) or spend a great sum of money to go clear.”

    You could go Clear on Dianetics and you can do that for the cost of the Dianetics book. You could also train and co-audit with another student. That’s how a lot of us did (and do) it.

    Pat

  22. well, pat, we have some fundamental disagreements, but I really don’t want to ask you to violate what it is that Hubbard directed, as far as answering questions. You’re right, I don’t understand “reactive mind” or how there is still on after clear. Sadly, there’s only two ways to find out: ask someone (who, as you point out, is not permitted to tell me) or spend a great sum of money to go clear. Oh, well.

    But, I thank you for the engaging conversation, at least.

  23. My reference for how to handle confusions in reading comprehension is here:

    It’s a short on-line course from the book “What is Scientology” and it’s free.

    http://www.volunteerministers.org/solutions/study.html

    Pat

  24. What you are able to provide, google is as well, and generally does when I initially research a topic.

    That isn’t necessarily true. It’s a sad thing, but critics have “quoted” their “understanding” of the tech, rather than the source reference. I can give you the source references and only ask you to make sure that if it doesn’t make sense to check for misunderstood concepts as per the handling of questions. Confusions are handled by asking you to look at the materials. This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with communication and duplication so that one knows with full understanding. Just the fact that you continually question what something means shows me that you need to work on making sure you have the words themselves. The first step in learning is to admit that there is something to learn..

    Pat

  25. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 18, 2011 6:01 am

    What edition ate you quoting?

    2007.

    Pat

  26. *but
    **are

  27. Pat,
    It’s my error, bit I’m having trouble finding that entry in the book! What edition ate you quoting?

  28. I believe you can answer this- in your ethics reference, am I considered a student, that I am impacted by Scientology ethics guidelines?

  29. Pat,

    I’m really trying to figure out where I attacked your character at all, particularly in leu of providing an argument based on reason. Where did I do this?

    I was not aware that answering certain questions with other than the answers provided ran contrary to your religious teachings, although that casts a new light on some of our previous conversations. Given this development, I am left to wonder about our future conversations. What you are able to provide, google is as well, and generally does when I initially research a topic. I need help only with analysis, which you are unable to provide.

    Therefor, I respectfully request that you address questions that you ate permitted to answer; in turn, I will sincerely try to limit my questions to you within your capabilities.

    In short, thank you for the definitions, but they do not answer the question. I will continue to seek this information, hopefully without having to buy the answer (as in taking many expensive courses!)

  30. From the Book “What is Scientology”
    http://www.goldenageofknowledge.net/materials/wis.html?locale=en_US

    This is published on-line as well:

    http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part03/Chp13/pg0246-c.html

    “Solo Auditor Course and OT® Preparations Auditing

    Many of the OT levels, and certain steps of the Alternate Clear Route, require that the individual audit himself. This is called Solo auditing and requires that he learn all basic auditing skills and how to operate the E-Meter flawlessly.

    The Solo Auditor Course is in two parts: On Part 1, the individual learns the fundamentals of Solo auditing and the required technical skills. This may be done at any Class V or higher church. On Part 2, one actually begins Solo auditing and becomes competent with his skills, ready to address the processes of the advanced levels. It is available only at Advanced and Saint Hill Organizations and Flag.

    OT Preparations auditing varies from individual to individual according to their unique case needs. It is available from Advanced and Saint Hill Organizations and the Flag Service Org. ”

    Pat

  31. From “A Basic Dianetics and Scientology glossary” in the book “What is Scientology”

    http://www.whatisscientology.org

    Clear: a highly desirable state for the individual, achieved through auditing, which was never attainable before Dianetics. A Clear is a person who no longer has his own reactive mind and therefore suffers none of the ill effects that the reactive mind can cause. The Clear has no engrams which, when restimulated, throw out the correctness of his computations by entering hidden and false data.

    Pat

  32. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 17, 2011 6:11 am

    You are so sweet, BD. If someone refuses to explain everything to you, ad nauseum, you ad hominem. It’s a pattern that is very familiar to me now.

    Please do wait for Louanne. Giving verbal data (explaining tech) is actually an ethics offense.

    Introduction to Scientology Ethics, page 325:

    “The only answers permitted to a student’s demand for verbal
    technical data or unusual solutions are:
    “The material is in (HCOB, Policy Letter or tape):’
    “What does your material state?”
    “What word did you miss in the (Bulletin, Policy Letter or
    tape)?””

    Pat

  33. I see… I dont know the answers either.
    Your references do not answer the questions, else you could easily point out where they specifically did. Unless, of course, lrh never gave specific data on this subject, such as about the “other” reactive mind.
    Ill see if louanne knows when she gets back.

  34. BD,

    I am not going to give you verbal data. The references have been given.

    Pat

  35. Pat,
    I’m sorry, but we need to resolve this error message before we have more of a chance to discuss:

    http://img854.imageshack.us/f/66760432001.jpg/

    Thanks,
    BD

  36. Oh, also, can the e-meter generate a reading without engrams restimulating the reactive mind?

  37. Also, Pat, have you taken either of the solo courses?

    All that I can see on the chart is that the student becomes “expert on e-meter drills”. Does that imply that they use it on themselves? I don’t see anywhere that they are using the meter for audting themselves, versus training.

    Do you have anything that defines what they learn in those courses? The objectives, perhaps?

  38. Pat,

    I don’t know if you’re intentionally avoiding my question, or if you just don’t understand it.

    You gave me a link. It doesn’t answer my question. Please, if you’re able, copy and paste ANYTHING at all that supports your claims. Your link can support wither claim. If I’m wrong, simply show me where. You have not yet been able to do that.

    I’m familiar with Hubbard’s (and the CoS’s) definition of clear. It says, very clearly (no pun intended) that the clear no longer has a reactive mind. What definition are you using? Do you know the answer to “what” reactive mind still impacts clears?

    Reviewing the grade chart, will have input as soon as I can. I wonder, if you can’t show me where one STILL has a reactive mind after clear, what does the meter react to?

  39. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 16, 2011 6:59 am

    Your quote:
    “re: going OT is done with the emeter in SOLO auditing”

    “Where does it say this?”

    In the link Louanne and I both gave you.

    The definition of Clear is by LRH. It’s in the Tech Dictionary. That’s the definition that the Church uses on-line as well.

    The Grade Chart is by LRH and and clearly shows the Solo Auditor Course above Dianetic Clear and above Power on the alternate route.

    Pat

  40. Your quote:
    “re: going OT is done with the emeter in SOLO auditing”

    Where does it say this?

  41. Then, pat, all that you can offer me is your statement that something is true, validated only by your insistence that it is do. To be blunt, if either of your assertions were true, it would be quite simple to quote said truths.

    But we can’t do that. We can’t do that Hubbard never said either thing.

    So, if the entire spiritual foundation for using the emeter after clear is contained in those two vague paragraphs in your link, with none of it actually written by Hubbard, then it is what it is. But, in reality, I don’t think you can find a source reference validating either of your claims. Aside, this class you tell me I should take, is it not based on lrh’s writing? Have you taken it?

  42. @Comment by BigDaddy on March 16, 2011 12:06 am

    “Again, what type of reactive mind are you saying that a clear has? If not “their own”, what DO they have?”

    Not going to go there. The definition is the definition. Trying to understand the whole mechanics of the mind and auditing would require personal training in the technology, using Study Technology, on your part. You’re not going to get that here in Myths.

    If you are really interested in finding out then do some courses. Start with the Dianetics Seminar.

    Pat

  43. Can you show me WHERE it says that during the solo auditing process, one goes clear AND THEN uses the E-meter?

    It doesn’t say that anywhere, nor did I say that at any time.

    The alternate route to Clear above Power Processing is solo audited with the meter.

    Above Dianetic Clear also solos with the emeter as per the reference re: going OT is done with the emeter in SOLO auditing.

    References have already been given.

    Pat

  44. last thought ‘fore I hit the sack. If, as you say, “Solo Auditing is ABOVE Clear on the Classification and Gradation Bridge” then why is the alternate clear route part of solo auditing?

  45. Here is the quote from your link:

    “Many of the OT levels, and certain steps of the Alternate Clear Route, require that the individual audit himself”

    To pull a piece from that. “Certain steps of the alternate clear route”.

    The alternate clear route is:
    “The amount of auditing necessary to erase the reactive mind is unique to each person. If a person does not achieve Clear on NED, he continues with further levels on the Grade Chart and attains it on the Clearing Course. That the state of Clear can be attained is a certainty; the only question is whether a person will attain it through NED or this alternate route. Other grades or auditing services do not result in Clear. ”

    (http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part03/Chp13/pg0245-b.html)

    So yes, we agree on your source. It is correct, at least, that one will use the emeter on the alternate clear route, while trying to erase their reactive mind. Where does it say, ANYWHERE at all, that a clear is to use the meter?

  46. Pat…
    Again, what type of reactive mind are you saying that a clear has? If not “their own”, what DO they have?

  47. Pat,
    I’m going to repeat what I said before:
    Can you show me WHERE it says that during the solo auditing process, one goes clear AND THEN uses the E-meter? All that your link shows is that there’s several paths (including the alternate clear path) in which one may use the e-meter. I would expect, as in your link, that one would use the e-meter on the alternate clear path, that’s for sure!
    So, your link has certain variables. Nowhere does it actually directly address that concept. Is there anywhere at all where Hubbard, or anyone, says specifically that one uses the e-meter after going clear? And, if one actually does, what does it register if the clear has no reactive mind?
    I actually wouldn’t be surprised if there was something from the current church leadership saying such a thing… I wonder, though, if there’s anything from Hubbard saying as much? Surely he defined this at some point?

  48. @Comment by BigDaddy on March 12, 2011 8:51 am

    So you agree that a clear has NO REACTIVE MIND, right?

    Of his own, per the definition of Clear – “no longer has his own reactive mind”

    If you look at the link that Louanne and I both gave you, Solo Auditing uses the e-meter.
    Solo Auditing is ABOVE Clear on the Classification and Gradation Bridge.

    Pat

  49. Similarly, and I hate to over-post, but I have family photos to take, lol, your excellent definitions section on your other page has the following defintion:

    “E-meter: the Hubbard Electrometer is a religious artifact used in the Church confessional. It, in itself does nothing, and is used by ministers only, to assist parishioners in locating areas of spiritual distress or travail. The E-meter is not intended or effective for diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease. It passes a tiny current through the preclear’s body. This current is influenced by the mental masses, pictures, circuits and machinery. When the unclear pre-clear thinks of something, these mental items shift and this registers on the meter.”

    I only see the unclear and pre-clear listed… is the defintion incomplete?

  50. Louanne,
    In your reference, where, please, does it say that one uses an e-meter AFTER going clear? I don’t see that expressely stated on that page, just that it’s part of the alternate clear route as well…

  51. My dear Louanne, how I like to hear from you. You’re always so adept at actually answering questions :)

    Did not Hubbard say, “Now an E-Meter reacts only on the reactive mind. A Clear doesn’t react because he is able to be conscious. An aberree reacts because he can’t think without thought exciting the reactivity of the reactive mind.”

    (Hubbard, L. R. (1961, 8 June). E-Meter Watching Are You Waiting for the Meter to Play Dixie? The Technical Bulletins of Dianetics and Scientology (1991 ed., Vol. VI, pp. 208-210). Los Angeles: Bridge Publications, Inc)

  52. “Comment by BigDaddy on March 12, 2011 8:58 am
    Just reread, and I regret my inattention! So, you say you DO agree that clears have no reactive mind…. Hubbard, the church and yoshi also agree with this.
    I would wonder, though, what good would an e-meter if you tried to use it on a clear?”

    bd,

    Yes, a Clear by definition does not have a reactive mind.

    Yes, Clears are using the e-meter.

    The e-meter is a tool to display mental charge (per definition above).

    “When the person holding the E-Meter electrodes thinks a thought, looks at a picture, re-experiences an incident or shifts some part of the reactive mind, he is moving and changing actual mental mass and energy.”

    Clears can produce mental charge, get upset, sad etc, and as long as there is someone running that body there will be a reaction on the e-meter dial.

    Clears are using the e-meter for Solo-Auditing:
    http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part03/Chp13/pg0246-c.html

    Don’t ask me what solo-auditing consists of, I won’t answer.

    – L

  53. Just reread, and I regret my inattention! So, you say you DO agree that clears have no reactive mind…. Hubbard, the church and yoshi also agree with this.
    I would wonder, though, what good would an e-meter if you tried to use it on a clear?

  54. Yes, it is. But somehow, you’ve managed to complicate that definition. You see, Yoshi is NOT the church, that’s true. But he is someone that they trust to answer their email line. And that’s because he was able to directly answer my simple, direct questions, whereas you were not.
    So you agree that a clear has NO REACTIVE MIND, right? Hubbard says so, the church says so, yoshi says so… do you? Very simply, do clears have a reactive mind?
    And yes, for the love of God, I get that you accept subjective experience. You repeat it every time we talk and I continue to accept your statement on that. But, for me, I’ve never been willing to accept something that’s only a truth to me when there are the means to independently verify it. For example, at one time, it was true to a lot of people that demons caused bad humours in the blood and made people ill. Only by drawing blood from key areas could you restore the balance and, thus, health. Many people believed that to the core and felt much better once they were correctly bled. They believed it, and their subjective experience validated it. But, if it weren’t for people that weren’t satisfied with subjective experiences only, we’d still be cutting ourselves today.
    Okay, the emo crowd still does that, but you know what I mean, lol :)

  55. “By the by, knowing that you wouldn’t be able to support your claim regarding clears still “somehow” having a reactive mind, I emailed the church offices to try and get an answer. info below (personal info removed):”

    Huh? The definition is what the church says. It’s from LRH and is on the official site.

    Yoshi is not “the church”

    “Do you agree with what the church line says?”

    I agree with the official definition from the Church. Evidently you are confused about that and no amount of explaining will help that. What’s true is by PERSONAL OBSERVATION. It’s not true for you and there is nothing more to discuss.

    Pat

    Pat

  56. Thanks :)

  57. Did that.

    – L

  58. louanne, please delete my duplicate post?

  59. By the by, knowing that you wouldn’t be able to support your claim regarding clears still “somehow” having a reactive mind, I emailed the church offices to try and get an answer. info below (personal info removed):
    Do you agree with what the church line says?

    (posted in email order, most recent first)

    Yes. But This is the only basic data about Clear. There are more staff to learn.
    But Basically you are right.

    Yoshi
    – Hide quoted text –

    XXX XXX wrote:
    Yes, thank you so much! I appreciate your help!
    Just so I can sleep soundly tonight, are you saying that what i said is correct?

    On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Scientology Info Center wrote:

    It’s good that you under stand now!!
    I think you should read DIANETICS book. So you understand more.
    And when you read any books you should use a dictionary if you don’t understand something.

    Yoshi

    XXX XXX wrote:

    I think I get it now, thanks! So there is NO reactive mind that
    effects the clear, Right? not theirs, not someone else’s, not any
    reactive mind? That’s what the link you showed me seems to say.
    Thanks!!

    On Tuesday, March 8, 2011, Scientology Info Center
    wrote:

    Ok I understand.
    Basically there are two minds every man kind have its call Reactive
    Mind and Analytical Mind.
    Analytical Mind record every moment of your life. But when you get pain
    you get things call Engrams. Its records in Reactive mind. The Engrams
    makes people really stupid.
    If you do auditing you can take of all the Engrams so you are not
    longer under controlled by Engrams. So you can be really happy and can
    live better in your life.
    That’s the state of Clear.

    Yoshi

    XXX XXX wrote:

    Thank you, Yoshi, I’ve read that section of Dianetics and I’ve
    seen the video. I’m afraid I don’t understand the information. Could you
    please explain it to me? Most of it I understand, I just don’t
    understand if a clear is still in any way impacted by a reactive mind-
    perhaps not their own.
    Thanks for bearing with me!
    XXX

    On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Scientology
    Info Center
    wrote:

    Hi XXX.
    If you read book call “DIANETICS” you will understand what is clear
    mean and what does reactive mind does.
    http://www.scientology.org/books/catalog/dianetics-the-modern-science-of-mental-health-paperback.html
    If the book is to difficult you can watch DVD. It explain so much about
    DIANETICS.

    Yoshi

    XXX XXX wrote:

    Thank you, yoshi. So is there, then, “any” reactive mind that stll
    effects the clear? I’ve heared that even clears are affected by “a”
    reactive mind of some sort.
    Thanks!
    XXX

    On Tuesday, March 8, 2011, Scientology Info Center
    wrote:

    Hi XXX. Thank you for your e-mail.
    Watch this below link.
    http://www.scientology.org/what-is-dianetics/basic-principles-of-scientology/the-clear.html
    If you have any more questions just tell me.

    Yoshi

    XX XXX wrote:

    Hello!
    I was hoping you could answer this question- I can’t find the answer anywhere else!
    I see on your website that clears no longer have “their own reactive mind”. I don’t know how to phrase this, but do they have any sort of reactive mind, if not their own? In other words, are clears still impacted by any sort of a reactive mind?
    Thanks,
    XXX

  60. sure, okay.
    I just would have thought that if your references were relevant, you could have copy/pastad the portion that actually addresses the question. But, for some reason, that wasn’t possible.
    Oh, well. I know you like those references, they’re just not relevant to the discussion at hand. If they were, it would have been pretty simple to show where.
    I’m making the assumption that there’s no chance of you resuming the elements that you abandoned, as well?

  61. It’s too bad that you didn’t get the references. No more will be discussed. You won’t get it.

    Pat

  62. Pat,
     
    I really don’t see how you can say “No more ‘explaining'”, as you haven’t done too much explaining. A lot of copy/pasta, but I really don’t see much explaining. In other words, I don’t believe you’re communicating effectively.
     
    For example, I invite you to show me where in your link (or, indeed, where anywhere in the world) you can see explicitly that clears are audited with an e-meter. The link that you provided said only that “Many of the OT levels, and certain steps of the Alternate Clear Route” require the individual to self-audit. Again, nowhere does it say that they use the e-meter on themselves once they reach the state of clear. Nowhere at all does it say that an auditor will use an  e-meter on another person who is clear. You seem to be getting upset at me for pointing that out, but it remains that you have not been able to demonstrate anywhere where auditing a clear with an e-meter is part of the process.
     
    “If you really need to have this data then perhaps you should do the bridge and find out.”
     
    I suppose that one should do the same with street drugs? Psych drugs? Again, all that gives you is subjective experience. Good enough for you, and that’s fine. That’s not quite for me or others in more technical/scientific professions.
     
    “If you really need to have this data then perhaps you should do the bridge and find out.”
     
    No, I provided the definition, straight from scientology’s websites. I really haven’t seen you provide anything contrary aside from statements from you. I have no reason to doubt you, of course, but I wonder if any official resource counters their own definition of a clear?
     
    “Solo Auditing is done after Clear and uses an e-meter”
     
    Where does it say that solo auditing is done “after” clear?
     
    “Reason is required for full understanding of any subject. Being literal is causing you problems.”
     
    But you’re not talking reason. You’re talking acceptance of incomplete data, when more complete data is achievable. The concept of reason, in context, includes logic and rationality. You seem to be using reason in the sense of “accepting a concept without explicit validation”
     
    Re: Laurie Hamilton’s quotes,
     
    Thank you for sharing her comments. I can’t see any other way to interpret it other than scientology works as long as you believe it to do so. If you have doubts, it won’t work. Seems pretty fragile to me, but that’s my opinion.
     
    But, Pat, you really don’t see interested in actually answering my questions. I’ve asked very specific ones, and you really haven’t been able to provide any answer to them, seeming to default back to reliance on subjective experience. As I’ve said several dozens of times- I’m so very happy that it works for you. But if you’re not interested in objective reasoning, then I really think we may be looking for two different things. If I have any questions about subjective experiences, I know you’re my gal (or guy? I think gal). But I’m pretty interested in discussing concepts in a logical, rational framework.
     
    Since you’ve abandoned the  majority of our discussion points, I can only reason that you’ve made your points (subjectively, of course) and have no interest in discussing some of the abandoned elements. In case you missed them, I’d be happy to list them for you, but they’re more objective concepts, independent of subjective validation.
     
    For example:
    1. the discrepancy between your statement that mass does not exist in the “reactive” mind, and Louanne’s definition that it does
    2. Whether or not it’s true that voodoo is less subjective than scientology
    3. What “reactive mind” a clear is left with
    4. Whether or not you have considered it rude if you were directly responding to a conversation in which you were not originally addressed
     
    That’s just a selection, of course, and doesn’t cover the many other abandoned concepts in other threads (such as your promise to deliver information on criminon if I did)

  63. Re: your auditing above clear link-
    Ive read every word on that page- nowhere does it say that declared clears have the emeter used to detect their mental masses. Maybe you accidentally posted the wrong link- that one is about The solo auditing course and says that students will learn how to audit and use the meter.

    Ok. Let me make it really simple. OT is above Clear on the Grade Chart, right? Solo Auditing is done after Clear and uses an e-meter.

    No more explaining. That data was in the reference I gave you. Reason is required for full understanding of any subject. Being literal is causing you problems.

    Pat

  64. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 8, 2011 8:14 am

    “Maybe I’m just confused.”

    Maybe

    “If a clear no longer had their “own” reactive mind, what reactive mind do they have?”

    That’s the definition, BD. No more “explaining”. If you really need to have this data then perhaps you should do the bridge and find out.

    Pat

  65. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 8, 2011 7:41 am

    “I stand by my question to her though. Subjective experience is fine for you- I don’t have a problem with that; it’s up to you what you accept as validation. But, if I were a scientologist, and FOR ME, subjective experience wasn’t enough; I knew that objective validation could be done, and wasn’t satisfied with the number of variables inherent in subjective experience… Would this be discouraged from within the church?”

    This answer from Laurie Hamilton and the section on Source of Trouble in the Introduction to Scientology Ethics should answer your question:

    But Scientology exists to enable people to make their lives better. If you WANT to make your own life better and desire to make use of it for that purpose, it is there for you. Our experience has been that persons who want something “proved” to them in Scientology do not get better, so we do not offer to prove it, nor accept challenges do do so. The reason for this is that persons desiring proof are like prosecutors whose mindset is guilty until proven innocent, and one discovers that even after innocence is proven, they are still convinced of guilt. (You’ve seen these guys on TV – the defendant is exonerated by DNA evidence, and the guy who put him away says “I’m still convinced we got the right man.”

    Page 219 Introduction to Scientology Ethics [Policies on Sources of Trouble]

    f. Persons who “want to be processed to see if Scientology
    works” as their only reason for being audited have never
    been known to make gains as they do not participate. News
    reporters fall into this category. They should not be audited.

    h. Persons who “have an open mind” but no personal hopes
    or desires for auditing or knowingness should be ignored,
    as they really don’t have an open mind at all, but a lack of
    ability to decide about things, and are seldom found to be very
    responsible and waste anyone’s efforts to convince them.”

    Pat

  66. Maybe I’m just confused.
    If a clear no longer had their “own” reactive mind, what reactive mind do they have?
    Also, and this is a sincere question, a clear is free of engrams, correct?

  67. “I don’t know what definition you’re using here, but on this thread alone there are two references that state that a Clear no longer has his own reactive mind and a Clear is Clear on the 1st Dynamic (self). I don’t know why you’re not understanding this, which is why you should check for a term or word you have an incorrect definition for. Already we’ve addressed a few of those.”

    Which is why I provide a definition for you, to assist with words like “mental mass”.
    All I can find from any official resource is the statement that clears no longer have their own reactive mind. I’m really trying to understand- do they sell have a reactive mind? Do they have a reactive mind as a homo novis (whatever that is)

    Re: your auditing above clear link-
    Ive read every word on that page- nowhere does it say that declared clears have the emeter used to detect their mental masses. Maybe you accidentally posted the wrong link- that one is about The solo auditing course and says that students will learn how to audit and use the meter.

    So far, I’ve seen nothing that shows those that are clear should be audited with an emeter. Of course, that depends on clears still having a detectable reactive mind…

  68. “No. It was part of the post of Personal Integrity. I posted it due to several comments you’ve made about my “subjective reality”. The point being that the proof is in the eyes of the first hand observer. Your attempt to continue to ask for proof after reading that article means that you don’t believe in finding out for yourself. I can’t help you any further on that.”

    I see, so you’re saying that your post WAS directed to me, but was only inspired by, not created in response to, my statements to louanne?
    Works for me.
    I stand by my question to her though. Subjective experience is fine for you- I don’t have a problem with that; it’s up to you what you accept as validation. But, if I were a scientologist, and FOR ME, subjective experience wasn’t enough; I knew that objective validation could be done, and wasn’t satisfied with the number of variables inherent in subjective experience… Would this be discouraged from within the church?

  69. Re: mental mass and the mind:

    I see. I got that info from louannes site:
    http://www.scientologymyths.info/definitions/dianetics-and-scientology-definitions.html

    She’s wrong?

    mental mass: the mass contained in the mental image pictures (facsimiles) in the reactive mind. See also mental image picture; reactive mind.

  70. Auditing above Clear

    http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part03/Chp13/pg0246-c.html

  71. “I have used cos definitions to show that a clear has no reactive mind”

    I don’t know what definition you’re using here, but on this thread alone there are two references that state that a Clear no longer has his own reactive mind and a Clear is Clear on the 1st Dynamic (self). I don’t know why you’re not understanding this, which is why you should check for a term or word you have an incorrect definition for. Already we’ve addressed a few of those.

    Pat

  72. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 7, 2011 10:42 pm

    “So if I can check my understanding:

    Is, or is not, the mass from mental image pictures stored in the reactive mind? You seem to be saying no…”

    That’s correct. As the reference states the mass is stored in the mental image pictures that are in the mind. As I said before, you’re adding reactive mind into this and that’s not what the reference says. Perhaps you should check out those lectures if you need further education on this subject.

    Pat

  73. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 7, 2011 10:27 pm

    “Side question- were you not referring to my statement on faith when you (in another possible coincidence) said, “Scientology is not faith-based” shortly after I made mention of such to louanne?”

    No. It was part of the post of Personal Integrity. I posted it due to several comments you’ve made about my “subjective reality”. The point being that the proof is in the eyes of the first hand observer. Your attempt to continue to ask for proof after reading that article means that you don’t believe in finding out for yourself. I can’t help you any further on that.

    Pat

  74. Related: (targeted to Louanne, but any are welcome to answer, if possible)

    What, please, is a Homo Novis?

  75. So if I can check my understanding:

    Is, or is not, the mass from mental image pictures stored in the reactive mind? You seem to be saying no…

  76. Side question- were you not referring to my statement on faith when you (in another possible coincidence) said, “Scientology is not faith-based” shortly after I made mention of such to louanne?

    I’m all for coincidences, but you’re claiming quite a few here.

  77. If I didn’t know you better, I might interpret your comments as being vaguely insulting.
    No matter.

    1. Your references state that clears still undergo auditing. You have not, that I can see, provided a reference stating that clears physically use an e-meter. If I’m wrong, and you can show me where you answered that direct question, itself directly, I will eat my hat. I really will; I’ll try, at least.
    My references seem to much more clear- I have used cos definitions to show that a clear has no reactive mind, and hubbards words to understand that the meter reacts to the reactive mind.
    What, specifically, would you say I’m missing?

    2. Allow me to further refine this question: if it is true that the mass of thought is created in the mind, where does it end up? Or, to our it another way, where is it stored?

  78. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 7, 2011 12:52 pm

    “You may have missed this:”

    Answered already with the references but since you seem to have some false ideas here I’ll help you with the references.

    1. Do clears use the e-meter?

    Yes, BD. They do. That is specifically covered in the reference

    See reference on Clears and auditing

    The only problem I see here is that you’re not getting the part of “own reactive mind” and “Clear on 1st Dynamic”.

    2. Where, according to you, is the physical mass added?
    It’s not “according to me”. The data is in the references given.

    “I understand that hubbard said that the extra mass was created in the mind, specifically the reactive mind- is it not known “where” in the body this exists?”

    It’s created in the mind (specifically in mental image pictures that are stored in the mind). You’re adding “reactive mind” when that wasn’t stated in the reference, BD.

    See reference on e-meter.

    Since you didn’t get it from the reference, I’ll try to pinpoint this for you. The mind is seperate from the body, BD, as in the Thetan, Mind, Body reference. Since you don’t use study technology, there is nothing more that I can say on these questions that would help you understand. Further research might help, as this concept is covered in the Thought, Emotion and Effort lectures (part of the basics).

    See Louanne’s post on the e-meter. and mine re: thetan, mind, body.

    Pat

  79. I see, it’s just a coincidence that you posted references which you now claim directly answer questions that I was previously asking?
    Okay, that sounds reasonable to me. no wonder they don’t actually answer my question, then.
    Would you have considered it rude if you were directly responding to a conversation in which you were not originally addressed?

  80. “Then who were you talking to on March 6, 2011 4:27 am?”

    It was an origination of some references. I have a right to post here without it being about you.

    Pat

  81. You may have missed this:

    1. Do clears use the e-meter?
    2. Where, according to you, is the physical mass added?

  82. Pat, I don’t think you understand my questions, else they would be easy to answer. I do not see how your references answer my question- please clarify if you understand your references AND my questions.

  83. BD, your questions are answered in the references. What word did you not fully understand?

    Pat

  84. “I joined nothing. I only posted some references. You’re the one who addressed me directly. ”

    Then who were you talking to on March 6, 2011 4:27 am? Is it okay, or is it not okay, in your view to join in on an existing conversation? You’ve said one thing, but done another.

    I would also point out that in this conversations and others, I’m really not seeing many answers from you. I see the same point (“Subjective experience”) made over and over, and once again acknowledge your statement. Have you anything beyond that to say?

  85. “I have. Since you insinuate that you got this from a congress lecture you should have no problem telling me which one.”

    To be very blunt, Pat, I don’t believe that you know. In fact, the last time we had this conversation, the shoe was on the other foot. You called me a liar about my source, before I showed you where what I said was actually true. I’ll make it very simple for you:

    The e-meter detects mass (via resistance), correct?
    The e-meter only reacts on the reactive mind, yes?
    A clear no longer has a reactive mind, correct?

    It’s quite simple. Unless you have data contrary to my thesis?

  86. “Are you saying, Pat, that the additional mass from thought is not added to the physical body?

    Read the data. That’s the reference. No further discussion. It’s either true for you or it isn’t.”

    So, you’re saying you won’t answer my direct question? Your references- the items that you copy pastad from another source- they don’t answer my questions. Neither do you.
    1. Do clears use the e-meter?
    2. Where, according to you, is the physical mass added?

  87. “Where is that stated?”

    You should really read Hubbard’s congress lectures. I think you’d enjoy them.

    I have. Since you insinuate that you got this from a congress lecture you should have no problem telling me which one.

    Pat

  88. No, it doesn’t. It’s just a repeat of what you’ve said over and over- I understand that you choose to accept subjective experience as proof. That’s fine for you. But that’s you. My question (To Louanne, of course, but I think that we’ve already addressed that concept- apparently you’re okay with joining existing conversations, despite your previous objections to doing so) was if clears still use the e-meter. If you want to answer that question, I invite you to.

    I joined nothing. I only posted some references. You’re the one who addressed me directly.

    Pat

  89. Comment by bigdaddy on March 6, 2011 5:02 pm

    “Mass is in the pictures that are in the mind that is separate from the body”

    Are you saying, Pat, that the additional mass from thought is not added to the physical body?

    Read the data. That’s the reference. No further discussion. It’s either true for you or it isn’t.

    Pat

  90. Clarification:

    //////////

    “Scientology is not faith-based.”
    “”So you’ve said. Neither is voodoo.””
    Snide comment

    ////////

    It’s only snide if untrue. Is it untrue?

  91. “Mass is in the pictures that are in the mind that is separate from the body”

    Are you saying, Pat, that the additional mass from thought is not added to the physical body?

  92. “Yes it does. If it isn’t real for you, I understand. Mass is in the pictures that are in the mind that is separate from the body. Thetan, Mind, Body. You don’t have to agree with that concept. If it’s not true for you by observation then it isn’t true for you.”

    No, it doesn’t. It’s just a repeat of what you’ve said over and over- I understand that you choose to accept subjective experience as proof. That’s fine for you. But that’s you. My question (To Louanne, of course, but I think that we’ve already addressed that concept- apparently you’re okay with joining existing conversations, despite your previous objections to doing so) was if clears still use the e-meter. If you want to answer that question, I invite you to.

    “Snide comment”

    No, just previously addressed. many, many times, in one of the many comms cycles that you’ve abandoned. You’ve never been able to answer if your subjective experiences are any more valid than the subjective experiences of the voodoo practitioner.

    “Where is that stated?”

    You should really read Hubbard’s congress lectures. I think you’d enjoy them.

  93. “And Hubbard stated that the thetan creates additional mass in the reactive mind:”

    Where is that stated?

    Pat

  94. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 6, 2011 9:29 am

    “Scientology is not faith-based.”

    “”So you’ve said. Neither is voodoo.””

    Snide comment

    Pat

  95. Comment by Bigdaddy on March 6, 2011 8:50 am

    “Okay… Um… Thanks for that, Pat.”

    Sure!

    “Doesn’t address the question, though”

    Yes it does. If it isn’t real for you, I understand. Mass is in the pictures that are in the mind that is separate from the body. Thetan, Mind, Body. You don’t have to agree with that concept. If it’s not true for you by observation then it isn’t true for you.

    Pat

  96. “Scientology is not faith-based.”

    So you’ve said. Neither is voodoo.

  97. Okay… Um… Thanks for that, Pat.
    Doesn’t address the question, though.

  98. “There are three basic parts of Man—mind, body and thetan. The thetan is an immortal spiritual being—the individual himself. The thetan inhabits a body and has a mind, which is a collection of mental image pictures.

    The pictures in the mind contain energy and mass. The energy and force in pictures of painful or upsetting experiences can have a harmful effect upon an individual. This harmful energy or force is called charge.”

    http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-and-dianetics-auditing/what-is-the-emeter-and-how-does-it-work.html

    Pat

    …..

  99. Scientology is not faith-based.

    “PERSONAL INTEGRITY
    BY L. RON HUBBARD

    What is true for you is what you have observed yourself. And when you lose that, you have lost everything.

    What is personal integrity? Personal integrity is knowing what you know. What you know is what you know and to have the courage to know and say what you have observed. And that is integrity and there is no other integrity.

    Of course, we can talk about honor, truth, nobility—all these things as esoteric terms. But I think they would all be covered very well if what we really observed was what we observed, that we took care to observe what we were observing, that we always observed to observe. And not necessarily maintaining a skeptical attitude, a critical attitude or an open mind—not necessarily maintaining these things at all—but certainly maintaining sufficient personal integrity and sufficient personal belief and confidence in self and courage that we can observe what we observe and say what we have observed.

    Nothing in Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it and it is true according to your observation.

    That is all.

    L. Ron Hubbard”

    Pat

  100. IF CLEARS NO LONGER HAVE A REACTIVE MIND,
    WHY DO THEY STILL NEED TO PARTICIPATE IN AUDITING?

    There are many more states of awareness and ability that can be achieved above the state of Clear, as one is only Clear on the First Dynamic.

    Beyond Clear is a state of existence known as Operating Thetan or OT. By Operating is meant “able to act and handle things” and by Thetan is meant “the spiritual being that is the basic self.” The state of OT is attained by proceeding through a series of gradient steps, each one slightly more advanced than the last and each with its own ability gained.

    As Mr. Hubbard wrote:

    “It is hard for Man to grasp even that these states exist. He has no literature about them really or any vocabulary for them.

    “But they do exist.

    “Reach for them and you’ll see.

    “Once one starts going up, there is no wish to stop. The whiff of freedom and the total reality of it after all this time is too strong.”

    http://www.scientology.org/faq/clear/if-clears-no-longer-have-a-reactive-mind-why-do-they-need-auditing.html

    Pat

  101. Question,
    if one no longer has the reactive mind after attaining the state of clear:

    (clear: a highly desirable state for the individual, achieved through auditing, which was never attainable before Dianetics. A Clear is a person who no longer has his own reactive mind and therefore suffers none of the ill effects that the reactive mind can cause. The Clear has no engrams which, when restimulated, throw out the correctness of his computations by entering hidden and false data)

    And Hubbard stated that the thetan creates additional mass in the reactive mind:

    “An aberree reacts because he can’t think without thought exciting the reactivity of the reactive mind. This, being composed of mass, energy, space, time and thought, responds to tiny electrical impulses.” and “Now an E-Meter reacts only on the reactive mind” (HCOB 8 JUNE 1961),

    do declared clears still use the e-meter?

  102. We have, quite quickly, agreed, and I’m happy to see that. I believe that we agree that the use of an e-meter is not strictly grounded in science, but is accepted as an instrument of faith. Much like the catholic belief in Transubstantiation. While it could be objectively evaluated, doing so is not important to the belief behind it. Yes?

    I did oversimplify by saying that mass was created by thoughts, true. Of course, I’m referring to the belief that the thetan creates the mass. I understand that hubbard said that the extra mass was created in the mind, specifically the reactive mind- is it not known “where” in the body this exists?

    I’m sure it’s not important to the belief system, but I’ve seen that hubbard, like you, claimed that physical mass is modified during the process. However, I accept that this was never determined to be essential to the process, and also understand that while, perhaps, this could be validated, such efforts have not been made. We, I suppose, are each left with our own beliefs or faith on the effectiveness (or, perhaps, results) of the process, and think that’s actually quite a fine outcome. As long as it makes people feel better, that counts for something.

    For me, of course, I’ll be left with a burning curiousity… :) To a scientologist, would being unsatisfied with faith be considered to be a positive or a negative thing?

  103. You concluded that “the use of the emeter remains a matter of faith.” and I agree. Without the auditor following procedure and without the preclear willing to improve and change there won’t be a result from an auditing session. The e-meter helps making it possible (yes, I am trained to use one).

    In regards to this “when mass is created by thoughts, where in the body is that extra mass? Is the extra mass in the brain area, or is it a general rise all over the body?”:

    The mass is not created by thoughts but by the being. But I couldn’t tell you where that extra mass is, how much of it and how long it would take to gain/reduce it (Hubbard himself did not say how long it took to add it or subtract it). It is not a topic in Scientology practice. I have seen people lose and win weight during auditing procedure but I never checked whether it was because they finally eat healthy food (because as a preclear you are supposed to eat well, no junk) or because of spiritual reasons. Body mass is not a subject in Scientology which deals with spiritual improvement and ability.

    – L

  104. I might wonder, though, when mass is created by thoughts, where in the body is that extra mass? Is the extra mass in the brain area, or is it a general rise all over the body?

  105. Regarding the connection between low-level electrical currents (DC or AC) and the release of endorphins, it soulds like you agree that AC currents can induce a rise in endorphins, but you disagree that DC, as in the emeters, can.

    First, you’re correct that it’s well established (I count 50 studies, and can list them if you want them) that the application of elecric currect (as a whole, we’ll say at least AC) can directly influence the production of endorphins and result in an elevated mood or increased sense of well being. The question remains as to whether DC may do the same. This includes a 2Hz (barely above DC) alternating current, which has been demonstrated to accelerate the release od endorphins.

    Now, it’s proven, and known since 1760, that direct current electricity has physiological effects. This was demonstrated first by John Wesley which used the technology to treat illnesses.

    Currently DC is used for a similar purpose.
    http://www.articlesbase.com/alternative-medicine-articles/endorphins-stimulation-for-treating-pain-454783.html:
    “An electric potential difference is established between an anode and cathode of the composite wound dressing. Wound healing is facilitated by the biostimulatory effect of the applied microelectric current on adenosine triphosphate production (ATP), cell membrane transport of amino acids and protein synthesis. The microelectric currents applied through the composite wound dressing, promulgate antisepsis, interfere with the neurological transmission of pain signals and concomitantly stimulate the release of endorphins”

    Regardless, it’s actually a moot point. The effectiveness of the e-meter would rest on it being fact that thoughts have mass, which are then detected by the meter. There are many reasons why one could feel better after an emeter session, from the technique working as hubbard described, to an increase or endorphins or a placebo effect. However, its effectiveness as a religious tool depends on the claims that hubbard made. As these have never been proven objectively, the use of the emeter remains a matter of faith.

  106. well, quite a bit to cover then, haven’t we? :)

    First, regarding the claims of mass. You’re correct that I was not saying that the meter creates mass, but is believed to detect mass that is created by thought. As mass is able to be objectively evaluated, is it believed that current scientific instruments and techniques could also validate the creation of mass by throught? Or is it believed that only the e-meter can do that? Is it my understanding, based on the patent application, that the device basically measures resistance?

    As I understand it, Hubbard claimed a significant difference in mass depending on thoughts: “The test of this is conclusive in that a thetan “mocking up” (creating) mental image pictures and thrusting them into the body can increase the body mass and by casting them away again can decrease the body mass. This test has actually been made and an increase of as much as thirty pounds, actually measured on scales, has been added to, and subtracted from, a body by creating “mental energy.” This claim directly contradicts the law of conservation of energy, among the foundational principles of physics, so it would be very interested to see this validated.

    Interesting, I had thought that it was said that Hubbard invented the device. Thank you for clarifying this.

    researching the endorphin matter- not a professional biophysist (can’t even spell it!), so additional work required on my part.

  107. I found the chapman essay you mentioned. “Modulation of experimental dental pain in man with acupuncture and by transcutaneous electric stimulation”. “Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation”, is indeed using modulated current (AC) and it’s “success” (which has not been proven yet) is based on electrically pricking someone’s skin 50 times a second or more (50 Hz or higher frequency). Dude, whoever compares this to an e-meter hasn’t see one.

    – L

  108. “Comment by Bigdaddy on March 2, 2011 11:24 am
    Thank you, louanne, thats a very interesting article.
    Is it believed, then, that the functions of the meter prove that thoughts themselves have mass, and thus mass is created and detected by the meter?”

    Yes, there is such a thing as mental mass and shifts of those are displayed by the e-meter (Mass is not created by the meter though (but probably you didn’t’ mean that.)

    “Is there any truth to the rumor that the emeter was not actually invented, originally, by Hubbard?”

    That’s not a rumor, but a fact. It is even taught as part of auditor training that the first e-meter, called Mathison Electropsychometer, was created by Volney Mathison, based on what L. Ron Hubbard tried to solve (the training film is called “History of the E-Meter”).

    “Lastly, is there any correlation between the low voltage application of the emeter and the 1978 discovery by chapman that even low frequency (less than 1 volt) can cause a “significant” increase in endorphin levels (thus, a ‘high’ sensation), which was supported by 1984 trials?”

    I don’t know Chapman and did not read those trials (link?), your mention of “frequency” indicates that you are talking about alternating current. E-meters run on direct current, i.e. the electric flow does not have a frequency. Also, any preclear will tell you that auditing with an e-meter is not an “endorphin” experience, or anything comparable to pushing the mood artificially, like by use of drugs. Re-experiencing traumatic incidents ranges from painful, to sad, to angry, to happy and back to sadness, grief, boredom, you name it. A single auditing session goes through many moods, up and down, and can take minutes or hours. Relief in auditing always goes together with a rational understanding what exactly happened. This realization stays after the session and can be remembered from there on out. Again, nothing drug-like to be found here. The e-meter measures shifts of mental masses or reduction of. The changes to the electric flow (“frequency”) are caused by the preclear, not the machine, and diplayed objectively on the meter dial.

    – L

  109. Thank you, louanne, thats a very interesting article.

    Is it believed, then, that the functions of the meter prove that thoughts themselves have mass, and thus mass is created and detected by the meter?

    Is there any truth to the rumor that the emeter was not actually invented, originally, by Hubbard?

    Lastly, is there any correlation between the low voltage application of the emeter and the 1978 discovery by chapman that even low frequency (less than 1 volt) can cause a “significant” increase in endorphin levels (thus, a ‘high’ sensation), which was supported by 1984 trials?


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

  • What is this blog?

    I am running a website, ScientologyMyths.info which deals with critical questions about Scientology.
    So naturally I am into finding answers to the questions that are constantly being asked all over the internet about Scientology, Scientologists, the Church, L. Ron Hubbard and the Church's leader, David Miscavige. I want to find answers from independent sources, not only Church of Scientology owned sites or anti-Scientology hate sites. So what's left? Court documents, photos and other reliable sources. Help me find stuff and ask whatever you want. Thanks!

    The easiest way to shoot a question over to me is to click here.

    Or search below.
  • Archives

  • Religion Photo Feed

    S. Spirito in Sassia

    San Pietro

    Flight into Egypt

    More Photos