This is the second part of Missing in Study Tech.
Straight to the point:
There are several prerequisites to study:
- A distraction-free body (enough food and sleep, no distracting body conditions)
- A distraction-free environment
- A subject to study with adequate material
- A willingness to study (subject aligning with own goals and motivations and a belief that one could and should study the subject)
Then there is the first class of barriers to study – the teacher or material:
- The teacher or material is wrong (the concepts cannot be demonstrated as it is incorrect)
- The teacher or material is badly conveyed (overly complex, unnecessary stuff interjected or there are holes in the explanation such as missing raw data or case studies – a skipped gradient)
- The teacher or material has a misunderstood (using a wrong word or symbol or using it the wrong way)
Then there is the second class of barriers to study, covered by LRH in the bulletin “Barriers to Study” as detailed in the previous blog post:
- Lack of mass
- Skipped gradient
- The misunderstood word
Beyond all this there is the ability to evaluate and use the data. That is a skill that can be fostered by the Data Series as well as other bodies of knowledge (like studying logical fallacies).
The second class of barriers to study is part of Scientology Standard Technology. The first class and the prerequisites are not. Some of those points are however covered in Hubbard’s lectures and articles and have found their place in various courses such as the Basic Study Manual. I have never seen Hubbard touching on the third point of the first class of study barriers (misunderstoods in the materials themselves).
You can see how the three barriers that LRH describes have one for one a counterpart in the first class of study barriers. What can be wrong in a student’s study can of course also be wrong with the material.
If a student disregards the first class of barriers as even more primary than the second class, he could find himself thinking he himself have lack of mass, a skipped gradient or a misunderstood, when all along the materials or teacher were at fault. A teacher could even go so far as insisting the student has a misunderstood because he was in disagreement with erroneous material.
A student should be taught Study Technology in the sequence outlined above: First we need the prerequisites taken care of, then we need the first class of barriers out of the way, then we tackle the second class of study barriers.
One should of course be very alert to a student claiming that prerequisites are out simply because he has run into any of the three barriers of the second class. He could claim he was hungry because he has lack of mass, just to get out of the classroom. Or he could claim that the author has a misunderstood when the student is the one using the wrong definition for a word.
But, one should always be aware the prerequisites and always be open for errors in the materials or in the teacher, even when that teacher is a guru one looks up to.
And finally, there are always shades of gray and nuances in the colors. Materials could be more or less wrong – maybe they are right but could be even more right. Very, very little material in human history has not been rightfully improved upon by later generations.
Geir Isene - uncut 
It looks incredibly simple. Like all genial things.
Imho, to say that the prerequisites and the first class of barriers you give here are not covered in Standard Scientology tech is not totally accurate – not totally wrong either but not totally accurate. The point about having enough food and sleep is covered in HCO PL Students Guide to Acceptable Behavior. I can’t think of a reference that says the student should have no distracting body conditions, though routing forms to the MLO are provided and it didn’t take much extrapolating for me as a Sup to realize that a guy with excruciating back pain isn’t going to do too well in his studies so he better be sent to a chiropractor or something.
A distraction-free environment and a subject to study with adequate material are covered in HCO PL What Is A Course?
A willingness to study (subject aligning with own goals and motivations and a belief that one could and should study the subject) is covered in various parts of the study tapes, especially Study Tape 1. Possibly you could say the tapes are not quite worded the way you worded this one but imho it’s the same general concept.
As far as the first class of barriers that you mention here, I can’t remember LRH specifically referring to these as barriers. However, imho, for anyone who really knows their Study Tapes, other references on the Student Hat and the connection made between study tech and Axiom 28 (dealing with the mechanics of communication), these would be obvious corollaries.
All this being said, though, it is helpful that you organize the data in the way you have organized it here. It helps the student or supervisor or teacher who only has the BSM as their reference, or who studied the study tapes only one time, fifteen years ago, who doesn’t remember most of it anyway. Lack of this understanding may account for some of the horror stories you read about kids in Scientology schools who were butchered by robotic misapplications of this tech. A case could be made that to only emphasize the three barriers in the second class above is inadequate.
I agree.
Once you have been SUPing a while and really assimilate the data, it becomes second nature and most if not all these items are contained in tech or is common sense when one extrapolates from the tech he knows.
You do get to intimately know each of your student … some have study quirks and some cruise along. Some need extensive wordclearing and some do not.
Re: BSM – This was a pre-requisite for teachers in a lot of Scientology schools years ago and that was all you needed … lacking IMHO.
The Student Hat, M1, the ProWordclearers Course & the Pro Course Sup Course really help to round out the knowledge needed to run an effective Scientology Academy.
Quicksilver, you seem to have some extremely similar realities and experiences to mine. How can I find out who you are and get to know you better?
These were not missing from my understanding of study tech.
References please.
LOL Geir.
Yeah Ray is a nice guy but I find that the more one is trained in the tech often the more rote people are.
Now I am glad I did not train in the church. Now I can study thinking for myself.
This is why I got into trouble on the yahoo lists as well. I gave up there for the few that did get the message got it at first and did not want to be picked at like I was from peer pressure. I can now spot it better than I could before.
If you don’t conform you get comments that push one in the direction to conform.
I am for keeping a standard but also be aware that more can be done to improve it. The body of data should be kept as it was but that don’t mean that one should not do better with the data. But to do that it has to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is workable in most cases.
And therefore you must study LRH only, chumps. ROFL.
Based on my experience, both as a course room staff member and as a student, this list seems pretty thorough and complete to me, so bravo! And I agree it all should have been clearly included (and given due importance) in the standard tech references (HCOB’s and HCOPL’s). I believe LRH probably did cover every point – majorly in the study tapes, but also the references on “studentability,” “being there on own determinism,” “quiet course room,” and probably others. The best sups and word clearers had conceptual understanding of it all and do (or did) apply it; the worst were too literal and over-stressed certain points. “There is no substitute for understanding.” – LRH
The question I still have is why LRH seemed to become rather authoritarian and dictatorial, as regards both tech and admin (e.g. in managment, there are no checks and balances – starting in LRH’s time, when he was the Executive Director and always had sole and final say-so, thus setting a pattern), The approach of authoritarianism contradicts his earlier writings and lectures about personal integrity and thinking for oneself. Possibly his ultimate attitude of CONVICTION (a thing he actually decried) was similar to a benevolent father (or dictator), if LRH felt he saw the looming dangers and simply wanted to make sure we didn’t all go astray – and (being human and not infallible) – made a big mistake on this. Ironically, he himself may have inadvertently “closed the door” on standard tech and the way out… But not really – I am very hopeful for Scientology in the independent field! So his huge (unequaled, for all I know) contribution will prevail – one way or another. (Sorry for going on and on, but you got me waxing philisophical.)
You have some interesting questions. You are pointing out inconsistencies in Hubbard’s writings and how he implemented his own philosophy. Hubbard insisted that his disciples must follow his philosophy, which he didn’t quite follow himself. It seems that in auditing, “picture engrams” may be erased but “inconsistencies” may still remain. I don’t think that Hubbard fully worked out the tech for handling inconsistencies.
Hubbard may have written Data Series and come up with the term OUTPOINTS to refer to such inconsistencies, but it looks like he himself was not above having inconsistencies in his thinking and behavior. Geir have a blog post on the subject of inconsistencies in Scientology which got great responses. In my opinion, the basic inconsistency comes from the idea of thetan and an “error free” Clear or OT. Can two OTs disagree with each other? If so, then is one of those OTs in error?
Authoritarianism comes from believing that one is right and above reproach, and that is what happened to Hubbard. He had set up an ideal scene of an OT for himself and he had to meet that ideal scene come hell or high water. He had to be right and error free. Others were simply not good enough to meet his expectations.
Hubbard evaluated for others through his tech of C/Sing. In real life, he used lot of pressure in place of tech to get things done. Yes, I was there on Apollo in mid-seventies. That indicates to me a lack of appropriate tech, because exerting extreme pressure is a very wog thing. Mafia does that all the time. Hubbard was not inspirational in person. His writings may have been inspirational. But Hubbard was a tyrant when I got exposed to him. So, this inconsistency in him finally made its way into his later writings as well.
I have been looking at how to address inconsistencies. To me, a simple solution is to ask yourself for inconsistencies in an area of interest, and then sit back and observe what comes up. The only requirement would be to just look and experience what is there. Don’t suppress anything. Don’t justify anything. Don’t explain anything. Don’t forage for answers. Simply look and experience what becomes visible on its own.
I am still working on this area. Inconsistencies in Scientology have always been puzzling to me.
.
I too have been in a position of working close to LRH, not physically, but over telex lines. I can attest that LRH the source and author and LRH the executive is not the same beingness! Unfortunately the picture of him being saint-like or infallible is far from true. The foundation for many of the various dramatizations we currently see in management was laid by LRH. For example when the ethics tech first came out there were many degrading and gruesome punishments applied (such as no shower or sleeping under ones desk for weeks on end).
In any other subject this would not be such a problem. Who cares that Isaac Newton was a bit of a nut case for instance? His laws still work. But with LRH coming up with a subject supposedly handling insanity you’d expect himself to be the most shining example of sane behavior. If he wasn’t there are really only two logical possible explanations. Either the tech does not work or else it was not correctly applied to LRH. I think the second option is the true one. There is an excellent write-up by Otto Roos outlining this in detail. I wish these things could be openly discussed among all Scientologists and that the true story of LRH could be brought forth. With this understanding we can see it for what it is and get to the very root of current insanities. It certainly does not diminish my admiration for the man and what he did, and the workabiloity of the tech is a matter that anyone honestly applying it can find out for himself.
You bring up a valid point regarding the relation of NewtonGravity vs. HubbardScientology.
I do admire Hubbard for what he accomplished, but I not consider his work to be the panacea. A lot of improvement is possible in areas where Hubbard broke new grounds. Breaking new grounds can be amazing, but it is not the panacea. I will fault Hubbard for positioning his work as a panacea and discouraging further research by coining the term “squirreling.” His intention seemed to be making a lot of money out of his lucky strike by monopolizing his work in ingenious ways. There is no way Dianetics and Scientology, in their current form, can start a grass roots movement, which is the only way this planet may be cleared.
.
Good points Ivro,
Yes, unfortunately Ethics & Justice have been 2 areas that not only have been crammed into one ball/concept with many thinking they are the same thing, but, both subjects have been misapplied – Justice in particular.
I did find it very difficult at times when a … hmm spiritually-challenged 🙂 individual would get in a position of power – very scary.
I think the vast majority of the horror stories we read about or witnessed were a result of ill-informed members, some who parroted what they saw from seniors or others, others who simply did not have conceptual understanding and lastly, those of evil intent.
If you look at the concepts of ‘reason & contemplation of optimal survival’ or ‘greatest good for greatest number’ despite seeming very pro-survival, they can be abused.
I think when one looks at the overall goals of scientology ( world without insanity, etc, cleared planet, etc), these are meant as survival goals. If one aligns his actions to betterment, expansion, greater awareness & self-determinism for himself & his fellows, it should result in movement towards those goals. But, if you get some goof in the game totally for himself, it fails.
Vinaire, thank you so much for your reply and your own interesting thoughts. You mentioned the “tech for handling inconsistences.” If you were referring to the inconsistencies in LRH’s own works, I think one answer he gave was to the effect that the most recently dated material (specifically, in the official tech issues) took precedence, among other answers which highly-trained tech terminals could specify and which they always seemed (to me) to feel confident and unconfused about, Even though at rare times tech terminals have to make some “judgement calls,” based on their conceptual understanding of cases and the tech, they were confident that, if not correct, it could always be resolved later. I truly believe their viewpoint was based on their own personal experience, rather than an authoritative one they had adopted. But as for inconsistencies in subjects in general, I think you’re probably right about the Data Series being the tech to apply.
You commented on LRH “exerting extreme pressure,” but didn’t he say in the ethics tech that until people’s cases get handled there has to be more ethics pressure put on them than what their bank is exerting from within: once the case is handled, ethics would go in and there wouldn’t be a need for exterior pressure. But I get it that you have had your own experiences, which you have every right to take into account as well, and this piece of ethics tech may not be totally applicable to what you experienced first-hand.
As for the inconsistency of “error free” OTs who are in disagreement, I recall the LRH words “and from one’s own viewpoint” – i.e. the idea of individual viewpoints was very much expressed by him too.
But the question of LRH’s fallibility is the one I’ve finally come to terms with, personally. It was hard to admit, even though LRH himself admitted that he was only human and capable of making mistakes – and warned not to think of him or treat him otherwise. But, it’s true, he was adamant and even authoritarian about the tech – justifiably and workably so, for the most part. I just felt he went too far when it started sounding like you can’t think and explore for yourself (or at least that’s how it was interpreted) – that was Scientology’s big downfall, it seems to me, because it goes against the basic nature of a being – at Cause and having as the highest purpose “to Create.”
Your solution for handling inconsistencies seems valid because it involves actually LOOKING and applying personal integrity. I’ve come to see LRH as human and imperfect, but a great thinker who could do just that (LOOK), plus have the INTENTION to “do something about it.” I don’t know about you, but if it weren’t for Scn I wouldn’t have the stable datums of life that I do and be able to think for myself as well – plus have the ability to disagree even with the original Source of those stable datums. I’m ready to expand from here, which is why I like Geir’s blog so much – he acknowledges the past track of Scientology while always looking forward.
Thanks for “listening.”
I would add this: If you cannot be cause over the technology itself, you will end up effect of it.
Marildi, I read every word you wrote here. Thank you for expressing your thoughts so honestly and sincerely. I find LRH’s tech of 1950s much gentler, sensible and effective than the later tech of 60s backed up by extreme forms of punishment.
I think that cases can be handled much faster if one simply follows pc’s attention to peel off his case. External C/Sing is always liable to error and requires much repair. Besides, it is evaluation of the pc, which goes against the strict application of the Auditor’s Code in my view.
Hubbard made OT beingness to be the ultimate achievement one could aspire for. An OT beingness is still limited by a viewpoint, as it clear in the example we just discussed. An OT beingness would, thus, represent a fixed viewpoint no matter how rational you make it. To me Buddha’s NIRVANA goes beyond fixed viewpoint or beingness as expressed here: NIRVANA
Thanks, Vinaire for your kind reception of my comm.
On your point about peeling: If you have an “educated pc” he knows that LRH’s premise is that all cases have certain things in common and that there are universal “buttons” known as the Grades. Further, that in order to untangle a case you have to start with Grade 0 so that you actuallly have a pc who can fully communicate to the auditor, then you have to get his attention unstuck from problems, Grade 1, and so on through the grades – a kind of onion peeling, as you put it. If the pc accepts this premise then he has essentially agreed to the processes and, more importantly, it isn’t the C/S who is evaluating for him as an individual, simply as a person having certain case barriers in common with everyone else. Once these initial barriers, the Grades, get handled, then it’s on to the next universal booby trap of the mind and soul.
That’s how I understand it.
Vinaire wrote: “Hubbard made OT beingness to be the ultimate achievement one could aspire for.”
It seems to me that LRH made “native state” and “static” the ultimate achievement, with “OT states” the progressive steps that one experiences on the route there.
Also, in reading your essays, your concepts of “nirvana”, and especially “null viewpoint”, sound nearly identical to what I always conceived LRH’s idea of “native state” or “static” to be.
You describe null viewpoint as “a totally fresh viewpoint each time with no prior considerations, and hence no prior beingness”.
Sounds very much like the Scientology concept of “native state” to me.
That is excellent! I find the concept of thetan being eternal to be inconsistent with “native state” then.
.
Yes, when we start conceiving of these ultimate states, concepts like “eternal” and “time” do become somewhat meaningless.
KHTK approach is to Scientology Bridge approach, what Calculus is to Algebra.
By this I mean that Scientology onion peeling seems to be in big steps, whereas KHTK onion peeling is in micro steps. In KHTK one is not “case supervising,” instead one is addressing what the mind is presenting in response to attention at any moment.
.
My question about KHTK has always been, “How long does it take”? Just as with BuddhistVedantic approaches.
Buddhist approaches do not usually, to my knowledge, achieve that much improvement in one lifetime, or even several lifetimes. Else after 2,500 years, there would be more enlightened individuals and the world would be in better shape than it is in. Vedas have been around even twice as long.
Mike Goldstein does suggest that it is possible to “go the distance” with him in what may be a relatively short period of time, but what is the EP of “going the distance” with Idenics? I have my own belief about what this this which I won’t get into here.
Hubbard was looking for the “undercuts”, the most common elements of fixation resulting in disability, and I believe he found some, making it possible for a person to achieve Clear in a couple of years or less, and through OTIII, and the original OT levels in just a few years total.
I believe that is the entire meaning of KSW – “If it’s not broke, don’t try to fix it”, based on his observation of people who were not fully conversant with Standard Tech messing around and making unnecessary changes, largely because they nreallydidn’t understand it.
What is my standard for being “fully conversant with Standard Tech”? It is being a ClassVIII Auditor. Once one is ClassVIII, then I believe one can begin to see possible improvements and directions for new research, because one does know all of the “Standard Tech” and how it works. Until then, no, probably not really. I do allow for serendipity even so, thus John Galusha and some others who developed valid “tech” building on their scientology experience. Bill Robertson comes to mind also.
To me, KSW simply means “follow the manual as it is written, because what’s in that manual works”. Many people have big buttons on “being told what to do”, or “being told how to do it”, or “I’ll do it MY WAY!” and that was the reason KSW had to be written.
If there’s an approach that works as consistently and as quickly as Standard tech as I understand it, point me to it, please!
Faster EFT, Valkov. It’s even faster than standard scientology.
How well has the Standard tech worked?
What would be the world today without Buddhism?
These are some of the questions that come to my mind after reading your post, Valkov.
.
Yeah I know about that I am on moderation on IFAChat yahoo list for answering question because I mentioned the Venus Project RBE. I don’t think I will bother posting there any more. It is too church like.
One can have a standard with out the authoritarianism. I Keep saying that but even if I am for holding a standard I am not for being church like. I have grown father than the lists and a few were often invalidate to me anyhow there. A few is enough to ruin anything.
Also I note if the church had all the answers to life why did it go like other church’s have and other groups. Time and time again groups does this.
I tell you why it is the system that causes it and it allows SP to get to the top. I mean the money system.
I consider LRH did not all of that right as well. He got some of it though.
“I have never seen Hubbard touching on the third point of the first class of study barriers (misunderstood in the materials themselves” LOL:))
“(The teacher or material has a misunderstood (using a wrong word or symbol or using it the wrong way)”
Then you have 2 look again?!! I could agree that some supervisor’s (as we don’t have “teachers” in an academy),may “think” that the study tech don’t apply to Scientology.But THAT i 4 one has not seen Ron imply? I would say that he rather EXTENSIVELY has those things covered and that they are NOT “missing in study tech”.(Students “assuming” every thing in Scientology being 100% accurate is in fact VIOLATING numerous directions in study tech and elsewhere in the body of knowledge comprising the subject…
Please provide one reference where Hubbard says that the student should be alert to the author’s misunderstoods.
Studying flawed materials is insidious. For the purpose of your question, LRH covers it at least somewhat in “False Data Stripping” HCOB and PL 7 AUG 79. I cannot name an instance of the scope of this technology being turned AT Scientology but there it is.
Good point Geir.
“Where a subject, such as art, contains innumerable authorities and voluminous opinions you may find that any and all textbooks under that heading reek with false data. The validity of texts is an important factor in study”
“If one is to use at all effectively what one is learning, he must first sort out the true facts regarding it from the conflicting bits and pieces of information or opinion he has acquired. This eliminates the false data and lets him get on with it”
Training: Duplication,” lecture of 24 January 1962
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
I would say that this is “touching the subject”??!;))
Well, in broad generality, yes. But not as part of Study Tech. Otherwise one could make a case for Benjamin Franklin, Dalai Lama, Barack Obama, Gro Harlem Bruntland or Winny the Pooh being gurus in Study Technology.
Thanks Geir.
As I said, the Study tapes are full of valuable data. It’s a shame they were not carried over into Standard Tech.
So Student Hat that is a pre requisite to all Auditor training isn’t part of Study-Tech or Standard Tech??! (That is HUGE i can imagine how much things that must B missing then;))LOL..
Do you know the definition of Standard Tech?
First of all Geir,the heading of this blog is “Missing in Study tech” NOT “Missing in the red volumes”!!?
STANDARD TECH, 1. a standardization of processes so that they apply to 100
per cent of the cases to which they are addressed. (Class VIII, No. 19) 2 . the
accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and
OT, the exact method of organizing them, the exact method of delivering them,
and the exact repair of any errors made on that route. (Class VIII, No. 2) 3 . that
terribly narrow path which we now call standard tech is composed of those
things which if they are out inhibit and prohibit all case gain. (Class VIII, No. 1)
4 . standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the
rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70) 5 . that tech which has absolutely no
arbitraries. (HCOB 23 Aug 68)
And we were beyond discussing the title, we were discussing the fact that the bits and pieces buried in tapes were not carried over and distinctly emphasized in Standard Tech. Which in fact makes the second class of barriers carry much more weight than the first class even though the first class of barriers precedes the second – in life and in study. And the fact that one has to interpret said buried quotes to get something akin to the first class of barriers out of the tapes and non-red-on-white issues. As pointed out by others, it is stretching it.
Do you have an issue with the possibility of Hubbard or the tech being wrong in any part? Reason I am asking is that you come across as very defensive.
In response to Tommy: The mention of “exact repair” in the second definition of “Standard Tech” just struck me. Any scientific investigation would look into the need for repair as an “outpoint” and trace it back to the factors that cause the need for repair. It would then study those factors to come up with better tech such that repairs are no longer necessary.
My study tells me that what creates gains is LOOKING by a person. The processes simply help a person look. What does not contribute to gains is THINKING (digging into the mind for answers) and talking about one’s case. It is release of suppressed information within the mind and looking at it as it is presented by the mind that helps. Foraging into the mind for answers and talking about it does not contribute to gains.
Scientology gathers data on a person’s case into a folder to analyze the case and to determine what process to run. This tends to violate the privacy of a person besides being evaluative. I do not think that such accumulation of data and case evaluation and supervision is really necessary. It may be possible to convert all Scientology processes to the KHTK approach, where a person can use them to assist him or her in looking. The KHTK approach makes it easy and effective to look without the use of the e-meter. A person may still follow the sequence of processes laid out on the bridge on his/her own with the KHTK approach.
I am continuing to investigate the KHTK approach, and write about it, on my blog.
.
Geir, this is interesting, as until this very moment it never occurred to me that anyone would ever consider data in tapes not to be Standard Tech, or that for it to be Standard Tech it has to be on a bulletin, not just a tape.
I agree with you that the way you have organized the data above puts more emphasis on barriers that need to be emphasized more. See my comment at the top of the comments section. I agree that it would be better if all the barriers you mention above would be put into a bulletin.
But the way you word it in the comments section by saying, “… the Study Tapes contain valuable data. It’s a shame they were not carried over into Standard Tech,” and “… bits and pieces buried in tapes were not carried over and distinctly emphasized in Standard Tech”, is saying that data in tapes are not part of Standard Tech. This is the first I’ve ever heard of this idea and I’ve been over many references many times. Is this something you have a reference for, or where did this idea come from?
I know my comment here is off the main subject of your article and to reiterate, I am not disagreeing here with the idea that the tech could have been better organized with more emphasis put on important barriers, or that the tech could have omissions. I’m just diverting a bit to prevent a meaning of a term from possibly being altered.
The way you said this makes it seem like if I applied some procedure that was in a tape and not in a bulletin, then some Sup or Cramming Officer could fault me for “not using Standard Tech” because what I did was not written in a bulletin but was only in a tape.
Your response?
Tommy gave the definition for Standard Tech:
STANDARD TECH, 1. a standardization of processes so that they apply to 100
per cent of the cases to which they are addressed. (Class VIII, No. 19) 2 . the
accumulation of those exact processes which make a way between humanoid and
OT, the exact method of organizing them, the exact method of delivering them,
and the exact repair of any errors made on that route. (Class VIII, No. 2) 3 . that
terribly narrow path which we now call standard tech is composed of those
things which if they are out inhibit and prohibit all case gain. (Class VIII, No. 1)
4 . standard tech is not a process or a series of processes. It is following the
rules of processing. (HCOB 26 Feb 70) 5 . that tech which has absolutely no
arbitraries. (HCOB 23 Aug 68)
I believe that all that need for repair is caused by the act of foraging into the mind for answers.
.
Geir, in response to my question to you of where did you get the idea that Standard Tech is only in red-on-white bulletins, you attempted to answer by re-quoting the definitions of Standard Tech. That would have been a good answer to my question if my question had been, “What is the definition of Standard Tech?” However, what I really wanted to find out was whether or not you knew of a reference stating that data on tapes does not constitute Standard Tech, or that it would have to be in a bulletin for it to be considered Standard Tech. The quotes you stated did not answer that, as bulletins and tapes were not mentioned in those definitions and you did not state where this idea came from, that Standard Tech would have to be written in a bulletin as opposed to spoken in a tape.
Have you ever seen a reference that says that data in tapes does not constitute standard tech? Or, what is this idea based on?
Answering this could be done with a counter-example:
Son: Dad, what is the definition of a “spoon”
Dad: It says here in Mirriam Webster’s online dictionary:
1: an eating or cooking implement consisting of a small shallow bowl with a relatively long handle
2: something (as a tool or fishing lure) that resembles a spoon in shape
Son: So it could be a car then?
Dad: What??
Son: Well, the definition doesn’t mention that it can’t be a car.
I think what makes “Standard Tech” is ferreting out important ideas and procedures and laying them out in a certain configuration after a lot of testing. That configuration of ideas and procedures may then be applied without thinking of it as experimental. It is applied exactly as stated with no leeway allowed. It is like a final manufacturable item that has been tested in all different ways and which can now start rolling on the assembly line as compared to when that item was at prototyping stage.
.
Spot on.
Vinaire, your explanation of standard tech is excellent and I got a good understanding from it.
Geir, you are right in the sense that just because a definition doesn’t say that something can’t be something else, doesn’t mean that the something COULD be the something else. Yes, just because the definition of “spoon” doesn’t say that it couldn’t be a car, that doesn’t mean that a spoon could be a car. Just because the definition of “oven” doesn’t happen to mention that an oven can’t be an elephant doesn’t mean that an oven can be an elephant.
What you correctly corrected me on was my asking you for a reference that said that data in a tape could not be part of “standard tech”. Just because you couldn’t give me a reference that says that data on a tape couldn’t be part of standard tech, that doesn’t prove that it could be.
However, we know that a spoon can’t be a car, not just because of understanding the definition of “spoon” but also because of understanding the word “car”. When you look at the definitions of each of these words, if you understand both of them, you know that “an eating or cooking implement consisting of a small shallow bowl with a relatively long handle” is never used as “a road vehicle, usually with four wheels and powered by an internal combustion engine, designed to carry a small number of passengers”.
Take the definitions of Standard Tech that you quoted from the Tech Dictionary, or Vinaire’s explanation and compare it to the concept of “data spoken on a tape.” “Data spoken on a tape” is “information imparted by someone with their voice which is recorded onto a tape and then played back and listened to by another person at a later time”. (Those are my words, let me know if you don’t agree.) If you compare that idea to the definition of “Standard Tech” do they show to be totally exclusive of each other under all circumstances?
If data spoken on a tape imparted a standardized process that applied to 100% of the cases to which it was addressed, if it imparted an exact process which makes a way between humanoid and OT, if it imparted an exact way of delivering it, if it imparted something which, if it were out, would inhibit and prohibit all case gain, if it imparted tech which has absolutely no arbitraries, would it not be Standard Tech?
To say or imply that just because something is only in a tape and not in a bulletin, it is not worthy of being in the category of Standard Tech, is a falsehood and an arbitrary. To say that the data on the tapes is all experimental or untested or subject to change would be an arbitrary as well.
As I said before, I agree with you that if all the barriers to study were included in bulletins and were organized better to give the correct emphasis to all of them, that would be better. But you can’t tell me that because I applied a procedure, such as “set yourself up some examples of how it’s not that way and how it is that way” when “you just can’t see how it works that way” etc (from page 28 of the current Study Tapes transcripts), which isn’t written in a bulletin, that I did not apply Standard Tech. When a student is in a situation that calls for that handling, is it not standard that he handle it in that way? Or is that just background data that he is not expected to necessarily apply?
LRH imparted a lot of opinions in his lectures, and that is why he was wise in defining Standard Tech like he did as he could carry whet should be Standard Tech over into bulletins and leave opinions behind. That way there are less areas of doubt in this regard.
That does not mean that data on tapes have less value in life. But it is harder to find. Still nobody has shown a reference where LRH says that there could be an MU also in the materials and how to tackle that.
Also, while the exercise in Learning How To Learn of “How could it be that way / How could it not be that way” has a weakness. I have seen a student emphasize the one part of that duality to fit his preconceived viewpoint – like “How can I twist the words, invent definitions or new intentions behind the words to make it Right? / How on earth could it possibly be that way?”. This is where data on logical fallacies comes in….
Something that is indeed missing in Study Tech.
Your points are well-taken. All I was saying was that I don’t think you can say that “the data in tapes is not Standard Tech, it has to be in a bulletin to be Standard Tech” as a blanket statement, which it appeared to me you were implying by some of your statements. I have no argument with anything else you were saying and I was trying to make a point of just that one small thing. Do you think my point is valid or not?
Your point is valid.
OK, let’s say we are talking about STANDARD STUDY TECH. Which is not exactly the same animal as ‘Standard Tech”.
It’s called “Student Hat”. It is a “hatting” course.
Are “hatting courses” part of “Standard Tech”? I don’t think they are actually classified as such.
I think they may well involve some arbitraries, and like”Policy” are intended to “think with”.
In any case, I like the way you have organized the material so far, Geir.
I think”study Tech” was designed to speed relatively literate students on their way towards learning to be Auditors, which was Hubbard’s main thing. Study Tech is itself an “undercut” because it turned out the “hoi polloi” were not studying and learning as effectively as Hubbard initially hoped they would.
There are several prerequisites to study:
“The second class of barriers to study is part of Scientology Standard Technology. The first class and the prerequisites are not. Some of those points are however covered in Hubbard’s lectures and articles and have found their place in various courses such as the Basic Study Manual.”
This first class of “prerequisites” is NOT part of standard technology??! Again Geir LOL…
((■A distraction-free body (enough food and sleep, no distracting body conditions)
■A distraction-free environment
■A subject to study with adequate material
■A willingness to study (subject aligning with own goals and motivations and a belief that one could and should study the subject))
1)”students guide to acceptingly behavior??(food sleep etc).
2)”Sup-hat”??
3)”what is a course”,PL’s on academies etc..
4)”ethics”,MU’s ??
There are numerous other references as well!!:))
But are they part of Standard Tech – as in red-on-white?
And the first class of barriers, could you provide references in bulletins where LRH makes these part of Standard Tech?
Btw; You seem to take this personally in a way, do you?
“Therefore it is important that any Supervisor or teacher seeking to strip off false data must utilize basic workable texts. These are most often found to have been written by the original discoverer of the subject and when in doubt, avoid texts which are interpretations of somebody else’s work. In short, choose only textual material which is closest to the basic facts of the subject and avoid those which embroider upon them”Training: Duplication,” lecture of 24 January 1962
I take it personally because i don’t think you are helping.(Why is that Geir,what is going on?)
Why take it personally? What is going on?
I asked first;)
Do you have another def for standard tech,or do you have a MU? (Do you have a reference that says that the tapes in Student hat is not part of “study-tech,or that standard tech is ONLY HCOB’s??!)
This was referenced by, I think, Margaret. I could do a full search to find it, and so could you.
You may drop the double question marks, exclamation marks etc. It makes your comments look more distraught.
I think that Standard Tech includes not only red on white but green on white, which LRH gave equal and highest authority along with red on white, and in which case you would have to acknowledge such points as studentability, a quiet course room, etc. as standard tech – i.e. some, if not all, of the pre-requisites you list. Granted, these points still don’t seem to be given quite the importance when not included in the “Barriers to Study” but maybe this difference is not basically important – i.e. depends what is made of it.
The “first Class of barriers” is the real achilles heel for Scientology, because even if LRH did basically include each, they were never allowed to be applied to Scn materials – whether disallowed by him or by others’ interpretations. And I can’t think of a bigger mistake that he – and we – made, because it defeated our purposes of self-determinism and freedom. Actually, make that “almost” defeated.
There is a difference between Standard Tech and Standard Admin. Just sayin’
As to your second point; Yes, the M4 question about disagreement with the material points in the direction of skipping the first class of barriers in relation to Scientology material.
Yes, strictly speaking it’s not Standard Tech. But my point is that LRH gave as much importance to green on white (standard admin “tech”) as red on white and therefore he did essentially and fully cover some of these points. Just saying’ 🙂 (Love that expression.)
Good enough.
Now, any references for the first class of barriers (except for TWTH reference of general “text may be wrong”). Any reference for the mirror barrier of an M/U – the author having an M/U?
Thanks.
Re: “references for the first class of barriers”
As for the author having an MU, one tool I used to use was a piece of LRH tech where you have the student consider “how it is that way” and then “how it isn’t that way,” back and forth until he/she unsticks – and sometimes they will actually conclude that “the way it is that way” or “could be that way” was that it was an error in the materials, and he feels good about it. Also (closely related to this last) you can remind the student of one of the five different ways a word can be misunderstood, one of which is the
“misundertstood concept” and that will often dig them out too. Then there is the list of different kinds of MU’s, including the one of “no definition,” for the times when LRH uses a word in a way that there doesn’t seem to be any applicable definition for. There’s also the M9 bulletin which covers the idea of not being rote in always demanding an MU, such as when the student stops when having a cognition – an obvious example but I used to use this idea in less obvious ways (and you can always backtrack if you err, which will show up if you do).
As for skipped gradient and lack of mass (and there were plenty of these when students had not done a chronological study or at least had a pretty good Scn grounding), good sups and word clearers always had the earlier applicable references ready to show, ones they had found would fill in the missing gradients or mass. (Miscavige, when introducing the new basic books, claimed or at least implied that this was his discovery, but he was very late on the chain.)
All this was what I meant in a previous comment, when I said that if a sup or wordclearer has conceptual understanding, isn’t rote and doesn’t over-emphasize certain references (e.g. “disagreement is always the student’s MU”), they can handle virtually every study issue. I guess it comes down to intention, as well as “There’s no substitute for understanding.”
It may seem that some of these applications don’t get the author himself (LRH) off the hook – except that he did, for example, incorporate these “reference handlings” in the sup hat and did give us the other (less used) pieces of word clearing tech in the various issues. I can’t specify the exact references anymore, maybe someone else can.
Oh yeah, another sup hat reference had to do with the sup giving the student his own opinion and “thoroughly labeling it as such,” but this was pretty daring of a sup – and rare.
But I’ll admit that this is all a bit of a stretch and I don’t really have a problem with admitting where LRH missed the boat. And I still actually agree that those “first baririers” were not adequately provided for, at best – or they wouldn’t have so completely fallen out.
Then we agree fully on this.
I cannot imagine a word that has no definition. I word is a symbol. That is the most basic definition.
The points that I don’t like about any tech is when the use of it makes the person wrong. For example, telling the person you have a misunderstood. That is evaluation and invalidation. One may say, “Take a look to see if something doesn’t make sense here.” If the student says,”Nothing seems to come up,” then simply continue. Even he has an MU there it is not ready to be peeled off. Somethingelse has to be peeled off first before the person may become aware of this MU.
.
Vinaire wrote: “Even he has an MU there it is not ready to be peeled off. Something else has to be peeled off first before the person may become aware of this MU.”
I think that’s an excellent point, Vinaire.
Vinnie,
Can’t imagine words without definitions?
Lewis Carroll wrote these lines:
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
There are some drills on the STCC that completely free up one’s ability to separate the “mass” of words from their significances and invent new words, etc.
They are well worth doing to EP.
The definition of a word without definition would be “a word without definition.” 🙂
.
Sophistry.
Nice try but no cigar, Vinnie. You have committed a logical fallacy. That cannot be the definition of ” a word without a definition”, because, in the first place, then it would not be a “word without a definition”, and in the second place, it violates the definition of the word “definition”:
def·i·ni·tion (Noun)
1. A statement of the exact meaning of a word, esp. in a dictionary.
I always looked at Tech as being far above policy. After all, policy is there only to facilitate the making of clears/OTs/Auditors – the main objectives of orgs.
I found the ‘Service’ PL ‘get the show on the road’, was a great reference to cut thru the crap dished out by over-zealous policy pushers. 🙂
Yeah, Service PL could even be used to cut through the rote tech crap as well.
Actually, let me amend my last reply to Vinaire. Instead of “no definition” I’m probably thinking of the reference that says when no suitable definition can be found, you have the student “work out” the correct definition.
(Sorry, getting pretty rusty it seems. Anybody?)
Vinaire, as for “no definition” if I remember right it just means that no suitable definition can be found that fits how it is being used.
On the other points you mention, if ALL the sup and word clearer and study tech is applied, I think it would handle each of them very well. The tech seems to have been misapplied to you, and I know you weren’t alone in this.
“acceptable”
This comment was on a miss spelling i did further up..(acceptable)
“… I have never seen Hubbard touching on the third point of the first class of study barriers (misunderstoods in the materials themselves)…”
In this class fall the examples cited in the comments to the earlier essay:
(1) Use of the word “percentage” by Hubbard in KSW1.
(2) Hubbard invalidating Buddha’s concept of “Nirvana” in Scn 8-8008.
It is sad to see that some people justify these misunderstoods because they seem to believe that Hubbard is infallible, and that if Hubbard is brought down to the slightest degree from his pedestal in their mind that it would invalidate their gains in Scientology. I don’t think such association actually exists.
In my view, any gains in Scientology came from a person’s own looking. Scientology processes simply helped a person look.
Here is a Grade 0 process REMEMBER SOMETHING
Ref: Dianetics 55 (page 129 in 1971 Edition)
“Remember something.”
Repetitive to EP.
A person may run this process oneself without e-meter using KHTK approach and obtain equivalent gains. Even the wordings of the process could be modified as follows to bring about greater gains:
“Look around in your mind and spot something that is trying to grab your attention.”
“Accept it non-judgmentally, and feel it fully.”
“… Spot something else… etc.” until there is nothing new that is trying to grab your attention.
Note: In looking, one simply recognizes what is already there. If nothing is there then one recognizes that nothing is there.
.
Vinaire, I believe that LRH made his point about “percentages” quite adequately in the reference. Whether you agree with his conclusion or not — and whether he said it with the perfect word selection — is an entirely different matter. Personally, I think he should have flipped the positions of 20 and 100,000 in the text, to make the rest of the statement more accurate. But I still got his point. Ideally, he would have (or the CoS could today), correct(ed) it.
With regard to LRH’s opinion on nirvana, I don’t believe you ever responded to my earlier response. Do you agree that an individual should have free choice on becoming “one with the universe” or entering into a “nirvana state”? One could argue that Scientology’s “serenity of beingness” (or higher) is it’s equivalent of Buddha’s nirvana. Since we don’t have Buddha’s actual firsthand written/spoken words, how do we know what he really said/believed about nirvana?
I believe that given the above, today, most suppositions on Buddha’s meaning of “nirvana” come down to a matter of personal interpretation, belief and faith.
Did he really? If you had to work out the meaning of “percentage” for yourself, then it means that it was not clear in the materials as written. I had no problem with it either. With my knowledge of math I corrected LRH’s error in my mind to understand what he meant. I didn’t think of challenging the materials. But my friend did not feel so generous. And, when I looked at the materials from his viewpoint then I did find that the materials were in error.
The word “Nirvana” means “extinguishing” or “blowing out” of any fixed beingness or viewpoint. It does not mean “becoming one with the universe” as Hubbard thought. Here is my take on Nirvana.
NIRVANA
One can work out the meaning of Nirvana accurately enough from the Buddhist materials available today. There are plenty of scholarly studies. One should not be obsessed about what Buddha meant because Buddha is not alive today and what was remembered by his disciples and put down on paper may not be exact. One simply needs to apply study tech to work out the meaning of Nirvana that makes sense. It certainly does not mean “becoming one with the universe.” LRH had an MU here. In fact, a being is the whole universe when he starts out. He may later start identifying himself with something lesser than the universe, and thus become smaller.
When you talk about belief and faith, it is the same thing in Scientology. People have belief and faith in what Hubbard said. They don’t examine it critically. Knowledge to be true must be consistent with all other knowledge in one’s mind. If one doesn’t take responsibility to obtain that consistency then one can’t say he has true knowledge. He may be just mouthing something based on a belief and not based on complete understanding.
.
Well, I can see your definition if you look at it from a mathematical viewpoint as you have, BUT, there are OTHER definitions.
Quote: ” It does not mean “becoming one with the universe” as Hubbard thought. ”
Quite the opposite, he talked about individuality.
Additionally, don’t get too wrapped up in naming states whether it be Nirvana, OT, or whatever.
One knows what he knows … putting a label on it is a MEST concept.
The wisest guys I’ve seen over the eons have been humble and interestED rather than interestING.
Hubbard seemed to equate NIRVANA to be opposite of individuality. That was the the key reason for his invalidation of Nirvana.
I go with Buddha. Individuality constrained within a beingness is limited. Beingness is not the end all. Beingness is not eternal.
.
When you say “one knows” you are taking beingness for granted. Being from the East I do not make this assumption.
.
Quicksilver wrote: “Additionally, don’t get too wrapped up in naming states…it is a MEST concept” and Overdriver wrote: “Those teachings were beyond words. Beyond the concept of the physical universe.”
I agree with both of you. LRH made it very clear that “the infinite” or “the 8th dynamic” or “God” are concepts that each individual has to arrive at for themselves, and are not something that can be “taught” by another.
Vinaire, with regard to “nirvana” and your take on it, it sounds very LRHy and Scientological to me … straight out of the “Know to Mystery Scale” from Axiom 25 …:
“Axiom 25:
Affinity is a scale of attitudes which falls away from the co-existence of static, through the interpositions of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.
By the practice of IS-NESS (Beingness) and NOT-IS NESS (refusal to Be) individuation progresses from the Knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through Lookingness, Emotingness, Effortingness, Thinkingness, Symbolizingness, Eatingness, Sexingness, and so through to Not-Knowingness (Mystery). Until the point of Mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at Mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete Affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete Mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know to-Mystery scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the Emotion section of this scale.”
http://www.freezoneamerica.org/Clearbird/Clearbird2004/sub1/class0/part1/09scales.htm
@ Vinaire
I agree with your Quote: “Individuality constrained within a beingness is limited. Beingness is not the end all.”
I also look at the definition of a Static:
Axiom 1
Life is basically a static.
DEFINITION:
1) A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.
2) An actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time.
And another definition:
BEINGNESS, 1 . the assumption or choosing of a category of identity. Beingness is assumed by oneself or given to oneself, or is attained.
These are 2 different things
Margaret, “one with the universe” or “nirvana” may be not two different states… 🙂
And the actual words of Buddha are not so important. The importance put on the actual text of a spiritual teaching is a trap what LRH put down. It may be adequate if you are on a given spiritual level. But nevertheless the words are physical level teachings and the intellectual can’t penetrate the realm of the highest spiritual truth. Buddha had other level of teachings for students with higher level of consciousness and perception. That is the subject of Mahayana Buddhism and Tantrism and even higher knowledge. Those teachings were beyond words. Beyond the concept of the physical universe.
LRH also warned against in a lecture to follow light after a person leaves his body. This may or may not be a good advice. But adding that he rejected Nirvana, rejected Yoga. Put “enlightenment” as an awareness characteristic to the wrong part of the Bridge AND associating that concept with Buddhist meaning of enlightenment and calling himself Maitreya and saying that there is a historical connection with Buddhism and Scientology and by this validating Theravada style of Buddhism as the path I can safely assume that he had either zero knowledge of Buddhism either he wanted deliberately misguide and “entrap” or stop other beings to go free.
It may be that LRH used another definition for Enlightenment than what Buddhism uses.
Overdriver wrote: “But adding that [LRH] rejected Nirvana…”
I don’t know that he “rejected Nirvana” as much as he rejected the idea of “withdrawing from life” in the pursuit of it:
Probably the only major error which exists in Eastern Philosophy, and probably the one at which I balked when I was young, was this idea that one should withdraw from life. It seemed to me that every good friend I had amongst the priests and holy men was seeking to pull back and cut off his communications with existence. Whatever the textbooks of Eastern Philosophy may say, this was the practice of the people who were best conversant with Eastern mental and spiritual know-how.” — LRH, Dianetics 55! (chapter “Communication”).
“Probably the only major error which exists in Eastern Philosophy” who was LRH to judge that 😀 ?
Of course there can be more errors or this one my be not an error. All this depends on who you address and what you want to achieve.
Hubbard here is again critical (get off your overts, Mr. Hubbard please) and at the same time plays the authority.
Withdrawal from life is probably mainly the method of Hinayana the school he concludes has the same historic origins with Scientology (although the very meaning of this statement of him can’t be decoded). That is because Hinayana is based on liberation by controlling one’s actions. The other thing is that the sages of Eastern Philosophy were practicing a lot. Life is short and if you want to achieve liberation in this lifetime you must practice a lot. This stands for other areas of life if you want to achieve perfection. And there are schools which does not say you must withdraw from life and are doing their meditations in daily life. However they also have studies.
But look at Scientology. Does a staff member or a Sea Org member has a life? Does a Volunteer Minister have a life? Does anybody permitted in Scientology to have a life? Then please, what is Hubbard speaking about? You see? There is a paragraph you quoted and if you examine it closely it is just meaningless. We both wasted long minutes from our life trying to understand and decode it.
And how many years we wasted by following these and other words of Hubbard?
Here are LRH’s words of Nirvana:
“Separation from the body! How the mystics have striven for this one! India and “join Nirvana” has given us “techniques” WHICH ARE GUARANTEED TO GLUE A THETAN TO A BODY AS THOUGH RIVETED AND TIED WITH IRON BANDS. So beware of mysticism and its techniques and yogism. Your hardworking author has been over the jumps and through the hoops of more mysticism than is even suspected and on the ground where mysticism first hit Earth— India, and I can guarantee you that these practices and hopes are a sort of theta trap to keep men in their bodies, in apathy, ill and tied to superstition.”
Source: SAINT HILL SPECIAL BRIEFING COURSE LEVEL A, Book Two: THE SINGLE SOURCE OF ALL INORGANIC MENTAL AND ORGANIC PSYCHO-SOMATIC ILLS, CHAPTER EIGHT
And add this: LRH has no idea what is yoga or what is mysticism. What he says above is just a broad generality which disperses your attention. And what you see? A dangerous world of mysticism around you of which you are rather afraid of and DO NOT LOOK AT. Familiar? The characteristics of the antisocial personality…?
Scientology is rather a waste of time it has so many false date in itself that to find your way out of the mess of the sea of false data is an art.
By the way while there can be actually false routes. “Mysticism” as he calss it. But as it is a generality I can’t be sure what does he mean on that. But mysticism can be those teachings which were thought by Buddha Shakyamuni himself through “manifestations”. Not by words but by natural phenomena, dreams, etc…
That is mysticism. Higher teachings. Or let’s say, the OT levels of Eastern Philosophy 🙂
That is what Hubbard invalidates here.
The post was good, all the way to the generality in the last paragraph. You may think it is a waste of time, but stating it as a general fact does the rest of your post a disservice.
Geir said: “The post was good, all the way to the generality in the last paragraph. You may think it is a waste of time, but stating it as a general fact does the rest of your post a disservice.”
Sorry Geir, probably you are correct. However, I’ve bought large amounts of Scientology materials. Recently when I begun to read these I found again and again generalities, fallacies and gibberish like I pointed out earlier. Not one or two but many. That’s why I’ve made the given conclusion.
Suppose, you are reading a mathematics book. You notice one mistake. You notice another major one. You recognize that the writer of the book did not finished school because he dropped out by bad math. Yes, there are some good equations in the book, probably collected from other authentic math books and some equations are looking indeed quite unique. But I bet, you will not read the rest of the book unless from some other reasons than to learn mathematics from the author.
I say this without the least bit of irony.
And at the same time I must admit that at least Dianetics including NED are great achievements. And probably there are more great achievements in Scientology. I do not want to discuss the OT levels here. And maybe these as well need to be refined or checked if are really safe routes for all, etc…
Scientology as a subject can be a good core or guide for something really honest and workable stuff IF evaluated, tested, really researched (I mean not just the good sounding word of “research” with no actual and valid research behind the word) piloted and really proved.
I would say that for a stuff like this to be really authentic and universal some really good man and some REAL SPIRITUAL MASTERS would needed. Second case: if the subject of Scientology would remain in the realm of making better life in Samsara (of which the main realm is the material universe), than probably we would not need spiritual masters just people of good will and people of good will with great wog experience in the discussed subjects. But in this later case the “Route to Total Freedom” slogan should be abandoned.
Third case: some group of people want to use the material for their own betterment and/or “amusement”. This is OK. They should be free to do that. But this should be a totally “ad-free” version of Scientology without any overt or covert push on society (for the above mentioned safety reasons).
Withdrawing from life has nothing to do with eastern philosophy. It simply has to do with finding an environment where one may contemplate without interruption. In Christianity there are monastaries or convents for this purpose. The greatest Hindu Yogi, Krishna was very much involved in life.
I think Hubbard simply had a misunderstood in Nirvana. From the section “Identity versus Individuality” in Scn 8-8008, he seems to equate Nirvana with becoming one with the universe. The truth is that Nirvana is moving beyond identification with anything manifested. The universe is a manifestation. Nirvana is NOT becoming one with the universe.
On the other hand, “individuality” is a manifestation. A thetan is an identification with this manifestation.
.
There is also the *reason* for studying in the first place, along with the reward and penalty system involved.
In my experience, in Scn at any rate people study in order to get the cert, or so they can co-audit, or for whatever reason, but not purely so as to understand the material. In schools, people study so as to be able to pass tests. Currently our entire educational system is based on this idea.
If you are not doing it with the complete intention of understanding the subject, the whole thing is wasted.
Roland
Great observation, Roland! Again it’s something that’s already in the BSM — and it didn’t come to my mind. Gosh!
Yes, Roland made a great observation here, which may have been in the Basic Study Manual but was not emphasized enough in actual application in the courses in Scientology. The reliance was put too much on a mechanical e-meter, on mechanical word clearing processes, on mechanical auditing processes. More and more the person took a back seat.
People wanted to audit and co-audit, but the whole runway for training was made so long that people did whatever to obtain their certs. It is interesting how Hubbard criticized the fields of Psychology, Psychoanalysis, and Psychiatry for being o complex. I remember him jeering in study tapes on how long it takes to become a trained Psychologist or Psychoanalyst. Well, just look at how long it takes for a Scientologist to become an auditor. Scientology is no less complex than what it is trying to replace.
I am not hooting for Psychology or Psychiatry, but these subjects have made a lot of progress in the last 50 years. These subjects are helping people, whom Scientology would not even consider helping, yet Scientology is critical of them. That reveals another inconsistency in Scientology. Right now, the way Scientology is configured it is not a living and breathing subject. Its progress is simply stopped. All it is doing is acquiring more complexity.
.
Vinaire: “All it is doing is acquiring more complexity.”
I think it’s beyond acquiring more complexity. I think it’s well into sticking its head deeper and deeper into the sand.
Yeah I noted the Scientology did not teach about boundaries or personal rights. I had none till I started to talk to a social worker and they started to teach me about such.
I been a pain in the side to some ever since.
Maybe this is not an inconsistency… what overt could LRH had against psychologists and psychiatrists… that he was so critical…?
That is an apt question.
LRH said in a taped lecture, that his selection of psychiatrists and psychologists as “oppterms” to be be critical of, was arbitrary. He said he had been a “psych” himself on his whole track, and figured they deserved to be attacked as much as any group in existence.
And in fact, throughout the 20th century most of them were up to no good from what I could see.
Agree Roland, but I always studied with the intention to understand the materials. Earlier on this made me unpopular with course sups when they were pushing for completion stats but was mitigated by daily upstat student point scoring. Over time, I did speed up. Completing Method One word clearing was very productive and valuable to me and my ability to study. Studying in the course room for me was a highlight of my day and after training to become a proficient student and becoming one, I always left the course room at the end of the evening in an exhilarated state of mind.
Great point Roland,
Quote: ” … in Scn at any rate people study in order to get the cert, or so they can co-audit, or for whatever reason, but not purely so as to understand the material.”
I never allowed a student to complete if he was going thru the motions just for a cert or status. In that case, he would be there for the wrong purpose.
I wanted to see effectiveness, conceptual understanding, and most importantly, ability to apply in life.
As I said earlier, we have similar understandings. I could have written those exact words myself.
I agree and could you go over the money aspect too of Scientology. It is pretty obvious to me that the church did not prevent what usually happens to group in a money system.
I find that people are often forced to do what they have to to survive in this system. So this is the result today of what we have now. IT is not all SP’s as some ties to blame.
Also I find I can’t learn if I can’t discuss it as well.
The books of Scientology are hard to understand at times. It is the writing style so you can pick about that too.
Roland good to see you here. I still wish you were going to audit. Maybe one day.
I like discussing materials too, but that was made a crime in the Church of Scientology by Hubbard himself. I never understood why it should be so. In my opinion a discussion serves to question data and clarify it further. If a discussion is giving MUs to a person then he can look them up per Study Tech and make up his own mind.
Did Hubbard not like his materials to be looked at more closely? Did he want people to to the first class of barriers where his own materials were concerned?
.
I don’t know the answer but since I been looking at other things and especially listened to Jacques Fresco and Peter Joseph and others like him in relation to the VP. They have ton’s of valid points that make sense. I been seeing things differently and I see that some stuff was missed in regards to the tech. I say it is in there but no one looked at it in that way.
I been accused of not following the tech because I have started to think with it.
I think he had some huge evil purposes never revealed to speak in terms of Scientology.
Quote: “I like discussing materials too, but that was made a crime in the Church of Scientology by Hubbard himself.”
Uh … no.
Maybe in your Mission or Org though.
In fairness to Vinaire, the “VERBAL TECH: PENALTIES” policy of 15-Feb-1979, did usher in this “fear of discussing the tech” I’m afraid.
It does after all make it a “Court of Ethics offense” to “give out data which is contrary to HCOBs or HCOPLs”, or “interpret them verbally or otherwise for another”. (The entire PL was capitalized in the original, so LRH was being pretty adament about it.)
As I’ve often said, it’s not so much “the tech” that needs to be re-examined as it is the policies, imho. This Verbal Tech policy, I believe, is one that is written by the “exasperated LRH” as opposed to the “calm and well-reasoned LRH”. And that exasperation has, unfortunately, had pretty wide-ranging negative consequences in the CoS, I believe.
Any LRH policies written in exasperation (or anger), imho, need to be re-examined — or minimally, de-emphasized. I’m sure LRH’s intents and purposes were good ones … and those intents and purposes do need to be preserved in any amended or retired policies … but by allowing that “exasperation” to define how the organization behaves, has not had positive results in the CoS.
—-
As an aside, some people have commented here that because someone of LRH’s exalted spiritual stature got angry or exasperated from time to time, that he somehow was not living up to what is expected of a spiritual leader.
When I hear such arguments, I generally remind people that even the Western world’s “model of perfect human behavior” — Jesus of Nazareth — became angry and exasperated from time to time. In fact, Jesus even became violently angry on one reported occasion when he literally, physically whipped some merchants in a temple … simply because he disagreed with the venue they chose to sell their goods. (And for those Buddhists amongst you, Siddhartha Gautama was no paragon of virtue throughout his life either.)
And so I don’t expect that everything LRH said or did was perfect or “always high-toned”. He was human. He was — from all indications — fluid on the tone scale, and being human, was as capable of mistakes as the rest of us.
So I give LRH a pass. Just as I do Jesus, Siddhartha, and the many other great beings that have graced the earth.
But I also think that mistakes do need to be seen for what they are — and addressed — when and if found.
Excellent post.
I prefer looking at knowledge for what it is regardless of who said it. Beings always change from moment to moment. Focus on beings is unnecessary where knowledge is concerned. In the current age, knowledge should be used to simplify life and make it more fun.
.
Correction:
Did he want people to overlook the first class of barriers where his own materials were concerned?
.
Vinaire wrote: “Did he want people to overlook the first class of barriers where his own materials were concerned?”
I don’t believe so. I think he wanted to ensure that the comm line remained as pure as possible (at least as far as studying his material was concerned), without in-between interpretations.
However, I believe this was taken to such an extreme, that open and free communication eventually became stifled. This became especially true in the 1980s, when KSW began to be applied to all LRH writings/lectures/polices/ideas/etc (and not just tech).
There seems to have been a healthier balance (at least at the mission/public level) in the 1970s, with regard to free and open communication and discussions about LRH and Scientology. For example, in the late 1970s after Quentin died, we had free and open discussions about whether it was suicide, murder or something else. I doubt that would have ever happened in the 1990s or today, in the CoS. In all likelihood, it would be covered up today, or simply not talked about (ala Heber or Mary Sue).
I was on Apollo. I observed the environment very close to Hubbard. He did not want people discussing his materials with each other.
I don’t think that discussing Hubbard’s materials introduce impurity to LRH’s comm lines if study tech is also being applied. Discussion would actually help a person look at LRH materials from more than one viewpoint. It would prevent looking at LRH materials from a fixed viewpoint.
Discussion doesn’t mean a person would accept another person’s interpretation willy nilly. He has his own interpretation too. A discussion makes a person aware that if there is more than just his own interpretation then he should better look at the material more closely.
I agree with you Margaret, that the purpose of outlawing discussions of the tech were to keep the comm line pure. I say that based on experience, both as a student and as a Sup. I’ve seen some wild variations people have gotten through verbal tech. I have found that people have a tendency to substitute other people’s verbal interpretations for their own understanding the actual material from the guy who discovered and tested it. And then you can find a whole group doing it the way some “opinion leader” or anyone else interpreted it, which is very different from the workable way. I feel a very firm reality on the statement, “There’s no substitute for understanding.”
However, I also agree with you that this was taken to extremes to the point where people had become too afraid to discuss anything and to rely on their own ability to understand and make their own judgments about things that don’t fall into the realm of exact technology.
@ Vinair
Quote: “He did not want people discussing his materials with each other.”
Maybe this was said on the Apollo, and I do remember Ron mentioning not to talk about certain case /whole track areas with others.
In the field early on, discussion in the orgs I was at was encouraged. We even used to have staff meetings & discuss tech/policy concepts & how these concepts could be that way & why. Very enlightening. Be it in the coffee shop or on a break from course, we always discussed tech – great fun it was.
I agree with Margaret that later on in the church stifled communication to a very large degree – a VERY large degree.
… and here we are! 🙂
Vinaire wrote: “I observed the environment very close to Hubbard. He did not want people discussing his materials with each other.”
I think the question is his motive — was he doing it to ensure the comm line was kept clean from here on out, or was he doing it to “stifle communication” and free thinking. Because of everything else that defines the subject of Scientology, I highly doubt the latter.
Unfortunately, I’m afraid that the method(s) that he used to do it (i.e. “VERBAL TECH: PENALTIES” and other policies) have not worked out so well.
“… You can see how the three barriers that LRH describes have one for one a counterpart in the first class of study barriers. What can be wrong in a student’s study can of course also be wrong with the material…”
I like such simple but profound observations.
.
“And finally, there are always shades of gray and nuances in the colors. Materials could be more or less wrong – maybe they are right but could be even more right. Very, very little material in human history has not been rightfully improved upon by later generations” I think DM is doing a “great” job “improving?! I think it is an entirely different thing doing research etc when one has DONE the bridge and is a successful auditor ,(2 use the basics and investigate further..)
And would you agree that even Scientology as it stands could be improved?
There is no absolutes,and nothing stays the same.I just didn’t like your inkling “missing in study tech” To emphasis certain points more or putting in pre ruds as needed don’t make them missing? (what if the student is in the wrong dimension,is a mushroom,,then we need some additional steps as well)
Your initial reaction aside. Do you see any value in the blog post?
I too experience a reaction to this language of “missing study tech” and am examining myself for the reason. Meanwhile, like all skills, becoming a proficient student is not instantaneousness and must be learned and drilled and polished. We can always improve our studying skills just as we can improve any skill. Yes, it is good for you to post these questions.
I think Vinaire pointed to something important earlier when he said that one could feel one’s personal gain from Scientology attacked if another pointed out something wrong or lacking in the tech. However, one’s gains should not and do not hinge on anything other than one’s own experience.
I don’t think any one should B forbidden to think with the subject and work with it,but 2 change it and “add things” prevent others the insights and gains you had? (enough of changes and its no longer the same subject?!!)I would like to create some form of Scientology research institute 2 explore further,,but not changing the original that is the base..
No-one here is advocating changing what LRH wrote. And where did “prevent others the insights and gains you had” come from?
Your post about the article “How to study Scientology” (Ability Magazine, Feb 1959) is excellent and contains many of the references to why THIS posting had a unusually bad heading/wording..(could you at least meet me half way here?!:)
I am trying, really trying… If you can find me a reference from LRH pointing to M/Us in the text itself as at least a possibility of being a barrier in study.
On a scale 1-10 it gets a “2” from me..
Given that you had a button on it, I am not surprised 🙂
Stupidity IS something tat annoys me,so i guess i have a “button” on it. I asked more than ones where you are aiming with tis?? (you are not making sense) Do i think the tech is perfect?? NO but this IS just stupid..
I am not aiming for any secret place. You see what I write, and there is no hidden intention. This blog is a continuous reflection of my awareness. I have no idea where this goes. It is an ongoing adventurous exploration of free will. Try to read the posts without prejudice, buttons or knee-jerk reactions.
And I don’t get what you think is stupid.
Thanks 4 answering, (and i try to not 2 B “distraught” have “buttons” “knee-jerk reactions” and prejudice;)
Hey, I love you, Tommy.
Hugs.
I am all for Tommy feeling comfortable too! 🙂
.
From TWTH: “Sometimes one finds that what one has learned he cannot apply. If so, the faults lay with improper study or with the teacher or text.”
Nice one. This is missing from the Study Tech. It should have been included along with “How to study Scientology”.
I mentioned in another post a person first needed the “opportunity” to study but you laughed that off. Perhaps if I had said the “ability” to study, by which I mean access to the time required for it. Its a bit difficult to study if you’re entire day is taken up with searching for food, for example. Maybe I’ve missed something. Is there an underlying assumption in this series that everyone you are addressing has already sorted out their material needs? Is this really only about making the able more able, rather than the wider concept of education per se?
Did I laugh it off? You were right, and I acknowledge that through my latest post.
Very interesting how the correlation is there between the first and second sets of barriers. I have had that powerfully brought home to me when I was attempting to study some Scientology that did not seem right to me. It was being insisted upon that I had an MU. I eventually gave up and went on, but it later came out that it was the materials that were in error. It has become clear that many things written with Hubbard’s name are not Hubbard, and even if they are, it still requires the same vigilance and critical analysis as with anyone… else we get a bunch of dumbies who can’t think.
Have you ever seent he book, How to Lie with Statistics?
Grateful, I couldn’t agree with you more. This is the main point that has made the church into a cult.
Maybe this is off-topic, but it’s a nagging question I have had. It seems that Ron started off wanting people to question and think and definitely not to take everything he said unquestioningly. But at some point, was there a change? I remember reading some communication about the barley formula where people were asking questions about it and he was answering. His response seemed angry and discouraged any further questions. And there were other instances, as well, that made me cringe a bit.
Indeed it seems that LRH damaged his case during the research of the GPM processes, which took part from 1959 till 1966, and that he was never fully rehabilitated. LRH before and after that period seems to be notably different.
Agree.
I think that Hubbard became a victim to the gross dangers inherent in his own tech.
The biggest inconsistency that I see in Hubbard’s tech is that he talked about mind’s self-protective mechanism, yet he put all his effort in bypassing that self-protection to get “gains.” It is like forcing “cognitions” by bypassing a person’s self-determinism. Just look at the earliest Dianetic auditing all the way to Listing and Nulling process and how sensitive such processes are to error.
Buddha’s approach was to peel off the “[reactive] mind” layer by layer as you would peel off an onion. On the other hand, Hubbard’s approach was to bore into the reactive mind to get the core out. This he tried to do with Dianetics, and failing that, he tried to do it with foraging the mind all over the place with Scientology processes.
Foraging the mind is not a good idea because one is bypassing the self-protective mechanism of the mind most of the time. This is dangerous and it is known to precipitate madness inside and outside of Scientology. Peeling off the mind is much safer approach and that is what was practiced and taught by Buddha. That “peeling the mind” is what characterizes the KHTK approach.
So, I think Hubbard dug into his own mind bypassing the self-protective mechanism too many times, and, as a result, suffered damage.
.
Many people (including myself) describe the experience of being audited as “peeling the onion” from the inside of the onion out, as you as-is things gradiently. I consider the techniques of auditing brilliant in creating an environment where this can be achieved.
And so I agree with LRH that auditing (done in the environment which he prescribes), though it has the same essential goals as meditation and Buddhism, is a more advanced way to achieve those goals.
In Buddhism there are “processes” indeed. Even there is a video on Youtube where you can see how tibetan lamas are doing TRs on each other…
The big difference is this gentle approach. While you feel like being exposed to fresh clean air doing the traditional method, you feel like being exposed to chemical detergents doing Scientology. And when you foraging the mind, the most case you get into trouble. I think that is well demonstrated in Scientology. Even if you look at only the great number of people leaving or getting antagonistic to Scientology. Casewise what you experience now is the result of karma. You dig down in a hurry, and you get loads of that rubbish into present time simultaniously.
If I take a look of the OTs made these days I see a lot of crap people in volumes. They are existing only on the 1st dynamic. And yes, they are very powerful on that one dynamic… like Hubbard was. Welcome into the New Universe of Beings… pfff.
That is often what I have observed too in my activism for the Venus Project. I even got put on moderation on IFAchat for only one thing you can talk about there and I answered the list owner question and I was not promoting the Venus Project. I was explaining. Very church like I think.
Not just that the Venus Project is very 3, 4th, 5th and 6th dynamic oriented. I sometimes think I am speaking greek to some of the Indies doing so.
Auditing will fix the while planet. Never mind that the tech is too small in number to do so.
I have gotten accused it in my case that is the reason why I am for the Venus Project. They started to examine me because I have little trust of auditors since my church exit. I was betrayed by one of my last major grades auditors in the church. So out here there are even less rules.
I think myself that at least auditors should be trained real ministers and or social workers. Otherwise they don’t have enough life experience especially when young to know what they are dealing with. The MIND.
I try to consider all the dynamics. I think that there should be process to get people to see why for the Venus Project and to work as mankind as a whole but no I don’t see that.
I have been accused also because I think for myself I am no longer for standard tech. I always think there should be a basic standard but I can now think for myself and I see the weakness in parts of that tech and the first dynamic only or maybe second is the biggest. I also consider the money part very weak too. He was a man of his time. Things do change and societies do change due to technology. I have changed with it but this has not.
I do consider that there could be more research need done and I kind of like the idea of maybe using the tech and becoming a Buddist. So maybe I am more agnostic then Scientologist.
When I can think about the tech I noticed that I start to get the peer pressure to conform. I CAN THINK WITH IT.
The videos of the Venus Project helped a great deal in freeing my mind. I still like auditing but I sure don’t like the admin nor the policies. I have never have done so and therefore why I am out. I been speaking my mind out here too lately.
The more I am ignored or abused verbally on the yahoo list it showed me Christians often got it better then the one that are supposed to be trained uppity ump.
I now understand I am able to undestand for I don’t have that type of programming in my head and now I can learn the tech on my own because I can know for myself what is and what is now. I have read enough and learned enough that I can do so.
The tech needs a peer and scientific review. What works is kept and what harms tossed.
I consider most of the admin and especially the policies harmful.
Barb
I am not against Scientology, but more and more out of it the more I wonder the “in” years. Hubbard had a model for the universe which is rather 80 percent far from “truth” than 20 percent close 🙂 . Especially when I cognited 🙂 how far it is in the “final answers” I begun to loose interest in it rapidly.
Take a look at the subject of statistics. Whether there are trends considered whether not, the immediate stats are counted the most for example in the day-off of members of the Sea Org. That is short sightedness, not thinking in creating things for the future.
Take a look at the subject of exchange: always immediate exchange is counted. That is usually against the laws of nature and pro money and profit.
Take a look at the subject of study: the most important barriers are left out and evolved on the Academy to a probably unnecessaryly big course. Slowing and tying down and hypnotizing the Scientologist. Suggesting Scientology is something very “overimportant” science.
@ Overdriver
Good points.
Stats & Exchange have really been perverted.
All stats originally were was an indicator of how well a unit/division, etc were doing. There were corrective measures (policy, evals, programs, conditions, etc) to handle these. When the Stat Push policy came out, I would think there was a collective sigh of relief from this perversion, but that policy was quickly suppressed and mention of it ‘indicated’ you were CI.
Exchange in abundance was also perverted and money became the main motivator despite policy and the Scale of Motivation saying the opposite.
It is quite obvious that the same policy read by different people meant different things and the application twisted in many cases.
Overdriver, you wrote: “I am not against Scientology, but more and more out of it the more I wonder the ‘in’ years.”
Your list of items is hard to argue with.
However, I do notice that they are “admin heavy” and don’t really relate to the core ideas of Scientology, or the products of Scientology achieved independently or in less authoritarian environments.
Without a recognition of the importance and seniority of the core ideas of Scientology, the use of “admin tech” becomes a rote, authoritarian exercise, imho. As we see in the current CoS and it’s “products”. And about which you are commenting, I believe.
Overdriver wrote: “While you feel like being exposed to fresh clean air doing the traditional method, you feel like being exposed to chemical detergents doing Scientology.”
It’s an interesting, and sadly somewhat accurate, analogy in the current CoS.
I can only tell you that my experience with getting auditing as an independent Scientologist in the comfort of my own home (and with a relaxed and non-judgemental auditor) is miles apart from the stifled and “chemical detergent” experiences that I had as a pre-clear in the CoS.
Would you consider that grades as “peeling” processes?
I consider a lot of the reading other things a type of peeling process. I got into Scientology very young. Therefore I had not hing to compare it with and now I have personal knowledge to compare with it.
I am for auditing nor against the tech but I am against most of the policies and admin stuff. Stats are horrible.
My above comment started out wrong. I should have said, Now it is just that, about the dynamics in the VP.
When I bring it up I get shot down for the first seems to be the only one that counts.
That is a very good question about grades. I would take a grades process such as,
“Recall a time.” Repetitive to EP.
And turn it into the following to make it a “peeling” process.
“Look around in your mind and spot something there.”
“Accept it non-judgmentally, and feel it fully.”
“… Spot something else… etc.” until there is nothing new to spot.
“Peeling” must be applied to what is present in the mind right now. One simply looks at what is there. The idea of recalling makes one dig into the mind. On top of that the use of e-meter (other-determinism) also makes one dig into the mind.
.
Recalling is not the same as regression.
Recalling occurs in present time.
My point is that in response to “recall” one tends to dig into the mind. One does not necessarily waits for the mind to present something.
.
“Look around in your mind…”
I think that wording could introvert or interiorize a person at the Grades level. I’d suggest a more neutral command like “recall a time…”.
Except “look around” addresses what is without the arbitrary of time entered. I think it is an interesting concept to simply observe what is.
Nothing will introvert if one understands the KHTK principles about LOOKING. What introverts a person is “digging into the mind.”
.
It’s the use of the words “in your mind”. I don’t have a problem with “look around …” or “recall a time …” or “remember a time …”, but directing someone “into their mind” can be introverting for some, I believe.
You won’t have any problem with the wording “in the mind” once you understand the KHTK approach. It won’t be introverting at all. In fact, Scientology processes are introverting to the degree they let a person forage into the mind. All repairs in Scientology are the result of foraging into the mind for answers.
.
Quote: “The biggest inconsistency that I see in Hubbard’s tech is that he talked about mind’s self-protective mechanism, yet he put all his effort in bypassing that self-protection to get “gains.”
This is not an inconsistency at all … who is ‘protecting’ the mind?
Why, when one is in a labyrinth that is geared to confuse an individual, would one *not* want to figure it out & ‘pierce the veil’ ?
In my view “one” is part of the system and not the creator of the system.
Being, or thetan, is a construct.
.
It’s a model. And models are never exact replicas.
One could be both. LRH said one is ultimately both the creator and the created. Buddha said pretty much the same thing.
Right on! In Scientology we have more or less run into a situation where the first class barriers are forbidden. If a student thinks some piece of information is simply wrong he is subjected to endless second class barrier debugs and handlings until he bloody well falls into line and sees that there was no first class barrier. A disagreement with the material can never be allowed, as LRH by some idiotic assumption is infallible and can never be wrong (likewise a personal contribution not from “source” can not be allowed, which accounts for the idea of only 20 ideas being contributed as per KSW)). And even though he himself wrote in many places that this was not so, the way it was acted out in reality was that he was never wrong. There are tons of accounts of how he would act this way. I personally don’t care much one way or another, as long as the truth is allowed to be seen and discussed. But we are stuck with dogma, which by definition precludes independent thinking. Truth is what the authority has said, and no proof is needed. Which brings me to a more important point: he points above should be subjected to scientific proof. Study tech would be one of the easiest things to actually prove scientifically. Likewise, although your way of assembling and summarizing the barriers to study looks great on paper, the validity of it needs to be tested.
The funny thing is that while even the word Scientology comes from the same root as science it denies science and rejects a scientific examination.
On the other hand Buddhism with which Hubbard liked to compare Scientology stands scientific examination to that extent that even Einstein acknowledged Buddhism and when one takes a look at quantum physics one can see that in Buddhism a very similar view of the universe exists from thousands of years.
Overdriver wrote: “[Scientology] denies science and rejects a scientific examination”…
What a ridiculous statement. Most Scientologists (especially those outside of staff/SO or of the independent variety) freely embrace science and recognize it’s limitations to that which is objectively and repeatably provable. And until the 1980s, Scientology scientists were freely and scientifically examining “OT abilities” and “remote viewing” at SRI (Stanford Research Institute) and cooperating with others in universities, government and parapsychology who wished to attempt to replicate the experiments.
And even the CoS in the 1980s and 1990s cooperated with Scientology scientists who were examining the scientific efficacy of the Purif (though granted, it is unlikely that the CoS and those Scientologists during those years would have felt free to report anything but “positive results” and so the resulting research papers could at best be considered incomplete and/or lacking in peer-review.)
But science is the very antithesis of KSW in that science strives to improve anything and everything.
Very good observation. Scientology, by no means, is the final word. And at the same time it is configured by Hubbard to remain static in its present form. Not much advancement can occur within Scientology. All the advancement will be outside of Scientology.
Scientology, however, provides an excellent springboard to make further progress. Scientology made a move towards LOOKING as compared to Psychoanalysis, but it still retained more formulazed evaluation of the case. Idenics pretty much got rid of that case evaluation too, and with that e-meter also became unnecessary.
Idenics is much more in the line of looking without case evaluation by another person, but it is not configured to be a grass roots technology. KHTK is simply an attempt to come up with a grass roots technology based on LOOKING, much like Buddhism.
.
Geir wrote: “But science is the very antithesis of KSW …”
I tend to see Scientology auditing tech as analogous to the scientific method, and not analogous to “science” or the “sciences”.
The scientific method is an applied philosophy for a group. “Objective truth” (the sciences) are the result of that application.
Scientology (auditing) is an applied philosophy for the individual. “Subjective truth” (personal truth) is the result of that application.
One (the scientific method) deals in objective phenomena, the other (Scientology) deals in subjective phenomena.
Can the “scientific method” be improved upon? Sure, but it’s certainly not done lightly. For example, you don’t generally see scientists attempting to “change basic principles” or “alter successful applications” in the scientific method. And you certainly don’t see them trying to mix in alchemy or astrology, to improve the scientific method.
In my view, altering “the Scientology method” (the tech) should be treated at least as seriously as altering or improving upon “the scientific method”.
Yeah, but to outlaw it? I think that would also go against the spirit of science.
The scientific method stops being applied to a subject the moment further critical looking at that subject by others is discouraged.
.
Yes, as long as they accept the discouragement 🙂
So, we are applying the Scientific method to the subject of Scientology outside the Church. This scientific inquiry is better carried out under a different title. I wouldn’t mind offering the title KHTK for it because KHTK is totally free for anyone to use. I don’t intend to copyright it ever.
.
I lost track of who is replying to who here … but in short … I fully support using the scientific method to confirm and verify the results of Scientology (where ever possible) … and I fully support a (reformed) Church of Scientology who is holding firmly to a “standard tech” at least to the same degree that scientists hold to their applied philosophy of the “imperfect, but workable” scientific method.
But would you support the improvement of even that?
Geir, I do not think this is true. “Rigorous” science follows “KSWs” of it’s own. Studies must be rigidly and consistently controlled and be “duplicatable” for example, in order for their results to be considered valid. Protocols must be followed. Science may build on those basic protocols but science does not throw them away and say “I don’t feel like doing it that way today.”
KSW – Keeping Science Working.
But the protocols are also evolving, improving. And luckily there is no such lock-downs on improvement in science as KSW is in Scientology. We both know that there will be no improvements in the philosophy of Scientology. KSW outlaws it.
My previous comment is in reference to this by Geir:
“But science is the very antithesis of KSW in that science strives to improve anything and everything.”
And it is – because Science is about evolution and improvement. KSW is about cementing the knowledge and time-freeze it to a certain state.
OK, we are talking past each other, I think I get why – it’s my mistake. I am not talking about “science”, I am talking about “technology”. Technologies are specific machines developed to produce certain specific effects or results.
“But science is the very antithesis of KSW in that science strives to improve anything and everything.”
Thus, you are quite right, because KSW applies to “technologies”, not to “science”. Science indeed tries to develop better technologies, better applications.
You mention “Scientology philosophy”. Well, KSW does not apply to philosophy, either. It applies to technology only. So there is no reason KSW should interfere or hold back progress in Scientology philosophy.
Technology is something else. “Standard Tech” is a specific machine or series of machines, and it has a “manual” that goes with it. It operates on certain principles. Just as a “double-blind study” will always be a “double-blind study” no matter how much. science progresses, this kind of study will need to meet certain standards to qualify as a “double-blind study”. It is based on certain principles which must be present for it to be considered a valid double-blind study. It has it’s own “KSW”. The day may come when science no longer uses double-blind studies because science has developed something better, but the protocols for doing those kind of studies will still be in the books as the “standard tech” of doing those kind of studies.
Hope that clears up where I’m coming from and why we apparently didn’t agree. “Science” and “technology” are two very different realms.
It clears it up.
What percentage of Scientologist would you think would make that distinction (in and out of the church) and thus condoning the improvement upon the philosophy of Scientology and subsequently make better technologies for e.g. auditing or Study Tech – given KSW as a backdrop?
I have no idea how many, if any, “scientologists” in or out of the church would have my perspective, since I am not directly involved with any. All my data is second-hand from reading postings online and the news shows I have seen.
There are others who have posted, who seem to feel as I do, that KSW is to be applied strictly to the auditing tech side of it all, and basically means “don’t try to fix what is not broken.” That implies a person needs to know the auditing tech very well and comprehensively, to even have an inkling of what works and what doesn’t. To me, this means being an interned Class VIII with many hours experience.
Remember too, my idea of the Bridge are from the 1970s-early 1980s!
There is nothing in the world to prevent people from researching whatever they wish. Who’s to stop them?
A “preservation” function like a group that applies KSW within it’s ranks in order to keep tech intact is perfectly valid. Too bad the CoS hasn’t done so! It’s apparently done quite the opposite, all the while using KSW to stultify it’s members. It’s almost laughable how the organization can plaster KSW up all over the place at the same time it actually completely diverges away from standard tech. It’s like something out of Kafka, Joseph Heller, or just any bad dream. “The blind leading the blind”, indeed!
I see no reason for groups or individuals not to do research. Go for it, as far as I’m concerned.
I see this as something that “time will tell”. Over hundreds of years, most likely. From LRH’s body of work will spring possibly countless individual understandings and applications and iterations, just as has happened with Buddhism or Vedanta or Christianity. Many sects, groups, church and non-church organizations etc etc. Each with it’s own flavor. Some will actually deliver something, some will just pray to LRH, orgive lip service to”Standard Tech” while doing something else entirely…. whatever. It’s already happening. History will show us which ones are viable and which ones, not so much. There will be people who say they have “improved” on the tech. Perhaps some will have. Perhaps some will be lying for their own gain or be deluded by their own ego. It will always be “Caveat Emptor”.
The “conservative” people who decide to stick with what they know works, I believe, have a viable survival strategy, if they provide value for value. Time will tell.
Judaism + Buddhism = Christianity. 🙂
.
Hubbard wrote underratedly regarding science and mathematics as well as he underrated Nirvana. Sorry, but I do not look for the reference here, as I’m not sure I would find it instantly. I just speak from my memory.
It is sure, science has it’s limitations. It is dealing with the seemingly finite world. But in this seemingly finite world if science does not want to get involved and be authoritarian what is beyond, than is OK.
A reference for quotes on Mathematics would be the first lecture in the series “Principles of Creation”
Scientology is a workable system. Scientology is not a scientific system. If it were a scientific system it would have been more open, but it is not.. Scientology shut itself off from any scientific advancement by the use of the term “squirreling” and through the encouragement of “closed mind”.
Hubbard had little trust in others and that is why he didn’t enjoy much peace and cooperation from equals.
.
Vinaire, re-read my message(s) above. Imagine approaching scientists and telling them that you want to make advancements to the “scientific method”. It simply doesn’t get done. At least not lightly. It happens. Very occasionally. But there’s a tremendous level of (warranted) respect and even sanctity about the expected “standardness” of the applied philosophy called the scientific method.
I would argue that the standardness of Scientology — the applied philosophy — needs to be approached with at least that level of respect and sancitity. If not higher.
Scientology has several distinct parts. The “Tech” is a “technology”, and any “technology” is no more and no less than a “workable system”.
Just to talk about “Scientology” as a generality is meaningless because it is not specific enough – the same statements and evaluations do not necessarily apply to the “philosophy” as to the “tech”, or to the specific organizations as they exist today. Those are all different parts of “scientology” and they are not commensurate.
Which do you mean, in your post? I find Geir is also failing to make these distinctions at times in his posts.
Valid points can be lost, when your readers do not know which part of “scientology” you are referring to.
I’d argue that your “first class barriers” are barriers to teaching, not studying.
One can’t expect students, who presumably don’t know yet the subject they are learning, to be able to adequately adjudicate on the correctness/soundness of the data that they are studying. In general, it would violate the “too steep a gradient” barrier to study, imo.
I do believe that teachers should have a simple way of correcting typos, spelling errors, etc. in the material (perhaps as brought to their attention by students), but that any more involved changes should require a higher and more rigorous standard before teachers are expected to or allowed to make changes in material. I think this is a fundamental weakness of Wikipedia, for example. (And while “ant hill innovation” may work with software and other objectively-based subjects, it’s an entirely different matter when it comes to controversial subjects or those having to do with subjective/experiential phenomena.)
But ultimately, it is the responsibility of those teaching (not the students) to adjudicate on and address your “first class barriers” and thus I would characterize them as “barriers to teaching” as opposed to “barriers to study”.
—–
With all that said, in the CoS, because KSW has become so broadly applied to everything LRH ever wrote, said, advised on, etc. (instead of just being applied to the techniques of auditing, as was originally intended), this has stifled any sane approach to learning Scientology in the CoS, imo, and the result is a whole system that is effectively broken.
In my view, with a properly functioning Scientology leadership, outdated policies would be amended, and new policies would be developed as the current scene required. With regard to the tech, highly trained technical experts would be adjudicating on what is considered “standard tech”, and continuing the development of the Bridge above OT VII/VIII (or whatever level is deemed appropriate).
And it would all be done with transparency, and proper checks and balances in place.
The task of thinking for oneself and examine the materials and the teacher on a critical basis should not and must not be considered anything than a primary task of a student. It must remain the students responsibility to cater for his or her own judgment. Any fault in the materials comes before any fault in the student’s understanding and such fault will inevitably be a barrier to a student in his or her study.
Thinking for oneself and understanding the materials is a responsibility of the student.
Ensuring the materials are accurate is the responsibility of those teaching.
Those teachers who teach responsibly (and with humbleness), keep their comm lines open and have a system whereby a well-trained student can make suggestions, corrections, etc.
I’m not implying that students shouldn’t be allowed to have opinions on the teachers, the quality of material, etc. — ultimately, yes, the student is free to choose and is responsible for decisions on who or what he learns from.
But in any practical setting, one can’t expect students to “make corrections in a calculus formula” when they are just learning arithmetic or algebra. Or decide on the correctness of surgical procedures in a hospital operating room, when they are just learning biology.
Your first three “barriers to study” apply mostly to PhDs and those well-trained in a given subject, imho, but do not universally apply to all students, as the second list of “barriers to study” does.
Therefore, I would classify your first list of barriers to study as “pre-requisites to study” or perhaps “responsibilities of teachers”, but not necessarily “barriers to study” (except in the case of the CoS, whereby the normal rules of learning and teaching have been turned on their head with an over-broad application of KSW to everything the primary teacher [LRH] ever said/wrote/opined/etc. — creating an entire environment which is a “barrier to study”).
I find my own kids, age 7 and 11 (not the 2 year old quite yet) very aware of faulty material. They often question the teachers, including me, and they are very aware of skipped gradients or missing explanations in the materials or with the teachers – and this one is indeed a more primary barrier in their study than any of the three LRH deems as primary, They even arrest the teachers or me in our use of wrong definitions for words. And they are not quite done with their PHD. I believe that setting aside the first class of barriers as less important or only for advanced students etc. is playing down the importance of the students to be motivated constantly to think for themselves.
My point (one of them): LRH should have carried his great essay “How to study Scientology” from 1959 over into Study Tech. It is a shame he didn’t, because then we may have seen the first class of study barriers described and emphasized as prior to the three barriers to study that did find their way into Standard Tech.
“LRH should have carried his great essay “How to study Scientology” from 1959 over into Study Tech.”
Agreed. That it is not made at least as equal with KSW#1 in any Scientology course is a major flaw in the whole system, imo.
It does after all tell you how to study Scientology!
What could be more important, when studying Scientology?
Link to my blog post on “How to study Scientology“.
I agree with Margaret. Especially I agree with her concerning “primary” materials and possibly “intermediate” materials of a subject. It should not be the students “problem” to challenge the validity of the “alphabet” or of the “multiplication facts” that they are learning – much of it by rote. When a “student” becomes proficient in a subject, THEN is the time for him to become to look critically toward the material itself and to possibly challenge what is and what is not workable about it. If not handled in this way, it my opinion that the student would become bogged in yet another “barrier to study.” Let’s call this barrier “never learning a datum unless and until verified as fact.”
I would go even earlier than in my last answer to this: Children start out very, very early questioning many things in their environment. That’s one of their very first actions. It is a primary action, earlier than the second class of study barriers.
Some materials do not make sense and are just arbitrary, such as the alphabet. People can understand that things like this were just made up and memorize them. But if something does make sense, it should not just be taught just as a transfer of knowledge, whether at the beginning level or not. You can’t just say that beginning students must accept it all and at some later point, they will turn on the questioning. Not gonna happen.
I agree that certain procedures, such as how to start a machine or how to do heart surgery might just be taught, but that, too can make sense to the recipient of the knowledge.
I don’t understand your point here. Is somebody else needs to verify the facts for the student?
.
Well said!
If the student is accepting teaching materials at their face value and not questioning them when he doesn’t understand them, then his learning capability is already compromised.
And THAT would be the greatest barrier to study!
.
Vinaire wrote: “not questioning them when he doesn’t understand them…”
There’s a difference between:
a) Questioning the material when one doesn’t understand it (when the MUs [or too-steep-a-gradient or lack-of-mass] won’t clear it up) and,
b) Simply disagreeing with — or remaining agnostic to — the opinion of the author.
In Scientology, the whole idea of “Personal Integrity” and the “Code of Honor” are supposed to be very much senior to and a part of “study tech”. At least I always felt they were.
I still think that in the case of the CoS, the fly in the ointment came about when KSW#1 started being overly applied to everything LRH wrote and said, instead of just to “auditing tech” for which it was originally intended (per RJ68).
Suddenly, the “true for you” wasn’t allowed, if it wasn’t “true for LRH”. And that sent things sliding south pretty quick.
LRH has a responsibility in this. But ultimately, I think it is more due to the “organizational culture” that is created by a group’s leadership — and how certain values, mores, policies and expectations are emphasized over others — than to the policies themselves.
I think the basic on this is the focus on beingness as the ultimate reality. This focus bring ego to the forefront. To me, this explains both “LRH” and the “organizational culture” you speak of. This is what defines Judaism, Christianity and Islam and other derived religions who look at “God” as the ultimate reality.
Buddhism looks at “Nirvana” as the ultimate reality. Vedic religions look at “Brahma” (unknowable) as the ultimate reality. Beingness versus No-beingness is an interesting way to look at the ultimate reality.
.
I think focusing on one dynamic only (whether the 1st or 3rd) brings “ego” to the forefront. And I’d argue that the current CoS leadership focuses too much on their own 3rd to the exclusion (and detriment) of all the others.
But I don’t think this is inherent in the Scientology philosophy. It might be in some of the policies (or at least if one chooses to stress certain policies over others), but organizational policies aside, I think the Scientology philosophy and practice allows for a tremendous embracing of all dynamics, and the achieving of a very non-egocentric state of “brotherhood with the universe”.
Once again I would advise not to focus on Hubbard or Scientology because one then wastes time defending that personality or that subject.
Let’s just focus on the current state of knowledge to which Hubbard and Scientology contributed, and take it forward from there.
Thank you.
.
Vinaire, I grant you your freedom to use (or discard) any part of Scientology and/or Hubbard’s ideas as you wish. I would hope that a reformed CoS would grant that to you as well.
But I also think there is value in having facilities which deliver the tech as currently standardized by LRH (and, going forward, as determined by any other “senior tech team” that might emerge in a reformed CoS).
Quote : “I’d argue that your “first class barriers” are barriers to teaching, not studying.”
There is a difference in teaching, supervising & studying. They quite often get mixed up even by Scientology Supervisors.
Sorry, I missed ” I agree with you Margaret’ in my last post
Margaret said: Ensuring the materials are accurate is the responsibility of those teaching.
My question here would be who taught the teachers? You follow this line back, back and back; and ultimately it comes down to personal observations of the universe around one.
Second hand observations, as from teaching materials, do not mean that the student should swallow it as presented. He must compare it to his first hand observations and work to eliminate any and all inconsistencies. Only when he does that can the student obtain complete understanding. In this process the student may even discover inconsistencies in teaching materials if any.
So it is the responsibility of the student to fully understand. That includes examining the teaching materials for inconsistencies, and that should be a part of study tech.
.
That is why I can make judgments now where when I was in the cult I could not and I bowed to peer pressure. Out here I get very grumpy when that is pulled on me.
I know enough now I can think for myself and Yes I got it through reading and observing.
LRH did not get all of it.
That is an excellent direction to be improving in.
.
Vinaire, you wrote: “So it is the responsibility of the student to fully understand. That includes examining the teaching materials for inconsistencies, and that should be a part of study tech.”
And I’d argue that that’s pretty hard to do until one is well along in the study of a subject. But I’d agree that at a certain point, absolutely, one should be aware of and clear up (if possible) what one feels are inconsistencies — either inconsistencies in one’s understanding, or inconsistencies in the materials.
Would I consider doing this a part of the whole body of “study tech”? Yes, I would. I think LRH has covered this elsewhere, but perhaps it could be called out or added more prominently in the “study tech” materials.
But I don’t think this aspect of “study tech” rises to the same level and character as the “three barriers to study”. I see this “sorting through inconsistencies” process as more of a gradual process and an exercise in “determining relative importances” and as a natural progression of overcoming unknowns by broadening ones understanding and gaining deeper insight into a subject (whatever the subject is).
If one is highly trained in the subject, it is even conceivable that one could improve how the subject is conveyed, and/or make enhancements to or corrections to existing material and data.
I’ve always felt that a properly functioning CoS leadership would have systems in place to allow inconsistent policies to be re-examined, and with regard to the tech, would allow the most highly trained individuals to be the final arbiters on what is considered “standard tech” with due consideration and respect for the fundamental and major achievements made by LRH.
Very nice. All research comes from not compromising with inconsistencies, and following one’s curiosities.
.
Good collection.
3 of the first 4 points are covered in some sheet called the Students correct behaviour, or Codex something like that which a student gets before signing up for a course. It is similar like when you go into session you need to have enough sleep, etc… That is also given to you on a sheet with other points before getting your first session.
LRH says that a student must have his own course material and I suppose that is considered adequate in Scientology for the course and he also lays down the rules for good dictionaries. So the first four points are mentioned in Scientology.
And depending the need and willingness for one to study even these are not even prerequisites but of course better if are “in”.
Now I feel, that THE FIRST CLASS OF BARRIERS ARE THE REAL AND ONLY IMPORTANT BARRIERS but even these can be overcome if not so serious that ruin the student completely. THE STRANGE THING: is that THESE MOST IMPORTANT and serious BARRIERS are the ones that ARE LEFT OUT OF SCIENTOLOGY “Study Tech”.
In my opinion that gives some clue what’s going on in Scientology.
Just a silly question to Tommy: Are you writing from India?
.
No I’m a next door neighbor of Geir,”Sweden”:)
Guys, just got to say this:
I love you all.
Having people of very different views debating in an intelligent and civilized manner like this is quite rare – especially when the subject is Scientology.
So, thanks 🙂
Very cool. 🙂
Agreed. This is a special place!
I am struck by this over and over again. What shines through for me is the basic goodness of each individual.
But then it’s you who must do something right to attract such debaters, isn’t it?
I will try to decipher what that is…
Thank you for your blog and you letting ideas exchanged. It is really great to see different viewpoints and reading the excellent posts and comments.
Whether it is study or auditing or meditation, any and all gains come from LOOKING. The more a person is capable of looking, the more will be the gains.
Scientology is just a system that assists in looking. Prior to Scientology, the system of psychoanalysis heavily evaluated for the individual. It made him think about himself in a certain way. The individual still got some gains in spite of all that heavy, theory-based evaluation. The gains came at those points when he was able to look for himself during those psychoanalytic sessions.
Scientology made a great improvement over psychoanalysis by spotting that such heavy evaluation was destructive. Scientology then came up with processes that helped a person look in a well organized fashion. Dianetics was closer to pure looking. The auditor helped and encouraged the preclear to look. The only drawback was that it encouraged the preclear to dig into the mind. At first, the auditor computed for the preclear to help him dig into the mind. Later, when many, many different processes were developed in Scientology, we have C/Ses adjudicating what process was to be applied when to the preclear. Effectively, the C/S was directing the manner in which the preclear should be looking. So the evaluation remained in Scientology, though not as heavy as in Psychoanalysis. There was more looking allowed in Scientology, but it still followed a certain pre-conceived theory that was imposed on the preclear, like in psychoanalysis.
In study, a person is supposed to look. It includes both first and second hand observation. But when we talk of study, it usually has to do with second hand observation.
So, how much evaluation is there in Scientology Study tech about how a person should be looking in order to learn? What are the merits and demerits of the theory used by Study tech? Hw much does it evaluate for the individual?
Right now I shall just throw this question out there as I need more time to fully organize my thoughts on this topic. I shall be taking it up later.
.
Please do. I find your thoughts very interesting.
If we take only the tone scale we know there are evaluation is going on indeed in Scientology. You have a PC folder and you have an ethics folder as well. Different C/S-es will give different instructions to auditors, the same way as two medical doctors give two different diagnosis. As a preclear, you are aware of this that you are under constant evaluation but you do not even know how you are evaluated. It is hidden but it is there and you know it exists. Which preclear does not begin to compute along this line knowing that? This line of evaluation is at least that bad as in the field of psychology. With the difference that in Scientology if it is said you are a sneaky 1.1 or that you are an SP is probably not so precise than for example in psychology when it is said after the hundred shop lifting that you are cleptomeniac.
I experienced no evaluation or minimum evaluation in Buddhism.
Overdriver, those are excellent observations about evaluation in Scientology.
.
Margaret wrote:
“So I give LRH a pass. Just as I do Jesus, Siddhartha, and the many other great beings that have graced the earth.”
That’s fine Margaret, however not Jesus or Siddhartha were impostors. Hubbard called himself a medical doctor, nuclear physicist, Maitreya and he had a couple of other things like that. That is pretty severe in my opinion – if I only look at this part of his “mistakes”. Besides Hubbard had ethics technology while we know from him that neither Jesus, neither Buddha had that technology or any technology to free mankind and as far as I know, he denied the existence of Jesus.
He is simply not comparable with Buddha or Jesus.
The Church is exactly his work’s heritage.
Another quote from LRH I passed through searching for Nirvana:
“Zen Buddhism was based on the idea that if you are hit, you know.”
He does not have a clue on what Zen Buddhism is for Christ’s sake!
Margaret,
you know, the greatest problem with Scientology is that if you do not have a first hand knowledge of what Hubbard is speaking about you are simply ruthlessly mislead by him. He speaks generality and about things suggesting he has firsthand knowledge of which he does not have a clue about. He is rather similar to Baron Münchhausen than Buddha or Jesus.
Wow. I would say that is a bit of a generalization…
Probably I am an SP. Now, you’ve found a big one… 😀
I just do not want to write pages of dissertation with precise quotes, but if you read Book One, you can probably recall a couple of things. I think I just need to say the word “parents”…
Anyway, “generalization” as a bad characteristic/indicator is not my idea. Sometimes it is much much easier to express yourself that way. It is part of our speech. It was Hubbard’s idea that generalization is bad. So if he has this idea, he should stick to it not to use generalization in his own texts and be more precise. Otherwise he gives bad example and that is against the certain precept of the Way to happiness.
Otherwise, I admit that is a generalization.
I see generalization as a logical fallacy, that’s all.
“I see generalization as a logical fallacy, that’s all.”
Sure, it can be.
Yes, and when it is I call it as such 😉
Overdriver, I still give Ron a pass despite his faux paxs. He discovered a deeper, more profound and more exact understanding and meaning for “truth” than the world has ever seen, in my humble opinion. And for that, I forgive him a thousand times over for any later PR or “tone level” foibles.
“Ron… discovered a deeper, more profound and more exact understanding and meaning for “truth” than the world has ever seen…”
And in my humble opinion this is an exaggeration. To say this you would need to know all knowledge out there, which is probably not the case.
I’ve just read from LRH some sentences where he states that Tibetan lamaism is squirreling. He states that in Scientology you can achieve the state of Buddha in 30 seconds, etc… Then he says how phantastic Scientology is. If you beleive his words, and as a result of studying only his words (without actually looking at the validity of his claims and knowing earlier anything closer about “lamaism”, Buddha, other wisdom he mentions, etc.) I’ve also said a couple of years ago what you’ve just stated.
But now I can clearly see how much I was misled.
True. LRH did take knowledge to a new level. Now let’s drop this focus on Hubbard and look at this knowledge itself. Where can we take knowledge to from where it is now?
.
New level indeed in some aspect except the many false data and Tone 1.1 (for example invalidation of Budhism and almost every other knowledge…) of which needed to be stripped.
That is exactly what I intend to do. I may start a thread on Geir’s forum stripping false data from the book Scientology 8-8008. That is going to be fun.
.
I believe that it is much productive to discuss knowledge in itself whether in Scientology or in Buddhism or in any other field. It is very unproductive to discuss personalities whether it is Hubbard or Buddha or anybody else. The only personality that is worthwhile to look at is your own.
.
^^^This
Has anybody studied a different language? Do you translate in your head to your native language until the word becomes knowingness and you stop translating because you know? Do you try to figure out the word when you read it in a new language to your own native language? How do you handle intangible words; especially abstract synonyms? Have you observed someone who is relative new in a language, and who is translating in the head to English? Can you see why they stumble?
What is your opinion when you learn tech from another language; can you do it without translating to your own native language and get fully grasp of the subject and the words 100% understood? What happens if you have to give a seminar in your own language after studying the subject tech in a second language or just in English?
Can you become Simpson #1 and Simpson #2? (Nancy Cartwright)
I am testing you! I want to know what most people know about one or more languages.
My choice it to word clear both languages as you need it. It is important to have adequate dictionaries.
What do you do if one language don’t have adequate dictionary? You need;
■A subject to study with adequate material.
My solution is to study a subject that you have affinity and reality that communicates something that is easier to understand and that will be on your gradient. In other words, definitions that are not skipped gradient. Something that builds up your vocabulary so you don’t get journeys of word chains so you are stuck with the dictionary more than the subject matter.
■Lack of mass (very important) (I consider body language and movies to give mass).
■Skipped gradient (daily used words and gradient are more important than Ronologees or Hubbardologeese with idioms and his made up words and his grammar changes etc.).
■The misunderstood word (should also be cleared in your native language). In my case; I had to study the same way as a native person; just in English. I did not have dictionaries any quality near comparison to the English standards.
What solved it was that I had two of the same books; one in native and one second language. Actually I used Dianetics: The Moderns Science of Mental Health, so I could do it behind the supervisor’s back, at first hidden; and later openly in the Academy. The supervisors never bothered me. They thought I was on a Dianetics course. I also got help, when I had questions. I was happy I got away with it.
I compared the translations how it was translated. I compared the dictionaries and the translations both ways; I puzzled it together; I solve my misunderstood words; I solved many words that I had bypassed on course materials; I encountered same words again in definitions that I had sorted out.
I had been ARC broken many time for nothing. I was even sent to the ethics office because I couldn’t understand the word e.g. “readily” after trying for three days; I got ideas; but it was never aligned to anything (particles flying). (It was like fused a membrane between the two languages) I was told I needed Method 1 word clearing, or some other actions. The funny part was that I used the word during the three days in my native language, when I was waiting on customers in a restaurant. I was not allowed at that time to use any native dictionaries, even when I got hold of different ones and newer edition. Can you imagine getting that word connected to two languages? I felt very relieved. My end result was that I cleared up so many words that my word chains evaporated. I didn’t follow the Academy Study Tech. I did kind another Method that was not every definition and only what I needed. I got result and I started to extrovert and I realize something was wrong with $cientology. I am glad that I read and applied the following learning: “If you get result, you are doing the right thing, and if you don’t get result you are doing the wrong thing”. Just to study in English didn’t help me and that was an invalidation for being forced to study in only English. How invalidated can you become??? All that happened during 80-ties. Method One Word Clearing as a substitute for dictionaries wouldn’t be a logic solution; Redo the Student Hat Course wouldn’t be a solution. PTS Rundown would only solve if the Ethics Officer would accept my allegation that I was PTS to all staff involved in my case. (Case from 80-ties).
My goal during my harassment in Scientology was to finish “Student Hat Course”; not sign up for another course; go home and read the books, the books I had to buy from them since it was a policy to own them. It didn’t make sense that I had to buy the whole library and not having a chance or permission to read them. That action was more on my grade level. (Not too steep a gradient)
Today:
My favorite dictionary is The American Heritage Dictionary by Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
I also speak fluently German and Spanish. I am also into other languages too.
I’d say it depends on one’s native language, and how well one knows the second, third, etc. language. If one knows a second language well, I think your solution of “word clear[ing] both languages as you need it” is a good one.
p.s. I’m currently teaching myself Spanish. I’m finding that “clearing up the Spanish MU” as I read them, to be very helpful. But I’m also finding that “throwing myself into conversations” (despite the MUs) to be very helpful to the doingness of “speaking and understanding” Spanish. When possible, I try to write down the conversational MUs if I can — but this isn’t always practical or possible.
To Gisela: These are excellent questions about people who deal with multiple languages. My native tongue is Hindi as I grew up in India. But I start learning English from an early age. Then I had to deal with American English when I moved to USA at the age of 23. For a while I counted in my head in Hindi numerals even when in USA. But now I can count and think naturally in English when I consciously do it, otherwise, it is mostly in conceptual form. What I love most in word clearing is looking up the derivation of a word as far back as possible and getting the concept of it, and ten relating all the definitions to it. After a while this goes pretty fast.
My first real hat was as a word clearer on Apollo as the word clearing technology was being developed by Hubbard. I very much agree with the way you went about word clearing. I used to zero in to the area of misunderstanding, then to the word(s) causing that misunderstanding. Many a times I used to create a list of basic words related to an area of difficulty and go over them with the student. When a misunderstood word was found I used to zero in to the definition(s) that seemed to apply in the context the word was used, then clear up the derivation, and then zero in to the definition that cleared the confusion. Yes, it was common to get in word chains at times, but it used to clear up pretty fast. In my view, the later requirement of clearing up every definition was arbitrary in day-to-day word clearing. That requirement is fine on Method 1 word clearing, but as far as regular word clearing goes, once confusion is lifted one does not need to grind in the “clearing” of the word. It is ok to clear up the same word in a different context at a later instance. As a word clearer, my focus was always on the lifting of the confusion, and not on mechanical procedure of clearing up a word.
.
To Margaret: Up till now the scientific method has used consistency with physical observations as its criterion. But now that quantum mechanics brings into view the effects of the very phenomenon of observation itself, we have arrived at an interesting plateau in our scientific studies.
I believe that the criterion of scientific method has moved forward from “consistency with physical observation” to “consistency among observations themselves” period.
.
“I believe that the criterion of scientific method has moved forward from ‘consistency with physical observation’ to ‘consistency among observations themselves’ period.”
I’m familiar with the qm paradox wrt to observer influence … but I’m not sure I entirely follow your last paragraph. How does one determine a “consistency in observation” amongst observers with the “observations” being entirely subjective (i.e. not “physical observations”)?
Margaret said: How does one determine a “consistency in observation” amongst observers with the “observations” being entirely subjective (i.e. not “physical observations”)?
I meant “consistency among observations themselves” for any individual or viewpoint. That takes care of the subjective angle.
Underlying any creation are arbitrary premises that we may call axioms. There are consistencies and inconsistencies in that creation, or in the perception of that creation. Underlying any inconsistency would be an “alter-is.” If a creation is totally consistent throughout, or it is perceived as such, then it would “as-is.”
An unwanted condition could be persisting because there are inconsistencies underlying it. As-ising “pictures” is one level of remedy. As-ising “inconsistencies” is a much deeper level of remedy. I wonder what inconsistencies are waiting to be revealed with the apparent disagreement between Quantum Mechanics and the General Theory of Relativity.
.
And here we have the meeting point between the subjective and objective. It will be interesting indeed to see how things progress over the next couple-few decades.
Geir,
I do not believe anyone should publish any materials that Ron designated as confidential, to be given only to those who had achieved the appropriate level. His motivation had nothing to do with money but avoiding bad effects which possibly could occur by exposing people to materials they were not actually prepared for. I also recall his having said that it was vitally important to avoid the epidemic of implanting that occurred in earlier times, for which advanced materials could be presumably useful. For these reasons, Ron’s wishes on this subject should be respected.
How do you account for the millions of people haveing read the materials without any traceable bad effects?
Should something be kept confidential simply because someone says so? Then what about corruption and crime – should that be kept confidential simply because the perpetrator says it should be confidential. Or what about a cure for cancer or AIDS? Or a spiritual cure? Where do you draw the line and why?
Geir:
I like this post! You bring up a very interesting concept.
Though I have not read all the comments, and this may have already been touched on, I’d have to classify your preconditions as “Rudiments,” like in auditing, that would need to be put in first.
LRH had the Tech, so that handled any misconception in the tech, or misunderstoods on behalf of the author. That is if you concede the premise that LRH had the Tech down 100%. If not, if he did not, then you’re point would be valid.
A student who is well rested, fed, is a fundemental. I learned this lesson well doing the FEBC course. Seven hours of sleep was not sufficent. I had to get get eight, or I did not function.
I think this concept corelates with your Triangle theory. So if you haven’t added this triangle yet, I’ll be happy to take credit. 😉 LOL
I do not think that LRH had the tech down 100%. Do you?
I had also a good lot of experience suping and using study tech, and I would have to agree that it doesn’t work at all in ignorance of the common sense necessities being present that would allow any sort of useful observation or contemplation. I found it very useful, to have have it pointed out, the importance of understanding the basic units of language in the study of theory; which I didn’t think of and before scn and had not had pointed out to me in any other education organization.
It seems for sure that the most heavily suppressed area in my experience of scn was the total stopping of any further development of this area, as well as a rediculous policy circulated and in force in my time where it would be a suppressive act to even UNKNOWINGLY bypass a misunderstood word — that is damn ridiculous. I firmly believe that “failure” is a vital part of the learning process of becoming truly adept at anything, i.e. one needs to make ones mistakes, I know of no successful expert who is not anything but humble about this fact. Hubbard I believe made the mistake of assuming he could know and do it all and this lead to a lot of “cultification” of scn. But yes I would be totally lying to say that scn had no positive effects on myself and life.
In conclusion I’m very excited to see efforts been made to distill and expand the working factors of scn and study tech and it could become a really great thing; to which I would love to contribute to up the line.
Hi Geir,
I would like to add one point to the Prerequisites:
# A distraction-free mind (a person do not have his mind fixed on the problems that are not related to the process of studying the material) 🙂
Yes