The danger of losing yourself

With reference to my previous blog post, I have come to the conclusion that one of the most dangerous pitfalls is that of accepting data without you inspecting and verifying it for yourself.

Source: Unknown

In everyday life this poses only a small risk – like when you accept some gossip about a friend without verification. Or when you believe a sales pitch from a used cars salesman. Or when you accept a lie from your loved one. Most of the time the data presented is true, so only occasionally you are led to believe a lie. But even if it is true, you run the risk of adopting a fixed idea for yourself. Anything believed without personal inspection tend to solidify – because you yourself cannot back it up or really defend it.

Of course it is impossible to inspect or verify every bit of information that you encounter every day. So the hazards of the daily data stream is maneuvered by continuous and often unconscious risk management. Some are good at it and get a hunch when they are confronted by a lie. Others never smells the rat and accepts statements nilly-willy; The hyper-critical tend to swallow any criticism without inspection, while the gullible will swallow any nice and fluffy statement without a blink. Although the former will probably give you a more miserable life than the latter, there are better ways to deal with information.

The real danger comes when the data is big and life-sweeping – like with life principles, general information about people and society or all the way down to axioms of existence. With foundational data, the occasional hunch or gut feeling just doesn’t cut it – because that would amount to bad risk management. When putting a man on the moon, an engineers hunch that the rocket will fly simply won’t fly. For sweeping data, actual inspection and verification is essential – or you can end up not only with a life lie, but with a solid, fixed idea that you cannot back up.

What happens when people accepts sweeping data without personal inspection? They accumulate fixed ideas. The data is “above their head”. The data becomes bigger than themselves. It enters the realm of belief. And such show up in debates as knuckleheadedness, broken records, illogic or plain stupidity.

A person prone to accepting big life data without personal inspection will end up with less personal integrity, more belief, less facts, a more defensive attitude and less free in his or her thinking. And this is the case even if the data happens to be true. The person will become smaller – to the point where there is no one left to inspect anything – an information robot. Nobody home.

A symptom of someone going down this road is a closed, defensive mind not open to opposing views. Or outright attack of contrary opinions.

In my own experience this covers way to many scientologists and Scientology critics. Whether they accept Scientology data or anti-Scientology data without personal inspection – it still closes the mind and makes the person smaller.

This is by no means confined to Scientology, religion or science. This is relevant in any areas of life dealing in general or sweeping data about life and livingness. Such as politics.

The higher on the Scale of Cult Think, the more a group will coerce or enforce belief and discourage or suppress personal inspection of information.

It is a paradox of betrayal that the Church of Scientology demands agreement to the principles laid out by L. Ron Hubbard. It’s even ingrained in his own writings. Even though he very correctly pointed out that you should not accept any data without you yourself being able to see it as true, in other places he enforces compliance. Like the practice of Method 4 Word Clearing where a disagreement with the materials studied is not accepted as anything less than a misunderstood by the student. Or in the policy Keeping Scientology Working #1, where no disagreement with the technology or even the slightest improvement to it is accepted. And there are many other examples. The Church of Scientology follows these policies and viewpoints to the dot, enforcing intellectual compliance, hammering out of existence any opposing views.

And this is a paradox of betrayal because the very purpose of Scientology should be to make an individual more free, more himself and better at evaluating situations, life and information. Quite the opposite is in fact happening. The evidence for this are in the thousands of debates about Scientology on the Net. It becomes stigmatized and a study in illogical debate.

Information exchange breaks down in the face of fixed ideas. It becomes an exercise in defensive tactics and strategies. Intelligence is futile.

Another evidence of what happens in Scientology when people accept data without personal inspection is a far more serious one – an elephant in the room – the absence of amazing people.

Or, taking this even further; It’s not just that Scientology seems to fail in producing amazing people. It seems to produce people with lots of issues. In my experience, I have seen more people with a wide range of issues who have been in Scientology than those who have never been in. I have plenty of non-Scientology friends that lead a really good life, some even enlightened lives, while many scientologist friends have issues with themselves, their families, their personal economic situations. Many have problems even contemplating any views opposing their own fixed ideas about life – implanted by accepting Scientology data without proper verification. It boils down to…

Merits. The efficacy of any principle, datum, procedure, technology or body of knowledge must be judged by its merits. Does it deliver actual, provable value? Are the results up to snuff?

Scientology is a sorry scene when it comes to actual proven results. Hence another area is brought into play – Hubbard’s policies on Public Relations. Most any area can be polished up to shine, even in the absence of verifiable results. Today, Scientology does not deliver on its promises.

It is a wonder that so many scientologists are unable to apply Hubbard’s own data about looking at the statistical results when gauging the efficiency of any technology.

Much of the lack of results can obviously be attributed to the current dictator of the Church of Scientology. But to reduce L. Ron Hubbard to a man without any real influence on the current scene in Scientology is to do him grave disservice.

Before the audience think I have turned my back to Scientology and become “a critic”, I will add that it is not a matter of being “for” or “against” but rather to honestly evaluate the effects I can see. It comes down to the practice of looking. Continual Honest Looking.

I have written many times that I have personally had great gains in Scientology, and I believe there to be excellent gains in Scientology for most people. But to accept data at face value is a road to personal unintegrity. You must be able to verify and sift out what works for you in this vast ocean of Scientology data. You must be able to think with it, to back it up, to be fluid in your evaluations and open to opposing views. And this goes for any field dealing in data about life, the universe and everything. Practicing this, and there would be very little danger of losing yourself.

I believe the continual practice of honest looking to be the real way to enlightenment.

PS: I realize that this blog post may rattle some stable data or even piss off a couple of camps. If so, I consider that to be a step forward.

238 thoughts on “The danger of losing yourself

  1. This is the best i have read. if you would be here I would express my heart felt feelings in hungarian manner. huge hug and a kiss. great post. Now i understand why you pushed for me giving avidence of my gains. Good for you Geir Isene. For the first time” believe” you got it. Over these past few months I wondered what the hell were you rooting for in otheres back yard. What is the meaning. . I am riding on your side, not as Attila the Hun but Elizabeth Hamre who solo audits. Great Post..

      1. If by that you mean I´ve lost myself and I haven´t got a clue which part of “me” is really me, which part of “me” is really you, which part of “you” is really me, which part of “you” is really you ……. and viceversa……..then you are probably right! 🙂

      1. Done. Thanks.
        I would like to share reading your article made me feel. Every time I see [which has been so few so far] somebody understand what “ is” because the will exists to look for self. I soar, I fly, float and the universes rejoice and that makes me feel humble to understand that here on Earth there are others who walk the Path of Enlightenment.

  2. Wow, so meaty and all-encompassing, and so, so well written. And that picture drives it home with the touch of art. Great thanks for all your work. 🙂

        1. Oh, yes, I totally got that. But I wondered where you found it or if it’s your own art.

  3. Every school child should learn this! How to maintain personal integrity and how vital this is in life

    1. Hey Vinaire, you got me looking too, even at some of your un-Scientological views. You can take a win on THAT. 🙂

      1. Wow! How Scientological it is to use the word “un-Scientological.” Is all un-Scientological knowledge so bad that one should keep oneself away from it?

        Marildi, your conditioning is showing. 🙂

        .

        1. Yes, well that was my point, to show you had broken through. Hey, overall too I’ve progressed!

          (But that’s okay, your turn will come for a little fun-making. ;-))

  4. “… about life, the universe and everything … ”

    Thanks for the tasty fish. Looking forward to more. 😉

  5. “Before the audience think I have turned my back to Scientology and become “a critic”, I will add that it is not a matter of being “for” or “against” but rather to honestly evaluate the effects I can see. It comes down to the practice of looking. Continual Honest Looking.”

    And that right there is the crux of the entire situation in Scientology.

    What causes blindness and an inability to look?

    In a word……fear.

    And what causes fear?

    Force, threats and lies.

  6. Great post!!
    I’ve seen how deep the rabbit hole goes and I’m still digging my way out. It’s been a long journey and I will regain my freedom… 
    I had the same cognition as in this blog post. I agreed without inspection and I lost myself along the way. I consider myself highly talented and successful but I declined during the years in the so called church. I didn’t understand why until I spotted that WHY you described here a couple of years ago when doing a program at the Freewinds.  I think that WHY applies to many. The more reversed auditing and involvement the less able and less myself I became. I’m soon back to the condition I was before I started this insane journey. But yes, I had gains. Actually many great ones. But overall it almost teared me apart physically and spiritually. And one question was haunting me – why didn’t I see?? And then you start the “self-invalidation rundown” with great help from the MAAs and other energy-stealing-terminals. That’s another story.
    It’s very important to use what you find useful in any philosophy. 
    The last year I have rehabilitated many of the gains on my own leaving the sinking ship. One day I will see the light. The sun is already shining 🙂

  7. Most obvious inconsistency that I see is how badly some Scientologists behave using the pretext that they are defending Scientology from “suppressives.” I thought Scientology was supposed make one more civilized.

    But what I see in Scientology is another version of Salem Witch Trials. What are the statistics of civilized behavior among those who swear by Scientology? Hubbard himself has not been much different from those hateful puritans in this matter.

    Truth needs no defense. But an attempt to monopolize truth and safeguard one’s profits does. So, the pitch that Scientology needs to be safeguarded and the Church needs a lot of money to accomplish that has been one of the greatest cons.

    I don’t see Hubbard to have come clean on this subject. He died with lot of gold and aspiring for still more.

    .

    1. Vin,

      You mention: ” But what I see in Scientology is another version of Salem Witch Trials. What are the statistics of civilized behavior among those who swear by Scientology? Hubbard himself has not been much different from those hateful puritans in this matter. ”

      It is unfortunate that you did not see Scientologists in action in the late 60s & early 70s. Civilized behavior was the norm. Yes, there were a few with some personality shortcomings and a couple that were downright nasty, but they were not the norm.

      Back then, the average Scientologist did make a concerted effort to exemplify the goals and teachings of the philosophy.

      To generalize & paint all with the same brush is the same as painting all Germans as being Nazis – short-sighted and just plain incorrect.

      1. I said ” Back then, the average Scientologist did make a concerted effort to exemplify the goals and teachings of the philosophy. ”

        I must also add that many still do to this day.

      2. I go by what is there in present time. Obviously, according to you, the real Scientology is currently in hiding.

        But then the answer to my recent “key questions” may reveal the nature of that “real Scientology.”

        Did Scientology ever encouraged people to think for themselves? Maybe it did when it published books by Ruth Minshull. But that was a short lived affair.

        .

        1. You seem to put up generalities quite often and fail to differentiate between Scientology the philosophy, Scientology the practice, the organization masquerading as a church and it’s application, and individuals.

          ” Did Scientology ever encouraged people to think for themselves? ”

          Stupid or criminal individuals in a position of power inside a pariah-like organization calling itself a church do not represent the philosophy at all. To paint all as ‘Scientology’ is short-sighted.

          You also mention:

          ” Maybe it did when it published books by Ruth Minshull. But that was a short lived affair. ”

          Short lived compared to what? Millions of years … A month?

          In the Mission & Orgs I was in, her books were there for years and then they, along with all non-LRH books, were taken off the shelves.

          1. +1

            Vinnie isn’t using his Data Series tech on this, of differentiating and spotting the dropped-out time, etc. Either that or he is “looking at everything through the bitterness of failed purposes and betrayals” (using David St Lawrence’s words).

          2. Axioms are generalities too. That is simply a more fundamental look.

            Obviously Scientology has its good points and that’s what attracted me toward it. Scientology also has its bad points that drove me away.

            Scientology is all those things that you mention. But on the overall Scientology scene the resultant vector that I see is still a discouragement toward thinking for oneself. This I see even in the Independent Scientology movement.

            There is not enough effort being put in identifying flaws in the Scientology technology written by Hubbard himself. One such flaw is the idea of squirreling introduced by Hubbard that has totally stopped any improvement possible.

            .

  8. And I must make this comment on a certain type Scientology “critics,” who have no idea what “criticism” really means. You may visit ESMB to see first hand what I am talking about. Such ex-Scientologists compete with Scientologists in demonstrating who can be more uncivilized.

    .

  9. Here is an interesting example of the gullibility of Scientologists. When Hubbard died, his passing away was announced in a big event by DM. DM put the following spin on Hubbard’s death:

    “”This level is beyond anything anyone of us ever imagined. This level is in fact done in an exterior state. Meaning that it is done completely exterior from the body. At this level of OT the body is nothing more than an impediment and an emcumbrance to any further gain as an OT.””

    “Exterior to the body” simply means that one is no longer identifying oneself with the body. It has nothing to do with “moving out of the body and no longer supporting the body.” There is nothing that moves in or moves out. It is simply a matter of being attached or being detached in one’s consideration.

    This is simply a spin being put on an ordinary, human death. I don’t think Hubbard was a happy camper when he died. I think he was very much attached to his body. The very fact that he placed himself in hiding shows that he was very much afraid and concerned about the survival of body and identity.

    One can have one’s body totally alive, and then be simply detached from it. That means, not having one’s attention tied to the survival of the body or to the survival of the identity springing from that body. One is not concerned about protecting that body or identity. One simply goes about one’s business using body/identity as an instrument. I can’t imagine any such business for which one has to intentionally make the body die.

    An exterior or detached person can simply let the body be there, and let it die its natural death. An OT should be able to do it. He wouldn’t be desperately concerned about its survival by placing it in hiding.

    .

          1. Hahaha, you have given my universe a shake up. Not here some other place, i am on expert on hell. I have known him when being Attila, even than he was a maggot not even worth to give him a honorable execution. one had to know the bad before one learns what is considered good and from that a new reality comes about: ‘its all the same!!’
            What a fun.

          2. vinaire, but again one has to know and understand through experience, what is in order to have true reality. To put label on any one, one should be able to wear the same label. Just call me maggot. one of this days you might call me Buddha too. Yes???? I should not hold my breath?? hehehe.

          3. Elizabeth, you reminded me of a comment made on Marty’s blog not long ago. The poster said that, in looking down the track and comparing DM to other SP’s, DM was just a “piker.” A “maggot” is even more descriptive.

            And you must have a whole different frame of reference to add that “it’s all the same.”

          4. Buddha said: When you meet Buddha, kill him.

            In other words, label is not the thing. Name and form are not the thing. Per KHTK #1, recognize the label for what it is… it is just a label.

            Attila is a label, Hubbard is a label… admiring and despising labels is simply admiring and despising labels. That ‘s all it is.

            .

    1. Vin, I think you will agree that DM’s words or the Church’s words and actions don’t necessarily (or even usually) express actual Scientology. And LRH didn’t always practice what he preached either. But his and the Church’s outnesses are pretty much foregone conclusions that virtually no one here disagrees with (from what I’ve gathered). This subject of all the outpoints is no longer of any real interest to me and it could even be seen as just another thing to be “stuck in.” But – I am greatly interested in looking at Scn itself, especially the basic stuff of the earlier years, and sorting out the wheat from the chaff. I think you and I both had a win in looking at the ARC triangle theory – I saw that it definitely left something to be desired and you saw that there was more to it than you had thought. That was cool!

      Now, I have to admit that I’ve been so well “indoctrinated” into Scn constructs that it’s easier for me to use them as a starting point for philosophical discussions and that’s why I present my ideas in those terms, not because I can’t look beyond them. With that in mind, I wanted to say that your ideas about “exterior to the body” being a matter of consideration doesn’t sound much different from the Scn idea about it. Or is it?

      1. Also, agreed on the gullibility point. I’d just like to focus now on what may or may not have been a point of gullibility.

      2. What is actual Scientology? Pray tell me.

        Why is KHTK not actual Scientology? Pray tell me.

        Why does ‘literal LRH’ is considered “Scientological” and not the essence of his ideas? Pray tell me.

        .

        1. Vin … I don’t get the point of your post”

          You ask: ” What is actual Scientology?”

          I think you have read many of the books and maybe some tech and I thought you were on staff once. This would at the very least give one some idea of the subject, and, if in fact you were on staff; that would give you a very good idea of how some things can go off the rails. Now, compare the 2 and note differences, similarities …

          ” Why is KHTK not actual Scientology? ”

          Because they are different. Both subjects are a conglomerate & and a re-hashing of many old discoveries & ideas with a few new methods tossed in.

          Workability and effectiveness in life is the true test.

          ” Why does ‘literal LRH’ is considered “Scientological” and not the essence of his ideas? ”

          Huh?

          I think Marilidi expressed it succinctly:

          ” Vin, I think you will agree that DM’s words or the Church’s words and actions don’t necessarily (or even usually) express actual Scientology. And LRH didn’t always practice what he preached either. But his and the Church’s outnesses are pretty much foregone conclusions that virtually no one here disagrees with (from what I’ve gathered). This subject of all the outpoints is no longer of any real interest to me and it could even be seen as just another thing to be “stuck in.” But – I am greatly interested in looking at Scn itself, especially the basic stuff of the earlier years, and sorting out the wheat from the chaff. “

          1. OK, here are some key questions:

            (1) Is KHTK inconsistent with Scientology basics?

            (2) If not, then why KHTK still won’t be Scientology?

            (3) What is criterion that makes something “Scientological”?

            .

          2. I just look at KHT & Scientology as two separate subjects … maybe there are some ideas and/or suppositions that are the same or similar – I don’t know.

            To me, any science or ideas expressed as fact have to stand on their own and be open to investigation by anyone. Otherwise, it would be classed under philosophical ponderings or opinion.

          3. What criterion are you using when you say KHTK and Scientology are two different subjects? I really want to understand where you are coming from.

            Newton’s Laws and Einstein’s Theory of relativity are part of the same subject of Physics which neither Newton nor Einstein own.

            .
            .

          4. Vin,

            I guess I didn’t explain myself clearly enough.

            You ask: ” What criterion are you using when you say KHTK and Scientology are two different subjects? I really want to understand where you are coming from.”

            What I was meaning is that Scientology, Identics, KHTK, etc., etc., each have their own nomenclature – some may be common, different methodology, different practices, etc.
            That is what I meant by different.

            While we can group these items under a greater group – say ‘philosophies’, or ‘sciences’, or ‘spiritual pursuits’; they are still, on their own, different subjects.

            It is not saying one is right or wrong, better or worse, bigger or smaller … nothing like that at all.

            It is simply saying the practice of each of these philosophies or studies is different.

            As I mentioned in my post above, there may be similarities amongst them but they are not the same. Even LRH talked about Scientology being a mix of many past writings/discoveries/studies plus a few of his own.

            Even if the end goal of each was the same, your idea of ‘nirvana’ may be different from my idea.

            Maybe your goals are different – that’s okay. Maybe you aspire to being one with the universe as a freedom whereas I may consider being able to afford pizza whenever I feel like it to be my concept of a freedom.

            Personally, I am seeking answers to this game, greater awareness of my part in it, and hopefully regain a few more abilities & freedoms along the way.

            Nothing, other than solving this puzzle, pleases me more than having people like you & the rest of the gang on this blog to toss ideas around with.

          5. So, Dennis, according to you, Newton’s Laws and Einstein’s theory of Relativity are two different subjects, and these two subjects are respectively owned by two different originators.

            Do I copy you?

            .

          6. Vin:

            You said: ” So, Dennis, according to you, Newton’s Laws and Einstein’s theory of Relativity are two different subjects, and these two subjects are respectively owned by two different originators.
            Do I copy you? ”

            No, you don’t.

            If I was a Brain Surgeon and you were a Radiologist, despite the fact we are both in the field of Medicine, I sure the hell wouldn’t have you operating on my brain.

            Different subjects.

            Is that a bit clearer?

        2. Vin, by actual Scn I just meant what is in the basic books and the HCOB’s – not what has been or is being practiced.

          And Scientological would definitely include things of its essence – such as KHTK.

          1. Ha! Dennis didn’t answer my question. Marildi, you, at least, made an honest attempt.

            Do we have cult dynamics at play here, Katageek?

            So, Marildi, you are saying that KHTK is Scientological but not Scientology? Do I copy you?

            .

          2. Yes, you copy. KHTK is Scientological, based on the meaning of the suffix -al: “having the form or character of.” It’s not Scientology since it is not part of those works.

            (Another “honest attempt” to answer your question, even though you probably think I shouldn’t bother my pretty little head. :-))

          3. Vin,

            What I said was this:

            I just look at KHT & Scientology as two separate subjects … maybe there are some ideas and/or suppositions that are the same or similar – I don’t know.

          4. So, your and Dennis’ criterion is that only those things that are written by Hubbard and designated to be so by Hubbard are Scientology. Do I copy you?

            If so, then Scientology is a static subject, and no advancement to it is possible.

            Am I correct?

            .

          5. “That is just begging for a photo.”

            Okay, I’m smiling…

            (…in between the laughing. :-D)

          6. There are the terms “Independents” (or Freezone) and “Church of Scn” – which differentiate the two different PRACTICES or INTERPRETATIONS of Standard Scn or the original “scriptures.”

            Now we need a term that differentiates the original scriptures or Standard Scientology from REVISIONS of those scriptures. At first I was thinking “Reformed Scn” but reformed is usually used to indicate the above type of difference (i.e. the Independents would be Reformists). What should the term then be?

          7. “According to LRH in KSW#1 – Yes, you are right.”

            So, Marildi and Dennis are essentially using KSW#1 as their criterion to identify what Scientology is, and what Scientology is not. Right?

            .

          8. So, “Scientology” is what Hubbard wrote and the orthodox interpretation of it.

            KHTK is not an orthodox interpretation. So, it is not Scientology no matter how close it is at the fundamental level.

            Is that the case?

            .

          9. “KHTK is not an orthodox interpretation. So, it is not Scientology no matter how close it is at the fundamental level.”

            Vin, haven’t I answered this by now?

            There is a manner of speaking in which one could say that it’s Scientology, if that’s what you have in mind. It just wouldn’t be the usual thing – which is to make a distinction between original materials and later ones that follow the same fundamentals. But what’s the problem with calling it Scientological?

  10. That there post is some serious ANTI-SUCKAGE!

    As I’ve stated before, it’s not what is wrong about Scientology that personally bother me, it is the BRILLIANT RELIGIOUS IDEAS it has that nag at me constantly:

    1. The BRILLIANT IDEA of a safe, lay counseling system based on proven methodologies and is open to evolution based on testable data on how free it makes people.
    2. The BRILLIANT IDEA of a Science-Based spirituality that kept Science and Pseudo-Science separate but allow for the mysterious and mythological to retain their truths.
    3. The BRILLIANT IDEA of a methodology that delivered real, useful skills in dealing with life that could be accurately measured and verified by third party observers outside of the group.
    4. The BRILLIANT IDEA of liberating people from social engineering and the processes by which they are engineered and instead teach people to shape themselves the way they want to be.
    5. The BRILLIANT IDEA of personal integrity of “What’s true for you is true for you” and teaching people to hold disparaging views without fear or judgement but rather with assertive tolerance.

    No other religion makes claims like this or tries to do this that I have seen. And even though I personally see Standard Tech (post 1964) as the pinnacle cult dynamics, and the antithesis of these ideas, I sadly cannot find another religion on earth that HAS these four ideas in its agenda.

    🙂

    1. Katageek, what a post! I would love to have more specifics, especially of 1-3. I’ve got a feeling you are going to point out some things about Scientology at least some of us weren’t aware of. 🙂

      1. Marildi, I think that ideally what would happen would be a hybrid organization that offered different paths to life fulfillment while honoring existing traditions.

        1. ANNOTATED STANDARD TECH: This is the Scientology Bridge ALA 1978 and each course is delivered standardly, except that before another course can begin, THE STUDENT MUST “AS IS” ALL THE CULT DYNAMICS AND IMPLANTS AND FALSE DATE FROM THE PRIOR COURSES BEFORE PROGRESSING. This approach would honor the tradition of Standard Tech and use the cult dynamics within as an object lesson on how the mind is hackable.

        This way, a student gets the kind of gains Geir mentions, yet progressively confronts mind control and can personally witness HOW his/her mind is hacked and then HOW to unpack it with the very techniques he/she learned.

        EXAMPLE 1: A person goes through HQS and has tremendous wins. Before another course can begin, he/she must as is the cult dynamics that created the powerful wins as well as the false data in the coursework.

        EXAMPLE 2: A person does the Purif and learns Hubbard’s view on radiation standardly. After the purif is complete and the wins acknowledged, the student then learns the real science behind radiation and the real things that happened to their body during the purif according to science BEFORE THEY TAKE ANOTHER COURSE.

        This would involve teaching the student to clearly find what he/she doesn’t agree with and WHY according to the rules of critical thinking. THE STUDENT WOULD THEN HAVE IMMEDIATE FEEDBACK FROM A MIND HACKING AND HOW TO UNHACK IT. Teaching cult dynamics in such an annotated format could be beneficial IMHO.

        It would slow the Bridge down though.

        2. TROM:
        I think TROM is fun and I find the ideas workable. I didn’t find anything in his tech that uses cult dynamics when applied as written. The Time Breaking technique is just dang useful. Between time breaking and Tonglen, I find there is little in life I cannot deal with on a significant level.

        3. KHTK:
        I went through KTHK once and liked it. I didn’t find anything in his tech that used cult dynamics.

        4. THE LOJONG PROVERBS (TONGLEN): Tonglen has produced the happiest human beings on earth as measured by Neuroscience (Google: Matthieu Ricard The Happiest Man in the World). The heart of Tonglen practice is the Lojong Proverbs. These 57 phrases are taught in a course format.

        5. REVITALIZED PYTHAGOREANISM: I would love to see a science-based Pythagorarianism. The meditation of numbers and mathematical truths. I really think such a resurgence of this lost religion could produce amazing human minds. But I think the prohibition of eating beans should be shunted to holidays as a tradition.

        1. Katageek, thanks so much for all of that! So many points of interest in your post, but here’s my first interest: “EXAMPLE 1: A person goes through HQS and has tremendous wins. Before another course can begin, he/she must as-is the cult dynamics that created the powerful wins as well as the false data in the coursework.”

          In the HQS Course, what exactly are “the cult dynamics” (“that created the powerful wins”) and how exactly did cult dynamics create the wins?

          1. Marildi, I REALLY REALLY REALLY don’t intend here to sound crass.

            So please take my last sentence literally.

            I have answered this question and other questions like it so many times IN DETAIL over the last two years. I have gone around and around the 300 pound Gorilla called “The Cult-Dynamics in Scientology” so much with people who refuse to even duplicate my point of view let alone consider it, that that I NEED to ask you first:

            What cult dynamics do you think are in HQS if any? Where are they? Can you spot them in the movie, “A Beginner’s Guide to L. Ron Hubbard”?

            And once you give me your best shot I will once more spew out the list in detail.

            Here’s a hint. “INTRODUCTORY CULT DYNAMICS ARE A FUCKING BLAST!”

          2. Another hint:

            Introductory Cult Dynamics in almost every cult works toward two goals: 1. To produce ABSOLUTE trust in the participant in the ideals and people of the organization and 2. To create mind-shaking, life changing experiences to reinforce that trust.

            Once THAT happens.

            There’s what Hardeep called in the movie “that right turn down bizarre.”

            What is it that happens in HQS that creates those two realities?

          3. K, rest assured that (1) I believe you are communicating in sincerity and goodwill (and that you have a good mind and have thoroughly studied the subject of cults) and (2) that to the best of my awareness I am not taking an immovable stance (or if unknowingly I am, it isn’t my *intention* and therefore it’s still possible for me to be moved :-)). On your part, you have to grant that I am willing to duplicate and consider what you say or we won’t get too far (hope you understand that concept). The reason I asked for more data wasn’t to later show you that you’re wrong and I don’t intend to do that – unless I end up honestly seeing it that way.

            Okay, I do get the cult dynamic in the “mind-shaking, life-changing experiences” of an HQS student. But can you say more about how, to start with, it produces “ABSOLUTE trust in the participant in the ideals and people of the organization”?

          4. Actually, Kg, I don‘t have much of a problem with anything you’ve said, except possibly one. Let me go back to that first query of mine – your statement that “he/she must as-is the cult dynamics that created the powerful wins.” Does this mean you consider that the wins aren’t directly from the tech itself? Or that its benefits come about because of “belief” or faith, or mind control or even the law of affinity? Let me know if I have simply misinterpreted what you meant.

        2. Katageek, The points, the examples, the reasoning is exceled. BUT…. One no need to look for or invent new way, different way. It exists just need to be used than the results can be experienced.
          With standard tech, Rudiments, running the rudiments all ARCB’s can be audited out. EVERY ONE OF THEM. Cult is just on Item same as any other.
          In session everything gets sorted out. There is not one item which can’t be addressed by running the Rudiments.
          Brake in Affinity, Reality, Communication boils down to No Understanding.
          So one have ARCB’s. Trust me the stimulation to the church or any cult this life is only a re-stimulation and nothing more. Just dramatization of something has happened earlier on the track.
          Since this is only a tiny, little bit of cult in comparison since the first one become in vogue what it has been way back on the track but the BANK HAS GROWN so has the dramatization!!
          Even few hundred hours of confrontation will blow that drama.
          End of the track there is knowledge in form of intangible without any mass. So looking for the magical, better way out….. LRG has found it and it works but got to be used. God he was no good, but he was very-very good where it matters.
          PS: everything which is such a drama now was created for pleasure once upon the time. Example murder still widely enjoyed to this day, even legalized like within the game called army. Than dramatized how horrid. What a loss, wo,wo.!
          Playing the victim like, ex-members of any cult, belongs you know where on the tone scale.
          I wonder why I love to beat a dead horse in order to stand up and run again.

          1. Elizabeth, GREAT IDEAS IMHO! But I think the missing data in the current scene is the data concerning which cult dynamics and techniques should be run out? These are the ACTUAL TECHNIQUES used in Scientology that are not discussed. The “tech within the tech.”

            Scientologists are generally unaware of the “mind-control tech behind the curtain.” Hopefully, now it can be confronted and handled.

            I often tend to think that being controlled is a harsh thing. But when I was 18, I was overwhelmed and controlled with love and lust by a hot brunette who just smiled at me with longing eyes and found me interesting.

            The TENDER control. “You can get what you’ve always wanted so let’s have fun TOGETHER!”

            AND BOY DID I ALMOST FUCKING BECOME A MORMON OVER THAT ONE!

            Introductory cult dynamics are almost ALL tender overwhelm. It’s about 80% tender overwhelm (love bombing, sexy ideas that actually seem to work, cool people, group praise for achievement, seeing happy people)

            And 20% structured control:

            “The rules of the drill are …”

            “Flunk. You fidgeted. Start!”

            “I just don’t see Affinity in that clay demo. Do it again.”
            “But it looked just like Jackie’s yesterday!”
            “I didn’t see Jackie’s. And besides, it has to come from you.”

            You see this in “The Beginner’s Guide to L. Ron Hubbard.”

            AGAIN: THE INTRODUCTORY EFFECTS OF THIS MIX OF CONTROL DYNAMICS OFTEN BRING GREAT LIFE CHANGING HAPPENINGS.

            The trick is then to LOSE THE CONTROL MECHANICS AFTERWARD BY LEARNING IN DETAIL HOW THEY MADE YOU SO HAPPY IN THE FIRST PLACE.

            NOTE: EACH PIECE IS NOT THE WHOLE. Each course has a host of techniques that when used in tandem produce controlling effects that increase the EXPERIENCE of feeling self determined but decrease the REALITY of self determinism AS FAR AS THE GROUP CONFORMITY GOES.

            All those pieces need to be defined and clarified for each course.

            And then, my dear, they can be run out …

          2. There is no time-track and there are no past lives. Everything that is there is in NOW.

            These two things may be convenient concepts, but nothing more.

            .

          3. EXAMPLES:

            “Recall a time in the HQS course when you were love bombed?”

            “Recall a time in the HQS course when you changed your mind?”

            “Recall a time in the HQS course where you were forced to use repetition to instruction?”

          4. kg,

            I will admit right up front that I have no clue as to what you mean by the term “cult dynamics”, or how fundamental you think they are, or how specialized the term is, to you.

            Soourcommunicationproblem,if oneexists, (and I think one does), is a problem of nomenclatures.

            Where I seem to have an apparently different understanding of it all from yours, is that what scientology training is all about is exactly studying in great detail all the spiritual and mental dynamics of life and living.

            Thus your statement that there are some kind of UNDISCLOSED “cult dynamics” involved strikes me as entirely absurd. They are only undisclosed to those who don’t want to know about and learn what they are, or are too blind (I typoed that as “blond” the first me through!) or blinkered to see them right there in front of their eyes.

            The “dynamics” involved in going up the Bridge are right there in the Academy Levels, the Standard Dianetics course, the Briefing Course, etc, all the way up the line.

            It is a study of the deepest of “depth psychology”. Naturally, not everyone wants to devote the time to studying all that and becoming an auditor, just as not everyone who talks to a psychologist at some point in his life wants to become a therapist himself. It takes a lot of work and dedication to become a good auditor or a good psychotherapist.

            What you keep referring to as “cult dynamics”, so far I have not been able to perceive as being based on anything other than normal human psychodynamics.

            The more you learn about how to audit, the closer you will get to understanding what makes people tick, the dynamics by which they are driven or motivated, inside and out. LRH sais as much in the intro to the book Dianetics 55!

            He states right there the reason a person should learn as much as possible about his own mind – so that he is less easily controlled by others.

            Of course the fact is the majority of people are not particularly interested, just as some people who meditate are not necessarily interested in the theory and mechanics of meditation, or in learning how to guide others into meditation, bu they just like to do it themselves.

            This is why my reaction to your cult dynamics hobby-horse has always been “Huh? What else is new. That’s all taught through out auditor training, and extensively spoken about in detail in most of the lectures.”

            Of course it’s all about the mind! Says so right there in the title of Book One! And as you work your way up the line, you learn more and more about what I believe you are referring to as “cult dynamics”.

          5. The primary cult dynamic is the charge of squirreling when you want to study and discuss anything that is not “Scientology.”

            .

          6. Vin:

            You said: ” The primary cult dynamic is the charge of squirreling when you want to study and discuss anything that is not “Scientology.”

            It seems to me that you really had some lousy experiences the few years you were in.

            That’s unfortunate and not Scientology

          7. Yes, it is unfortunate but this is what Scientology has become today. I don’t think this is just my experience. It is actually quite a wide spread phenomenon in the Scientology world. Just a few weeks ago, somebody had made me a member of the Indie Group on the Facebook. In just a few days I was driven out from that group because I was talking about LOOKING per KHTK.

            I am surprised that you haven’t noticed this phenomenon. Sorry! But you remind me of a frog in a well.

            .

          1. I don’t like the idea of “annotated” standard tech, if it means I have to study someone else’s interpretations of it, instead of studying it and forming my own understanding of it.

    2. Yes, Scientology did bring together some brilliant ideas that were scattered all over the place before. That is no small feat. But the work is hardly complete. There is only promise but little result so far as indicated in the OP. The wheat from the chaff needs to be sorted out in order to start getting results in abundance.

      The original intention was to bring about a movement that was effective at the grass roots’ level. I would not be celebrating any success in this field until that intention is achieved. KHTK is just a small start in that direction. I hope all the brilliant minds out there will start developing KHTK further as open spiritware along the lines of open software.

      Yes, there is a lot of potential in Scientology. The way to realize that potential is primarily to remove false ideas and wrong notions from Scientology. That itself, rather than any new ideas, will do much to revive Scientology . LRH’s verbosity itself needs to be cut down to simple workable ideas.

      KHTK does not add anything new at all. It simply points out what has always been important in auditing. It is not the communication cycle between the pc and the auditor. That is important but not so important as the pc’s ability to look at his bank for what it is.

      Hubbard altered the importance by getting too much into the mumbo-jumbo of directing pc’s attention (processes) and not paying enough attention to looking.

      .

      1. Is this really what Geir is saying in the OP: “There is only promise but little result so far as indicated in the OP.”

        I sure didn’t read it that way. It seems to me Geir points out relatively small outnesses and perhaps incompleteness in the tech.

        After all, Geir did the Grades 0-IV, Dianetics Case Completion, then went Clear one way or the other, either on Dianetics or by doing Grades V and Va plus the Clearing Course, then he went on and did the existing OT levels all the way up through OTVIII.

        And he concludes his OP with this:

        “I have written many times that I have personally had great gains in Scientology, and I believe there to be excellent gains in Scientology for most people.”

        How does that reduce to “There is only promise but little result so far, as indicated in the OP.”

        That seems like a reversal of what Geir said in his OP.

  11. Thank you for saying it like it is, Geir. Every critic of scientology and every scientologist ( in or out ) will benefit from reading your blog and in particular, this and the Cult Think articles. I always see you as an independent who can be reasoned with on the subject of Scientology and frankly, you are somewhat rare because not everyone can be 3 feet outside the box as often as you seem to me to be.

    I try to be fair minded and respectful of others beliefs and choices but it has not always been easy nor am I a saint, lol. Over the years I have found that it is easy to lose oneself in part with the thinking of others on the subject because there is so much to come to learn and so much emotion involved. Group think is what it is and on the internet, there is no exception. So I think what you have written here is wonderful and inspiring and will be most helpful from a personal and group perspective.

    I am a former long time scientologist and current critic of scientology ( as opposed to being an Independent, since criticdom seems to be the side of the dichotomy I have been assigned by Marty Rathbun). That I have no interest in Scientology for personal enhancement seems to be a big button with some people. That I found some of Scientology to be a bunch of baloney and that I found Hubbard and DM to be responsible. I also believe that the only way to growing on this issue of Scientology and our involvement in the past is look and observe for oneself and think for oneself.

    1. (1) Many people do not understand what a beautiful thing criticism can be when it originates from non-judgmental looking.

      (2) People who are judgmental do not criticize, they simply spread their prejudice, either for or against.

      (3) The word “criticism” needs to be understood better. It does have a negative connotation, which alone seems to have been highlighted by Hubbard to avoid a closer look at his writings, or for PR purposes.

      Yes, the above is criticism. 🙂

      .

      1. Hubbard used the word criticism or critical in various ways.

        Just because one expresses a critique, does not make one ‘bad’, or their ideas invalid.

        1 the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes: he received a lot of criticism | he ignored the criticisms of his friends.

        2 the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work: alternative methods of criticism supported by well-developed literary theories.
        • the scholarly investigation of literary or historical texts to determine their origin or intended form.

        ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from critic or Latin criticus + -ism.

  12. Great post Gier,

    There are a couple of statements that really hit home for me – actually, many of your comments did.

    ” … I have come to the conclusion that one of the most dangerous pitfalls is that of accepting data without you inspecting and verifying it for yourself.”

    I agree.

    Personal Integrity is an odd duck at times. I looked up Personal & Integrity for the heck of it.

    Personal: ‘of, affecting, or belonging to a particular person rather than to anyone else’ and ‘of or concerning one’s private life, relationships, and emotions rather than matters connected with one’s public or professional career’, and ‘ existing as a self-aware entity, not as an abstraction or an impersonal force’.
    Integrity: Honesty, Being whole/undivided, Uprightness, Unimpaired, Internal consistency, Lack of corruption.

    All of this tend to boil down to ‘truth’ for the individual himself.

    So, what is truth? I guess the simplest answer within the MEST universe is exact time, place, form & event. Frankly, from where I sit, once one does experience exact time, place, form & event; one is in a causal position. Truth in this sense is what is observable and determined by one’s ability to obnose and to note differences, similarities & identities. The degree to which one blocks or refuses to discover or obnose his surroundings quickly plummets one into false impressions and considerations, and then erroneous operating basis’ in life.

    How often have we heard someone claiming ‘personal integrity’ while asserting their viewpoint on another, or ‘standing fast’ to some concept despite all evidence to the contrary?

    While many seem to consider others’ personal integrity should be exactly as they view life themselves, this is not personal integrity. If one is low on the scale of sanity, they still do have that right to their ‘truth’ – their ‘personal integrity’. But, this ‘truth’ may not be actual – it is more than likely ‘opinion’. And where one asserts this ‘truth’, all manner of ARCxs, held down 7s, etc. occur.

    I recently spoke to an OT VIII – and frankly, her case level has little to do with her viewpoint. This is someone I got into Scientology some 35-40 years ago. Her reason for disconnecting from me was ‘personal integrity’ and Code of Honour – ‘Do not give or receive communication unless you yourself desire it’.

    To me, one has to observe, evaluate and glean the salient points of any situation in order to approach the truth – and I say ‘approach’ in that if the actual truth were observed, it wouldn’t exist and wouldn’t matter anyways.

    To me, my own personal integrity is always changing. Things I considered wholesome, upright and unimpaired years ago in hindsight look pretty awful. Yet, at that time I felt pretty damn good.

    To me, the scale of personal integrity is just that – a scale. It is an evolution.

    It is ME discovering truth.

    And really, other than observing daily activities in the MEST universe which contain numerous UNtruths, the only real truths I feel quite certain about are those I gained in auditing.

    Do I feel the need to enforce these on others, or convince them that my truths are their truths?

    Not in the slightest.

    And after all is said and done, even those truths from auditing will prove pretty minor when I actually see what always was (or wasn’t 🙂 ) in front of my face all along.

    1. From KHTK #1:

      “When one is not suppressing any thoughts or feelings, and is simply looking without being judgmental, then, in that moment, one is being totally honest with oneself. This is the basis of personal integrity.”

      .

    2. Good post, Dennis.

      I too see things very much as on a scale of reality, or different levels of truth. And you added: “the need to enforce these on others, or convince them that my truths are their truths?” That reminded me of a point brought up by Vin and Geir.

      Vin said, “Scientology should get out of the business of convincing anybody of anything using the pressure of ethics, sec checking, or PR.” That would be on the order of “enforce on others” – IF (and only if) any of those were used for that purpose (which they were not originally intended for).

      In reply to Vin, Geir said, “Life is full of convincing others to look – even though they have fixed ideas. Hell, that is pretty much what bringing up children is about.”

      And that is where the challenge comes in. Not just with children but anybody, the question is – when do we “grant beingness,” or however you want to phrase it, and when do we (without force) do the best we can to steer the person right. This can be tricky at times. I don’t think we can always be “wise and understanding” of others and leave it at that (even though that is often valid) nor should we crush them with invalidation. One of those judgment calls in life.

      Thanks for sharing your observations and sparking my thoughts too. 🙂

      1. It reminds me of one of the little lines LRH mentioned (not verbatim by any means)

        It was something to the effect that one makes optimum decisions or postulates based on the data he has to hand.

        Is it the best decision? Likely not, but if one can make the best of it at that time, go for it or do a bit more research before acting.

        I do agree with your statement: ” Vin said, “Scientology should get out of the business of convincing anybody of anything using the pressure of ethics, sec checking, or PR.” That would be on the order of “enforce on others” – IF (and only if) any of those were used for that purpose (which they were not originally intended for). ”

        I think the ethics area has really been perverted and is almost 180 degrees to the original intention. This along with sec checking have parishioners running around cowed and afraid to act. That ain’t Scientology nor does it promote self-determinism.

        I thinks Gier’s comment about children is a great one and as you say, it is ‘one of those judgment calls in life’. Personally I look at it as taking responsibility and trying to pass on what I know or pitfalls to watch out for as best I can. Touching that hot stove after dad says not to touch is one of those examples. One can enforce or one can inform – after that it’s up to the person being informed.

        Hey, I enjoy your observations too! 🙂

        1. Thanks!

          You probably saw the exchange between Vinaire and Geir as regards convincing others of one’s own ideas or reality, or not. Geir said, “It is the degree and the type of data that matters.” I thought that was a pretty helpful stable datum.

          The type of data that matters would be the important or basic things – otherwise, grant them beingness and allow them to find their way (both of these are valuable too). Also, I take back where I said “without force” – I’ll make that unnecessary or unwarranted force. (Okay, that’s my quota of “convincing others” for the day, ha ha!)

  13. Katageek,

    The task we face is rescuing the BRILLIANT IDEAS from the low-toned efforts at authoritarian control. We really have to shed the last vestiges of our cult identity before we can actually see the ideas for what they are. Otherwise, we are looking at everything we see through the infamous KSW filter which makes us devalue anything not written by LRH. Or we are looking at everything through the bitterness of failed purposes and betrayals.

    I am sure that someone will compile a False Data Stripping process for those who want to accelerate their transition from cult member to independent spiritual being. Until that happens, it seems that it takes several years of active study and daily participation in Independent field activities to strip off the indoctrinated barriers to analytical thought.

    For myself, it has taken three years of research, almost daily blogging and auditing others to recognize how much vital information exists in Ron’s writings and how much is only imaginative anecdotes. I had to read every first person account I could find of Ron’s life to finally see him as the flawed genius he was. It was then I really appreciated what he created for us to use.

    He assembled a technology that enables us to free individuals from their pasts and to enable them to achieve or regain unique abilities – and he did so much of it while running from creditors or from the law! He was a brilliant and charismatic individual of great complexity, but he left us a legacy that we should protect at all costs by investing the time and effort to rescue the BRILLIANT IDEAS that it contains.

    David St Lawrence

      1. Vin, possibly the only current advantage Scn has over KHTK is a record, and stats – meaning the good record and stats IN SPITE of all the bad. I believe that’s the reason there is still so much interest and reach for it. But – any real knowledge or truth will spread to the degree it has the “legs” to do so.

        You can’t keep a good man – or a good tech – down. 🙂

        1. My point is just that the word has spread about Scn and the good results it can get (again, in spite of all the bad word of mouth). Whether any part of the record or stats is true is a separate issue.

          1. We shall certainly see what lasts now that Scientology is being examined critically.

            PR shall be separated from the actual workability.

            .

          2. I find that “wins” can be an addiction like the drug addiction. A “win” may not necessarily advance a person spiritually, but may simply induce a temporary euphoria.

            In the absence of “wins”, such a person, who is addicted to “wins,” may feel lost.

            .

    1. David if only could write like you or Geir, Dennis, or Valkov and Rafael I would love it. To express my thought so well right to the point. Great comment.
      But again fellas if I would write like you than who would write like Elizabeth?

    2. David, this is an awesome post. For me, an F/N on every line. Thank you so much for being there. 🙂

    3. David I always enjoy your posts. Regardless of the Good/Bad LRH discussions, one thing I know is that Scientologists are nice, well meaning people who see a hurting world and want to heal it. I also think you do have a legacy and some tools to help do that.

      Scientologists are responsible for a lot of the best ideas and techniques in their religion.

      And I agree that the Independent Scientologists will find a way to get the cult effects out of their lives.

      But what about new recruits? How do you propose that they never get them in the first place and keep Standard Tech standard?

      Cuz once you break away from Standard Tech, it aint Scientology. Instead you get a “TROM” or a “SELF CLEARING,” a “SPIRITOLOGY” or an “AVATAR.”

      Liberal Christian Churches don’t change the gospel or the Bible. They change how the Gospel and the Bible are applied. And they do it in a way that honors the tradition, but keeps common sense at the helm. They typically shift from the power of “truth” to the power of “myth.”

      Do you think the original tech can be presented and annotated with a separate “Cult Clearing Tech” so that people like Hardeep in “The Beginner’s Guide to L. Ron Hubbard” can enjoy the benefits of the tech and also see also how it works to escape the compliance of things like KSW?

    4. “…it seems that it takes several years of active study and daily participation in Independent field activities to strip off the indoctrinated barriers to analytical thought.”

      I would include in the Independent field activities – participation in blogs. There aren’t any other Independent activities in my area (I’ve searched) but I have had great gains from the blogs. Actually, along with re-study of the basic books, it is a pretty effective “Bridge” for me right now.

      Here’s a great and relevant quote from Scn 8-8008 (caps replace LRH’s italics):

      “Sharply, then, alert to this value of communication and do not go on trying to make a thirst for love make love all, or a hope for agreement the all. The important answer is found, ALWAYS, in the modus operandi of communication…It almost does not matter WHAT is communicated if it IS communicated.”

      Part of the value of participating in blog discussions has nothing to do with what is being said; it’s just the fact of communicating. With “live” terminals. Who can communicate. (Love all you guys.)

  14. “Anything believed without personal inspection tend to solidify – because you yourself cannot back it up or really defend it.”

    I think that personal integrity is more important than any attempt to defend or back something up. A truth or a fact cannot be defended against somebody who doesn’t want to look.

    A person may feel bad about losing an argument; but that feeling goes away when one really looks and removes all inconsistencies from within oneself.

    .

      1. I understand you and I am not criticizing what you said. I am using what you said to make another point.

        The point I am making is that personal integrity is much more important than any attempt to convince anybody of anything.

        One cannot convince a person, who has fixed ideas, to think otherwise, no matter how truthful one is. That convincing is a wasted effort. It would only end up in hypnotism or conditioning of both ends of a communication line. One should not engage in it. If one goes that route one would only end up like Hubbard did with his ethics policies.

        Enforcement of ethics does not work because it undermines personal integrity. Anything that encourages personal integrity will work like a charm.

        That is why LOOKING works.

        .

        1. Scientology should get out of the business of convincing anybody of anything using the pressure of ethics, sec checking, or PR.

          That is the basic inconsistency i find in Scientology.

          .

        2. Life is full of convincing others to look – even though they have fixed ideas. Hell, that is pretty much what bringing children is about.

          1. To me life is all about helping clarify misunderstandings to bring about better understanding. The knowledge is already there in a person. One simply needs to help the person get rid of ignorance.

            And this is not done by convincing a person about something by a long shot.

            I have brought up my children by honestly answering their question at their level so it made sense to them. I always let them think over my answer and ask me more questions until they were satisfied with their own conclusions.

            I am not trying to convince anybody on this blog by arguing in favor of my ideas. I simply present my ideas in response to what I read, and let others draw their own conclusions.

            Attempts to convince others about something is the first step toward conditioning them.

            .

            1. Don’t tell me that yoy don’t try to convince others of your reality. You do it all the time here, and I bet you do it when you want a friend to go with you to the movies, or when bringing up your children. We all try to convince people pretty much all the time (c’mon, lets go into this restaurant now that our favorite restaurant is closed, etc.). It is the degree and the type of data that matters.

          2. I invite people to look at what I am saying. I do not think it is the same as trying to convince them. If they do not want to look at my blog that is fine with me. A person has the choice to look or not look in my opinion.

            I only insist about the importance of looking and I present my views coming from that viewpoint. That is all I do. If I am doing something weird I drop it when I find out about it.

            .

          3. Geir: “It is the degree and the type of data that matters.”

            Good one! Maybe that’s the stable datum I’m looking for.

            Or is the use of stable datums one thing you have rejected? I’m thinking there’s nothing wrong with having them if you know them as such,or, since easier said than done, if you remember the ultimate stable datum (LOL) that – everything is relative, or has a frame of reference (I know, I sound like a broken record about that but basic truths do run through everything).

          4. Convincing requires preventing the person from looking, and getting the person to simply accept your datum.

            I never go for that.

            .

          5. The definitions of “convince” that I have seen all relate to presenting evidence which will lead to a person believing in the truth of the proposition.
            In other words, to convince someone you must get him to look, not prevent him from looking.

            However it is true that many times data could be intentionally omitted, ie “information control”, which can lead to a person being “convinced” of an untruth.

            The Defense and the Prosecution in a court case might try to have some evidence or witnesses excluded. In that case the jury might indeed be prevented from “looking” at all the facts.

          6. CONVINCE
            Origin:
            1520–30; < Latin convincere to prove (something) false or true, (somebody) right or wrong, equivalent to con- con- + vincere to overcome; see victor

            Convincing requires the use of logic. Logic is based on on certain premise. Convincing starts with establishing agreement on certain premise, and then building up on those agreements. There is no direct looking. There is persuading. There is no absolute truth. There is manipulating of truth. Logic starts with arbitrary premise.

            You speed the above up and that becomes hypnotism and conditioning.

            .

          7. Are you saying that a person doesn’t know it already what gravity would do if he to jumps off the bridge.

            Are you going to be convincing him about the Law of gravity, the attraction between masses and the gravitational constant.

            Come on! That is quite presumptious of you.

            .

            .

            1. You just gotta get a dose of humor and swallow it whole one of these days.

              Are you telling me you didn’t get the point?

              Regarding convincing people; As one of the people on my blog who are most eager to convince people, you show an amazing lack of self awareness and insight.

  15. The FBI investigation of Church of Scientology crimes and atrocities, human trafficking, human rights violations and other RICO conduct has been stalled. Please help us revive it by signing this online White House petition and sharing the link with your friends.

  16. Great blog, Gene and comments. Recently, in conversation with a friend over these very issues, I observed that along with many of us dramatizing being cult members, Hubbard also fell into the trap of being a cult leader. I know it is not as simple as that, but there is some truth to it. This thing has more facets than the Hope Diamond.
    In “Evolution of a Science”, Hubbard made reference to isolating the important facts in a sea of data- that very much applies to evaluating Scn. It was the obvious or self-evident truths that hooked you, including your own wins. And also diminished your ability to think critically with respect to the other things that just did not add up.
    Jeff Hawkins and Glenn Samuels both did some some great blogs on “Thought-Stopping” that would apply here.
    Gene, Have lurked your site for some time and I would say that your blogs chronicle the journey to regaining your own mind or self that one goes through. I appreciate your thoughts and efforts.

        1. “Geir” (meaning “spear” in old Norse) is not an uncommon name in Norway – or Iceland (where it is spelled “Geirr”). It’s unheard of elsewhere – and unpronounceable in English and most other languages.

          1. And the bottom would be the part that pushes or propels – what else but you, the being. Okay, I guess “spear” is good.

  17. But I also know, to know a maggot real well, inside and out one has to study one or be one. I will not put DM down, I cant and I wont. The maggot remark was when I have known him way back. I was not better than him but different. Now I understand his actions but I understand the Bank period. There are many levels to it as beings.

    1. There is no need to put anybody up or down. One should simply present one’s honest observations keeping in mind one’s integrity.

      .

  18. Vinaire. The track is long and each being had many different life’s, what kind that was depending the “”vogue”” of the moment in the Universe. Everybody flocks to do the new [new stimulation] now [ blog is in vogue] doing the track life, on the track was not different .
    I have a very long recall of many different life’s and I have mentioned more than once I know Hell since I have been in Hell, if I remember correctly there is a section which I have added too.
    One of my life not my best in fact it was lived in that Hell, as Gautama, quotations by anyone who has not lived or experienced that life is just that on empty quotation, which has been twisted thousands of time. Therefore is on empty quote which may sound good nerveless plucked out of nowhere and not factual. Hearsay never is.
    This post of Geir’s is about investigating. Is session we can recall on what we don’t understand and do not know, have on ARCB with= MEST universe that is, for that reason it exists. So going back on the track one “investigates” for self what is real true or not.
    I highly recommend sessions for that reason so one can express ones very own thought, reality and not hearsay.

    1. The whole track and past lives are simply visualizations. When one has total reality on this fact, then there is no further need to investigate either the whole track or the past lives.

      One is now free to put all attention on new visualizations. And that is art.

      .

  19. Gier,

    To take up another point you made:

    You mentioned: ” Even though he very correctly pointed out that you should not accept any data without you yourself being able to see it as true, in other places he enforces compliance. Like the practice of Method 4 Word Clearing where a disagreement with the materials studied is not accepted as anything less than a misunderstood by the student. ”

    Speaking from my own experience (I have M4ed 10’s of thousands of times over many years), in the vast majority of cases where a student had a disagreement with something in his materials I found that there was indeed a misunderstood word or concept. In other cases I found computations and case to be a barrier to understanding.

    If, after wordclearing and ensuring there were no misunderstoods, the student still had disagreements, I chalked it up to his own viewpoint and holding onto that or changing it entirely laid with the student himself.

    I was not into forcing my or LRH’s viewpoint on anyone nor was it common practice to do so in those days – it had to be their own discovery or cognition.

    Wordclearing in my day was simply an aid to a student who was having difficulty, or a simple check to pick up anything when stats dropped … it had absolutely nothing to do with agreement with the tech or evaluating a student’s disagreements with the philosophy itself – it was an aid to a personal path of discovery.

    On another note, at the time I understood the insistence that the steps or commands of a process needed to be followed exactly – they were workable. One always had the opportunity early on to write up-lines for clarification or in some cases offer suggestions, and research was still being done with new HCOBs coming out every few days … it was an evolution and fluidity was the name of the game.

    Not every process worked on every individual and I don’t think LRH expected it to, and logically, not everyone has the same ‘case’ on all items. In some cases one has nothing on a question or process. I would say that if there is case or charge on a question, the commands set out seemed to do what they were intended to do.

    One has to also realize that an item like ‘a headache’ can be caused by multiple sources/reasons. For one to simply dismiss a single process as ‘unworkable’ is in my opinion premature. A PC’s item pops up when the pc is ready to confront it and at his awareness level.

    ***************

    Policy on the other hand was also an evolution and was open to improvement until a few goofs decided all green on white could not be changed and was gospel. With the advent of WISE and the re-issuing of the Green volumes many years ago, this became hard-line and enforced.

    Now, in the current scene, policy is only applied when the advantage of applying such is in the ‘church’s’ court. Otherwise, whomever is barking the orders call the shots. Most who do this now haven’t the faintest idea of Scientology – they are part of the new regime and parrot what their leaders bark to them.

    My 2 bits worth 🙂

    1. The problem I see with M4 is that the policies themselves never open up for the possibility of the materials being wrong – only that the student himself didn’t understand them. Right there something is very wrong.

      Apart from that, and covered earlier, I have little respect for the Green-On-White.

    2. Good points Dennis. It is sad how much times have changed, how solid the CoS has become. The bottle is there, but the wine in it has soured beyond recognition, and “scientologists” are reduced to rote parroting of the materials without any understanding of them.

      I have been listening a little to the 4th London ACC lectures delivered in October of 1955. Ron talks about the purpose of auditing, which he states as nothing but “To raise the ARC of the preclear.”

      He expands on this in terms of the Intention of the auditor. His view is that the auditor (or any individual in life, in his relations with others), can intend for the other to Survive, or he can intend the other to Succumb. Where he intends for the other to Succumb, the result is a lowering of the tone and ARC of the others and his own tone and ARC, and increased rigidity and solidity.

      Where he intends for the other to Survive, ARC increases towards light and lightness.

      These correlate also this way: the poor auditor tries to create an effect on the preclear. The more he creates an effect on the preclear, the worse the preclear gets, because the true goal of auditing is to help the preclear move towards Cause, not Effect.

      Notice these are opposite directions of flow. A good auditor increasingly withdraws communications from the preclear, thus placing the pc more at Cause. The poor auditor does the opposite, in trying to create an Effect on the pc.

      One raises the ARC of the pc, the other reduces it.

      Another interesting item he mentions is the 6 Basic Processes which are in the LRH books to this day, and that the 6 Basic Processes were not compiled by his authoritarian whim, but were chosen by polling the auditors who had been using them. It seems that out of all the processes they had been testing and running on pcs, those 6 turned out to have produced the most gains for the greatest number of pcs, as compared to all the other processes that had been tried up to that time.

      It is sad for me to think that “The spirit of scientology has left the building”, but it obviously has. I wonder at times if it has not only left the building, but the planet as well.

  20. You got it., very much my reality. learning those words and enfoced by clay demo, funneled one into a very narrow tunnel dark too and not much light on the end to be seen.

  21. No religion has ever confronted its social/cult dynamics within its own reformation with its own techniques as a vibrant part of its reformation. Abuses? Sure.

    Social dynamics? Nope.

    It has NEVER been done that I know of.

    In every reformation I know of: Martin Luther, The Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints etc. the DOCTRINE has always been the focus, not the social conditioning.

    SO …

    Who REALLY BELIEVES IT IS REALLY POSSIBLE to use the tech of Scientology to identify correctly and then run out the Social Conditioning within Scientology as part of its evolution?

    Because to do it, it has to be a SERIOUS EFFORT.

    We’re talking huge.

    So do you honestly think Scientology can do what no other religion has?

    1. Probably so! There already are Repair Lists that LRH devised to handle the harm gotten from other practices, such as EST or the Psych Repair List. And I’ve read online a couple lists of this type that Independent techies have drawn up, such as the Miscavololgy Repair List and the Scientology Repair List. So someone who had a very good conceptual grasp of the tech should be able to write a Scn Cult Repair List. (And they might be smart to use you as their lay consultant, btw. :-))

      1. I hope you are right Marildi. And the only reason why it may is because of the “BRILLIANT IDEAS” listed above that are pretty unique to your religion.

        No other religion makes “repair lists” and therefore can effectively use its own techniques to run out its own techniques.

        I would love to help in such an effort as an outsider. I would be great to see Scientology use Scientology to run out the cult dynamics of Scientology.

    2. I question some of your assertions here katageek.

      “No religion has ever confronted” for example,is such a sweeping global statement. i usually reject those kind ofstatements out of hand. How do you know?, I usually ask. Opinions are a dime a dozen.

      “It has NEVER been done that I know of.”

      Gimme a break!

      Come post on the subject again after you’ve learned to audit and have audited some pcs.

      1. Valkov, he did say “that I know of.” I think his basic point is that we should be aware of the dynamics that are part of or lead to the making of a cult – like what happened to Scn But I saw on another post of yours that you want to know more about what he means by cult dynamics, and that’s what I’ve asked too as well as why he thinks those dynamics are part and parcel of Scientology itself.

        1. Sociology and the Psychology of Control is a relatively new discipline. Robert Jay Lifton was a pioneer of it.

          My statement is saying essentially that religion hasn’t caught up with its own sociological tricks yet and learned to use itself to obviate its own social conditioning.

          1. I really find the phrases “cult dynamics” and “Sociology and Psychology of Control” quite fascinating. Please do summarize some of the ideas of pioneer thinkers in this field.

            I shall be very interested in processes to run out Scientology.

            .

          2. Kg, you asked, “So what would that look like?”

            I take it you’re asking what would be involved in running out Scn? I’m not that highly trained to be able to give the best answer, but I recall something similar in the first auditing tech, Book One. It included (at one point, anyway) actually running out the session you had just delivered. Now obviously, we wouldn’t be able to run out all of Scn, session by session and course by course and all the other experiences too. But that might be the principle – except taking it in chunks such as whole levels of the Bridge at a time and having the pc “look” at each. More likely, there could be a prepared list written with questions that would zero in on the different aspects of Scn that would “mold” a person, including those cult-dynamics points you yourself have worked out. (This is assuming there isn’t already tech for such, developed after LRH made that statement about running Scn out.)

            You talk about the BRILLIANT things; I would say the most BRILLIANT thing about the tech of Scn (if my more or less limited grasp of it is right) is that it takes into account all the key basics of life and the mind and beings (that is, the philosophy of Scn). And if there is full conceptual understanding of both the tech and the philosophy, then Scn is pretty well along towards being a complete system to achieve spiritual freedom – or freedom in the game of life, for that matter. Along with my high opinion of it, though, I don’t disagree that it could be much better organized and better communicated – and I’m pretty sure it could be built upon, building mainly if not entirely on the basics that are there.
            .

            btw, (going now from big, sweeping ideas to the tiny) you are not the first to switch the “a” and the first “i” in Marildi, but it always makes me ridge a little because “Miraldi” sounds too much like “Heraldo” and he’s just not my kinda guy – too solid! So watch it, bud. 😀

  22. “Of course it is impossible to inspect or verify every bit of information that you encounter every day. So the hazards of the daily data stream is maneuvered by continuous and often unconscious risk management. Some are good at it and get a hunch when they are confronted by a lie. Others never smells the rat and accepts statements nilly-willy; The hyper-critical tend to swallow any criticism without inspection, while the gullible will swallow any nice and fluffy statement without a blink. Although the former will probably give you a more miserable life than the latter, there are better ways to deal with information.”

    It is impossible to seriously consider every datum that crosses one’s path. But one can set one’s parameters to be alerted the moment some inconsistency appears. That is the beginning of the cycle of serious looking.

    And that is the essence of Data Series, which is my most favorite part of Scientology.

    The only processing that I do these days is the processing of inconsistencies. I do that every minute of my waking hours as much as possible.

    .

  23. Great post, Geir, and thank you for that. Maybe I’m going to translate it for my own blog (R-factor for others: I’m allowed to do that by Geir), unlike the article on the study tech, which in the end had more interesting discussion than the article itself. I vowed to study Clearbird’s Study Tech Manual before writing my own article — where I haven’t got very far.
    OK, back to the topic: 2 weeks ago I saw something similar. I read 4 Toltec agreements 4 years ago and now I was in a huge bookstore in Prague and saw a new book about 5th Toltec agreement: “Be skeptical but learn to listen”. Interesting timing!

  24. Thank you for posting!

    Do you know why I jump read? It is because of the vast ocean of Scientology data.
    I want to read materials that attract me the most. It is great that I am free to read what I want; and it is great that nobody is telling me what to read. The biggest downfall in the Church of Scientology was that I didn’t have any choice to select after my interests; and to select after my reading comprehension level. I disagreed with their policy letters regarding word clearing; and how they tried to hammer into my head that I had to follow the standard word clearing. I complained so much; and nobody listened to me. All my complaints were in vain. This mistreatment almost caused me to die. I was not born in USA; I had a different native language. My method should have been my way; because it worked. I got result. I question everything; and i am glad I have learned about the black magic; and I don’t believe Ron Hubbard was very sane. He didn’t have a holy attitude. I believe he didn’t do all this work by himself. He had helpers. Just look at the MEST. R.H. took all credits for himself. I got declared because I asked for all my money back from all received auditing. The Church of Scientology didn’t solve my study problem; they did the opposite. The auditing alleged to solve my study problem, had nothing to do with my study problem. It didn’t matter how much I complained to the staff at the Church of $cientology. Nobody listened to me. I did my way behind their backs in the Academy; and I gradually solved the problem. I cured my physical condition; I finally didn’t have to be escorted to and from the church of Scientology by three people. I used to be a walking time bomb in severe pain. I didn’t die under their care. It would have happened if I had stayed with them.
    Your test is to try to learn another language; but don’t even try to translate into your language; you can see a picture of a cat; but don’t translate it. Use definitions. Do the same with other part of speeches. Whatever you do learn the language without connecting it to your language. How did it go?
    Did you use the standard word clearing procedure, and looked up every definition, and all misunderstood words?

    1. Interestingly, LRH covers your method of learning in one of the study tapes. It is a valid way of learning a new subject – just plow through the material any way you want – even without any clearing of words you will with perseverance get it. It may be tougher than clearing all MUs, but it sure works for all of us when we fist learn to speak our native tongue 🙂

      1. Yes, he did cover that! And he specifically stated in those tapes that a student does NOT always have to clear the word – if when studying he acknowledges it was a word he didn’t know. LRH went into different ways of studying – depending on one’s purpose. It comes down to an evaluation of importances, with regard to MUs and methods of study.

        Any good sup knows ALL the study references and knows when to apply each, but try to explain that to many other Scn terminals, to know avail. This was Dennis’ point about Method 4 as well. He had no problem with the student having a disagreement that wasn’t an MU. I never did either as a word clearer. The reference for studying Scn with a critical approach is the basic one. And “there is no substitute for understanding.”

        So many of the criticisms of Scientology, such as Fish’s, come about (understandably) because the materials are misapplied, applied rotely, applied without knowing their full breadth. Here again we’re talking about the mis-practice of Scn and not actual Scn itself. And here again is an example of where its clarity could and should be improved.

        1. I forgot to say that the applicable piece study tech for Fish (on course) would have been Method 7, until he was up to the gradient of clearing words. (Dennis and I coulda had him winning!)

  25. “Now we need a term that differentiates the original scriptures or Standard Scientology from REVISIONS of those scriptures. At first I was thinking “Reformed Scn” but reformed is usually used to indicate the above type of difference (i.e. the Independents would be Reformists). What should the term then be?”
    This exchange, discussion is totally fascinating. Do you really believe if one has not, could not duplicate the workability of the Technology will be able to do it, if it is worded differently?
    What make you believe the differently worded material will be understood by every one?
    Why should that happen?
    Since new wording still has different reality to every person who will read that material. They still need to be word cleared, need demos to do in order to understand. SOOOO, it would be just the same as it was before so where would be the significant change ? By saying Not LRH did this but we?
    The thing I see here and understand is::: if one understand the Tech than one will continue with the Bridge, am I right? You and so many others who claim to know and understand the TECH. and to know it inside -out, and you believe you can make it better more comprehensible then why not in session? Since you claim You know it than why not use it, why not continue with the Bridge and solo etc…..?????
    I don’t need on answer on that we know the reason.. Yourself, when it is revised re-named re-wrapped will you than continue walking on the Path on the outlined Bridge?
    So pray do tell, if something is renamed put into different wrapper will be really different? Talk is cheap.
    If one really knows, understand something is good and workable than one knows it needs no improvement, because it just works.
    The Tech, simply works, it is great, wonderful, stupendous. It reverses the effects of the implants!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    THE USE, ERASES THE BANK WHICH HOLDS ONE BACK, HOLD ONE IN WRONG BELIVES, WITHIN THOSE WALLS BERRIERS THERE IS NO UNDERSTANDING.
    Elizabeth.

    1. Scientology works only for those who believe in its logic. Scientology does not work for everybody. To make Scientology work one has to believe in engrams and implants as Elizabeth does. Upper levels of Scientology won’t work for a person who does not believe in entities and implants (which I don’t).

      But when one realizes that Scientology works because of the element of LOOKING in those processes, then it becomes possible to get better results from those very processes themselves. Processes then become different ways of LOOKING at different areas of the case. Greater case gain results from the same processes when one LOOKS using KHTK principles.

      One then also becomes aware of the fault lines in Scientology. One can prevent overrun from occurring, which Scientology does not do that well. One would not need to use Repair Lists because use of KHTK approach would eliminate the reasons which require Repair Lists.

      Promotion matters. Scientology is where it is because of immense deliberate effort made in its promotion. Dianetics was dying away after the initial euphoria it created in 1950. Hubbard had to keep coming up with new attractive ideas and promote them to keep it going. Only that kept the subject alive.

      Is Scientology self-sustaining today? The main body of promotion (Church of Scientology) is doing a great job of driving Scientology into the ground and replacing it with a Real Estate empire created with existing resources, which include a slave work force. The self-sustaining factor of “new people practicing Scientology” seems to be declining rapidly.

      The only way Scientology would recover is by simplifying the technology, making it more workable, and making it more accessible. KHTK goes a long way in making that possible. KHTK does not require a belief in engrams and implants, yet it makes the processes of Scientology more effective.

      .

      1. Hey Vinnie,

        I remember a requirement on my NED checksheet to find a “raw” pc (someone entirely new to Scientology). I had an insurance agent at the time, not really a friend but we had a good comm line, and I told her some very general things (nothing about engrams, for sure) about the “class” I was taking and she agreed to be my pc. Well, I was running a secondary on her and I don’t know who was the most surprised when she suddenly looked at me in suprised disbelief at what the commands of the process were doing. I TR 4’d and got her back in session, of course, but I remember her words, “What’s happening to me?” The NED commands, much more so than those of the grades, just grab hold of the bank and move it around, whoosh! Anyway, needless to say, this girl got some very good relief – and without knowing a whit about what exactly happened or why.

        There have to be countless “coffee shop” successes of a similar nature – where people don’t even realize anything more other than conversation is going on. Assists are done with great success too and with no idea in the world as to why. I’m sure you know these things, so you must be forgetting that the principles of Scientology are not at all a matter of “belief” in them.

        Just a little brush-up for you. 🙂

        1. That proves you don’t need all this complexity of Scientology.

          Such low hanging fruits can easily be plucked by Idenics or KHTK.

          The basic element is LOOKING. There is nothing mysterious happening there.

          The complexity of Scientology is needed to stick the person in it. That is the cult dynamics.

          .

          1. The problem I see with just being able to get the “low-hanging fruit” is that sometimes you need a piece that’s way out of reach. For example, let’s say there’s an out-int situation. I don’t believe for a moment that it would be handled by just looking at “what’s there,” Doing it that way, if possible at all, might require getting many, many low-hanging fruit first and quite some time.

            Same goes for an illness caused by restim of a past track SP (PTS type 2), which can be pretty quickly spotted and handled on the PTS Rundown. Or think of the miraclous Suppressed Person Rundown which “brings the suppressive in a person’s life to communicate to him and seek peace, without ever contacting him.”

            And then there’s the everyday ser fac – something that holds a person back in life to a remarkable degree, but which is very much “protected” by the mechanism itself and not always easy to handle even with the help of an auditor. Likewise for many O/W’s.

            Not that getting those low-hanging fruit may not be very, very valuable in itself. It just isn’t a be-all end-all from what I can figure.

    2. Elizabeth, I personally think you guys can leave the originals AS THEY ARE.

      Going through a course and installing mistakes and then fixing them afterward teaches a person HOW THEY GET MIND-HACKED.

      And then FIX it so what is true for them REALLY is true for them and doesn’t align with any “ism” or “ology.”

      Much like what happened earlier with ARC. Imagine how someone would view ARC right out of HQS if they had to do THAT MUCH work on what it is: concept map? truth of the universe? useful tool?

      Keep scriptures same

      Annotate with practices and additional information that is Science Based. LRH supported Science Based views of his works in SOS.

      1. Such documents are called “Commentaries” in religious circles. There is a lot more written about the Bible than what’s in the Bible!

    3. Elizabeth, you said, “Since new wording still has different reality to every person who will read that material.” Well – it shouldn’t. The whole thing about a word is that its meaning is supposed to be something agreed upon by everybody, and when it is agreed upon we all then have the same reality on it (at least to the degree that this is possible in the MEST universe). It’s precisely because of that shared reality that we are able to communicate with the words whose meanings are agreed upon. So if the words aren’t coming across the same to everyone – as may be the case in some Scn materials – they should be clarified so as to be of optimum use in understanding those materials.

      Also, you said, “If one really knows, understand something is good and workable than one knows it needs no improvement.” I would say that “good and workable” does not necessarily mean “needs no improvement.” Come on now, think about it again. You yourself have revised the tech by using nothing but rudiments to run a session – even though LRH specifically states they are not to be used that way. But you obviously feel that “it is great, wonderful, stupendous” to do so and that YOU have made an improvement, since that’s the only “auditing” you do and recommend.

      Lastly, I for one never ever claimed to know the tech “inside and out.” That is your own additive. But in any case, it has no bearing on why I’m not currently auditing, either on the Bridge or “solo’ing.” You actually don’t know my reasons, Elizabeth. I’ve never told you and your assumptions are not correct. So please realize that.

      1. Marildi, no matter how I would be word cleared on the black cat. You still would see your black cat the way you do and I see mine as I would. There is no way we could compare how our black cat was in our reallity was. Impasible.

        1. Elizabeth, I understand what you are saying. That’s why I added: “at least to the degree that this is possible in the MEST universe” – the part in parentheses in the following sentence I wrote:

          “The whole thing about a word is that its meaning is supposed to be something agreed upon by everybody, and when it is agreed upon we all then have the same reality on it (at least to the degree that this is possible in the MEST universe).”

          The fact of the matter is that most of us do need words to communicate with each other and even if that method isn’t perfect or the best kind of communication, it’s the best we have in this universe most of the time.

          Actually, my dear Elizabeth, it seems like the basic disagreement between you me has to do with exactly that – the MEST universe. You seem to largely discredit it because of your understanding of a much more basic truth (and I do not doubt that you do understand a more basic truth). Nevertheless, I believe that LRH was correct when he said that the way OUT of the MEST universe is the way THROUGH it. In other words, we have to beat it at its own game. 😉

  26. I believe from now on I will have to ride, shotgun.or with shotgun?
    When I still lived in Budapest and we had the Revolution we had a machinegun under the table with all the trimmings, Plus few boxes of hand grenades, I wonder where are they now……..

  27. I think that the following post by katageek is brilliant, and it is worth highlighting:

    No religion has ever confronted its social/cult dynamics within its own reformation with its own techniques as a vibrant part of its reformation. Abuses? Sure.

    Social dynamics? Nope.

    It has NEVER been done that I know of.

    In every reformation I know of: Martin Luther, The Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints etc. the DOCTRINE has always been the focus, not the social conditioning.

    SO …

    Who REALLY BELIEVES IT IS REALLY POSSIBLE to use the tech of Scientology to identify correctly and then run out the Social Conditioning within Scientology as part of its evolution?

    Because to do it, it has to be a SERIOUS EFFORT.

    We’re talking huge.

    So do you honestly think Scientology can do what no other religion has?

  28. Geir and everyone, I think we would all agree that there are different ways the word Scientology is used. Firstly, it can refer to the actual philosophy and tech as stated in THE MATERIALS. Secondly, it can refer to the practice of those materials in or out of the Church but mostly, in terms of practice, it’s used to mean the MALpractice or MISAPPLICATION of the materials as is being done by the Church. Or thirdly, it can refer to the MANAGEMENT of the practice (whether by the application of LRH policies or misapplication of them). I’m thinking these are the three main uses of the word “Scientology.”

    You made a couple of statements in your post about Scientology and didn’t really indicate which use you had in mind. For example: “It seems to produce people with lots of issues.” I’m pretty sure that on this one you were referring to the products of the Church’s “practice” (misapplication) and/or its (mis)management. Am I right about that?

    Another one: “Today, Scientology does not deliver on its promises.” I know that LRH made some earlier promises that “haven’t been delivered” but I believe those promises were later revised and should no longer be considered as part of the materials. So here again, I would interpret your statement to be referring to the Church’s malpractice (such as promises made by reg’s) rather than what the materials actually state.

    I bring up this subject because there is still a certain amount of going-around-in-circles among us posters – due to using the word Scientology in an un-clear way. And personally (as I’ve already commented) I’m overrun on discussing how bad the Church is and was, when really no one disagrees with that. On the other hand, the subject of how and why it developed into a cult seems a worthwhile one – that’s looking at outnesses from a different angle than simply re-iterating them over again.

    The main thing I’m trying to say is that we should be clear what we mean by “Scientology.”

    1. Interestingly, I had this conversation yesterday with a friend who had similar questions. Here’s how it went (approximately):

      Him: “When you say that Scientology does not create amazing people… surely there are amazing people in Scientology.”
      Me: “But were they amazing people prior to their involvement in Scientology, or did Scientology turn them into amazing beings on the world scene?”

      Then, I clarified by what I meant with amazing people. He agreed that he had seen no people turned amazing by Scientology.

      Him: “But surely you are talking then about the problem of CoS management – that the malpractice of Scientology results in no amazing people?”
      Me: “Do you see any people turned amazing in Freezone or the many independent groups?”
      Him: “Eh, no”
      Me: “So, we find that Scientology hasn’t produced amazing people inside or outside of the church, even with a wide range of attempted ways of delivering the technology.”

      It doesn’t seem to matter how it is delivered – from exactly on policy and strictly standard tech to wild off-beat and avant garde ways – it still does not make you an amazing OT.

      And the reverse is sadly also true. I have seen lots and lots of people all the way to the top of the bridge both inside and outside of the church. And I see lots of people with personal issues. Sadly this is what I have seen. It tears my heart out to see this. But something then must be awfully wrong in the subject itself. I quote an OT VIII friend of mine “The good thing about non-scientologists is that they don’t know they have a reactive mind to dramatize”: I believe there is more than a grain of truth in that. As a person gets involved in Scientology, away goes his ability to not give a damn. Away goes the ability to just chill.

      1. Thanks for the further explanation. But on your first point, I don’t understand why you are using “amazing” as a criterion. That isn’t the goal of Scientology anyway, is it? And I don’t think you would say that it has actually PREVENTED anyone from being amazing who otherwise would have been. So when you point out something like that, I feel it has the subtle effect of diminishing or detracting from Scn even though that “fact” doesn’t have much real meaning. IMHO

        On your point about the reverse, seeing lots of people with personal issues both in and outside the Church, I don’t think we should omit from that the fact that even those outside the Church have previously, in the vast majority, been heavily influenced by the Church. I would say the same for the other thing you mentioned too – not being able to “not give a damn” (by which I assume you mean “insouciance,” something LRH encourages too).

        Now, I do heartily agree that many non-Scientologists “lead a really good life, some even enlightened lives.” When I got away from being so sheltered in the Church I remember being quite amazed, over and over, at how many remarkable and “able” (the typical Scn word used) people that I observed, both up close and in the media. My affinity for the 4th dynamic shot up so much!

        But rather than now discounting the potential in Scn to make people even more able, I chalk up the previous mind-set to the subtle indoctrination that “Scientologists are the able ones, the chosen few” – which seems to me to be another one of those twists on what LRH actually said and meant. His statement that Scn is for the able already infers that there are able people out there not that they become so only as a result of Scn. So actually, the arrogance of Scn’ists that comes about may be due (at least in part) to this implied false datum that got spread as a result of not actually duplicating Scn or of purposely twisting it for ulterior reasons.

        Also, the idea your friend had that “The good thing about non-Scientologists is that they don’t know they have a reactive mind to dramatize” is one of different versions of that I’ve heard before. And honestly, I just go blank on it. I haven’t observed it to any degree and I think it’s merely specious. It’s very much like the observation that any Scientologist who is very upstat “would probably have been so without Scientology.”

        You know, Geir, sometimes I wonder if there are as many Scientologists who have an “urge” to criticize Scn as there are who have an urge to defend it. In both cases, it might be simply a matter of trying to make up for or compensate for or neutralize somehow our having been foolish or duped in all kinds of ways in “Scientology.” Sunk cost – or reverse sunk cost (can we say that ?).

        1. What I want to see is the products of Scientology being delivered. OT powers, Cause over Life, etc. Just one person being able to go exterior at will, consistently and with full perception would save the Earth. Literally. Even that hasn’t been produced although it has been advertised by LRH several hundred times.

          I do believe all that and more is indeed possible. But – Scientology never produced it as far as I can see – not in the 50’s not in the 60’s and certainly not since KSW was introduced. And it hasn’t been produced by any of the independents or the splinter groups since the 50’s either.

          It is time to face the stats. And instead of justifying why a product wasn’t ever reached, let’s quote the old man: “The one big godawful mistake an executive can make in reading and managing by graph is being reasonable about graphs. This is called JUSTIFYING A STATISTIC. This is the single biggest error in graph interpretation by executives and the one thing that will clobber an org.

          1. Good points. You are right that more is indeed possible. The only thing I’m saying is that I think we will see more and better products if the tech is correctly applied (along with acceptable admin) and if the kinks in ease of duplication and correct application are ironed out – what you are proposing, actually. And if correct tech and the lost tech of such things as the original OT levels are put back in we may be at least much closer to producing OT powers and Cause over Life.

            Also, I don’t disagree that additional tech may very well need to be developed to achieve those “amazing” goals and that’s the reason I like your viewpoint of working on improvement of any kind.

            As for the stats, besides there being sheer justifications for why things are like they are (or aren’t), there is also validity in looking for real whys that may exist also. That would be part of the path for developing more truth and workablilty, I’m sure you would agree.

            This is intriguing: “Just one person being able to go exterior at will, consistently and with full perception would save the Earth.” How so?

            1. Just think what you could do if you really had that ability. Be creative. I am sure you would come up with enough possibilities to single-handedly save the world.

              Apart from that; Yes, we agree.

          2. Okay, I can imagine some things if you are including OT abilities besides simply being exterior with full perception. There would have to be some real doingness abilities while in that state.

            1. Nope 🙂

              Try again. What information would you be able to get? How could you use that info to create world peace, fix hunger, get the right president elected, stop a war, get funds to NASA to visit the closest planet with intelligent life… get the idea?

          3. Sure, key information was the first thing I thought of. So you have to be including things like being able to be anywhere at will (what I meant by doingness). But then, once you had some potentially world-changing info, you would have to be able to communicate it in a way that was “havable,” whether still exterior or afterwards.

            Well, maybe you’re not looking at handling the world in one fell swoop or a bit more. Certainly with time and the accomplishment of many different things, we could change the world. What an enjoyable thing to contemplate! (That’s the second F/N of the day. :-))

            p.s. btw, aren’t we already working on that project, slow but sure?

            1. With being able to go fully exterior (and by full it would mean to be anywhere, yes – as promised many places by LRH) and return to a body, I truly believe that the world would be a very different place after only a few years. One single person having accomplished that is all it takes. Which for me indicates that Nobody achieved that – including LRH.

          4. Good reasoning, I’d say.

            Wait! I’ve got a vision – the ultimate Viking conqueror! Someone has to do it, might as well be you.

            (Call it insouciance, if you must. :-))

      2. Good points Geir,

        I have seen a few amazing people but not sure whether this is a result of Scientology or just an innate ability in an area.

        If one takes the basic premise that Scientology ‘makes the able more able’, then I would have to say I have seen many experience this in some areas of their lives, and others who have not.

        I know I am more able in some areas, but I also see some failing in those same areas.

        I don’t think the intention was to make ‘amazing’ people – I think it was more along the line of improving & being more effective or Cause in life. It is a gradient scale and I don`t assume that anyone walking in the door will become `amazing’ – I would however expect them to be more competent and confident in who they are and that their actions in life would improve.

        On a subjective note, one may consider he is amazing but others may not see this. Take American Idol or similar show … some think they have amazing voices but that assessment is totally dependent on who’s listening.

        I do think your friend’s statement really hits another nail on the head ” The good thing about non-scientologists is that they don’t know they have a reactive mind to dramatize. ”

        I have always thought that a subject that would tackle the basic questions/postulates of Life would restimulate or manifest some of the most outlandish behavior and this would be one of the main obstacles in moving thru to some enlightened state. If the game is truly set up so that we are not supposed to know or discover, then this would hold true and what we see is some of these barriers this game has to offer.

        One can be oblivious to certain aspects of their life and just merrily continue on but if one starts really looking and seeking improvement in a spiritual sense, there may be some pretty basic walls one runs up against (self created or not).

        I don’t look for amazing people myself … to me it’s not an accurate gauge – too general. I look for improvement be it communication, problems, certainty about oneself and competency in life.

        1. I look for amazing people. I am collecting amazing people.

          As for Scientology not being meant to produce amazingness… gimme a break 😉

          “Cause over life” hey! If that ain’t amazing then I am the Queen of England. Or how about “Cause over Matter. Energy, Space and Time – Subjectively and Objectively.” It won’t get more amazing than that.

          1. On second thought …

            I was wondering why I hadn’t thought those abilities are ‘amazing’.

            So, I pondered this for a few minutes.

            It came to me that I have always felt that these abilities are ‘Normal’ and that I am in a bit of a warp where all but a few of these abilities are just out of reach.

            I have always been under the impression that these abilities are just a breath away. I remember in a number of sessions where it was *that* close to blowing the whole thing. Man, I felt close! It actually scared me as I wondered how I’d operate if I did go ‘thru the looking glass’ … after all, I had responsibilities – a wife, kids, a job – the considerations came barreling in – quite a phenomena it was.

            But, there is something invisible to me – I know it’s there. I feel it. I know it is something generated by me and made to look like something else. When I approach the area, my breath becomes non-existent – there is a nothingness but an invisible barrier. It is penetrable but I haven’t found the key.

            It is a bit of a piss-off to me that I have not unlocked it, but, I enjoy the game of looking for that damn key.

            So, ‘amazing’? I guess one could say that in relation to the current state of man.

            But really? Hmm – I think it’s a more normal feeling to me to have these abilities, and, that this game I am in is one surreal experience and seems more odd to me than having those abilities. I frankly am amazed I dug myself in so deep – well done Me!

            But then, I always liked a mystery 🙂

          2. Maybe I will post the post I mentioned downstream, because again, this sounds like you are disappointed, Geir. That you did not achieve something you thought you would achieve.

            How do you know you are not “cause over life”, or “cause over MEST”? You seem to have pretty much anything you want pretty easily, from my POV.

            1. I really didn’t have much expectations for myself. So, this is not about me. It is about over-promising and under-delivering. Per stats.

          3. It is very simple actually. The key is ‘self’ and I have talked about it quite a bit on my blog.

            It is the idea of ‘individuality’ and the fear of losing it.

            .

          4. Come to think of it, what does “Cause over Life” actually mean? I always thought it meant being cause over one’s own life (livingness).

            And where is the other one, “Cause over Matter. Energy, Space and Time – Subjectively and Objectively”? It isn’t on the Bridge, so I don’t think you can say it was promised.

            As for exteriorization, “advertised” is very different from “promised.” And the Bridge was never completed – looks like that’s up to those who would pick up the torch (or is it the mundane-sounding baton?).

            1. I have seen many OT VIIs that are not by any definition “Cause over Life”.

              And “Cause over Matter. Energy, Space and Time – Subjectively and Objectively” was the EP of the old OT VIII. It was put there on the bridge by LRH and he claimed the level was ready for release in the mid 70s.

              As for exteriorization – LRH claims many places that the current processes can do that stably. L12 comes to mind.

              And frankly, there are numerous of claims that are not delivered by the current technology (full recall comes to mind [pun intended])

          5. LOL on the pun!

            As for the OT VII “ability regained” it reminds me of the end result of Pro TRs – “A being who can handle anyone with communication alone.” That can be interpreted in either a literal or conceptual way. And let’s not forget the fact that the Church has put in gross alterations on OT VII. (Again, differentiating “Scn” from Scn and “tech” from tech.)

            That’s interesting, what you say about L 12. I checked on the Bridge and it doesn’t say anything about exteriorization. The only thing I recall about full recall (irony intended) is in the description of Clear in DMSMH – later changed by LRH after further research. Similar point about what “was” the ability regained for OT VII.

            The main point is that we should apply “gimme a break” to LRH where deserved (unless you think there aren’t enough outpoints otherwise. :-))

            (btw, I’ve been waiting to hear about your L12…)

            1. It would be interesting to chalk up all promises offered by LRH where he did not deliver. In this I believe he is a hard one to beat.

              As for my L12; Scheduled for X-Mas.

          6. But I wonder what the ratio would be between LRH’s undelivered promises and what was indeed delivered – especially looking at the value of that delivery.

            Okay, well come Chrismas I hope you’ll be the lucky one to get the EP of full exteriorization! (I’ll have to catch up with you later on our biggest adventure in the universe. :-))

      3. IMHO religions typically provide some good basics to manage life through in a group dynamic.

        VERY important for survival.

        Religion produces MEANING more than it produces AMAZINGNESS.

        If you had to choose between the two Geir which would you choose?

        1. A life of amazingness.
        2. A life of deep, powerful and rich meaning?

        Amazing people come out of learning amazing arts with amazing artists in amazing social settings that typically use Variation, Selection and Heredity in their structures (the formula for evolution). Painters learn from painters who made the cut to be taught by masters. Surgeons who made the cut learn from Surgeons who made the cut.

        Natural Selection + People + Art + Time = Amazing.

        1. The choice is hardly the point in the case of Scientology – all the time that LRH did advertise amazing abilities. It is a matter of delivering what is promised.

          1. What specific amazing abilities did LRH advertise? Perhaps we should consider those. What and where did he advertise or speak of them?

            1. Those I mentioned where right off The Bridge. Then there are whole lecture series mainly on exteriorization. We can start with those if you wish.

          2. Exteriorization is a good one.

            I assume you mean specifically, exteriorization from the body? Many people experienced exteriorization right at the beginning, like on the HQS course or on Life Repair.

            But it seems to me you could say more about that than I – weren’t you going to get the Ls from Pierre, sometime back? And isn’t the EP of at least one of the Ls have to do with “exteriorization with full perception”? And also “stably exterior”?

            You were going to report back to us about it, but you have said nothing since……

            So, what’s up, Doc?

          3. My take on “OT abilities” is you can have whatever you can mock up. If you can’t even imagine it, or the idea never occurs to you, chances are you won’t attain it.

            So LRH kept throwing out possible abilities because they were real to him, but in others they were failed purposes, suppressed abilities, etc.

            Now, the purpose of the auditing tech was to increase the ARC of the pc. Much of this was directed towards removing the factors that were stopping him from having the abilities. Whether or not this was done effectively by others is open to question.

            The “complete recall” could be had, but by1955 LRH had discovered the data about the First through FourthPostulates, which made it pretty clear that although a person could theoretically recall anything he wanted to, he would not necessarily want that as a fixed condition. Because if it was fixed, he would be unable to forget anything. In other words, he would lose or not-have the ability to forget.

            So the key to rehabilitating a person’s memory turned out to be in rehabilitating his ability to forget at will.

            It actually is in Fundamentals of Thought, but I had to have it explained to me in lecture before I really started to grasp it.

            “Forget” is the 3rd postulate, “Remember” is the 4th postulate .

            These are harmonics of the 1st and 2nd postulates, which are Not-know and Know About

          1. When I was a kid, my purpose ( on which I lost myself)

            was to find the meaning of life.

            Now my purpose is to give life a meaning

      4. According to LRH, Buddha was not OT. But LRH has to be OT because he researched OT levels upon himself and others before publishing them.

        Is LRH more amazing than Buddha?

        .

          1. I have to dig out the reference, But I distinctly rememeber LRH referring to Buddha as a “keyed out Clear” and not even a Clear because the state of Clear was never attained before Dianetics and Scientology.

            LRH mocked the idea of “Nirvana” in Scn 8-8008 here:

            “One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in
            potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue.
            Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities.
            They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own
            individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the
            feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from
            attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming
            matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest
            point of the tone-scale. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe. When he goes up
            scale, he becomes more and more an individual capable of creating and maintaining his own
            universe. In this wise (leading people to believe they had no individuality above that of MEST)
            the MEST universe cut out all competition.”

            LRH was too fixated on self to fully understand ‘nirvana.’

            .

    1. I have seen this a lot. It’s simple. They follow the Two-way Communication Formula and take turns being Cause and Effect.

      Even OTs can do it! LOL. Geir is good at it.

    2. I have seen this many times too in many different situations.

      Being able to be Cause & willing Effect and have a decent simple comm cycle as Valkov mentioned are quite common.

    3. I don’t think I was very clear in my statement. To me, OT being at cause is characterized by fixation on self (WHO is being at cause). We are not looking at a simple comm cycle here. We are looking at going beyond the fixation on self or individuality.

      Hubbard was always in a games condition with anyone who demonstarted any power. Just look at all the suppressive declares he issued. Hubbard could never tolerate any competition. He could never rise beyond such games conditions. He died in hiding. He was scared shit. He was not free.

      Buddha, on the other hand was free. He was lecturing and traveling till the end of his days.

      .

  29. (1) If Scientology promised to create amazing people then that is a wrong target. Scientology has to do with knowing how to know. Entertainment is not its field, in my view.

    (2) Any application of Scientology other than ‘knowing how to know’ is a misapplication, in my view, no matter what other use Hubbard put Scientology to.

    (3) Any material to do with ‘knowing how to know’ is part of the same subject, in spite of any and all prejudice.

    (4) About running out Scientology, start with the axioms. Examine them. Don’t just take them for granted.

    (5) Look for people who are in harmony within themselves. These are the truly amazing people.

    .

    1. ” (1) If Scientology promised to create amazing people then that is a wrong target. Scientology has to do with knowing how to know. Entertainment is not its field, in my view. ”

      I don’t recall anyone ever looking at ability as ‘entertainment’. Ability is not a bunch of parlour tricks.

      (2) Any application of Scientology other than ‘knowing how to know’ is a misapplication, in my view, no matter what other use Hubbard put Scientology to.

      What other uses did Hubbard put Scientology to?

      I think knowing how to know covers a pretty large area. Like the Data Series, The parts of a comm cycle, etc., etc.

  30. Valkov. Words from my heart, all that is attainable and do exists. The “complete recall,” with full perception, yes “imagination” is one’s ability, to as-is at inspection, to love or have total ARC=because one has erased all barriers, the mystery has been removed so there is knowledge un-imaginable for those who has not removed the barriers.
    Since “memory, forget, remember “this words are only thought, considerations related contained within the method of thinking. They do not exist when the barriers are removed since they are barriers themselves.
    Of course this state can be only recognised by those who have attained it.

Have your say

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s