I am not a Scientologist

In a meeting with three amazing friends the other day, the subject of Scientology came up. We discussed the subject briefly and one of them suddenly interjected: “Scientologists are not being themselves“. “Hmm?“, I replied. And he clarified the statement: “Well if they are being a Scientologist, then they are not being themselves“.

Immediately it dawned on me that “Goddamn, he’s right!“.

That is why scientologists has a knee-jerk urge to defend the subject, L. Ron Hubbard or anything supporting Scientology. Because if you truly are in harmony with just being yourself, then there would be no need to defend. Or attack. One would be free. The paradox is that many people having advanced high on The Bridge to Total Freedom exhibit an advanced urge to defend. It indicates they are less free and not in harmony and not simply being themselves.

As a reader of my blog, you may have noticed that I have been on a quest for truth for a very long time. The quest includes a critical look at my own fixed ideas, my own urges to attack or defend. And all of them have to go. I am a work in progress.

So, to sum it up: I AM NOT A SCIENTOLOGIST. And I really mean it. Not just “Yeah, yeah, he says that to free himself of a label” or “at the bottom he really is a scientologist“. No. Truly – I am not a scientologist!

I focus on results, not methodologies. I will use the tools that gives the best results in any given situation. Be it auditing, meditation, yoga, Tai Chi, TRs, playing with Lego or just giving someone a hug.

I realize that this announcement may stir up some feelings. May that be as it may. I am one step further. Thanks Brendan.

230 thoughts on “I am not a Scientologist

  1. Love it! I am NOT a Scientologist either and I say that in the same sense you are using here. It feels very freeing to say that too.

    1. i like Geir’s post. Coach has come up with another good bullbait!

      Not to pick on you, Sindy, it’s good to see you posting here, but as a way of getting my question up near the top of the thread because I egoistically feel it is SO important…. 🙂

      To extend the concept of “I am not a ___________” – you are a woman, right? And Geir is a man, right?

      Then is it correct that when you are being a woman, or Geir is being a man, you are not being yourself, and Geir is not being himself?

      By the logic of Geir’s friend, it could be argued that way.

      But I don’t quite agree with that. I am fond of the notion that one can be a limited identity at the same time as one transcends it. This idea is common to “transpersonal psychology” in the West, well represented by Ken Wilbur and going back to Carl Jung and others, and is part of a stream of knowledge going way back, in the East.

      It is not an “either/or” situation. It can be “both/and”. One can retain his/her limited identity(s) at the same time as one transcends it(them). The crucial factor is consciousness of what one is doing and that one is doing it.

      I run into this with Al on The Scientology Forum. He seems to think of what he calls “scientologists” in cartoonish, stereotypical terms, rather than as multi-dimensional real people. And then he lumps everyone who says anything positive about any aspect of scientology into this cartoon. Here’s a typical recent exchange: (Notice that he never answers any question I ask him)

      Me: And, what makes you think I am a “scientologist”?

      Al: And so now you are saying that you are not a Scientologist, too?

      Me: You tell me what your definition of a “scientologist” is, and then I might be able to say whether I am a scientologist by your definition of it.

      Al: You do not know what the definition of a Scientologist is now? So you now do not know if you are one or not? Have you forgotten the definition after all these years, do you not know where to look it up, or what? Who are you claiming that you are now, anyway Valkov?

      Me: Who am I claiming that I am now? The same as I have always claimed.

      I am myself.

      (The truth is, I never have known what the “definition” of a “scientologist” is. Never cared much. But I really like listening to lectures by Hubbard and get a lot of enlightenment from that goofball, who stands head and shoulders above me in understanding as far as I’m concerned.)

      So I could easily say that Geir is a “scientologist” by my definition of it, and Geir could just as easily say he is not. And we’d both be right.)

        1. What do you imagine or conjecture I was trying? (I guess I did leave out the full bracket: “Not a scientologist by Valkov’s definition”, “Not a scientologist by my definition”, “Valkov does/does not think I am a scientologist by his definition”. Etc.

          If anything I was restating your OP in my own terms.

          Did you catch that?

          All I added was the open question of “any beingness” versus “being oneself”. Can you be the Geir identity including physical body, and still be “yourself” (whatever that is)? And if you can, then you can be a “scientologist” and still be “yourself”, depending on how YOU define “scientologist”, and then choose to be that. At this time, you choose not to wear the T-shirt, and that’s fine!

          But I did get what you and your friends meant. And you are right, you are not a scientologist.

          I think Marildi’s subsequent point about exercising either option, positive or negative, limits you. Making any decision or any postulate at all, limits you. Any decision is a stop. Deciding that you are NOT something is also a limit. It is actually what Ron called a First Postulate.

          Freedom is in the ability to change your mind and your beingness whenever you want to, not in refraining from making a decision or postulate or a commitment.

          It is when you are stuck in (the effect of) your own postulate that you are trapped and no longer free.

          1. Awesome post, Valkov.

            “Freedom is in the ability to change your mind and your beingness whenever you want to, not in refraining from making a decision or postulate or a commitment.

            “It is when you are stuck in (the effect of) your own postulate that you are trapped and no longer free.”

            Jason Beghe comes to mind. Not that his experience and public statement is at all on a parallel with Geir’s; his is a much more extreme example. But he too publicly proclaimed he was not a Scientologist and I do believe later regretted his words. It’s a lesson in leaving one’s options open, to rephrase your post.

            The main point you made so well IMO is – why limit yourself at all? Well, Geir’s post here I’m sure will help some people who are too stuck, and I would venture to say that was his intention or one of them. On the other hand, he may encourage others to become even more stuck into “NOT a Scientologist!” But we have to give him due credit for “making a decision or postulate or commitment” as you put it.

          2. Geir said: “To sum it up; Shedding identities is a Good Thing IMHO”

            I agree, shedding identities can be a good thing, but is not necessarily a good thing in and of itself.

            For example, compulsively shedding identities might not be so good.

            One may greatly enjoy shedding identities at some point. One may also greatly enjoy acquiring identities at some point.

            The point is to have the power of choice about having identities or not.

            Some people see shedding all identities and sitting around identity-less forever as “Nirvana”. I see it as pointless and boring.

            However, I would like to increase my ability to shed and acquire identities at will. To me, that is what scientology is all about – increasing my ability to be, do, and have. Why? To beable to have greater ARC and ability to help.

            As George White the Buddhist who posts on Marty’s Blog might say,

            “May all beings be well and happy!”

          3. Basically what we are auditing out here is being told you are a squirrel the moment your thinking deviated the slightest bit from orthodox Scientology think.

            That is very interesting.


          4. The orthodox Scientology think is really a group think. It is a phenomenon of the bank in Scientology speak. Scientologists like Pascal are immersed in that group think.


          5. Geir asks me,

            “Are you able to shed your identity as a scientologist?”

            I have never been a scientologist by your definition of ‘scientologist’.

            I was, however, a ‘scientologist’ long before Hubbard developed scientology. By my definition of ‘scientologist’, that is.

            I will be dropping my body before too many years. We’ll see what I retain, and what I do not.

            It’s a funny question, because it sounds like a test for joining a club, or perhaps for a job with the German government, or a ‘sec check’.

            On the other hand, it is possible Geir sees something about me that I do not see about myself. It is also possible I see something about Geir that he does not see about himself.

            I could as well ask Geir, “Are you able to acquire the identity of a scientologist?”. (In the true meaning of the word, rather than the ‘packaged beingness’ you referred to?”

            1. The true meaning….

              The true meaning of something is the consensus definition. What is the consensus definition for Scientology?

              But your point is well taken. Just like I am not being a scientologist, neither am I being a non-scientologist, en ex-scientologist, a critic or anything in between. Non of these beingnesses matters. Adventure and progress matters. To me.

          6. The identity “scientologist” cannot exist without the reference point of Scientology. So it is meaningless to say that one was a Scientologist before Scientology came along.

            If there is something more basic that one wants to express about one’s beingness, then one should be able to express it without using the label “scientologist” because that label will always be referenced by one’s view of Scientology.

            Scientology is usually defined by how it has affected a person on an individual basis. A sum total of such affects determines how Scientology is being perceived in the society. Any inconsistency in the views about Scientology shows the inconsistency among the effects Scientology has created. And if you trace such inconsistencies back, it will lead one to the inconsistencies in the theory and application of Scientology itself.

            On an individual basis, if one has mixed feelings about Scientology, then one can clarify them by tracing such feelings back to the actual inconsistencies in the basics of Scientology. I started to list them here. You may certainly add to this list, or give me a hint about what to add.

            Basic Inconsistencies in Scientology


      1. Not everybody rationalizes like you, Valkov. I think Geir’s article has woken a lot of people up out of their fixation, and have shaken a few others. It basically boils down to straightening out relative importances and not to have them fixated by somebody else’s evaluation.


        1. This line of reasoning sounds highly reminiscent of E-Prime, a variation of the English language first proposed by D. David Bourne that excludes all forms of the verb to be, instead replacing them with forms that better differentiate the speakers experiences from any evaluations they might base on those experiences. Robert Anton Wilson wrote extensively on e-prime in his nonfiction work Quantum Psychology, a relevant excerpt of which is here: http://nobeliefs.com/eprime.htm (note: you might need to look at googles or archive.org’s cache to see that page.)

          1. ar, E-prime is an interesting direction. In fact language does affect perception. One of the things I noticed in recently doing a brief survey of the Slavic languages, is that among them, Russian is one that has to a great extent dropped the use of that verb. Many languages do not have a direct equivalent.

        2. I have no problem with Geir’s post. I think it is a good one. You seem to be dubbing in (projecting or reading into it) meanings I was not expressing.

          Did it seem to you I was attacking Geir? I was not. I was simply expanding on his cognition, and presenting ideas about it — possibly in my usual unpleasantly blunt and feral way.

          And I agree – the post has “woken a lot of people up.” It is exactly like a good bullbaiting item that a lot of people will respond to because they have uninspected or fixed considerations about it. I say bravo to that, it is what I like about Geir’s blog, it is thought provoking and helps bring things into focus that might otherwise remain obscure. This includes your posts.

          1. Thanks Valkov. To me Scientology has always been another tool to be more myself. And that includes shedding the identity arising from Scientology group think.

            That is why I do not subscribe to the idea of squirrel as it has shaped itself through Scientology group think, and has turned Scientology into a static subject.

            According to Hubbard, if something is not growing it is bound to shrink as it cannot stay the same. That is happening to the Scientology tech itself.


        3. Wouldn’t it have been simpler and less prejudicial to have said – “Not everybody thinks like you, Valkov”?

          ra·tion·al·ize Verb

          1. Attempt to explain or justify (one’s own or another’s behavior or attitude) with logical, plausible reasons, even if these are not true or appropriate: “she couldn’t rationalize her urge to return to the cottage”.

          This feels a little like a subtle adhom. Does it occur to you that you may not seem entirely rational to me at times?

          1. Has an ego been hurt?

            I think I am currently above 50% at being irrational. Hopefully, I shall bring it down as I get wiser. 🙂


          2. My reaction: 😀

            I ask you, is love ever rational? I suggest it’s a special “chemistry” composed of a complex pattern of many different energies of ARC. Energies below awareness for the most part and thus not aligned with rationality. or not knowingly so. Sounds so much like physics, doesn’t it? Nevermind, I don’t think we want to answer the question. We’ll leave it as a philosophical conundrum. 😉

          3. Valkov, I didn’t think that Vinaire meant that definition of rationality. The context of his comment clearly shows that he meant this definition: “to make (something) conformable to rational principles.” 🙂

          4. Mar-“i”-ldy (Xena), I would always want you backing me. The chances of my survival would be very slim if I have you opposing me. 🙂

            So I should better keep that “chemistry” alive. What’s that formula again?


        4. To me, the ‘true meaning’ of something is definitely NOT the consensus definition. It is the self-generated definition that comes from within you. It is YOUR Understanding(ARC) with the data you have perceived yourself data, no one else’s.

          The “consensus definition” would be a group agreement, group think.

          Fortunately I do not know the ‘consensus definition’ of scientology, having avoided much involvement with that group.

          I am in fact learning about it, that “packaged beingness”, as I go along, by reading the posts about “scientologists” on various blogs and forums. Here, Marty’s, ESMB, etc etc. Fortunately I was never exposed to those expectations and pressures much, having rejected joining the group because I did not want to give up neither my autonomy nor my family life.

          So I am viewing many (conflicting) viewpoints. Sometimes it’s interesting. Often it’s a real drag.

          I am also learning much about how others apparently see me at times, and how they apparently attribute characteristics to me that they feel I MUST have,to be saying some of the things I say.

          The book “The Politics of Experience” by R.D.Laing seems relevant here. Some excerpts:


          1. 🙂 Language is an instrument of communication. Communication deals in interrelations. Interrelations are based on consensus reality. Such as definitions of words.

            You may define Scientology for yourself as much as you want and that is perfectly fine. But when trying to communicate with someone, there is a need for common reality (read ARC here). What is the common reality definition of Scientology?

        5. “Language is an instrument of communication. Communication deals in interrelations. Interrelations are based on consensus reality. Such as definitions of words.” – Isene

          As Sportin’ Life sang: it ain’t necessarily so.

          And as one of the English language’s most formidable logicians once observed:
          “When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”


          Consensus is only one way of defining meaning, although arguably it is the most social. Often half the fun of discourse is resorting to portmanteaus which allow for variable (mis-)interpretations. The meaning is there, although it may remain to be discovered. 😀

          1. I agree, the use of words has great potential for games of all kinds.

            “Verbalization is not the intention. The intention is the carrier wave which takes the verbalization along with it.” (from definition of “intention” in Tech Dict)

            On a different twist on the subject of words, have you (or anybody reading this) ever had the experience of hearing the sounds of someone speaking to you but having no idea of the meaning of the words being spoken? They hit you as nothing but meaningless sounds. Then, when you INTEND to understand you immediately can do so. I noticed this and experimented with it out of curiosity, going back and forth putting intention there to understand, and then not, thereby turning on and off any received meaning for the words. (A couple of people I know say that they pick up the intention and meaning off the written word to. Maybe we all do, and don’t know it.)

            It works the other way around too, as per the above quote. I’ve found myself listening to someone and having a very hard time getting the meanings of their words, as their intention is so poor. The words themselves do seem to be needed as part of the communication – I think. But I’m not totally sure that’s true apart from the fact that it’s considered to be true and that makes it so. This might be my next experiment if I can figure out how to trick myself past that particular consideration, the necessity for words.

  2. “Well if they are being a Scientologist, then they are not being themselves”

    That implies the definition of “Scientologist” as being something other than the ones in the Tech Dict, such as “one who betters the conditions of himself and the conditions of others by using Scn technology” or “one who understands life. His technical skill is devoted to the resolution of the problems of life.”

    So your friend’s statement seems like an obvious Straw Man to me.

    However, your point about “urge to defend” I’ve come to understand and greatly appreciate. And I don’t disagree that it is rampant among Scientologists. It’s just that I don’t think it is AT ALL based on the philosophy of Scn. Differentiation is being neglected.

    1. Even with the definition in the tech dic – he is right. Any statements such as “using Scn technology” is a limiting factor in one’s freedom.

      1. If one is COMPELLED to use Scn technology, then you are right. But if one is truly free, he would not be inhibited from doing so either – as in the case of anyone who would have the “urge” to reject it. A free person would be free to use Scn and in that case would fit the def and be a Scientologist.

        Tell me this, dear Geir, do you not use Scientology principles in your life, to better conditions? I see in your TRs alone that you do. 🙂

        1. Oops. I hadn’t read past the bird picture (I thought your post ended before it). So I didn’t see where you indicated that you do use any tools, including Scn, that get results. So since you do use auditing, TRs, etc. I don’t know why you would need to make a point of “NOT a Scientologist.” Besides, that’s a label too. (good thing you love me :-))

          (The birdie is nice but a little too stiff, uptight…solid. Maybe a good choice for your post, though. 😀 Kidding aside, I prefer the birds in your own creation, “Coincident.”)

          1. Or is the bird picture symbolic of giving Scientology the bird? (couldn’t resist :-D)

        2. I see that definition of a scientologist as a lousy definition. Defining someone’s beingness by a reference they themselves disagree with is a slippery slope.

      2. I disagree on this point. The definition doesn’t say a scientologist can’t use any other methodology. The fact that that definition is just a hypocritical PR and that there are actually lots and lots of limitations imposed on scientologists by his peers and LRH references is another thing.

        1. Good points. Both.

          Also this: Add to Truth and you have taken something away from it”.

          And; That definition is a phony definition. I will answer if someone doesn’t see why.

          1. Yes, please say more about both statements. Seems obvious that adding to truth will take away from it, but what level of reality is that now shifting to?

            I might already see your objection to the definition. It would stick a person into the requirement of using Scn and that would not be freedom. But then honestly, how can anyone call themselves anything – such as Buddhist, say – without then admitting they are not free? You might as well have said on the OP that you aren’t in any category of beingness at all – religious, political, even a believer in free will or science.

            1. Yep. And I am not a scientologist.

              But – there are requirements imposed by LRH that sticks one to an identity beyond what e.g. science in general does.

          2. “And I am not a scientologist.”

            Not to worry, you’ve already flattened it. 🙂 I even see the truth of it. And the validity for anyone.

            “But – there are requirements imposed by LRH that sticks one to an identity beyond what e.g. science in general does.”

            That interests me. I hope you don’t say something now relating to the nasty definition of Scn – or else! Sincerely, say more.

        2. Profant, totally agreed on your point about the hypocrisy. The only thing is that I keep wanting to do is to differentiate between the basic philosophy of Scn and the hypocritical attempts at keeping it “standard” (such as KSW 1) – i.e. LRH’s misguided attempts or others’ more nefarious attempts, which only served to strangle it.

          There are so many LRLH references to the effect of “look for yourself” “look don’t listen” “what’s true for you” etc etc. But no one in any camp – critics, die hards or free spirits like Geir – seems inclined to differentiate the basic principles from the warped version of Scn. I wish we could get past that and really just discuss Scientology itself. The rest is just so easy to get agreement on and we’ve done enough already!

          1. I clearly see the difference between the basic principles of Scientology from warped applications. But then, if Scientology was better, it would not be so easily warped.

          2. “if Scientology was better, it would not be so easily warped.”

            Which use of “Scn” do you mean? Obviously, the administration of it has to be SO much better. But are you thinking that even with satisfactory admin the philosophy and tech would have to be better so as not to be easily warped? (If not, then this is the same old confusing of the two.;-))

            1. If the tech was better, it would be harder to make a failed admin tech – and without a failed admin tech, warped applications would be less likely.

              On a scale from 1-5 where the number are:

              1. Terrible
              2. Bad
              3. OK
              4. Good
              5. Great

              I would give the tech a 4, the admin tech a 2 and application a 3. In general. If tech was a 5 I believe any failing in the admin tech would stand out easily detected.

          3. “If tech was a 5 I believe any failing in the admin tech would stand out easily detected.”

            What would make the tech a 5 and how would that make any failing in admin stand out and be easily detected. (Sorry if you’ve answered this – I didn’t get it Try me again.)

            1. If tech would be simpler and highlight what a good admin approach would be as a natural consequence, then any contrasting admin approach would stand out.

          4. “tech would…highlight what a good admin approach would be”

            So I guess you’re thinking of admin tech as opposed to tech tech? And if so, then you probably don’t think much of such PL’s as “The Structure of Organization, What is Policy?” or whatever else there is that concerns the theory of admin. (I admit I’m not very well versed in the green on white.) What about the Management Series – none of it a good admin approach?

            (Thanks for being willing to answer my questions. You inspired even more of them than usual on this thread. :-))

            1. There is good in the admin tech. But overall it’s an exercise in stripping creative, intelligent people of responsibility while on the other hand demanding that they are responsible.

    2. There is an earlier definition of scientology, coined by Dr. Anastasius Nordenholz on or before 1934 in Germany, as “The Science of the Constitution and Usefulness of Knowledge,” which definition sounds to me to be remarkably close to that of epistemology.

      That would make a scientologist something akin to a pragmatic spiritual epistemologist.

      1. Cool!

        Definition of epistemology: Knowing how to know in the fullest sense of the word, pragmatically and spiritually. More than a synonym – it’s a polyonym!

        I’m guessing there aren’t many here who would reject the beingness of an epistemologist.

        1. I think the goal with attempts at language reform such as D. David Bourne’s E-Prime is to use the gift of speech in as epistemologically precise a manner as possible. This also seems to be the goal of Hubbard’s “obnosis” concept and drill.

          1. Yes, and Vinaire’s KHTK “drill.” Like obnosis, it’s about just looking at what’s there.

            In the E-Prime article, there was a more general principle than the idea about the verb “to be”. Here’s a quote: “…a change in language can alter our perception of the cosmos. A revision of language structure, in particular, can alter the brain as dramatically as a psychedelic. In our metaphor, if we change the software, the computer operates in a new way.”

            I’ve seen programs on some of the research on altering the brain along similar lines. And I had just made a comment the other day on a previous thread, saying something similar – that language itself seems to form one’s viewpoint. That became real to me from study of a couple other languages.

            There just seem to be so many ways that thought is booby trapped. Maybe even more subtle ways than cult think or acquired beingnesses. Thanks for the link!

          2. And with KHTK drill a person may discover not just one but a series of filters that he/she was looking through… surprise after surprise…


  3. Just to be clear, by “That seems like an obvious Straw Man to me” I meant the quoted line.

      1. I know! It wouldn’t have been my choice of creatures but it might be better than some of the really goofy looking ones.

        I love yours – how did you do it?

        1. Mar-“i”-ldy, Look to Gravitar and/or create a blog in WordPress with an image of your choice for your moniker.

          I suggest something simple, understated and refined like Xena, the Warrior Princess.

          1. Ha ha! “understated and refined”

            But yes! Xena – the princess known for her formidable fighting skills used to help people… That’s just how I see my beingness! Thanks for recognizing me (and the rest of you guys too). 😀

            Hey, that moniker might even endear me to both the critics and the die-hards (Xena / Xenu). I’m already in good with the free spirits (most of them ;-)).

            Much ARC, mar-”i”-ldy (love it)

            1. Geir, the reply bars here at the end of the thread don’t seem to be working. All the replies just go to the far left.

            2. Don’t know… A theme bug perhaps. Knowing myself, there would be a theme change any day now.

            3. It will be a change of beingness. 😉

              I hope you choose one like this, where the comments are pretty well spread out across the page, wide margins instead of the narrow ones. Especially on the third tier. This is the only one of its kind that I can recall (on yours or others blogs).

  4. I find the data of Buddhism to be most accurate when it comes to “spiritual development”. Any contrivance of “self”, where you identify your fundamental awareness with ANY of the stuff of the physical universe (or with anything in any of the categories known as “dynamics” of Scientology), is non-essential. It all comes down to identification with something “out there” (or “in here” regarding the many self-created objects of the mind). Scientologists agree with MANY statements and claims of Hubbard, and adopt a false personality based on these ideas. Christians do the same. Liberals do the same. Any person who identifies with some package of qualities or views does this.

    The Scientology personality, or “ego”, is just one such example. There is no such thing as “being in harmony with” your “self”, because ANY “self” is a manufactured “thingie”. As long as one identifies one’s awareness with ANYTHING else, there will always be some degree of “out of harmony”. Out of harmony with what? When you know the answer to that you won’t have to ask.

    1. G and G, seems to me this is apples and oranges. Beingness is nothing more than “the assumption or choosing of a category of identity” according to Scn itself. In that sense it has nothing to do with fundamental awareness. Different frame of reference.

      Beingness is no more significant than something involved in a game, the physical universe game or games. I’m sure that you identify yourself with your family as a son/daughter, etc., or on the 3rd dynamic as an American/Brit…Norwegian – and so forth.

      Must we “always” spin our wheels on semantics? 😦

      1. It’s not quite this.

        Scientologist is a packaged beingness. Both in the church and in Hubbard’s writings (also according to KSW, etc.)

        And I am certainly NOT such a beingness.

        1. You are saying so many interesting things today!

          What is that packaged beingness exactly? (And I am learning some enlightening things today.)

          1. I already mentioned KSW. Then there is the whole body of ethics (especially the ethics offense list – that’s a real kicker of an implant of how to behave). Then there are the numerous places where LRH nudges you to think in a certain way – from his emotional outrages against psychiatrists on the NOTs/Solo NOTs materials to his berating of Nirvana, etc. etc.). Then there is the policy “What we expect of a scientologist” or “An open letter to all Clears” and many more.

          2. Thanks much. I’m pretty sure these are all green on white (except the NOTs references), but in any case they are basically administrative policies. “Offences and Penalties” PL actually came out in 65, same year as KSW, and later was added to by others (from what I understand).

            But I agree that these would absolutely tend to form a packaged beingness and are no doubt part of the area that needs much improvement. Again though, this isn’t the Scientology philosophy and tech that is at the CORE of Scientology, and which I think we now (or soon?) need to focus on. I don’t think you have found fault with that “core.” Or have you?

            1. Well, I did mention the NOTs materials. And I have posted earlier why I think the whole OT3-7 case is wrongly interpreted by LRH. I think that is pretty “core”.

          3. Okay, I didn’t know what bearing the references to psychs, on NOTs levels, had on the actual tech of those levels. But I trust your word on it.

            And I wasn’t remembering your post about the OT levels – got it. But now I recall another thread where you stated something fully favorable about the lower Bridge through Clear. That’s the area of tech I have personal reality on too and have not heard any convincing criticism regarding. Same thing for the basic principles of the philosophy.

            1. The data on psychs from the NOTs materials has little bearing on the procedures. It was simply an example of personality-forging included in red-on-white.

              As for basic Scientology – I have debated the lacking ingredients in the Study Tech before.

          4. Oh yeah, the study tech thread – that goes back a ways. I was just a fledgling Geir fan at the time but I recall not being convinced. 😦 For the same reason I didn’t agree recently with your criticism of Method 4 word clearing – a sup or word clearer who has good understanding of the whole gamut of study and word clearing tech doesn’t have a problem with their being fully workable.

            Actually, to be fair, I do recall you made a point about what was and wasn’t included in “the tech” – red and white (rather that a lecture or green on white). Well, once again, this is merely a matter of better organization and lay-out. And I hope I get to help on that particular project, either before or after our adventure to save the world. (I don’t mean to sound flippant today but if I am it’s your fault for reminding me about insouciance on the last one :-)).

            1. One can always “make the tech work” by adding or subtracting what’s there (as is the case with Study Tech or Method 4 ). But that is an admission that there is something lacking or something that shouldn’t be there.

          5. Not adding or subtracting, culling all the references. Anything wrong with that?

        2. Regarding psychiatrists I think Hubbard overreacted. First of all: Remember he developed Scientology and Dianetics basically in the 40’s – 60’s. Psych methods were pretty bad back then. They used lobotomy, electric shocks without sedatives, insuline shocks and very bad treatments on people, and the “security” for patients were pretty bad, meaning just one doctor was deciding if the patient was insane or not. Totally insecure system. So with that in perspective I can understand that Hubbard was “afraid” of that kind of a system. That system has changed today and is much better. Not all psychiatrist are evil.

          However, psychiatrists tend to believe in MEST as of this day so Hubbard got some interesting points. They still do not believe in the soul, at least most of them. There are some psychiatrists that actually study past lives etc, e.g. Peter Fenwick, Brian Weiss, Jim Tucker etc, so there are some psyciatrists who are very open minded (of course).

          So my viewpoint is that Hubbard has got many interesting ideas, but he exaggerated them in true american style. Psychiatrists MOST of the time (not all the time) don’t believe in spirits, studies are given up SOMETIMES because of misunderstood words, auditing works SOMETIMES for people and give interesting and great results etc. Hubbard’s misstake was to make it black and white instead of being more nuanced.

          With that in perspective it’s all about “moving frontiers”. The first draft of anything tends to be rough and the following versions are much more fine-tuned. The same for Scientology. Hubbard himself said “build a better bridge” and that is something to aim for. His ego wrote KSW and other hardcore policy letters and I’ve even heard him say “differentiate between what’s true and Hubbard’s opinions”.

          I believe more and more in dualism, meaning the two worlds of MEST and theta. Evolutionists, biologists, DNA-experts, brain-researchers etc do MEST research and know what they’re talking about. But they have forgotten about the spiritual world and that part will be more developed in the future.

      2. It is not the beingness or self that matters. It is the FIXATION on a certain beingness or self that is in question here.

        I can be a scientologist in one breath extolling certain truths in Scientology. And in the next breath, I could be an ex-scientologist slamming LRH for throwing in a curve in the subject.

        But there are people who are fixed in the beingness of a scientologist, or that of an ex-scientologist, and the inconsistency borne from that fixation is quite obvious in either case.


  5. I don’t like any labels either, as these lables tend to difine one.

    I am simply an observer looking and observing what is there. I love knowledge and I love to simplify knowledge.

    Scientology has been a chapter in my life, and I have learned a lot from it.


  6. Geir, I couldn’t agree with you more. 🙂

    I got to the same point as you on the Bridge and like you I too am focused on results rather than certain methodologies. There are many amazing spiritual technologies out there really worth discovering. I am looking forward to reading more about your journey. You are a very interesting being my friend 🙂


  7. Any definition of beingness is a limitation of beingness:

    Origin of “define”:

    “Middle English, from Latin definire, from de- + finire to limit, end, from finis boundary, end”

    1. Unwillingness to assume a beingness could be a self imposed limitation.

      My current self defined status is unlabeled (which in itself is a beingness lol) – but I am more than willing to be a wog.

      Thank you for creating these thought provoking posts.

      I have now realized that I do have a ridge on the “WE” in “We of the church believe” and cringe to remember how I would stand on cue to give Ron’s bust a standing ovation. I was part of the “WE” back then.

      I agree with Gadfly who said, “There is no such thing as “being in harmony with” your “self”, because ANY “self” is a manufactured “thingie”

      And yet, there can be no evolution of beingness unless we, each separately and individually, make choices freely within this subset universe we call “the physical”

      Our choices are greatly limited by the constraints of the universe and by the intents of others.

      Being “human” has limitations.

      1. Good post Martin.

        This balancing act of “beingnesses” reminds me of that old song “Hokey-Pokey” — You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out, you put your right foot in and you shake it all about . . .”

        You are in, you are out. How much to be in? How much to be out? Finding balance – the ultimate and so far life-long “Anti-Gravity Game.” To be balanced and to be oneself as oneself without an inordinate amount of identifications — aahhhhh!

        1. What with all the sadness and trauma going on in the world at the moment, it is worth reflecting on the almost unnoticed death of a very important person.

          Larry La Prise, the man who wrote “The Hokey Pokey”, died peacefully at home on January 2, 1996. He was 93.

          The most traumatic part for his family was getting him into the coffin.

          They put his left leg in … and then the trouble started.

          Sorry, I couldn’t resist.

      2. “Being “human” has limitations”

        Good summation of your post. As long as we are human there’s no getting around having beingnesses. And they are perforce limiting.

        You also reminded me of a definition of intention: “degree of relative beingness which an individual desires to assume as plotted on the tone scale.” From that it seems that tone level has a direct bearing on beingness.

        And there’s another idea on this subject that escapes me, having to do with “the number of viewpoints” one can assume…

  8. Although I feel the Scientology is a workable technology, I no longer define myself as a Scientologist either. I am me, whole and wonderful, searching for truth wherever I can find it.

  9. Welcome to the real NOTs, Geir. 🙂 I am NOT a Scientologist, too, although still a recovering scientologist in many respects, and as you say a work in progress – it good work, this “Running out Hubbard” and “False Hubbard Stripping”.

  10. “I am not a Scientologist” is also “defining.”

    Philosophical opinions may have a wave function which collapses toward solidity when ink is put to paper, or mouth is opened, or when blog is typed.

    Yet personal opinion for me remain the most fluid, the most changeable aspect of the physical universe. As one continuously collapses the wave functions, maybe in layers and over time, the opinions seem to become more substantial and less changeable – thus more valuable?

    Maybe the urge to define and to defend is wound in here somewhere.

    1. It would be hard to argue that “being NOT a scientologist” is as limiting as “being a scientologist”. There are degrees of definitions. I am moving one step further toward less defining of my beingness.

      1. IMO when one says without emotions or tensions that he is not a Scientologist and when this is a fact, than it is not limiting at all:)

        Anyway, very good post.

      1. But I laughed at Pascal’s addressing you. I’ve got a habit of inventing nicknames like that — of course not everyone likes it. So at least there I see a value in Pascal’s post. 😉

      1. Was that a pun on the first part of his post? LOL!

        (I’m really being off-color today, I know. :-D)

  11. On numerous occasions (while in the church) I would hear someone say something along the line of, “LRH say that being a Republican or adopting an ideology more to the right is more in keeping with being a Scientologist,”

    What? Hmmmm. So that means that being a Scientologist would include that idea as part of the package – “Scientologists are more conservative.”, etc. All these ideologies or beingnesses are plotted on the tone scale. It’s more uptone, supposedly, to be a Republican. So, many Scientologists go out of their way to make sure that they have a certain attitude about homosexuality, that they view politics a certain way, they finish cycles of action so no one thinks they’re SPs (lol), blah, blah, blah…..It’s confining.

    1. The Political Correctness of scientologists.

      I’m so glad I never associated much at all with the Church!

      But then again, if I had, I might have done a lot more of the Bridge….


      Am I living an “I just can’t win” lifetime?

  12. Cool!

    I’m not fond of labeling and fixed categories. We’re free to take whatever beingness whenever we choose to.

    There’s one LRH datum I consider senior: “Look, don’t listen.” Isn’t that what it all boils down to?

    My Scientology journey has been quite interesting as with other spiritual paths I’ve travelled. I’ve had major key outs and realizations in mediation, yoga and Buddhism as well. These key outs were different than those in Scientology because they in a way felt freer i.e. no thought stopping, mental grinding or analyzing involved – and I could share my wins without reservations – like you say “no filters”. And you don’t have to go to the examiner afterward to verify your wins and think about “let me out of here” or pleasure moments just to get an F/N as only persistent F/Ns are accepted nowadays.

    Scientology (at least the edition delivered in the church) is the perfect theta trap where you continue to spin in the hamster wheel until you wake up hopefully sooner than later.

    What kept me there…
    The last string I held on to in the church was that I felt that not only mine but everyone’s eternity was at stake. I was indoctrinated that there were only squirrels that practiced outside the organization and its branches. So I started to cope with all the out points that just became worse and worse over the years. I think many have the same concept and thus the attacks on critics were justified.

    When I discovered that highly trained ex-members were delivering the tech standardly outside I could cut that final string. Wake up guys you can have it all outside (Class XIIs trained by LRH, the L’s, OT levels, auditor training, you name it!). Now funny enough I don’t have any must-have on the subject at all.

    There are so many exciting journeys out there one can take that will bring more happiness than ever imagined. Possibilities are endless. When you start to think that there is only one solution, one hope, knowledge and truth being monopolized and all the money is controlled by bankers you have to reconsider your way of thinking ‘cause there goes your creativity – there goes YOU.

    I would like to quote a man of integrity, Jason Beghe: “The further you move up the bridge the more Scientologist you become and less yourself you become.” I find that to be very true too.

    Chillin’ 😉

    1. “And you don’t have to go to the examiner afterward to verify your wins and think about “let me out of here” or pleasure moments just to get an F/N as only persistent F/Ns are accepted nowadays.”

      This is exactly the reason there can’t be authentic OT levels:)

      How could anyone go to the examiner when he has no bank anymore?;) Think. 😀

      “I have no reactive mind.”
      “Thank you, your needle is floating.”

        1. I wanted to say basically, how could you evaluate with tools if the person get rid of his bank or reached a “level” after this state from a perspective of the physical universe, with physical devices something which exists beyond that dimension? Maybe if the result would be telekinesis or such. But you can’t measure something which exists beyond this illusion or call it the solid MEST.

  13. “I focus on results, not methodologies. I will use the tools that gives the best results in any given situation.”
    So, here we go. You Are a Scientologist:D

      1. I think one must not chase results. Sometimes “results” come in a different way. Sometimes something does not turn out to be good but in the final turn that leads to the result. It’s good if one finds a good balance in this. IMO.

        1. One may say that one is following a methodology when one is adhering to the eight-fold path recommended by Buddha. One is then not concentrating on results, but is accepting of whatever results may accrue. But in this case the methodology itself is very flexible. Nobody is trying to monitor you and asking you that you adhere to exact procedures without deviation. Nobody is going to demean you by calling you a squirrel if you deviate because of necessity. It is your own integrity that guides you and keeps you on a path that is most optimum to you within certain boundaries.

          Freedom, as a result, is an extremely broad phenomenon. In fact, freedom cannot be defined.


  14. Well said Geir!

    I am not a Scientologist as well.

    When I left the CoS in early 2008, it was a very confusing time for me. I realised that I had been lied to and conned and much of what I had ‘learned’ while a member of the CoS was false. I didn’t know what to believe and what to throw away.

    I resolved this dilemma by deciding to look at all my ‘stable data’ in a new light and labelling everything as suspect until proven to be correct beyond any reasonable doubt. I would never again take anything as being true just because someone told that it was. I would always look for evidence and make up my own mind.

    Defending what one has identified with isn’t unique to Scientology. This tribal mentality is as old as mankind and is probably a fundamental part of being human. But, doing this compulsively even when has doubts or even knows that one’s ‘tribe’ is wrong, is I believe, a characteristic of a cult. They cannot bear to be wrong. Or perhaps they cannot admit to being wrong because they know that their house is built on weak foundations and if they admit a weakness, the whole house of cards might come tumbling down.

    If Scientologist truly were so rational and powerful and filled with the ‘serenity of beingness’ (whatever that might be), and confident in their beliefs, then they wouldn’t be afraid to admit that they were wrong or even to listen to another’s point of view. The fact that so many rage against anyone disagreeing with them – and usually the worst offenders are those who are furthest up the Bridge – shows that the CoS is not delivering what Scientology promises.

    And one more thing while I’m here – I said that I’m not a Scientologist, but I reserve the right to use any part of the ‘Tech’ that I think is useful. And any other tech that I feel is appropriate.

    Not quite sure how I might benefit from playing with Lego though…


    1. “And one more thing while I’m here – I said that I’m not a Scientologist, but I reserve the right to use any part of the ‘Tech’ that I think is useful. And any other tech that I feel is appropriate.”

      Well said.

      “Not quite sure how I might benefit from playing with Lego though… ”

      When we meet, I can show you.

      1. Well I suppose you can build things with it. Thus, it could be looked upon as being a sort of ‘creation process’?

        And come to think of it, I did sometimes get something out of doing clay demos.

        So OK, I’ll concede that ‘playing with lego’ could be a valuable technology for increasing one’s ability to confront the physical universe / look at problems from a different angle / bring together the physical and the spiritual into a cohesive paradigm of metaphysical co-realities / stop from getting bored.

        I think we are on to something here!

        I’m off to patent this new therapy. I will of course give you a credit for your small contribution…


        1. Yes. The cult of individuality differs from the cult of self to the degree one’s concept of individuality differs from the concept of self. I think that the concept of individuality goes much deeper. It serves as a common denominator of all selves.


          1. I’m striving for rugged individualism. The Buddhist nightmare.

            (teasing you)

          2. Oh! be as much of an individual as you like. I love it. But don’t get fixated on it.

            Buddha was very much of an individual, when he had to be one.


          3. Well, I am simply extrapolating from what I understand of his philosophy of the Middle Way. I wasn’t there when he was… or was I, and you, and Geir? 😉

            I am just letting my imagination get away from me.


          4. “I am just letting my imagination get away from me.”

            That’s the way you roll.


  15. Geir once said, “When one does not feel the urge to either criticize or defend a subject or idea, then one retains one’s freedom in that area.“

    Welcome to freedom/graduation from being a Scientologist. 😉

  16. Playing devil’s advocate here, Geir; by the same logic you are not a norwegian. 🙂

    Any label, be it scientologist or norwegian or quark or whatever, is only a shorthand and innately inaccurate way of describing an approximate set of ideas or conditions considered in some fashion as definitive to others.

    Whether a person is a scientologist or not, whether he is a norwegian or not, it is the “BEING an xxxx” that prevents one from being himself. One is. Labels, and alike considerations have no part in one’s existence except as limiters.

    Still, glad you’ve got that sorted out for yourself. Congrats.

      1. I saw them. I don’t see us as being in disagreement. 😉

        Just adding my 2p.

        Best Always,

  17. A mathematician is good and perhaps professional at mathematics. But nobody would say that he is more mathematican than human.

    Same goes for Scientology. I am a spirit. I have a body and a mind. I have practiced Scientology. I am not a Scientologist. There is no such thing, actually. We were not born of Scientology. It does not create beings. Beings created Scientology. Scientology is us, if anything.

    I once told the registrar “The minute I decide that I MUST have this next service, I’ve just trapped myself.” I can and will live forever, regardless of Scientology. I might use it sometimes. I might not.

    Tom Cruise IS a Scientologist!!! 🙂

    1. Well said. Must-have equals entrapment.

      A high rank sea org member once told me that Tom is actually a sea org member and his post is being Tom Cruise. 

      That says it all. 

      1. OT22 – I find this believable. In 1985, Jeff Pomerantz, a moderately successful Hollywood actor said a similar thing about himself at the “Religious Freedom Crusade” in Portland.

      1. Tom Cruise is a wog. So true Valkov.

        He is the ultimate wog and he doesn’t even realize it.

  18. “We are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is.” – Dr. Mark Vonnegut, M.D.

    (From a letter to his son, the great writer Curt Vonnegut.)

    Geir Isene, you are getting people through this thing, whatever it is.

  19. NOOOOO!!!!

    You can’t leave! Don’t do it!!

    Call the cops!! Unleash the dogs!! Sound the alarms!!

    Geir’s trying to ESCAPE!!

  20. Are the NOTS/SoloNOTS materials available online? Specifically the mentions of psychiatrists is of great interest to me because I worked in the psych hospitals of a “leading midwestern university for about 13years and have seen dozens of psychiatric residents (would-be psychiatrists) pass through, as well as getting acquainted with senior staff psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers.

    On the other hand, I have read and heard some of Hubbard’s references to “psychs”, particularly on the whole track.

    So far, my take on what LRH meant by a “psych” is not clear, but it appears to be someone much like David Miscavige, because LRH referred to “psychs” as being “implanters”. LRHsaid in at least one lecture that the himself had done a stint on the track as a “psych”, which he equated with “implanter”.

    However, I got the impression that a David Miscavige, or a Stalin, or a Hitler or any of that ilk are more likely to be the products of an implanter, rather than the original genuine article. This is speculation. Implanters wouldbe, as I see it, a specialized group of beings on the track. Very specialized, like engineers, administrators, artists, etc are specialized.

    What I’m getting around to is that simply having a certificate as an MD Psychiatrist from a medical school does not necessarily equate to that person being a “psych” as LRH meant the term. I think he had some very specific characteristics in mind. Thus the folks who designed the North Korean”brainwashing ” programs were no doubt “psychs” in the LRH sense, even if they did not have any psychiatric degrees from any accredited medical school.

    This means not every licensed psychiatrist is automatically a “psych” in the LRH sense, although he did generalize it that way at times it seems.

    The theory that all psychiatrists are automatically “psychs” in the LRH sense is easily falsified, because I know of at least 3 psychiatrists who were associated positively with scientology in various ways – Thomas Szasz, EricBerne, and Peter Breggin. And there are more. The sparkplugs of the socalled “anti-psychiatry” reform movement were all themselves psychiatrists and critics of the field from with in it. Google “antipsychiatry” for much info on this. Here is a sample:

    “Anti-psychiatry is a configuration of groups and theoretical constructs that emerged in the 1960s, and questioned the fundamental assumptions and practices of psychiatry, such as its claim that it achieves universal, scientific objectivity. Its igniting influences were Michel Foucault, R.D. Laing, Thomas Szasz and, in Italy, Franco Basaglia. The term was first used by the psychiatrist David Cooper in 1967.”


    Clearly, not all “psychiatrists” are “psychs”, and LRH himself learned something of psychoanalysis from Commander “Snake” Thompson, a US Navy medical doctor(surgeon) who had also studied psychoanalysis. LRH spoke highly of him. Now admittedly, he was not technically a psychiatrist as such, but was a doctor and knew psychoanalysis.


    So the question remains, what did LRH mean by “psychs”, or even “psychiatrists”. I am trying to put together a complete picture.

    So if someone could point me to his NOTS material diatribes against “psychiatrists”, I would appreciate it. By the way, based on my 13+ years this life experience working with psychiatrists and seeing as well as meeting many of their “products” over the following years, I have zero kind or positive feelings about them. All I will say is that not all of them are SPs. But over all it is a very low-toned and degraded “profession”.

  21. The most important thing is that you ARE a work in progress, always looking, always moving closer to truth. As a scientologist, especially in the church, you are usually not free to be a work in progress, or to look. The only acceptable truths are LRH’s truths. I first came upon this idea of not being a scientologist, but using the tech that works, through my daughter. Although she has gotten good gains from auditing, she has steadfastly refused to be labeled a scientologist. I realized that it was right and ceased to think of myself in those terms, as well. I now use whatever I think will help the most, whatever the source. It is amazing that, once upon a time, I allowed myself to believe that that was wrong and that I had to use whatever LRH said, no matter what. Wow!

    Thank you, Geir, for your many fascinating posts.

  22. When the Pharisses asked Christ, “Who are you”

    He replied, “I am that I am”

    I am. I exist. I can assume a viewpoint.

    The misduplication that has ruined the subject of Scientology is epic to say the least.

    Thank you Geir. Thank you for being. Thank you for communicating.

  23. Actually, I have to say I’m not a scientologist either. I’m a Hubbardian, meaning I find parts of Hubbards writing extremely interesting and useful and to sum up, probably the most interesting stuff that has came up so far, but I cannot sign for the “whole package” and support every part of it, especially not after seeing the results. So I advocate a more scientific approach where the useful parts will be pushed forward and also scientifically proven.

    Some of the things are really interesting but needs more studies. Why should Scientology have a “special lane” compared to all other teachings? There are no special lanes to me. I treat everything equally. There’s truth to everything: Darwinism, Einsteinism, Hawkingism, Hubbardism etc. It should be cherry-picked. But, the truth is the truth and it cannot be argued with. The earth is round and we have a reactive mind or we do not, etc.

    Perhaps Hubbard just tried to “try” us? Giving away some truth but not all of it, we all want a game, right?

    I feel that Hubbard may have written down some “ideal ideas” that might sound very good and of the sort “I wish it was true and it sounds very good”, but is it true? I don’t know. More independent research please. I want more of the “randomized double blind experiments with placebo”, even for Scientology. There’s obviously some truth to Scientology, but how much? And how lasting are the results?

    By the way, have you done all the L’s? How do you feel about the “full perception full exterior” idea?

    1. No, I have only done L11 + Expanded so far. As for “full perception full exterior”; Sure – should be fully doable. But I don’t see that result in Scientology.

  24. Authoritarian people and groups are CERTAIN they possess the truth, but actually, their “truth” possesses them.

    For Scientologists, the problem arises when they become certain that Scientology is some sort of absolute truth, only then they become fixed and enslaved by it.
    No need to think or decide by themselves now because all the questions are already answered.

    Hubbard´s placement of Scientology as The Science of CERTAINTY, and of himself as source, didn´t help much to avoid this problem, even though he also explained the dangers of this elsewhere.

    I´d venture Buddha went a step ahead of Hubbard when he said ” If you find the Buddha, kill him”

    1. I have met a few scientologists who say “yes, it is important to think for one selves, just like Hubbard says, and really evaluate the data and see if it is true for you” while they later reaveal “but I ensure you, what Hubbard wrote IS all true… and if you don’t think so, there’s something wrong about you”.

      1. Yeah, I used to think exactly like that.

        I´m fascinated by this thought:

        Apparently, a consideration can override free will.

        How can this be possible?
        A smaller system is eating up a bigger one?I
        A creation becoming the owner of its creator?

        Seems it goes beyond logic but, there is something I´m missing there. I´ll work on it this weekend…….

        1. Rafael, here’s a thought. Assuming you would agree that a consideration is “a continuing postulate” then the question would be, did the person originate that postulate or adopt someone else’s? In either case I would call it basically free will but the next question would be, how did that decision (postulate) come about? Blind acceptance or the other end of the spectrum – a conclusion (postulate) stemming from Look or even the highest level of Know? Or something in between.

          1. On the subject of counter-postulates I remembered this in FOT:

            “For example, a man has a bad leg. He is trying to get well. He seeks then to create a good leg. He goes to doctors and wants to be healed. The treatment is difficult, and usually somewhat unsuccessful, in the case of a severely crippled leg. SOMETHING is creating a bad leg. Against this HE is creating a good leg. The result is confusion and a bad leg. But a THIRD creativeness is present. First something was creating, we hope, a good leg. Then a counter-creation (such as an accident to his leg) counter-created a bad leg. Now he is trying to counter-create again a good leg. The result is to wipe out the original good leg since that is the creation he is taking over and exposing with his efforts to get well.”

            This could probably be used as an analogy for all the different experiences with Scn, one way or another. What do you think?

          2. Yeah I also think they are related., that is as far as I can go thinking, now I want to just look without thinking hoping to get further ahead
            I’m guessing there might be something more to it …..

          3. Yeah I also think they are related., that is as far as I can go thinking, now I want to just look without thinking hoping to get further ahead
            I’m guessing there might be something more to it …..

            Sounds like you want to go up from Look to Know – and just pervade the area. Anyway, whatever it is, I hope you will want to share the “wealth” 🙂

          4. The effort should be simply to see what is there without any preconceived notions. That simple action is very liberating.


          5. Vin, that’s what I meant too – Look. And Know is really “nice work if you can get it” (Gershwin).

          6. Thank you for the pleasure moment!

            (That’s a beingness I could willingly get stuck into – romance, song and dance.)

      2. Once I heard a teacher from a Scientology school talking about how they teach the kids to think critically and examine every piece of information before believing it. She went on to say that this did not apply to Hubbard’s data because you learn very quickly that it is true. I was speechless.

  25. I like the idea of living without labels. We are so conditioned to do so for all sorts of things, like our race, nationality, religion, polictical view, home town, sports teams, etc. It has been the source of many of man’s wars, violence and misery. So where do you draw the line? Are some more important to shed than others or are you being hypocritical by stating you are no longer such and such but still retain other labels? I see this could get very convoluted quickly and frankly I am not too smart to keep this all straight in my head.

    1. I see some beingnesses as more important to shed than others. Being a Scientologist was on the top of the list.

    2. The bottom line is that all labels are constructed. None of the labels is inherent. Just maintaining this awareness may help.

      People simply get fixated on labels. That is where the problem arises. There is nothing wrong to have a label. But know that it is a construction and not something inherent.


  26. Geir,
    You once asked me in an e-mail about 22 months ago, “where do you see yourself two years from now”.
    I couldn’t give you an answer then.
    My answer would have been “FREE”.
    I decided to be free from judgement. As such I just observed and when asked if I have an opinion about anything whatsoever I simply say “no”. I don’t express my inner thoughts. And I feel and know I am completely FREE.
    Glad to see you are FREE from attaching yourself to any identity other than yourself.

  27. know what you mean. I haven’t felt comfortable calling myself a scientologist for years, or even discussing the subject, due to mostly the horrific PR.
    Ironically, I can discuss it easier now than ever before because I am not feeling compelled to try to explain it or, as my friend Craig said, “stick a flag in one’s metal territory and defend”!

  28. I thought this reply (on a mailing list) to my post here was to funny not to be shared:

    Well,where do you think you  got all your miraculous think from you little prick!

    My answer was this:

    My think was as miraculous in several areas prior to Scientology. Some areas were in fact dimmed by my involvement in Scientology. In other areas my think was improved. All in all my guess is that it was enhanced, but who knows… maybe it would have been even more enhanced if I got involved in other subjects, maybe not.

    Conclusion; My miraculous think came from me. And that is what I am on a quest to return to.

  29. You were always too smart, Geir.

    Once you were out of the Church’s control, it was always very clear to me, watching you, that this was only going to be a matter of time. Your native values and the clear principles you expressed made this day inevitable.

    Left on their own, and given the freedom, and the information, and the time to work out things on their own, almost every person graduates from Scientology. Very very few stay Scientologists all their lives if they have those elements.

    Congratulations, G.

    Not only have you come out, but you have helped, and are helping others, graduate by providing the elements above, as well.

    Way to go.


  30. Geir, can I just say I am deeply impressed by your journey over the past years (and by that pocket calculator from hell), you glorious viking 🙂


  31. just wanted to make a short note: i don’t think it’s your friend that is right (or wrong) as i think we beings are beyond those dual qualifications. it is the thought that is right… for you, right here and right now. and glad it is so!

  32. If you ask me, SCNist is a HAT, has nothing to do with beingness. Sadly I realized three or four years ago that I canged my attitude,behavior and beingness to being a “political correct SCNist”. The devil knows why………….nobody told me to do so…………..

  33. I have with interest been following Geir’s blog these past months.

    Not BECAUSE he left CoS, and not because he did it kind of publicly, more because it all caught my attention because I realized I knew him, OK kind of knew might be more appropriate but not significant.

    I do not really “follow” all the argumentation around CoS and Scienthology, but what the heck, it’s not my field, but I read some of it trying to “see” what it’s about. OK, Geir has obviously gained from being there so it must have SOMETHING. However, some of the more “hair-splitting”-discussion smells a bit of politics and reminds me as well of the famous stories about how the catholic church were discussing (during the middle-age) how many angels could be found on a pinhead.

    Geir and I also have a common aquaintance (neither a CoS member as far as I know) who’s always been speaking very highly of Geir and told me he’d had to take a lot of heat for actually being friend of this Scientologist (in some “environments” in Norway, CoS is in no way “bona fide”, not AT ALL).

    Anyway, I read his argumentation for leaving, I saw this TV-shot, and thought that : “Wow , this guy believes in what he’s doing and he has been believing in what he had been doing”:
    That’s more than enough for me for considering somebody credible and having integrity.

    However, having walked a similar walk as Geir some years before, it kind of interested me as to see if I could recognize anything in process forward. Please let me here say that I am NOT saying “Hey, I knew” or “I saw this coming”, because NO I DID NOT either know or see for sure. Myself I “walked into” christianity, but after some years I walked out again.

    I’ve been trying to see if there were parallells between Geir’s walk and mine. … and, It seems to me there.

    Me I started kind of questioning people and practices, especially in and by seniority, feeling some of them being outright immoral. Then there was a this process of deciding how important this was and if enough for rethinking my views. I short, they were, and I did.

    But I tried to keep my faith. It seems to me though that it’s easier be outside the christian church still claiming you are a christian than being outside CoS claiming you’re a scientist.
    This MAY have to do with the age and the powers of the respective churches !

    In the end I had to realize I wasn’t a christian and I couldn’t believe. What I’ve been thinking through later is how painful THIS was. Yes, loosing faith WAS painful for me.

    For me it was kind of like when you realize that some person has backstabbed you or whatever and thus you can’t trust this person. I felt cheated in a way.

    All in all, not to make this post toooo long, I’ve been following Geir’s blog and enjoyed his growing, changing, whatever you call it, leading to him making arts and music etc. NICE !!!
    Really NICE

    … but I’ve also trying to see “through” his posts, to see if he’d express any of the same pain I felt at times: I think it’s there, but surely I cannot KNOW.

    Also what seems to be in all these different experiences being expressed by him, me and all the others in this blog is that when you turn your back on “the rest of the world”, THEN you’re on the wrong way.

    Oh, yes there are situations and sucjects where you get convinced that you’re right and they’re wrong, as one said “A small certainty is better than a big lie”, but that’s something else.

    I think it’s when someone believe they are managing the one, the whole and the ONLY truth, and act accordingly, being it a person or a group of people, then there’s trouble ahead.

    1. Good post Tor,

      Speaking for myself only, I can tell you that I am indeed going through the process of which you speak. Yes, painful. On the other side of each trial is a reward of renewed confidence that the journey that you travel is the correct path for you. Just keep putting one foot in front of the other. Be your own counsellor and take your own advice.


  34. I’ve just read this whole thread again. It’s a great discussion.

    And now I’m going to ask a question:

    If someone you knew expressed the same goals and desires as you had when you first got involved in Scientology, would you recommend Scientology to them?

    1. Yes. I would also recommend Buddhism, Hinduism, Quantum Mechanics, Psychology, Mathematics, History and Hugology. A fair balance I would prescribe.

    2. Your excellent question was restimulative to me in an unexpected way. It exploited my tenderness on the subject of digging around the path and in the field of knowledge.

      Would I recommend Scientology? A month ago, a decades long Scientology friend of mine disconnected at the insistence of the Church of Scientology. And just this week, the Church of Scientology dug out my residence address by my utility bill and send promotional literature to an address where I receive no mail whatsoever. “No,” I do not recommend this cult at all and actually feel that it should be harmed and destroyed. The problems with the mental technology are not well illuminated. We’ve discussed this quite a bit on this blog and many good ideas thrown about but no particular agreement has been reached other than that the methods of tampering with one’s mind are powerful. Until the reasons why a technology which dubiously began as a self-help book was then developed into a large worldwide cult, and which then degenerated into the fiasco that you can see unraveling today, I cannot in good conscience and won’t recommend it to others.

      Secondly, whether I would or wouldn’t “recommend” Scientology to others is irrelevant. I would want others to know what I know and more, but a person’s path to knowledge is his own. Where he chooses to place his feet must be his own choice.

  35. Since I am rather lazy, I decided to pick out some of the things I agree with, so copied some your text. Forgive me. 🙂

    “The quest includes a critical look at my own fixed ideas, my own urges to attack or defend. And all of them have to go. I am a work in progress.”

    “I focus on results, not methodologies. I will use the tools that gives the best results in any given situation. Be it auditing, meditation, yoga, Tai Chi, TRs, playing with Lego or just giving someone a hug.”

    “Shedding identities is a Good Thing”

    ““using Scn technology” is a limiting factor in one’s freedom.”

    “(especially the ethics offense list – that’s a real kicker of an implant of how to behave)”

    “I reserve the right to use any part of the ‘Tech’ that I think is useful. And any other tech that I feel is appropriate.””

    My newest remark where appropriate/needed is that “I’ve had some experience with or studied some ” or “have some background in scientology”

  36. What about this:

    If this is about recommending Scientology or not, I think of the Hubbardian style like something in the middle of anyone and everything. If we could study objectively the Ron Hubbard person, we could find his motivations and personal goals. Then contrast him with his researches, his philosophy, his results and every-thing he did. i.e. he went on war more or less closer and saw the militarized mental technology of that age, he saw psichiatry’s flaws (I would say, exactly, militar psichiatry), he saw flaws on a authoritarian and established system that didn’t work, and continuously saw flaws in everything, we could say “social establishment”. That was injustice. He also had a militarized childhood, so he knew the conditions for leadership since young. What about now? We have a person who saw and sees flaws on a some militarized institution with authoritarian mental technology. We see injustice, just like Hubbard on his own age. The history repeat itself? Aren’t we all Hubbard?

    So, I recommend to objectively study the Hubbard person and Hubbardian thoughts. If you could do that on and with Scientology, go ahead. If it doesn’t, I would not reccomend Scientology to you. It’s up to you.


    1. Petteko: – Now we are talking! 😀

      Chris: Good post. Funny! In the example of this dramatization, do you find that you have any success with getting the questioner to look to their own mind for their own meaning to their own questions?

      1. In the very example of the dramatization, the questioner always gets confused directly proportional to its prejudices and preconcepts. The joke breaks the interrogation as well as anybody could ask, after answering properly the first question, “Why you ask?” and then they will be talking. 😀

        I guess its more like applying maieutics or some socratic method more than giving a no-answer or just mocking on the questioner. If you could drive the questioner into the maieutics properly, then it will be a success. If you fail, there are plenty of avoidance techniques like on the TRs: “Oh, look, there’s a fly over there… I got to go. BYE! ”

        I have a friend who labels himself as “ignosticist” (or igtheist) when he is on dialectic with theist and deist people, as they ask him more about what they think he believes or not, then he makes them going mad with his “ignosticist tricky questions”. I think that’s funny.


  37. Interesting premise to this article. And it is true in the way that “I am not a burrito” is also true, especially in terms of things posted to the internet. I say this only partly tongue in cheek.

  38. Wow.. this thread just shows me how WORDS are personal lables for things….
    And that it takes up lots of Mind, TIme, Focus… for what?
    Anyone KNOWS what they express and what their words mean…. a listener can twist it around in his own mind – and intellectualize it – and that might be INTELLIGENCE… but never WISDOM!
    Wow…. how tireing and “noisy” to much intellectualizing can be…
    PEACE MÁN! – that goes to Volkan…. How wonderful words are when a mind displays it – and there is just ROOM and ACCEPTANCE for it – instead of pushing the botton on the analitical mind and…. having all that useless spin start spinning….
    I just cant see the point…. What about SILENCE and just BEING…?
    What about .. ACCEPTANCE…. for what Geir means to pass through with… instead of taking each word and analize it to death…. That I believe have to be a reaccon based on survival… The analitical mind afraid of loosing control….
    Again… Peace of mind… stillness without such jumping reactivity…. and let what Geir expresses here sink in… and let it grow…. I found it so interesting that it seem like a waist not giving it that possibility… because it is not Blah blah… it comes from a truth that is interesting…. the whole of it…. if not picking it to pieces and “arresting” each word….
    My honour to a very patient Geir that obviously do not go “reactive” by that….
    I might a little… (o;=

  39. Ps. In my mind this is as simple as…. As he WAS (concidered himself) a Scientologist, which most probably describes his relationship to the org., church and system… and that CHANGED – well,
    The only way to change the description of BEING A SCIENTOLOGIST, is to describe one self to NOT be.
    Anyway, It is only words… Geir is Geir… but a more awaken and evolved Geir by the experienced and awakening that it does to ones consciousness…
    We evolve… we change… all the time… every cell in our body…
    Words tends to have the shape of Status Quo… the preprogrammed meanings of them in our minds are stuck… they belong to the past….
    – and the only way to be free from that – is silence… acceptance for what IS – not the analazis of it… (o;=

  40. My personal opinion: I think you have limited yourself into the limited frame of identity and then you have seen the consequences. I think that I am not any identity (I am not a label). I think that I am “Just Me” and I can create an identity (label) for myself if I decide to do so. Therefore, I think that I am not specificaly any creation I create (including the identity). I think that If I identify with my identity, I am also identifying with my creation. And it is the limitation of my potential, it is the declination of my freedom. And I think that I can use the best of my will and unlimited potential when I am not identifying with anything and anybody. I am “Just Me” and it is not my identity, it is Me. But I am also free to create anything, including any identity for me. But only when I am “Just Me”.

Leave a Reply to aestheticrandomity Cancel reply

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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s