On L. Ron Hubbard’s Administrative Technology

When I posted a link to my latest blog post (“Why do we struggle“) on a independent Scientology mailing list, one of the readers responded to this paragraph:

Never mind that there is not one single example where LRH admin tech has made it as good or better than comparable organizational methodologies. But in the minds of those who blindly accepted the data presented, LRH admin tech is still the greatest. Even as Hubbard himself so rightly points out that one should look for the real results, not the PR or the smooth talk or the words, scientologists continue to buy the PR hook, line and sinker.

… with this:

There are two areas where LRH admin tech worked. First The growth of the missions. Their job was to sell intangibles, and high priced intangibles at that. And they succeeded, and expanded. They in fact became more successful than the Orgs.

This got me thinking… And then I realized that this only validates the thesis that LRH Admin Tech does not work. In fact, the more you use it, the more an organization will fail. At the very top, we find perhaps the most failing of all Scientology organizations, the RTC (Religious Technology Center) headed by David Miscavige. RTC is the most adamant and insistent on the application of every aspect of LRH Admin Tech to the letter. To the dot. Below that, another failing organization, the Scientology Executive Strata. Just read the many descriptions from people who worked there for years and you will see how much of a failure those organizations are and have been.

As we move down the hierarchy, the autism regarding following LRH policies to the last comma and period slowly dwindles, but it isn’t until you get to some rogue mission that you find something resembling normal success rate compared to other areas of society.

And when you look at missions back in the 60’s and 70’s when there was less LRH Admin Tech in existence, then you find some good cowboy successes. Running as they wanted and in the face of pressure from the above. They succeeded despite the LRH Admin Tech and not because of it.

So my answer to my fellow mailing list member read like this:

Come to think of it, the missions growing in the early days are the perfect example of LRH Admin Tech being a failure. Because it supplies the gradient scale of: The more you use LRH Admin Tech, the more you will fail… All the way from the top (RTC) and the way out to the missions and even further out to the missions back when there was less Admin Tech in existence and even further out to organizations that have no knowledge of the Admin Tech at all. The gradient scale is there.

As a whole, LRH Admin Tech is a failure. At best it is simply out-dated. But in general I see it creating over-bureaucratic machines turning individual intelligence, responsibility and creativity into robotism. The early Scientology missions managed to retain their integrity and creativity. When the management finally stomped it out, the missions were suffocated.

The person on the mailing list also added this:

The other area where LRH admin tech worked was in Evaluation. At least it did sometime.

I have seen no real evidence where LRH evaluation tech as a whole body of knowledge has outwitted other comparable tech or common sense. I would like to hear about cases where it was used and the results were clearly and unquestionably above the norm.

All of this is not to say that there are no merits to LRH admin tech. There are pieces of that technology I have seen work and that I continue to use; Like:

  • how to evaluating people in a recruitment process (look for earlier proven results rather than personality)
  • “look, don’t listen” (a manager should look for real results rather than only listening to what someone says)
  • several issues on courage and purpose that does wonders in raising morale (as can be seen in the church as people go to great lengths to follow orders beyond their own good judgment – so use the issues with care)
  • LRH was perhaps the first to conceive the whole organizational board as a process. This is a stroke of genius although I do not agree with it being done that way.
  • policies on how to cut down internal “noise” and unproductivity in an organization
  • policies on how to evaluate results and statistics (use with care as it is presented somewhat simplistic)
  • policies on how to make production flow (parallels the concepts in Lean but should be used with caution in an organization where creativity is important)
  • the Admin Scale
  • … and more; I recommend reading the LRH books on administration if only for tips on how to handle certain situations, but not for wholesale usage

There is an organization called WISE (World Institute of Scientology Enterprises) who’s mission is to spread the use of LRH Admin Tech in enterprises and in governments and through that recruit scientologists for the church. Again – Use with caution.

372 thoughts on “On L. Ron Hubbard’s Administrative Technology

  1. What are the odds of WISE CO having a dartboard with a picture of Geir Isene as the bullseye?

    Methinks better than average

    1. Hey Brian –

      I read your write up on Marty’s blog this morning. It was excellent. I experienced the same thing 10 years ago. I know how excruciating it is to be wrestling with these things.

      Keep reading, keep studying. I’ve found that the subject of social psychology has just about everything you need in it to understand what Scientology is all about.

      Good luck.

      Alanzo

      1. Yes- there are lots of great systems of thought out there. Scientology, far from perfect, has lots to offer. Thx for the nice acknowledgement.

        Soooo, back to the bullseye of Geir Isene’s mug on a dartboard…… lol

        1. Your post at Marty’s was very moving! And showed an artistic side at the same time. 🙂

  2. You may be right. It may be that my initial reaction is, “knee-jerk.” Certainly I’ve never heard of anyone doing anything like a scientific study that would evaluate the efficacy of Scientology Admin Tech. Your ‘position’ perhaps approaches the, “null-hypothesis,” if such a study were to be done.

    And it would be logical to assume that the ‘closer’ to Source an organization lay in the hierarchy of orgs, the closer that org would adhere to ‘command intention’ as presented in the administrative policies. That would be logical, but I suspect it’s wrong.

    My personal experience offers only one data-point. I worked, as a sea-org member, at only three different organizations, all in the L.A. area: CC, the Asia (a ship), and ASHO. I’m an O.E.C. grad. It would be unwise, for me or anyone, to assume that my personal experience is indicative of the whole of Scientology. Further, my own experience occurred over thirty years ago and encompassed two years or a little less each in the early seventies and later in the early eighties. It was neither current nor extensive.

    I held a wide range of posts, the ‘highest’ being Public Sec at CC. As I recall, in none of the posts was I ever ‘fully hatted.’ Very occasionally, at staff muster, it would be announced that so and so had completed their full post hat. It did happen; it was rare.

    You have have heard of the terms, “cope” and “organize?” On the OEC, I came away with the impression that ‘cope’ was what you did to rapidly and efficiently handle screaming emergencies and that most of the time, as a staff member, you would simply follow the policy Ron had laid out for your post. “Cope” was relegated to a sometimes necessary but essentially disruptive action.

    In practice, for many posts, “cope,” became the standard operating basis.

    Similarly, “musical chairs,” was, per policy, forbidden. In practice, hardly anyone remained on a post long enough to become fully hatted.

    In retrospect, the most disruptive ‘single’ thing to an org was the constant plague of orders from senior organizations. “Do it NOW!” Seems to me these pretty much forced an org into a relatively constant state of, “Cope.” Then the F.E.B.C., with the “Cope Officer/Org Officer” arrangement made that state official and even more endemic.

    W.I.S.E. was mostly after my time. I’ve heard some horror stories so I know their influence was not uniformly good; I don’t assume it was all bad.

    G.

    1. Equally well thought out op-ed. I also did the OEC and your recap coincides very much with my observation after 5 years active duty in the Sea Org. After the S.O., I investigated WISE and was horrified by what those staff wanted me to do and for which what they wanted to charge me. My own take on WISE was that if I would work very very hard and get money in and then give it to them, they would graciously accept it and ask for more. Like any Scientology organization, their “bill” was the top of the financial planning #1 list and needed to be paid first before any other overhead or cost of doing business. I never bought into their crush-reg’ing line of malarkey either, which was after all their mainline product.

    2. Good post, Gary. You made some very good points – the rote and constant orders and demand for stats while neglecting the necessary organizational steps, musical chairs (circumvented with “urgent directives”), and staff not getting fully-hatted. There seemed to be more policy violation than not, in my experience. No wonder it was a hectic state of emergency most of the time. And no wonder it failed – regardless of whether or not there was an SP in charge.

      I can’t help but wonder if the Admin Tech ever really got a fair test of its workability – in the era it was designed for. Obviously, it could be said that the safeguards against its misapplication should have existed in policy itself and thus the system is still at fault. And actually such policy does exist, theoretically – but somehow I doubt that anything and everything could have been foreseen and provided for, and that might be true for any system.

      1. WISE does a pretty good job at getting Admin Tech in use in organizations around the world. The can point to thousands of companies and other organizations that have implemented much of LRH’s Admin Tech. Success cases? Nah, not much beyond PR hype.

        1. Ah shucks, that was my best “Geir 10 years ago.”

          Seriously, thanks for the hard data,

          (But I’ll bet you were an ardent advocate back in your day. ;-)).

      2. Marildi, perhaps the safeguards against the misapplication of Policy are there in Policy. Here’s an example:

        Here’s an LRH quote on robotically applying any Scn policy – ANY policy:

        “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc.
        All he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology.
        That was all he ever lacked.
        So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff, as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being
        should be.
        That’s the whole story of the GPMs. So why not have live orgs?”

        Policy Letter 23 Oct 63.

        1. And this is precisely why one should seek to minimize policy and put all the bets and resources into enabling and enhancing people. Rigid structures are rigid. Burn the green vols and out of the ashes let truly responsible people rise.

          1. I agree. I think the elaboration of Admin Policy was intended to help the organizations survive on the absence of of enough Clears and OTs to really have “live orgs”.

            “Policy” is intended to keep an org functioning to some degree with brand new people off the street filling many of the posts, people who have not yet developed the judgement necessary to function effectively, or who do not have the analytical ability in the first place, for whatever reason, or who have not yet been processed enough to function independently.

            Like any “system”, it can act as a bypass of the individual’s awareness, intelligence, judgement and decision-making ability.

            The more you bypass those qualities, the less “alive” the org becomes, the more of a “dead” mechanical system it becomes until it all theta leaves it and it dies for real leaving an empty shell.

            That is what’s happening to the CoS. I attribute it to the lack of ongoing training and processing for staff.

            1. Yup.

              Re: “I think the elaboration of Admin Policy was intended to help the organizations survive on the absence of of enough Clears and OTs to really have “live orgs”.”

              Then the free software movement, Wikipedia and Wikileaks are populated by some amazing Clears/OTs – as they have had more splash in a shorter time than Scientology in this world…

          2. ““Policy” is intended to keep an org functioning to some degree with brand new people off the street filling many of the posts, people who have not yet developed the judgement necessary to function effectively,…”

            Raw meat? How condescending!

            .

          3. Yes Geir, they are functioning as Clears and OTs. They are “keyed out”, or as psychologists describe it, they function at those levels because they are “not conflicted” about what they are doing. They are following their own interests and basic purposes at their own pace, in self-determined ways. They have no counter-intentions in their own minds, to what they are doing.

            It is a commonplace observation among psychologists and others who “work with people”, that even the most disturbed patients have “conflict free” areas and activities they can do without showing any disturbance at all, and it is a valid therapy to make sure they are afforded the opportunity to engage in those kind of activities. These activities are “wins” for the person and keys him out. But in another setting, activity, or context, s/he may become entirely loony, due to being keyed in.

            The only distinction is that Scientology tech is supposed to produce more than “keyed out” states of Clear and OT. Auditing removes or resolves the content which can “key in”, or into which a person might interiorize, thus a person who is “Clear” should be able to function more analytically more of the time, than someone who still has a lot of reactive potential.

            Hardly anyone is psychotic 100% of the time. (Absolutes are unobtainable?) Any person is likely to have some periods of “lucidity”(clarity, clear-ness). That is “basic personality”. Everyone has it, it’s a question of how heavily is it suppressed and how it can be released.

            That’s just basic Dianetics theory from Evolution of a Science, as well as many previous studies.

            1. So here is the conundrum, then: The movements I mentioned are able to build, boom and blossom without any mental tech whatsoever while Scientology manages to crash, corrode and crumble with supposedly the best mental tech in the Universe.

        2. Valkov and Geir, it seems that some if not all of the best admin tech was written in earlier years, like the ’63 issue quoted and there are others. Maybe a re-haul of admin tech, based especially on lessons learned, plus putting standard tech back in (i.e. not as it’s being misapplied by the CoS) and lost tech back in (such as the reference on how to study Scn) would produce a practice that is uniquely beneficial – one that has elements no others do.

          I think it’s obvious that a minimal admin structure is needed and the “liquid” type you talk about, Geir, is possibly fully there, particularly among the earlier green vol issues. So we probably don’t have to burn them all.

  3. A painfully careful, and surgically precise, criticism of LRH Admin Tech.

    Also, a very insightful descriptor: “…As we move down the hierarchy, the autism regarding following LRH policies to the last comma….”

    “Autism” is the perfect word for this! It is a separation from self and others, a submerged kind of obsession/compulsion.

    This guy is a Viking! And he writes like this in English! Whatever you do – do not give Geir a boat, a sword, and one of those helmets with the horns in them. The raping and the pillaging will spread to foreign shores – and then we’re all screwed. It was a problem a thousand years ago, and it’s a problem again today.

    And whatever you do, DO NOT let the Vikings hook up with the Vedic Hordes! Thousands of years of containment will be lost.

    Alanzo
    Anglo Saxon

    1. Too late Alanzo

      Those Hordes are already out of control.

      Apocalypse is upon us, the first seal has been broken!

      Revelation 6:1-2
      1 And I saw when the Lamb opened one of the seals, and I heard, as it were the noise of thunder, one of the four beasts saying, Come and see.

      2 And I saw, and behold a white horse on a boat: and he that sat on him had a sword; and a crown with horns was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

      And behold! The fourth seal has been broken!

      Revelation 6:7-8
      7 And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
      8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and he said: I am Shiva, the destroyer of illusions! And Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth

      May God have mercy on our souls!

  4. If LRH admin tech is the greatest there is we would see massive expansion. And by the results people would storm the doors to learn it. Why do we then see empty course rooms / buildings?
    Maybe you have to be in a certain state to get it? Then again how can it be so perfect? How many really successful Scientologists are there? In my opinion they would be successful with or without LRH admin tech as they were probably successful prior to Scientology. 
    Too much focus on stats and little focus on real production is my experience from it. There are so many PLs I guess people get confused on where to start. Me included. 
    Or maybe it just isn’t working right because it’s not applied? I don’t know as I haven’t tried all of it. 

    Honesty, willingness to help, deliver what’s promised, listen to your clients and some common sense can get you far-also in business. 🙂

    1. There is no doubtI have never seen an “on-policy” Scientology organization. The items you mentioned about honest, willingness to help, deliver what’s promised, etc., ARE on policy. I agree with your comments about complexity but I’ve studied some basic business and economics in college and found Scientology admin tech to be more result driven and NOT more complicated.

      I have a customer, a medium sized business meaning 300 employees locally and international in scope, a few hundred million per year in sales. I like to try to keep abreast of their latest management techniques filtered down to the facility management or as we would say in the SO, “estates.” Running a building, a manufacturing facility is kind of a hard grimy sweaty job and there is kind of a baseline of work that has to get done no matter how “fancy” a manager wants to dress it. So I routinely hear about Japanese and German management principles which are the favorite flavor of the week and I am not knocking these, but at the end of the day, the promotional actions which you listed above usually cover the lot of it.

      I think that like Gary York above, I will withhold my condemnation of admin tech as a whole as I never have seen it put in practice except arbitrarily and in bits and pieces. Thinking back on this, being “on-policy” was chanted endlessly but never ever ever put in anywhere that I had anything to do with. It was important until the next “command intention” had to be implemented and this was everyday which was code (and everybody in the trenches knew) was the next newest most important arbitrary. I may get flamed for this, and having done the OEC, my lasting impression was that it was relevant for my purposes giving at least a guide of what we supposed to do within the org. It was fairly comprehensive considering that it had been written on the fly, totally as a cope mechanism itself, and only a couple pages at a time.

    2. “Why do we then see empty course rooms / buildings?”

      Because the CoS long since doesn’t actually know or apply LRH’s Admin policies?

        1. I agree with this, but the original purpose of the Admin policies was to facilitate delivering the goods. They are like the ARC triangle – interrelated. Ify ou knock out or let admin go to hell, the delivery will falter, and viceversa. I leave it to others to figure out which is the chicken and which is the egg.

          1. I just realized something;

            If a senior bypasses a junior, it puts the junior in a Danger Condition. If he already is in a Danger Condition, then the bypass is warranted as part of handling the condition, but as soon as it is handled, then the senior must stop the bypass or else the condition becomes permanent, Such a permanency will drive the condition to the next lower level (Non-Ex) and then lower, etc until someone wakes up in the urgency and handles the current condition.

            Policy is a bypass of a person’s natural abilities. If it becomes a permanency, then it will drive the organization to lower conditions.

          2. I think it is the impatience and mistrust of others that led to this voluminous policy which essentially is designed to micromanage.

            .

          3. Exactly, about the “bypass”. Flag has bypassed all the orgs and missions below it, and has thereby put them into Non-existence. Non-existence literally does mean they don’t exist anymore as functioning productive organizations. As you said, Geir, “they are not delivering the goods.”

            it’s only a matter of time until even their MEST will not exist as “their” MEST, because the buildings will have to be liquidated due to the bankruptcy of the CoS.

            That has actually been happening for a while, with many orgs and missions closing over the past few years.

            A clear illustration of how “well” current management “understands” LRH tech (Not!)

  5. IMHO he was not trying to build a “successful” organization. He was trying to address the following problem, trying to build something that couldn’t be killed, no matter what. This is a very different purpose than that of a for-profit, commercial enterprise.

    “We’re not now in this for play. Our personal futures depend on keeping going and making no major flubs. It isn’t a question of is there something else. There isn’t. Nobody can be half in and half out of Scientology. Scientologists are Scientologists no matter what they do for a living.

    The prize is regaining self and going free. The penalty for our failure is condemnation to an eternity of pain and amnesia for ourselves and for our friends and for this planet.

    If we fail, we’ve had it. It’s not just a matter of getting killed. It’s a matter of getting killed and killed and killed life after life forever more.

    Those guys up there mean business. We’ve got to match or better their energy level and dedication or we lose.

    We’ve been given a priceless chance. We must make good. We haven’t any time for doubts or maunderings.

    We’re the elite of Planet Earth, but that’s only saying we’re the not quite gone in the graveyard of the long gone.

    Somehow, despite our condition and the degraded environment we’re in, we’ve got to keep the dedication and the guts to carry through no matter what comes.”

    (HCO PL 30 July 1963 CURRENT PLANNING)

    Captain Bill Robertson speaks of “those guys up there” at great length, and “they” are not your run-of-the-mill human being either.

    It seems to me that LRH decided to fashion a self-replicating organism. A living creature with people functioning as “cells” and “organs” patterned after the aggregates found in living forms. The observation had already been made that the human body / mind can be brought under the control of the theta being to great advantage. Extend that to bringing multiple human bodies, under the control of many theta beings under the control of a single theta being (the leader.) This entity would live and breathe as a single unit, forwarding the CONCENTRATED intention of the whole. This explains the purpose of ethics – to remove counter or other intentions from the environment. It also explains the demand of “standard” with no deviation permitted.

    Obviously this will not work in a commercial enterprise that must be responsive to market conditions.

    It is of note that this parallels the concept of “master mind” found in Think and Grow Rich. http://www.sacred-texts.com/nth/tgr/tgr15.htm

    It is entirely possible that “those guys up there” have already been defeated. Captain Bill insists that they have been. Perhaps now we are simply witnessing the disintegration of an organism that has already served its purpose. Or maybe its been hi-jacked by “those guys.”

    1. Or there may be no “guys up there”.

      Notwithstanding, I can name hundred non-profit organizations more successful in their endeavors than Scientology along their purpose. Like Amnesty International, The Red Cross, The Linux kernel project, Wikipedia, Wikileaks, Doctors without Borders, the Arabian revolutions… etc.

      And, if you look at LRH’s finance policies, he was determined to build a successful enterprise also in monetary terms, something that the church has only been able to resemble with slave labor, pure donations, blackmail and extortion. I say the Admin Tech is a failure in both areas; In the for profit and in the non-profit arena.

      1. I wasn’t suggesting it was successful. I was examining the rationale behind it that carried its own seeds of destruction. Everything was for the cause, everything was for the organization, everything was for the group. It has been an unmitigated disaster for the individuals that formed its tissues. And like all starving creatures, it comes at last to devour its own tissue. This was a creature designed not to serve, but to conquer an enemy.

        1. I understand 🙂 But even with that rationale, it is a failure. Just witness how Open Source has become this self-replicating machine that Hubbard wanted to create – and with their instinctive shunning of policy it represents the very antithesis of LRH Admin Tech. I believe in gathering support for a purpose and let people themselves decide how to go about producing an agreed-upon result utilizing the unique abilities of the individual. I see the individual as the valuable to organize around rather than the structure itself.

          Want to get someone supportive of LRH Admin Tech to pitch in here. Like a Geir 10 years ago…

            1. I was an ardent believer in systems, structures and checks. I believed as LRH that it would be possible (and good) to “machinize” an organization. I held seminars about this, and although I was more liberal in many areas than LRH, I saw LRH Admin tech as the best effort yet to make an organization into a living entity capable of producing great results.

          1. I think there is a difference between “OpenSource” and what LRH was trying to create. Open source changes constantly. How many iterations of Linux are there now? Aren’t we up to version 12.7 or something like that?

            That’s not what Hubbard wanted at all. He wanted to set up something tha replicated itself exactly from generation to generation. The Objectives would be the Objectives in 100 years or 1,000 years, and would be learned and delivered the same way then as now. That’s what ‘standard tech’ means. He was trying to create an organizational pattern that would “conserve” his tech so it stayed exactly the same and was not alter-ised through the ages.

            He did not want an “Objectives 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 etc. to be passed off as “standard tech”. That’s the kind of organization he was trying to create.

            And it’s already been unmocked! It’s those pesky co-creators who willfully refuse to duplicate his vision and hew to his original Ideal Scene! They just insist they know how to do it better!

            1. I know 🙂

              My point is that the only really well functioning replicating organizations we have are the one’s that do evolve (versions 2.0, 3.0 etc). So, LRH wanted something that replicated and expanded. The method he used (fixation, cementing) was wrong.

        2. . . . and thus its Standard Tech was the tech of sustaining the GPM. Interesting take on this . . . I can see what you are saying and I get a visceral reaction from the thought.

          1. This idea of “systems, structures and checks” goes back to Henry Ford and his conveyor belt structure for automobile manufacturing. L Ron Hubbard took this idea of a conveyor belt, arranged certain processes and courses at different parts of the assembly line – each designed to produce certain “EPs” and “VFPs” – and called it “The Bridge to Total Freedom”.

            Every “case” was the same, so every process was “standardized”, and the whole contraption would plop out “OTs” at the end of the line, totally free and with all the superhuman capabilities he sold to his customers.

            The problem: there is no conveyor belt to spiritual freedom.

          2. That is very interesting. I´m guessing that is the platform on which Geir stood to make the jump into his LIQUID Administration System.
            I´m a Tech guy, I allways hated Admin and all its rigidity, and never could even make the slightest effort to study it or to place myself inside a rigid structure. That probably is even now one of my biggest aberrations,(I have this “natural” tendency to live in the middle of a highly disordered mess) but also was the main factor which just pushed me into a visceral reaction of rejection when Int Management took over the Scn Orgs, and got me out of it.

            If we see Flow-Dispersal-Ridge parallel to a cycle of action, LRH Admin Tech is on the side of the Ridge, which is also at Effect, sustaining the GPM as you accurately pointed out, and Liquid is on the side of Flow, which is at the level of Cause. So….

            Why would Ron construct his Admin Tech into a rigid structure when he had all the theoretical principles to build it into a fluid system with unlimited versatility and potential?

            That really baffles me, and come to think about it, how come he did the same thing with the Auditing Tech? That would have pushed him out the roof…..

          3. It seems Henry Ford had the same problem with his employees that LRH had with his. Trying to make people into the cogs in a machine is an un-gratifying endeavor and usually ends up getting “solved” with cops, billy-clubs, and unions.

            International Brotherhood of Scientology Workers, eh? Nice ring to that.

      2. Well, ok – nothing to disagree with here. As a newly posted Disbursements Chief for Flag Command Bureaux (I always laughed at that x at the end), my statistic was an upside down graph of oldest unpaid bill in “days.” I dug into my job, emptying cobwebbed file drawers and my first week on post my statistic went down from let’s say 60 days down to like 900 days or something like 3 years of unpaid and sporadically paid bills… My VFP (valuable final product) was “pleased creditors.” I can tell you my creditors were definitely not pleased and neither was HCO when I turned in that crashed statistic. Thankfully there was ethics technology to “handle” me on crashing my statistic that way. (wry joke)

        1. Chris, you pulled up out of your experience the perfect caricature for how things were done. You should write satire. Hilarious!

          And then the new broom swept (the drawers) clean. How dare you crash your stat like that! 😀

      3. Geir: Or there may be no “guys up there”.

        I get the feeling that you may have your own ideas about “those guys.” Penny for your thoughts? 🙂

        Maria expressed a compelling rationale for the Admin Tech so I was thinking “those guys” might be a more significant aspect of it than most of us are aware of.

          1. I really ridge on conspiracy theories myself (JFK, 9/11, the holocaust, no man on the moon, etc.) because they generally seem like an arbitrary way to explain the unknown or ignorance, or a way to reject the known, or plain propaganda. From Maria’s posts I got the idea that bringing “those guys” into the picture might have been LRH’s way of hyping everybody up (albeit for a good purpose, which for me would be consistent with his genius in deriving spiritual truth). Or else it was his best metaphor for a perceived true danger. As you know by now, I give LRH the benefit of the doubt, rather than jump to “covert scheme for personal advantage” – or to “conspiracy!”

            Thanks for your voice of reason answer. 🙂

          2. Marildi – LRH did consider there was a conspiracy, a pretty major one at that, and referred to them as a “conspiracy of World Bankers.” He speaks of them starting in the 1960s, and in particular names Rockefeller – I’m pretty sure it was in Ron’s Journal 67. When I first got into Scientology, it was all the talk and we avidly read “None Dare Call it Conspiracy,” John Birch Society materials, and went to G.O. events where we were told they were tracking down the key members of the conspiracy. The G.O. was formed to fight the conspiracy and get the documents that exposed their activities. That was the entire purpose of the Freedom of Information Act in the U.S., which we do owe to the G.O.

            As far as “those guys up there,” there was no real description of them other than that found in the various lectures, in History of Man, and the discussion of Planet Earth as a prison planet. We hoped to break out of prison before they caught on.

            I distinctly remember the chillingness of these ideas. Omar V. Garrison, who wrote “None Dare Call it Conspiracy,” was able to document a great deal of what happened on the government side of things. His work is well respected journalism.

            1. None Dare Call it Conspiracy was written by Gary Allen. Omar V. Garrison was the first LRH biographer.

              As for conspiracy – there was apparently an ethics order issued on Xenu kept in a safe aboard the Apollon, and several lectures/issues compunds LRH’s belief in a Grand Conspiracy.

          3. Thanks Geir! That’s right, it was Gary Allen. Garrison wrote Playing Dirty, The Hidden Story of Scientology and the Secret World of Interpol. I read all of them.

          4. People WANT to believe in Aliens and conspiracies, even some of the most intelligent world leaders and military brass.

            But …

            We ain’t got no sequenced Alien genome or anything. But wouldn’t it be weird if one day our kids stop dissecting fetal pigs and work on fetal Grays?

            Yup, that’s when things get freaky …

            TEACHER: “Okay Children, these ETs didn’t phone home in time! Let’s see what they had for breakfast! Oh look, it’s Soylent Green mixed with Reese’s Pieces! And you know what Soylent Green is … DON’T YOU CHILDREN?”

            CHILDREN: “Soylent Green is people!”

            TEACHER: “That’s right. Soylent Green is people AND DON’T YOU FORGET IT.”

            ((TO ORDER SOYLENT GREEN GO TO: http://www.thinkgeek.com/caffeine/wacky-edibles/e9aa/ ))

          5. Right on, Maria. I did know about the whole Rockefeller/World Bank conspiracy LRH talked about and I was thinking that was possibly “the perceived true danger.” But you and Geir have now reminded me of some of the “guys up there” references too, one even in the study tapes if I remember right. It would be interesting to know if someone else corroborated these things from whole track recall of their own, or whatever perception of it.

            Anyway, it’s good to keep in mind that conspiracies do exist – the skeptical but open-minded approach. Thanks for the reminder. 🙂

          6. One thing I thought was interesting was a bit in the “My Big TOE” videos, where Campbell suggests that perceptions of “guys up there” may be related to “opening doors” to other dimensions or realities, even bringing them into focus in this one. As far as others experiencing this sort of thing, there are thousands upon thousands of anecdotal stories of this sort of thing all over the Internet these days. It’s even been made the subject of a high budget movie entitled “Thrive,” courtesy of Foster Gamble, heir to the Proctor and Gamble fortune, and covers the entire Rothschild,etc. / Federal Reserve / elite secret leaders conspiracy as well.

            I have no personal experience of UFOs or guys up there, but I do know several people who insist that they have had close encounters of the weird and unpleasant kind. I have no reason to doubt them, there’s no reason for them to make any of it up, and they aren’t weird people generally – rather conservative to tell you the truth. Go figure. I’ve come to think that maybe they hook into alternate realities or something because I definitely have not seen anything like what they describe. Or perhaps I’m simply of no interest to “them.” For me, the jury is out on this one.

            1. It may be real. It may be unreal. Too much contradictory anecdotes yet. I am waiting for facts still.

          7. EXAMPLE OF STANDARD UFO TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE:

            Last week, I put on an old-style 1970s leisure suit and got picked by an Alien hottie with blond eighties hair and shorts. She takes me into space and we have a whirlwind romance. I meet the entire Star Wars clan. I even get to evaporate Jar-Jar Binks’ head with a blaster for the sake of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE.

            And I got to do Jedi training with Yoda.

            And then I came back. My only evidence is a T-Shirt with nothing unusual about it from Master Yoda.

            I should in NO WAY expect you to believe me EVEN IF IT REALLY HAPPENED. And in no way SHOULD you believe me.

            But it would be true … for me. And only me.

            http://www.thinkgeek.com/tshirts-apparel/unisex/itdepartment/9e4a/?srp=17

          8. Maria, I thought of Campbell’s theory too. He talks about himself and many others having plugged into other realities, including other places in this or other physical universes (as well as the non-physical). But he also states that often the individual hasn’t learned to differentiate between the data banks of past history and those of the present, or the present vs. future probabilities data streams – or vs. dreams, for that matter – all are equally real-seeming virtual realities when they get rendered. He was asked specifically about UFO’s on one Q&A video I watched and said he doesn’t doubt those experiences are real but that he suspects the witnesses, in large part at least, to be confusing other data streams with those of the present, and thus for them the experience seems to be happening here and now.

            Campbell is certainly “out of the box” but for me, the jury may be getting close to a verdict. We’ll see. 😉

        1. Scientology is full of conspiracy theorists. Its the common denominator.

          Please please watch the brilliant Terrance McKenna break it down:

          1. In my opinion Hubbard suffered from paranoia, and a lot of it filtered into his interpretation of basic axioms. That paranoia is evident in his ethics technology.

            .

          2. Interesting video, Brian. He noted something I have felt too – that conspiracies appeal to people because they are simple and comforting to believe.

            I’m not sure I agee with his statement that no one is in control because “there is no control” – all is “chaos.” But one little snippet probably isn’t enough to understand his whole philosophy.

    2. I think Muhammad did better than Hubbard in creating a self-replicating organization. Hubbard seems to have used the Catholic Church of Rome as his model.

      .

      1. Hi Vin! So how did the admin tech seem to be going in the early years, when you were on the ship? I remember you saying you had been a Programs Chief and I know that’s up at the top level of management.

        1. I do like the Data Series very much, even though Hubbard put it together after 1965. He still had some spunk left.

          Not that it was original. But he made that knowledge more accessible. That was his forte. Otherwise, he was mad like the Mad Hatter.

          .

          .

        2. “Mad like the Mad Hatter” Added inapplicable? 😀

          Or does that actually relate to his admin tech? But I wasn’t so much asking about the admin tech as such, rather how it was working from your close-up view of it “World Wide.”

          1. Mad like a Mad Hatter because he could have done a lot of good but he didn’t like other people benefitting from his tech and not he himself.

            I believe that Admin tech was designed to benefit him and not others… at least its application was slanted that way, even when the underlying principles were very powerful.

            .

          2. Very interesting, Vin. Please give us some examples or say more about how it was slanted to benefit him.

          3. I believe that you can take the same principles that underlie the admin tech and use them beneficially. I really enjoyed the policies in Volume 0, that are more in line with basic axioms and logics. I have found them very useful in my interaction with organizational settings. But as one gets into the other volumes, and looks at the specific applications, the policies start to get quite complex, contradictory and confusing, The area of ethics and finance stands out in this regard. Look at some of the SP declares written by Hubbard himself in late 60s. They are mostly based on opinions and not facts. If you are looking for more specifics, read the Holy Cows series here: Holy Cows

            .

    3. Amazingly similar thoughts on this, Maria. I clay demo’d organization over and over until I ended up with conical helical spiral with a separate strand for each of 21 departments and an awareness characteristic for each… It definitely had the appearance of a clay demo of something akin to a DNA strand (except for the conical part which represented expansion and contraction.)

    4. Maria, I agree that LRH was trying to establish an org that would last, survive. He said he was trying to improve on the pattern of an org\ he recalled from his whole track, that had actually lasted several million years. He believed he had discovered why it had eventually failed.

      However, given the Conditions formulas, in order to survive, an org has to grow, because a “status quo” cannot exist as such. Any apparent status quo is actually a contraction, a shrinking.

      Thus whether a commercial enterprise or not, an org would have to be “successful” at expanding and growing or it will eventually falls down the Conditions into Non-existence. Which means it will literally cease to exist.

      I understand “standard” as referring to the quality of the products or services being delivered,
      not to any rigidity of the org form. The basic principles of a “live”, viable, surviving org I believe would be the same between for-profit and non-profit orgs. Both must meet a need or needs for there to be the honest exchange without which survival will not occur.

      So both must change in the face of, adapt to master, changing market conditions.

      As I posted here just a little while ago, the reason the CoS is failing to survive and will not survive or last very long at all in historical terms, is that current management is not following LRH Admin, Ethics(Conditions), Marketing, or Management tech, and beyond that, is not “delivering the goods” as Geir put it. They are not delivering Auditing and Training Tech either.

      They are just plain not following the principles of any of the techs as discovered and set down by LRH. And because of that, the CoS is going and in fact has gone “down the tubes”.

  6. Maria –

    I can remember the feeling that reading “those guys up there mean business” gave me when I was on staff. I could see the spats of their space shoes coming up to me out of the corner of my eye. They were right on our tails!

    Man. It was like a super intense game of Dungeons & Dragons – not that I’ve ever played, mind you. And if you ever have, there is certainly nothing wrong with that.

    Jus’ sayin’: Role playing games were nothing next to being a dedicated Scientologist sometimes.

    1. Alanzo. I don’t KNOW you anymore. And the fact you went PUBLIC with this!

      You better get to a RPG session fast or the nerd police will appear at your door and DEMAND YOUR NERD CARD! Maybe find someone can get an old version of TRAVELER and run and OT III adventure …

      Or a Sci-Fi version using D20. But not D&D 4th Edition. Good Lord NO! Word on the street is that it sucks.

    2. Oh man, you got that right! It was the most intense and exciting game in town! And by God we were TOUGH!! I was a staff member when Star Wars came out with the starting line: “Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away.” My GAWD!!!! LONG LONG ago!!!!! NOT in the future but in the past!!!! Someone else remembered! And we were fighting the dark side and the force was WITH us. And then walking outside the theater and back into the sloooowww pace of life in the 20th century – a sense of real disappointment that there was no hyperdrive ship set down waiting to lift off into the atmosphere.

      On an aside, I never played D &D either but I LOVED LOVED LOVED Heinlein, Asimov, E.E. Doc Smith, Bradbury and Star Trek and…

  7. Well, it all depends on exactly what you mean by “LRH Admin Tech.” The failure of Scientology organizations currently is a direct effect over years as the result of the decision Scientologists have made to be effect, that is to say, to turn their decision making and responsibility for their lives over to another entity. The decision that you must follow “authority”, do what you are told. As loathsome as the Miscavige regime is, this started in the 60s, that whatever LRH said was truth, that all orders must be followed. Along with this of course came the quasi-militarism of Scientology with the Sea Org, the uniforms, the “sir” etiquette, the prison system (RPF), the whole “justice” system, etc. Read through your staff status II pack and you’ll see all the PLs about how “bad” juniors can be, all the various ways they can “non-comply” and what an exec needs to do to crack-down on them. This continued well into the 70s with all the ways that one can “handle the counter intention” from juniors as well as the long lists of crimes and high crimes that one can be comm eved and declared for (a “justice” system by which the convening authority appoints the “jury” and “judge” of the comm ev personally – a system by which one is “guilty until proven guilty.” See HCO PL Conditions How to Assign where LRH says that groups “thrive when ethics are savage.”)

    LRH “admin tech” itself became bloated, with an international org board eventually of CMO, WDC, Exec Strata, Guardian’s Office network, FBO network, LRH Comm network, Flag Rep network, RTC, yadda yadda yadda.

    Having said all the above though, there ARE senior points covered every now and then in LRH policy that COULD be applied as sane stable data to use all the REST of LRH policy if one did choose to sanely apply LRH admin tech. For example, HCO PL Admin Know How – Expansion – Theory of Policy. LRH says in that issue specifically that one should INTERPRET policy in terms of expansion. Thus the successful missions in the 60s and 70s were in fact applying LRH policy. They collapse started in 1982 when Miscavige&Co decided basically to steal their money, pure and simple and control them to that end. Similarly with HCO PL Senior Policy – I mean if you REALLY understood the world “senior”, then you could do what you needed to do, override anything else to come through for the paying customer, and not have to robotically follow policy.

    BUT, what makes it almost impossible to apply the above two HCO PLs (and there are other “liberal minded” and sensible overall theory policy letters by the way) are mainly two things (the first being the most important):

    1. An authoritative system based on force and punishment. (This ALWAYS allows dictatorships to :”flourish” – yes, friends, there WAS a constitution in the USSR that guaranteed personal freedom, ha ha). This point alone disallows and punishes severely personal thought, choice and action in applying the basics of LRH policy.

    2. Simply TOO much of it – so many thousands of policy letters that the basic sensible ones get lost in the shuffle and are very easily ignored in practice.

    And I’m going to once again mention in another way, that the FLOW or spirit of too many PLs in the 60s emphasized the power of the senior and the incompetence/out-ethics of the junior and this went a long way to creating a culture controlled by point #1 above. Thus in REALITY, allowing a punitive and harmful dictatorship to be supported in the COS (which it certainly is, by most parishioners).

    1. Perhaps the harsh justice procedures resulted from the pay policies that were implemented. In April 1957, the Association Board proposed the Proportionate Pay Plan. This was their reasoning:

      “The Board cannot raise wages as such since it is also afraid that in some slack period, the payroll would swamp the Association. Thus even in a good period it cannot raise wages. All management is in this situation – hence its attitude on wages.”

      “Working for a wage is one of the deadlier control mechanisms since it brings about an irresponsibility in the person for his job. Fixed wage is a means of suppressing a person into a slavery class, pegging him at no hope. This mechanism is one of the best modern society has for keeping people down. It is artificial and arbitrary and denies a person the fruits of his labor.”

      HCO PL 5 April 1957, OEC Vol. 3 1976 edition

      Based on the above, in 1957 the classed organizations shifted to the proportionate pay plan where 50% of the weekly income was shared among the staffs. Auditors were paid commensurate with section heads, with additional points for training level and length of service.

      When the Sea Org was formed, they were paid out of management fees from orgs and missions. Room, board and uniforms were covered. Bonuses (in the form of stipends) were paid depending on the production of the S.O. orgs – AO, ASHO, Flag.

      This made the orgs “unkillable” but it also meant that harsh ethics procedures were necessary because the usual threat of losing one’s income / wherewithal for poor performance was no longer present.

      The Missions did not implement proportionate pay. Their pay structures were at the discretion of the Mission Holders until the release of the OEC volumes in 1976. Starting in 1977, the push was on for Missions to go on proportionate pay and to apply policy as did the Orgs. Before that, Mission policies were at the discretion of the Mission Holders.

  8. Great article, great comments. This is one of those areas that can make the whole subject start to unravel in the minds of even the most zealous church members.

    KSW 1, when expanded to cover anything and everything LRH ever wrote, uttered, or joked about instead of just the exact processes and methods used in auditing, became the ticking bomb that ultimately will result in the destruction of any credibility of Policy certainly, and perhaps the subject itself.

    As the world advances each day, “green on white” becomes more obviously out-dated and discredited. One vaunted “A-list” scientology company has quietly disposed of using LRH admin tech in the last couple of years.

  9. Great article! I had been thinking for long when you were going to come with another article on the Admin tech after your initial takes on it. So here it is! Great!
    BTW: “…stomped the it out” – did you really mean to formulate using these words or is it just and MU on my part?

  10. I did not have to read all the comments on this blog since I posted as second poster.

    You guys are too prolific writers….and have too much time on your hands.

    But a few posts caught my attention:

    I want to make a few comments:

    In response to Rafael’s comment that the Christian hell is better than the Scientology hell….

    so because of that he is back in Christianity…

    Well I am on a similar path, but going one better, in my opinion, at least it suits me better.

    I am not one to follow directions or status quo and I am not a good sheeple.

    To me the biggest room in the world is room for improvement and any and all books or subjects which strive to help man improve his lot in life and make him more able are good books.

    So I am gleaning the bible and Scientology and as many other sources to build a better bridge.

    This is in alignment with Hubbard’s article: “How to study a Science”
    in “A New Slant on Life”, and the directive to build a better bridge.

    I include a quote from Hubbard’s article first quoted by by Peter Soderqvist which I found on ESMB:

    SCIENTOLOGY, A NEW SLANT ON LIFE by L. Ron Hubbard. Los Angeles : Bridge 1982, pp. 126-8. Evaluation of Data

    All these years, in which psychoanalysis has taught its tenets to each generation of doctors, the authoritarian method was used, as can be verified by reading a few of the books on the subject. Within them is found, interminably, “Freud said . . . .” The truly important thing is not that “Freud said” a thing, but “Is the data valuable? If it is valuable, how valuable is it?” You might say that a datum is as valuable as it has been evaluated. A datum can be proved in ratio to whether it can be evaluated by other data, and its magnitude is established by how many other data it clarifies. Thus, the biggest datum possible would be one which would clarify and identify all knowledge known to man in the material universe. Unfortunately, however, there is no such thing as a Prime Datum. There must be, not one datum, but two data, since a datum is of no use unless it can be evaluated. Furthermore, there must be a datum of similar magnitude with which to evaluate any given datum.

    Data is your data only so long as you have evaluated it. It is your data by authority or it is your data. If it is your data by authority somebody has forced it upon you, and at best it is little more than a light aberration. Of course, if you asked a question of a man whom you thought knew his business and he gave you his answer, that datum was not forced upon you. But if you went away from him believing from then on that such a datum existed without taking the trouble to investigate the answer for yourself—without comparing it to the known universe;you were falling short of completing the cycle of learning.

    Peter’s comment on the above:

    If we take “Evaluation of Data” above seriously, then if Scientology is a datum, critical information is a datum of comparable magnitude you need in order to evaluate Scientology. According to my evaluation it is impossible to be “brainwashed”, or “Soul Hacked” by Scientology if you take the basics seriously. It seems to me that all problems and upsets I have seen up to date can be reduced to stupid, or “communistic” application of “ The greatest good for the greatest numbers of dynamics”. The first axiom Survive has been bypassed. Next time somebody pushing you to do something because he say it is “the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”, ask yourself if this person is a parasite, or if you really need his product in order to survive, or is there any product you need more?

    End of Peter’s comment.

    I add to that : Hubbard’s line:

    Any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated.

    The article “How to Study a Science” is the highest theta datum that Hubbard wrote.

    Scientology can be a trap for fools ( a false freedom) and a true freedom for the wise, for the ones who have the right kind of eyes to see and ears to hear and a mind to to understand the truth of things.

    It offers a way out of the trap of Scientology for the wise, and not only a way out, but a new dimension of knowledge, wisdom and power, not found elsewhere on earth.

    I get the hunch that Scientology was purposely delivered the way it was for a good reason. A clever trap for fools.

    The best trap is the billion yr contract.

    Diogenese II

    1. Yes, those are some of my favorite parts of Scientology too, but the problem I´m facing is that critical evaluation of data is just not enough, even as fascinating and productive as it is.

      I don´t believe anymore that knowledge itself will show us the path, or any path which does not end on a blind alley or back at the point where we began.

      All knowledge is made of created things, that is the common denominator to all data.

      Whichever datum we choose as our “stable datum” places us automatically at effect of it. See? we lose our status of “cause”.

      I´ve ran in the squirrel cage of knowledge long enough to notice that. I´ve spent almost my entire life doing just that.

      The answers are not anywhere to be found with our eyes or our ears, I´m guessing the questions will cease to exist the moment we recover our own creativity, our own selves, because that is where the point of origin most probably lies, and that is where everything most likely comes from.

      1. Pretty good, Rafael! All knowledge is something that has been created. All creation is circular. It is like a bubble floating in the void. It begins and ends in itself.

        And so is the being. A being also begins and ends in itself.

        I believe that to burst the bubble I simply need to look at and recognize the inconsistencies that exist. That is my current path.

        .
        .

        1. That is what I would call an action definition of As-isness, and the most refined process for it KHTK on Vinaire´s Blog.

          1. I am currently studying mathematics. I believe that mathematical principles underlie physical and spiritual principles. All mathematical principles are built on the idea of “unit” and “point.” The idea of “unit” underlies the idea of a “being.” The idea of “point” underlies the idea of a “location.”

            These two datums happen to be arbitrary. The basic inconsistency would be to take these two datums to be fundamental facts.

      2. Geir, I got confused about whether the reply button is the one above or below the post you want to reply to. I meant to give a +1 Excellent post to Diogenese II.

        Rafael, here’s my reply to you.

        Earlier on this thread Geir said, “No structure can undo structure.”

        You replied, “I´m guessing that is the platform on which Geir stood to make the jump into his LIQUID Administration System.”

        I see knowledge as a “platform” from which to jump. There’s no jumping without a support base to push off from. A high-dive diving board as a platform sure better not be pointing in the wrong direction.

        Good metaphor, “platform on which to stand to make the jump.” Very creative of you. 😉

        1. Ha ha! I pointed in the wrong direction so many times I´ve lost the count!

          I´ll try to keep it in mind Marildi, Thanks 🙂

          Maybe our advancement through knowledge is like peeling an onion from the inside, on each jump we as-is an inner onion and reach a bigger sphere of knowledge, but there is a point where there are no more layers of onion left…. and still, that is not the end of the road, is the end of being effect of knowledge but only the begining of the road of being origin of knowledge…..I mean if such a condition exists or can be created.

          Maybe I´m moving on a harmonic of the Scientology 8-8008 formula to reach the theoretical infinite of your potential, or grow your own universe to infinity ( Or to reunite with the oneness, or the unknowable, or whatever that might be or un-be)
          The apparent infinite of the MEST universe would have to be as-ised to zero and then your own universe could go from apparent zero into a theoretical infinity…….

          Can it be done?
          Should it be done?

          I have no idea……I´m only trying to get me some fun and I´m kind of tired of the MEST universe games……

          Maybe Dungeons and Dragons is a good option, I haven´t played that game…….I´ll have to ask Alanzo, I have a feeling he might be able to give me one tip or two about that, if only I can persuade him to share his knowledge 🙂

          1. Rafael, being “origin of knowledge” does sound like creation of one’s own universe, such as in Cleared Theta Clear (also found in 8-8008). What else could it possibly be? I have the notion that one’s own universe would be where it would evolve to, once enough MEST games have been played. (But don’t let me point you in any wrong direction, ha ha!)

            “The state of Cleared Theta Clear…means a person who is able to create his own universe or, living in the MEST universe, is able to create illusions perceivable by others at will, to handle MEST universe objects without mechanical means and to have and feel no need of bodies or even the MEST universe to keep himself and his friends interested in existence.” (Scn 8-8009)

          2. Any visualization is “creation of knowledge.”

            So beautiful simplicity, you are riight, and I tend to lose sight of it all the time! Thanks:-)

      3. “The answers are not anywhere to be found with our eyes or our ears, I´m guessing the questions will cease to exist the moment we recover our own creativity, our own selves, because that is where the point of origin most probably lies, and that is where everything most likely comes from.”

        Beautifully summarized!

        Whichever datum we choose as our “stable datum” places us automatically at effect of it. See? we lose our status of “cause”.

        Absolutely!

        1. OMG! Geir is Moderating his blog in the wee hours of the morning, I don´t think he has time to sleep anymore. Does he still eat? I wonder.

          Hi María!
          Did you see my last two comments for you on the thread of science and the open mind?

          https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/science-and-the-open-mind/#comment-10230

          https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/science-and-the-open-mind/#comment-10232

          I would love to hear your comments on that, I was kind of mumbling, but if you understand it maybe you could explain it back to me Ha ha! No seriously I am just interested in your comments there.
          Best regards,

            1. I have stayed home with them for two days now. I really, really want to be a full time dad – that would be pure luxury.

          1. Rafael: I read your posts on the other thread. Wow. Seems we are encountering very similar experiences along our ways!

            How it seems to me now is if I choose subservience to and recognition of created things or forms that’s how it is. It doesn’t seem to matter if I do this deliberately or just sort of let things happen. “That’s just how things are” plays out without any particular attention to playing it out. It can be really random or really ordered and everything in between. Pick and choose!

            What I have been experiencing this last week is that it seems that I can 1) choose to “see” others as limited, separate forms, an influence outside of me with the power to influence me, with the world of forms shaping my experiences or I can 2) choose not to “see” that way, experiencing an unlimited, seamless presence both immanent and transcendent.

            When I choose the first, I am confounded by gazillions of limitations, separate forms, a constantly shifting kaleidoscope of forms – and reliance on this spawns a host of limited feelings and anxious efforts, and in this realm humiliation, disappointment and suffering / loss of one kind or another seems perfectly normal. When I choose the second, the limitations start to unravel, fear / hostility dissipates (and disappears completely at times) and I find myself living as a world of experience, alive, so alive and full of joy, “swimming in an ocean of life,” expanded far beyond the “tiny,” boxed off, and blinded “center of awareness” of a separate me.

          2. So do it, Geir! I loved being a full-time mom. You’re right, it is pure luxury – peace and harmony. Of course, you would want a couple of other high interests in your life too, to complement your Mr. Mom job.

            But I say, why not! It would be crazy and amazing for you to do that. 🙂

      4. Right on, Rafael!

        Here’s a line from one of Russell Salamon’s poems:

        “The road you carry, you lay before you.”

        You are the source of your own universe, your own heaven or your own hell. As am I, or anyone else.

  11. In Scientology the most valuable stuff is basic stuff. Anything will work only if you apply Scientology keeping that in mind. There is a saying from LRH: “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself and when you lose that you have lost everything. Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it and it is true according to your observation. That is all.” Now, this is basic stuff.
    But than there is the administrative technology what is basically the opposite of this. KSW, etc… Even if that is the opposite, you still can apply the basic philosophy and you would probably succeed. And this is not to praise the man. Seemingly, LRH did not want you to succeed. I do not want to get into lengthy details. You can evaluate what you have and can see yourself.

  12. Correction:

    I see I failed to properly edit my post.

    The first line should read:

    I did not have “time” to read all the posts……….The key word I missed is “time”.

    Sorry. I am in a hurry to get other things done.

    Diogenese.

  13. Boy oh boy, these threads can be addicting.

    I had a after thought and had to come back to add to my previous post on: How to Study a Science”:

    Another way to look at that article is that if you did not apply that data to Scientology itself, in the full spirit of the data or full meaning of the data, than you did not do Scientology right and cannot understand Scientology until you do. That is what Hubbard really meant.

    Not to do that is a slight aberration. A slight aberration is an understatement.

    Diogenese,

          1. People who have buttons on being liked and admired may be manipulated through a show of affinity. Hubbard used that kind of manipulation a lot. The whole status thing associated with OT Levels is just that. The current church is using that to button the hilt. Just look at all the glossy pictures in their glossy magazine. When that button is over-used then they use the ethics button.

            It is well scripted. It may be found somewhere in the “Standard Admin Tech” at confidential levels. 🙂

            .

          2. “…It may be found somewhere in the “Standard Admin Tech” at confidential levels.”

            Funny line! (Not trying to manipulate, Vin, I swear! ;-))

        1. I seem to have settled on a position about all this, and it is that any or all of scientology is like any other tool or set of tools – the results obtained depend upon the ability and intention of the person using them.

          A shovel can be used to free trapped miners, dig a trench for a house foundation, throw shit at a clean wall, or kill a person with the sharp edge of it’s blade. It’s uses are limited only by your imagination and intention.

          It is you who must decide. The buck stops with you, whoever you are.

          This is of course ultimately very boring and thus we have human and possibly pre-human history, “world without end”, and the games people play, from highest to lowest. The actual game of freeing beings is, as LRH said, probably rather rare.

          1. Our physical perception depends on light. It assumes light to always travel in straight lines with infinite velocity. We are conditioned to perceive with that assumption. That is why, Einstein’s theory, which looked without this assumption, would be a shock to most people. The path of light will always be perceived as straight even when it is curved. That curve will never register in our perception, except as a mental sense through mathematics.

            Similarly, we may be conditioned to assume affinity “waves” to always travel in straight lines with infinite “velocity.” Then, when there are “curves” introduced in that affinity (knowingly or unknowingly), they would be below our radar of detection..

            .

          2. Can we always trust our feelings? Or do we need some kind of mathematics to get a truer picture beyond the perception through feelings?

            .

          3. Vin, affinity already is pretty mathematical, isn’t it? Every level of it has a precise wave length. But I know what you mean about there being “curves” sometimes. Would this be a good subject for KHTK?

  14. Thanks Miraldi.

    Rafael,

    In regards to knowledge being earthly…………and a never ending circle.

    Yes, in order to get out of the circle, you have to ask that empty space in front of you for what ever else you want. Ask it to teach you the truth in all things. Ask non ceasingly.

    It is not only alive and well, it is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

    Diogenese

    1. Diogenes, I’ve started to see it that way myself. One can ask the larger Consciousness (or omniscience or Oneness) something very specific or even something involving very broad truth – it’s a matter of focusing intent in a specific way, in a certain direction. And that’s where knowledge comes in. Knowledge can enlighten you as to what questions to ask and thus point your intent in a particular direction.

      And, for me, this can also be described as making a postulate – a different expression of the same phenomenon.

    2. Good comment, might be true.
      Now, being omnipresent, it might be not only in the empty space in front of us, but also within.

  15. Yes, I am pretty sure that space is more than a viewpoint of dimension

    As far as I know, space is kind of the source of everything.

    If you read the Oahspe and the Urantia, to be at least part of your completing the cycle of learning, they will give you a whole outlook on the universe around you.

    I think they are essential as subjects of comparable magnitude to complete the cycle of learning on Scientology.

    Diogenese

  16. You know …Miraldi,…………………(.and Rafael………..too)..

    You are only one of a very few people in the freezone who likes my posts and point of view. You have to be on a similar wave length as I am.

    I have tipped over pretty well everybody’s apple carts, or rattled their cages, or shook their trees or ruffled their feathers and even made them boil over with such, what would be called blasphemy.

    The truth fries their brains.

    But that is OK,…..the truth is the truth. They will recover.

    In the long run it will do them a lot of good.

    Their reactions and upsets were just noise and phenomena from serfacs and the bank.

    The voice of ignorance, incompetence and insanity.

    They failed to do their homework properly.

    They failed to cog on the data in “How to Study a Science” and Scientology is a science, the science of knowing how to know.

    Know what?

    Know the truth of who you are, your full potential, and know the truth of the world around you or know the truth of anything you want to know the truth about.

    And it is more, a lot more than that.

    The more I think of Scientology and honestly and impartially evaluate it, the more I think Scientology is a very complex and slick allegory.

    I think every religion is an allegory too, to varying degrees and none are perfect or complete.

    The complete truth of what has been dispensated to earth has to be gleaned from all the religions, spiritual teachings, philosophies, books of knowledge and sciences on earth.

    I think the clues to the real purpose of Scientology is contained in Hubbard’s words:

    When asked by the BBC reporter in the video where the reporter asks him which is the right religion or something to that effect, and Hubbard, thought for a moment and kind of awkwardly said:

    Scientology will help make a Christian a better Christian and a Buddist a better Buddist.

    That is an understatement and incomplete.

    In principle it is the only thing Scientology is truly good for.

    It would pass to insert any fundamental religion or significant spiritual teaching in place of Christian or Buddist.

    My observation is that Scientology by itself does not honestly or truly work.

    It helps, but does not work.

    It cures or resolves certain kinds of insanity and problems of life, but far from all. Scientology cures and resolves problems that other religions and modalities do not resolve or resolve well.

    ( Caveat: There is a right way and many wrong ways to do anything and that is especially so for religions.)

    The reason I say that is, if you take an honest look at almost any Scientologist’s actual life , you will see that it is still a despicable mess or hardly above that level, surely not the Homo novus that was Hubbard’s goal or claim or carrot, written and unwritten or spoken and unspoken.

    Scientologists are not really desirable people or any where near where they should be. ( i.e. : to others, than other Scientolgists)

    Their propaganda like KSW does not stand up to scrutiny.

    KSW is the hollow mantra of a business plan or idea.

    Talk is cheap.

    Taking them for a test drive, down enough miles of bad roads, bad storms, adversity and conflict always reveals their true colors, their true character.

    Their serfacs and valences disintegrate.

    Getting a person do Scientology without any other religion as a foundation, is similar to dressing up a sow in a nice dress, with lipstick and earrings.

    Scientology is just too high a gradient for most people. Fundamental religions are the necessary lower gradient to Scientology. Anyone is better than none.

    By assessing the different qualities of successful devout Christians and even Muslims and Hindus for that matter, and Scientologists of differing degrees of success or failure, it is easy to see that the ones who did a bit better have acquired those qualities or characteristics from some other religion, even indirectly acquired by living in proximity to better quality people.

    We are the sum total ( products) of everything we have experienced since before and after conception.

    I have met, worked and lived with devout Muslims and Hindus who were people of the highest quality. They were amazing beings. They emanated a divine essence of love and tranquility that really effects one’s soul, that one does not forget.

    I have seen or detected that quality ( to varying degrees) in a few certain people in Christianity, Islam, Hindu and maybe others, but I have not seen it a Scientologist.

    That is my evaluation after studying Scientology and the products of Scientology for 14 yrs and other people for 40 yrs.

    This does not mean that I do not like Scientology.

    Nothing could be farther from the truth. I love Scientology, it saved my life more than once. I think it is an essential part of any serious personal development program to make it complete.

    I just want to put things in honest perspective. Few people can do that.

    To make my life begin to work (and make Scientology work too) I had to apply the data in “How to Study a Science” to the fullest degree, and add the principles of the bible and Christianity and even more.

    I had a lot to learn and it was more than worth it.

    Diogenese

    1. “Scientology is just too high a gradient for most people”

      How funny. Just a little while ago, I posted a comment on another thread saying that it seemed to me one’s intention monitors how Scn is interpreted and applied. That could also be worded as tone level – or, what you brought with you as part of your accumulated “sum total” (in other words, I don’t know if it would have to be limited to this lifetime’s experience).

      Quoting you again, I love Scientology too. (Yes, it does seem that we are on the same wave length. :-)) And I’ve also learned that datums of comparable magnitude will put it in perspective. I especially like the viewpoint of Oneness – it changes the worldview in a way that feels good. And feels like truth.

      Watch out, Diogenes. You are right about this place being addictive. One of my sons recently said to me, “Are we going to need to do an intervention, Mom?” Of course, I assured myself that he’s just the comedian of the family. 😀

      Btw, another great post! 😉

  17. Post script:

    It came to me just a while ago, that all life on earth ( for humans) may just well be an allegory.

    Others have called it an illusion. I don’t think that is an accurate word, it is more likely an allegory.

    What we think is going on earth is not what is going on earth.

    This earth is a school, an elite school, a boot camp for Gods in training.

    It is not for the flippant, the feeble minded and and faint hearted.

    Many are called and few are chosen.

    In the end times, when the culling begins, there will be two standing in the field and one will be taken and the other will be left behind.

    Many apparently different sources have made similar statements.

    The rest will be left for the barbeque and the worms.

    Joe Larrabell said, ( probably with tongue in cheek and serious at the same time) that at the present time on earth there is only one in a hundred thousand worth salvaging.

    http://larabell.org/ultimate.html

    Diogenese

    People fail in any endeavor for only one reason and that is for the lack of the right knowledge to solve the problem at hand.

    1. “People fail in any endeavor for only one reason and that is for the lack of the right knowledge to solve the problem at hand.”

      Score 1 for all the proponents of Knowledge! 😀

      “This earth is a school, an elite school, a boot camp for Gods in training.”
      One of my current datums of comparable magnitude, Tom Campbell (physicist/philosopher), calls this particular physical universe “a learning lab” of Consciousness (Oneness) – which is playing a game of evolution to higher states. And he claims that there are other learning labs, basing that on research into paranormal experiences (his own and many others).

      I’m wondering if the ones who graduate from this learning lab will go on to the next, while the others remain until they do graduate – or until they become barbeque for the worms. But not to fear! It’s just the entity consisting of an accumulation of particular experiences that ends, not the consciousness associated with that entity – which still exists within the One, and always did.

    2. diogenese: “People fail in any endeavor for only one reason and that is for the lack of the right knowledge to solve the problem at hand.”

      Rather than lack of knowledge, I think people fail from a lack of will. All knowledge seems to have resulted from the presence of a will to know.

      1. Now that you mention it Chris, I think it’s both. Isn’t this that recursive, fractal-pattern “theory of everything” that we’ve talked about – like with the ARC triangle, for example. With Will and Knowledge, it seems that the KRC triangle is in effect. There’s an upward spiral that occurs with an increase in responsibility and control – which together could be seen as Will (both the be and the do of Will). That results in an increase of Knowledge (the have), which then results in the ability and Will to take more responsibility and control, and so on.

        1. LRH’s Admin Tech agrees with you, Marildi. I’m depending on memory and not digging this out of the ashes as I burned my green vols as soon as Geir said to, so am subject to correction of chapter and verse, but I think in the Esto Series, when putting people on post, “. . . it will be found that a failure to get products can be traced to unhattedness or out-ethics.” (something like that – yo)

          1. I almost entirely word cleared students on tech courses, but that idea is definitely familiar to me too.

            Hey, I’m not sure if aligning my idea about will/knowledge with the Admin Tech is the best positioning for me in this part of the woods (LOL). I wanted to be aligned with YOUR philosophy and the recursive, fractal nature of existence. 😉

      2. I’m now thinking how the ARC triangle also includes the ideas of Will and Knowledge. In communication, theres an intention – Will – to bring about duplication and understanding – Knowledge. My whole point is that both Will and Knowledge are needed to succeed/not fail.

    3. Diogenes,

      A lot of significances being assigned, there in that post of yours.

      Perhaps life and existence do not really have any inherent meaning? Maybe they have only the meaning we assign to them?

  18. Yes, Miraldi,

    Thanks for the ack too.

    Yep, based on my good 40 yrs of research, I basically think Tom Campbell is right and so are you on your graduation system data.

    You really should read the Oahspe and the Urantia.

    Mind blowing books.

    They are not of this world.

    They are on the wave length of the graduation system.

    They are on line as ebooks.

    It is my evaluation, that only those who have sufficiently fulfilled their full potential, learned to be a master of life, and the learned the lessons ( non hidden and hidden) of this plane and have learned to master this plane will be qualified for the graduation.

    They will be the chosen ones.

    Jesus is the only good example I can think of.

    I think a couple of basic ways to learn these lessons is to solve every problem that is given to you and or and those that come your way, and to solve it perfectly.

    Another the other one is to learn how to increase the use of your mind from the normal 10% ….. to 100%.

    Why else would we given a mind and need to, or be satisfied with only using 10%?

    Many people do not even use 10%.

    All those “occupy” people and the rest of the rebels, drug addicts, lunatics and anarchists are amongst them.

    The republicans and the tea partiers are in that group.

    Well over 50% of the USA and world population fall under that 10%.

    That corresponds with the tone scale.

    Diogenese

    This world does not give the truth to one on a platter. The truth is hidden and protected by many layers of lies, traps and deceptions to protect it from the vulgar, swine, prostitutes and fools.

    One of my current datums of comparable magnitude, Tom Campbell (physicist/philosopher), calls this particular physical universe “a learning lab” of Consciousness (Oneness) – which is playing a game of evolution to higher states. And he claims that there are other learning labs, basing that on research into paranormal experiences (his own and many others).

    I’m wondering if the ones who graduate from this learning lab will go on to the next, while the others remain until they do graduate – or until they become barbeque for the worms. But not to fear! It’s just the entity consisting of an accumulation of particular experiences that ends, not the consciousness associated with that entity – which still exists within the One, and always did.

    1. “I think a couple of basic ways to learn these lessons is to solve every problem that is given to you and or and those that come your way, and to solve it perfectly.”

      Campbell calls this lowering entropy, i.e. the amount of disorder – in your own universe or in general (as with remote viewing and influencing). Vinaire here would call the same thing lowering inconsistencies.

      “Well over 50% of the USA and world population fall under that 10%.”

      He (Campbell) also talks about putting your attention – your free-will Intent – on the positive, on what you want. Like power of positive thinking or the law of attraction, or like what Scn calls postulates. I’m working on not giving life or granting beingness to all the negative stuff. (On this point, are we in disagreement – finally? LOL!)

      Thank you so much for the tip on those eBooks – I’ll check them out. 🙂

    2. whew! Well that explains it. Thanks.

      . . . and yet, I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that I’ve been here before and it didn’t end well. Let’s see:
      1. You’ve 40 years of experience therefore “saying soothe.” – check.
      2. Referencing Oahspe which had a 25 year run a century ago – check.
      3. Referencing Urantia because Jesus Saves. – check.
      4. Books are “not of this world” for required reading list. – check.
      5. but, Are available online as ebooks. – check.
      6. Master all hidden & non-hidden lessons of life. – check.
      7. Solve all problems of life Perfectly (to an unknown standard.) – check.
      8. Get saved: Use more than 10% of brain. – check…(oh wait, I gotta see about that.)
      9. My mind was a gift: – check. . . . (see about warranty issue.)
      10. The following “types of people” are Going to Hell: Those “occupy” people, rebels, drug addicts, lunatics, anarchists, republicans, tea partiers, vulgar, swine, prostitutes, fools, and >50% of world but only in agreement with Tone Scale. -check (dammit this is not looking good for me).
      11. *Note to self: See if SPs are going to Hell, too because that will include me so might as well give up now.

      Well, that tears it. I’d like to be moving on but I guess that’ll have to wait. Didn’t turn out too bad though what with keeping the prostitutes and swine here… my kind of people.

  19. Wow boy, talk about conspiracies and intrigue involving Scientology. A friend of mine just emailed me the link for an article filled with them. I only skimmed it but the following got my attention:

    “…So Hubbard was very busily regressing thousands and thousands of people further and further back into their past lives, and he discovered the same strange incident in all of his clients. This happened absolutely independently from all other sources I mentioned so far. He discovered information stored in every client’s subconscious and came up with the exact same story on every client.

    “In the constellation Pegasus there is a solar system called MARCAB, a sun surrounded by seven planets. But the sun is going to die. So the humanoid Marcabians who, in our terms would be “evil” in nature, looked about for another planet to move to. Well, having good taste, they finally decided to take the planet Earth…

    “L.Ron Hubbard found out what the Sumerian records, the Gilgamesh epic, the Christian Bible and other books describe as well, that Marcabian “god-like” beings came down from heaven with flying saucers. The ancient people not knowing about machines, described them as something they could relate to: a flying cloud or a “flying wheel that came from heaven” with noise and steam, or the “eye of God” (surely it must be an accident that the eye on the Illuminati sign on the one-dollar bill has the shape of a saucer?)…”

    http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/scientology.htm

  20. Chris,

    Rather than lack of knowledge, I think people fail from a lack of will. All knowledge seems to have resulted from the presence of a will to know.

    Thank you for your comment.

    But from my experience, the lack of will is due to “case”. A person free from case, free from all the abuse, negative programming, etc., has lots of will and ambition. For those are a couple of the many natural abilities or characteristics or attributes of a healthy normal being.

    Get rid of case, and open the person’s mind to positive postulating ( have the right knowledge) and the person will fly.

    So it all comes down to the lack of the right knowledge.

    With the right knowledge a person can solve any problem.

    Give the person with no will, access ( education, how ever it is done, including the right kind of marketing to expose the person to the right knowledge and catch his attention) to the right knowledge and he will solve his problem of no will.

    Hubbard said, you can’t hold back a person with a healthy mind.

    A big problem ( a trap) in Scientology is the data of granting beingness.

    It generally means not to tell a person anything.

    Do not give the person any advice, do not criticize the person. Let the person be. Let him figure it out on his own.

    That is only a very partial truth and has limited application in special circumstances.

    For one thing only high toned properly educated and properly qualified people are qualified to give advice or constructive criticism. Like good parents.

    Truly good parents are scarce.

    The other factor is quite often when a person comes into an org, he is so traumatized and screwed up, from bad control, bad advice, being told, being screamed at and abused that he cannot take any advice or little advice from any one. He needs as much TLC as possible until he comes up the tone scale a few notches.

    Then it is beneficial to give him some advice and tell him what is good for him and done done by a sufficiently high toned, sufficiently well adjusted, sufficiently accomplished, properly educated and properly qualified person.

    That was done to me many times and it did me a lot of good.

    ( Note: In Scientology , very few people are qualified to give any advice of any kind, so that datum ( grant beingness) was the least of the evils, under the circumstances. )

    15 or so yrs ago, I also took a couple of home study personal development courses that had a detailed form that the student sent to friends to ask them; what is wrong with the student and suggestions on how the student could improve and be honest.

    They were very helpful.

    Diogenese.

    1. “I think people fail from a lack of will. All knowledge seems to have resulted from the presence of a will to know.”

      Excellent quote.

    2. I’ve reconsidered. You’re right – we will audit the cases out of people until they have the “will” to live and be good and worthy people who want to know the right way to do things at which point they will take over for themselves. I certainly wouldn’t argue with 40 years of good research experience.

      For my part, I’m planning to send out the survey you mentioned – actually I copied an OCA personality test to send around to my friends and asked them to fill it out in my name. Then I added some blank pages and asked them to fill them out saying what is wrong with me so I’ll know what personality problems to work on so I won’t waste my time working on personal problems of interest to me. I also thought — please just say if I overstepped — that for my D of P interview I could get Marildi, no scratch that, Vinaire to hold the cans and do the interview for me as he is pretty well adjusted, well educated, etc., and that would make my programming easier for the case supervisor.

      I am making the friend list now. I’m being careful to only send the surveys to friends of mine who are sufficiently high toned, sufficiently well adjusted, sufficiently accomplished, properly educated and properly qualified. It’s good that “I” won’t be putting items on the list because I was going to write that I “had a problem” with joking and degrading which would have been a waste of my time as it’s plain to see I have no problem joking and degrading.

      uhhh. . . uh-oh . . . Say if it’s not a bother, could I borrow your list of qualified friends because — this is really embarrassing — I don’t really know anybody like that.

      1. Ha Ha Ha! You are killing me Chris !!!

        I´m sure you will end up in hell for this……….

        Oh! I forgot you are Chrisitigarbha, okey, then!

          1. I was afraid you would say something like that…..

            Just remember when both our arses end up in hell,
            you are the one who is supposed to
            KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO DO.

            AM I RIGHT, PAL?
            I´m placing my immortal soul in your hands…….

            Anyways, of one thing I am absolutely certain….
            If it so happens that you haven´t got the slightest clue
            about what the f*ck you are supposed to do,

            You will still come up with some pretty darned funny jokes about the whole thing.

            I have to confess I´m laughin´my ass off already!!

            See you in hell pal !! Ha Ha Ha!!!

    3. Diogenes,

      “A big problem ( a trap) in Scientology is the data of granting beingness.
      It generally means not to tell a person anything.
      Do not give the person any advice, do not criticize the person. Let the person be. Let him figure it out on his own.”

      This is not how I understand “granting beingness” at all.

      In terms of Communication, it means to me to obnose and recognize the state and condition of the person in front of me, his actual beingness, and to communicate in an appropriate manner.

      LRH has a great lecture about this in the 4th London ACC series, about how lecturing, which is evaluating for the audience, can raise tone and can result in case gain for the audience.

      Even an auditor who follows the auditor’s code in not evaluating forthepc, can communicate with the pc and “tell him things”.

      LRH does mention that in the very early days, he and his trainees worked on the assumption they should not tell the preclears things, but learned this was in fact counter-productive, and that 2-way comm was good and necessary at times.

      I speculate the uncommunicative “blank screen” demeanor originally practiced in early Dianetics was a carryover from psychoanalytic practices, which Hubbard was familiar with by way of his association with Commander “Snake” Thompson.

  21. Hi Miraldi,

    First:

    In regards to your disagreement:

    (On this point, are we in disagreement – finally?)

    Hubbard said that the truth is the truth. The truth is not determined by authority.

    I will add to that.

    The truth is also not determined by argument or agreement or disagreement, or opinions, or beliefs, or majority or ideology or other arbitraries.

    The real truth did exist and will exist independent of our viewpoints and anyone else’s viewpoints.

    So that is what intelligent beings should impartially strive for.

    Next:

    It took me a while to think through what you said.

    I now understand what you mean.

    I have been doing what you say for more than 30 yrs and it does not work as claimed.

    And any idea is only as good as it works.

    I can only say that I had brief glimpses of that dimension as a result of my efforts to do so.

    So there is more to it than knowing about it and focusing on it.

    At the least anyways, underlying false and limiting data (postulates) (case) will not allow a person to stay there. (There may be other factors.)

    They will cave in to block or cloud the focus.

    That is why all those mainstream therapies, pretty well all other alternative therapies, positive thinking, motivational books, feel good books, seminars, recordings, etc., do not work.

    They are only key outs at best.

    Scientology processing is the first and only thing that, ( even though far from perfect) at least begins to effectively address the underlying false and limiting data.

    In principle it at least appears to work in clearing false and limiting data.

    So far as I can tell, based on my own experience and evaluating others, Scientology processing can clear a person, but it does not have the data to make a person stay and be stable in that state or dimension.

    To the best of my knowledge, the bible and other books such as the Oahspe and the Urantia and there are others that have at least some useful data to make a person stable in that state. There may be more yet.

    That is the reason why the data in “How to Study a Science” is so important to be taken seriously.

    Diogenese

    1. I believe there is no inherent, independent or absolute truth. I believe all is relative. It is Only a matter of viewpoint.

            1. Good one.

              And again; Any reference to any unknowable must by definition be irrelevant – and should be treated as such.

          1. Indeed. It doesn’t exist because it precedes any existence. Ooooops, I said too much!

            OK. So does knowingness encompass everything that could possibly be? Is it possible for something unknowable to exist? By analogy: If something is inedible, does that mean it does not exist? If something is invisible, does that mean it does not exist? Etc.

            How about “incomprehensible”?

        1. Geir, that computes. We can sort of get an abstract concept when we use the words “absolute truth” but the words themselves are already relaying the idea of relevance – i.e. truth as compared to non-truth, absolute compared to relative – plus, it implies the idea of a “know-er” if indeed there existed something to be conceptualized (as “absolute truth”). All of this shows it can’t exist as the idea would be self-contradictory. It’s an oxymoron.

          We can’t even say that something exists that is unknowable, if by that we mean it exists but we can’t know it – because as soon as we have said something exists that isn’t knowable there again is a contradiction, i.e. saying it exists is already stating something knowable about “it.”

          BUT, we could say that it is POSSIBLE (for all we know) that something exists outside our capability of perceiving/knowing/relating to it, and that since it is outside that capability then it is unknowable – at least to us. This is the way I can see a valid use of the word unknowable. And, obviously, this use might be needed in some contexts.

          (Welp, got some brain exercise there, if nothing else, ha ha.)

          1. p.s. Forgot one other thought I had. It would be an assumption either way – to say “nothing” exists or “something” exists outside our ability to perceive or communicate with it in some way. That is unknowable (that’s a way to use the word).

          2. But as I have said before – any reference to any unknowable must be irrelevant by defenition or else it is rendered less unknowable and needs a different name.

            1. Careful, Vin. You have showed yourself incapable of backing off from a slippery slope before. Please be capable this time, or we both know what happens.

          3. Careful? Okayyyy… I shall be very, very careful when dealiing with you in this area.

            I shall be where it is productive for independent thinking.

            🙂

          4. Socrates was accused of corrupting young minds.

            Am I corrupting the lovely mind of marilldi now?

            Maybe… maybe not.

            Ummmmm.

            .

            1. And now you start assuming and evaluating for Marildi as well. Please show some improvement from the last round. Please.

          5. I think that I have just realized about the nature of the territory I am treading on.

            This is a sincere remark, and not a snide one.

            .

          6. Vin, It comes under the heading of over-run. In a comm cycle when some one runs on and on about the same thing and no amount of acknowledgement will make them feel acknowledged then a friction develops due to the inconsistency. In reverse, the same thing happens when a person won’t acknowledge. When the person generating this inconsistency is unable to see this, they also fail to see how their comm cycles in life routinely end up in a twist. Sometimes we see them complaining of not being understood or not getting along with others. The trickiest aspect is the person, seeing the created friction, assigns the source of the friction outside their sphere of influence.

            I have found that drilling the exercises in KHTK might help. Up around exercise #10 a person can to address specific concerns. I have been helped in this way. I think you could agree?

            http://vinaire.wordpress.com/contents/

          7. LRH says that, actually, overrun is special case of protest. But I have realized that the real reason is more basic than that. There is a reason why a person cannot simply ignore it. I am still working on it. I can see a post resulting from this on my blog.

            .

          8. Could completing a cycle of communication involve handling a person’s whole case?

            What does it really mean to complete a cycle of communication?

            .

          9. “Could completing a cycle of communication involve handling a person’s whole case?”

            Thank god, no! That’s exactly why TR’s were invented.

          10. Chris, I know Geir disagrees with the concept of unknowable. I have no idea what to do about it except that I don’t mention it at all on his blog. If I mention it, it goes into overrun as you are saying. If I don’t address it then the communication cycle is incomplete. But there seem to be no way to address it.

            I guess that is the characteristic of unknowable.

            .

            1. Again (and again, and again…) I have no (I repeat; no) quarrels with The Unknowable ™ – except that it must remain wholly irrelevant in order to actually be Unknowable. So any and all mentions of it in any and all context must be completely overlooked when it is brought up by a person doing the disservice to the concept by mentioning it in the first place. And that person would be You.

          11. “Thank god, no! That’s exactly why TR’s were invented.”

            That made me laugh. As I understand, TRs were invented to get a person to look, while handling his originations. Where TRs go wrong is TR3ing a person on a question, which that person has either answered, or not interested in. That is where the phenomenon of overrun sets in.

            Chris seems to indicate that I have not handled some of his originations. Maybe I should give it another go. OK, Chris, ready? Let’s handle whatever you got there that I have failed to handle.

          12. Maria’s approach I think is analogous to what I understand Vinaire to be saying about “Unknowable.” In other words, by getting the idea that there exists a realm where things can’t be known – that is to say, “can’t” be known only because of one’s CURRENT reach which is limited by one’s current structure of knowledge. Vin considers that this concept helps us get out of our mind-set box. In fact, in one place on his blog he stated that it was actually a tool.

            But in addition to it being a tool, I get that (correct me if I’m wrong on this, Vin) it is also his intention to propose that there IS a realm of unknowable. This would be an assumption, of course (which I think he concedes, somewhere in his essays). But that’s not always a bad thing – any theory starts with one or more assumptions (from what I understand)– or it wouldn’t be a new theory at all as it wouldn’t be getting out of the box.

            I think Vin has expressed his ideas about Unknowable better in his articles than on comments (assuming my duplication is somewhere near being correct, ha ha!).

          13. By “Maria’s approach” I was referring to what she said here:

            I suppose I am in search of absolute truth. Whether it exists or not is moot, the results and changes that come from that search have been the most valuable things in my life.
            Reply

          14. Oh man, what I wrote was ambiguous at best. What I meant was that TRs were invented so that we can have comm cycles in spite of case – and that includes comm cycles both in and out of session.

            Not just in session but in life, mis-acknowledging, for example, leaves the comm cycle incomplete and bypasses a lot of charge. It can feel very invalidating to the one who was mis-acknowledged.

      1. Is this not the First Postulate? “Not-know”, “I don’t know”, etc.

        All knowing is based on first not-knowing. Once you postulate that you don’t know, then you can “learn about”, “know about”, some particular thing.

        It’s just the expanded Know to Mystery scale.

        I would say it is true that there is little that can be said about “the ultimate truth” because the ultimate truth would be the infinite potential out of which everything that exists, past, present and future, world without end, arises or comes forth. The alpha and omega.

        We can point towards it, but what can we actually know about it?

    2. Of course, Diogenes. “Argument” (discussion) is just a way of exchanging ideas and stating viewpoints and lack of agreement between them naturally gets expressed, whether pointed out directly (and sometimes kiddingly ;-)) or implied in the viewpoints themselves. Now, if by “real truth” you mean something absolute, I would have to say that in PT I have the same consideration as Geir about truth being relative, always. In other words, there are lower and higher levels of truth, encompassing lesser or greater spheres of existence.

      But it seems that the main point in your post is that the viewpoints expressed in “the bible and other books such as the Oahspe and the Urantia” are the highest levels of truth you have found. And I take it that your conclusion was determined by applying “How to Study a Science.” What is that reference? Or did you mean the LRH reference, “How to Study Scientology”?

    3. What I have been noticing is that my path has become a process of extending / expanding experience / perception. I hit a curious phenomena looking around for new “levels” to explore and found that I seemed to have hit a dead end of sorts. Then I realized that it was not really a dead end but a built-in constraint based on an inability to “see” or “process” information that doesn’t fit in with my (largely unexamined) conditioned /structured states / habits of mind, a mind which can be thought of roughly in terms of a computer. And that includes logic /reason /acquired knowledge. If that computer is programmed to run a particular process when it receives a particular input, it will run a process only when it receives input that matches what it has in its programs. i.e. if the input of “rabbit” is received, and it has a “rabbit” program, then it runs the “rabbit” program. If it receives the input “ogopo,” and it does not have a “ogopo” program, it will not recognize “ogopo” and nothing will be matched and processed. So “osopo” does not exist.

      Since realizing that, I have been ransacking all manner of information that may serve to extend / expand enough to at least open the door to possibilities beyond. Like Diogenes, I have been reading Urantia and turn of the century treatises on mind, spirit, and so on. It is a time period before the entire subjective mind area was dismissed by mainstream science as “unscientific” because it is “insubstantial” and biased. That dismissal is a bias that also closes many doors.

      So, yes, truth is relative and part of that relativity is constraints imposed by what appears to be the very real limitations of consensus / conditioned reality including an over-reliance on the existing mind methods. And truth is also absolute, otherwise there is no possibility of asserting that something is true or false. It just happens to be absolute truth within a particular paradigm or state of awareness. And who knows, there may be an absolute truth after all. I suppose I am in search of absolute truth. Whether it exists or not is moot, the results and changes that come from that search have been the most valuable things in my life.

  22. Yes, Miraldi,

    You can say that I have come to the conclusions I did as a result of applying the data of “How to study a science” to a considerable degree a lot more than the Oahspe and the Urantia. They are only the most significant.

    I am not saying that what I say is the absolute truth because I said so or I believe it.

    It is also based on comparing it to the known universe with reason and evaluation.

    I quit believing things 20 yrs ago, simply because believing in something gives the idea that the data is accepted as a truth, with out proof.

    That is akin to intellectual dishonesty.

    Like fellow ex Scientologist Jim Marshall wisely articulated: A belief is a confession of ignorance.

    I have since adopted the function of scientific thinking.

    Everything I know is tentative and always subject to correction.

    Diogenese

    1. truth – something someone considers in PT to be an actuality (but it is a relative actuality since the consideration is always part of some frame of reference)

      belief – (1) something accepted as truth without any inspection (2) something inspected and accepted as the closest one can get to truth without conclusive proof but consistent with the data one has

      believe – the verb form of either noun definition

  23. It seems that ARC break occurs only when ego gets involved, such as, the rightmess of one’s logic.

    Now, this is going deep.

          1. Vin,

            Perhaps it is not necessarily a FIXED unit, but any particularity at all, fixed or not?

          2. Yes, that is what I meant. I shall change the wordings as follows.

            “The concept of “I” is based on a belief in the fixed concept of a UNIT.”

          3. Or, the wording may changed as follows,

            “The concept of ‘I’ is based on a fixed belief in the concept of a UNIT.”

            .

          4. My solution would be not being fixed in the concept of a unit, and ALSO not geting fixed in the concept of not being a unit.

            Being fixed in an identity or an individuality can be as sickening as being fixed in non-identity or non individuality.
            True freedom would be able to assume or not any one (or not-one) at will.

            Be and un-be, move in and out of games at will.

            What would seem to me as incongruent is to pretend to be part of a game avoiding any beingness at the same time.

  24. Gee Maria,

    I really liked your commentary in regards to my post.

    You put words to “things” or “non things” that I was not only not able to, but did not and could not wrap my mind around the least bit .

    That is pretty darn good.

    I can say I experienced much the same.

    Thank you for shining some light on the fringes of the unknown.

    I have had the Urantia book for ten yrs and up till a couple of weeks ago I only read a few lines and paragraphs here and there. A number of people told me to read it and it appeared intriguing but I could not get on it’s wave length. I have been getting daily quotes from the Urantia Foundation for a couple of yrs and talked to people about it. Even was to a local Urantia study group a couple of times, but it was discontinued because the guy moved away.

    A couple of weeks ago, I decided to really get into it and it started to flow. Now I have a hard time getting away from it.

    I doubt that you will go to hell with Chris.

    Diogenese

  25. Valkov

    I acknowledge your comment on my post. (Below)

    The way I see it knowledge has a close relationship with theta and theta units and is part of theta units.

    I think it is in part; more or less true that more knowledge = more theta units.

    There seems to be another dimension or dynamic to theta, that I can’t identify.

    And asking the empty space for knowledge, wisdom, understanding or anything else seems to be effective.

    Thanks,

    Diogenese

    commented on On L. Ron Hubbard’s Administrative Technology.

    in response to a comment by marildi:

    Diogenes, I’ve started to see it that way myself. One can ask the larger Consciousness (or omniscience or Oneness) something very specific or even something involving very broad truth – it’s a matter of focusing intent in a specific way, in a certain direction. And that’s where knowledge comes in. Knowledge can enlighten you as […]

    BIG ME, little me.

    1. “more knowledge = more theta units.”

      Extension: more knowledge (= more understanding) = more theta units (= more ARC)

      What’s missing, you ask? Maybe something like free will. I say that because all by itself ARC could be seen as totally mechanistic and even deterministic, and the thing that is missing from mechanics alone would be the idea of free will/free choice/ability to postulate or consider.

  26. in response to a comment by Diogenese:

    What are the fundamental axioms of Oahspe and the Urantia?

    Please summarize.

    Vinaire,

    Thanks for your inquiry. But you ask such hard and complicated questions.

    They are subjects of comparable magnitude to Scientology, in that they “attempt” to explain certain aspects of life and creation and cosmology.

    And they are tomes.

    That is why I say they are really good for someone who did Scientology to use them as different points of view on certain matters.

    Scientology is a huge subject and covers many areas or sub subjects. There is nothing on earth that is exactly similar. So the best one can do is to study and evaluate as many other subjects that attempt to explain life and help man fulfill his full potential

    Oahspe and Urantia are similar in their own way.

    The best way to get some insight into them is to read the indexes.

    Try these sites, I hope they work for you. If not a little bit of searching should produce sufficient info.

    http://oahspebible.com/

    http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book/download-text-urantia-book

    http://www.urantia.org/urantia-book-standardized/paper-107-origin-and-nature-thought-adjusters#U107_0_5

    I now have to get away from this computer.

    I can’t keep up to all the posts.

    So if you or anyone has commented on my posts, I thank you. Please accept my thanks.

    Until sometimes later……………

    Cheers to everyone….

    Diogenese

      1. I’ve read those Wikipedia articles and the one that interested me was Oahspe – but it’s over 2,000 pages long! I was going to ask Diogenes to give us a synopsis but looks like he flew the coop for now. Maybe when he returns he will give us a couple examples of insights or wins he’s had. Or Maria might! Vin already asked her.

        A question for you, Geir. Who is that handsome guy with the dimples in your new icon photo? 🙂 Seriously though, I remember seeing that on a blog post of yours some time ago and thinking how different it looks from other photos I’ve seen of you (not less handsome! just different). And can I have your old icon – it was always the best one. (Just kidding – I guess it will forever be associated with you.)

        1. It’s my Facebook pic – from a movie premiere we did in FreeCode – it’s me in a photoshop’ed Die Hard 4.0 poster.

          1. Ah, that explains the more rugged look (even apart from the scars). Maybe they should photoshop Bruce Willis’ posters with a little of your more refined look. 😉

            Anyway, it’s a cool image. 🙂

    1. I am curious to find out why Urantia, and why not Budhism? What makes Urantia unique? Hopefully Wikipedia will shed light on these questions.

      I am also looking forward to Maria’s analysis.

      .

        1. “The Urantia Book considers Buddhism one of the ‘great international, interracial faiths’ and says it ‘has shown an adaptability to the mores of many peoples that has been equaled only by Christianity.'”

          I see several outpoints (inconsistencies) in the above statement. First of all Buddhism is not a faith. Buddhism is totally based on LOOKING. There is no divine authority acknowledged in Buddhism. Buddhism has nothing to do with race. I do not understand the use of the word “interracial” in the above statement. There is nothing in Buddhism that needs to be adapted to mores of different cultures. It simply gives people the tool to reassess their own mores.

          .

        2. “Gautama Siddhartha is called a real prophet whose doctrines were “revolutionary and amazing” for their time. He is credited with being one of the seven outstanding teachers in human history in the matter of combining contemporaneous systems of ethical and religious teachings, a group that includes Moses, Laozi, and the Apostle Paul.”

          Nobody in the East considers Gautama as a prophet because he did not prophesize anything. He was simply a Teacher. Buddha did not pass on any doctrines that were to be taken on faith. He simply provided the knowledge that he had realized, and asked his disciples to even question that and determine their own certainty. Buddha simply clarified the knowledge that existed at his time.

          .

        3. “The book says Gautama’s experience was tragic, however, in that he was an “orphan prophet” whose philosophy failed early on to envision the reality of a spiritual God.”

          Buddhism is knowledge-based, and not faith-based. It does not acknowledge any God separate from one. It seems that the Urantia Book is looking at Buddhism through the filter of Semitic conception of God.

          That filter would be enough for me to reject Urantia at the fundamental level.

          .

  27. Like a dog that returns to his vomit, I had to come back to see what was the latest and I
    seen this reply and question by Vinaire

    in response to a comment by Diogenese:

    in response to a comment by Diogenese: What are the fundamental axioms of Oahspe and the Urantia? Please summarize. Vinaire, Thanks for your inquiry. But you ask such hard and complicated questions. They are subjects of comparable magnitude to Scientology, in that they “attempt” to explain certain aspects of life and creation and cosmology. And […]

    I am curious to find out why Urantia, and why not Budhism? What makes Urantia unique? Hopefully Wikipedia will shed light on these questions.

    I am also looking forward to Maria’s analysis

    Vinaire:

    It is not one or the other. I could of said Buddism too, but I did not want to make a long list.

    U have studied some Buddism too.

    The point is the more different viewpoints you study and better you will understand Scientology and the bigger picture.

    That is what the data in “How to Study A Science” really means.

    I am going to go and read some more of the Urantia.

    It is twice a big as the Oahspe.

    I hope you looked at the links I provided.

    Note:

    I don’t see any similarity between Buddism and Urantia.

    I have also seen comments that the Oahspe is based on Judism, but I think that is ridiculous.

    People who make comments like that are intellectually challenged and not qualified to make an informed opinion on anything.

    Over and out!

    Diogenese

  28. GEIR: “Again (and again, and again…) I have no (I repeat; no) quarrels with The Unknowable ™ – except that it must remain wholly irrelevant in order to actually be Unknowable. So any and all mentions of it in any and all context must be completely overlooked when it is brought up by a person doing the disservice to the concept by mentioning it in the first place. And that person would be You.”

    By the way, I love that trademark after “Unknowable ™”. Llet me see if I can really keep my TRs in and handle Geir’s origination this time.

    Unknowable has no inherent value, just like zero has no inherent vlaue. But zero is used as a point of reference for all numbers (positive or negative). Similarly, I use “Unknowable ™” as a point of reference for all considerations (known or unknown).

    .

    1. And with this comparison the logic breaks: Because 0 cannot in any way or shape or form be compared to Unknowable. Because Unknowable by definition cannot be compared to anything. As I said – it cannot be linked or used as a reference – because that implies knowledge about the Unknowable, rendering it less Unknowable. And hence you will have to invent a different word for “it”.

      This explains your faulty logic very well: “Unknowable has no inherent value, just like zero has no inherent vlaue.” But 0 has an inherent value… of zero. Whereas Unknowable cannot in any way be Known.

      I understand if you believe you have “struck gold” with The Unknowable. I understand if this has become your hobby horse. But sir, Anything you imply or refer or link to the Unknowable cannot be known – although you continue to speculate and render the Unknowable less. The Unknowable is by definition wholly irrelevant. And by trying to sell it as something valuable, you make yourself less relevant. About to become irrelevant.

      Vinaire, I do love you for the contribution you have made with the exercises in KHTK. But this philosophical blind alley makes KHTK itself less relevant. Your speculations on the Unknowable devaluates the otherwise very valuable in KHTK.

      I will heed your concept of the Unknowable by keep insisting that it is and must remain Wholly Irrelevant. Keep selling it (and do disservice to the concept) and I shall consider it blasphemy and edit those parts of your post to again render the Unknowable truly Unknowable (i.e. remove any reference to it).

      1. The definition of blasphemy is : disrespect for something considered sacred or inviolable.

        Just to be clear, what is the something considered sacred or inviolable?

        1. Okay, but do you in a way also consider it such? I’m asking because you say you are unwilling to allow blasphemy on the subject. And I don’t remember you taking such a stance on anything before. But I may be missing the point!

          1. I am faced with the following proposition: Either I believe the whole idea of The Unknowable is BS, or I believe it is Gospel. If I believe it is gospel, then I will honor the concept by keeping it Wholly Irrelevant and not drag it into any reference and thereby voiding the concept itself. Or, if I believe it is BS, then I will honor this blog by not soiling it with such 😉

            Well, do I believe anything is sacred? Nah, not on a Monday.

          2. That’s what I thought! Sacred belief and you don’t go together. 🙂

            Maybe Vinaire should just change the word to “Unknown” or something. There wouldn’t be so much confusion about it. “Unknowable” seems to be a misnomer that just produces MU phenomena. And if he wants to keep with and honor the traditional Hindu term I guess he needs to honor the neti-neti part too. (Vin, are you listening?) Other than that, we would have to give “unknowable” a whole new definition in our minds, or just consider it a place holder and nothing more.

          1. Chris, I’m not disagreeing, but Why not?

            It occurs to me that there can be particular, specific, limited, “unknowables”. These would be critters different from Vin’s “The Unknowable” category.

            For example, is the cat in the box dead or alive, at any given moment? Is this knowable?

            ( I am a physics retard, so maybe this was settled ages ago, for alI I know.)

            Otherwise, I have to side with Geir on issue of the relevance of “the Unknowable”. If it’s unknowable, it’s unknowable, and that’s all. There’s nothing there to discuss or include in any computation.

            LRH did lecture upon and discuss the idea of “hidden influences” quite extensively in the lectures series on The Factors. But he never mentioned they were unknowable.

            1. The case of Schrödinger’s cat is unknown, not unknowable. Anything that can be sensed, thought of, experienced, imagined, referenced or implied is not Unknowable. It is merely Unknown.

  29. Oahspe and Urantia are both channeled materials, consequently the actual source of them is unknown. Both of them describe a cosmology / history of the universe, a religious/spiritual belief system and opinions/judgments about human affairs as regards spiritual evolution or revelation. The only real similarities between them is that they are channeled, they speak of a single God above all Gods and all life, the source of all life and existence, and they acknowledge the existence of functioning spirit forms beyond corporeal existence on this planet and its systems, beings that can and do communicate with us.

    There is a fairly concise summary of the chief differences between the two at this link:
    http://217.121.179.52/Books%20Many%20Books%20in%20pdf/Difference%20Between%20Urantia%20And%20Oahspe.pdf

    The author of the comparison offers his reasoning for studying these materials, and his point of view is very similar to my own:

    “To me, it seems wise to critique even spirit authors just as we would mortal authors. How do they think? How do they view us? What do they value and want us to value? What is the overall emphasis—the real spirit behind all the words? By reading both, volumes, what do we learn about the nature of spirit communications overall? Let’s keep investigating. Let’s share
    thoughts.”

    I might add that there are many very well known channeled materials including: the Koran, Christian Science, Mormonism, Ba’hai, entire sections of the Bible, Greek prophecies and Eleusian mysteries, the Goddess and on it goes. These are the revealed religions, God speaking through an individual.

    The question often arises, why do they differ so much? For me, the answer comes down to the same problem I experience. I don’t have an “ogopo” program to match up to so I match it to the closest equivalent and as a result my rendering of the information comes out distorted. Also, I haven’t found anything to suggest that a disincarnate individual is going to have any better cognizance of truth than I do. What is probably more to the point is that there are a tremendous number of experiences such as channeling that do not fit in with the standard mode of communication of physical person to physical person. My personal experience with whole track recall has provided me with a respect for the impact of such information, whether or not those whole track events belonged to me personally and whether or not my recall is accurate. And in speaking to others who have experienced whole track recall, the incidents are diverse and apparently quite infinite. And then, consider Elizabeth, who is creating an entire universe as she wishes, a universe that is as rich and varied as anything I have ever recalled or experienced. And dreams, vivid dreams, lucid dreams, waking dreams. It goes on apparently quite infinitely.

    I think a really important question is: why do people find revealed knowledge to be so much more valuable than the next door neighbor’s knowledge? Could it be that it forms a connection to a life source or data stream of such will or vitality that the impression is powerfully compelling, even overwhelming? Could it be that it bridges a gap in programming (i.e. now I have an ogopo reference) and so can recognize what I experiencing enough to broaden connections from there? So many questions. I keep asking. I keep experiencing.

    There’s one quote in Urantia that I just love:

    “This is the true meaning of that divine command, ‘Be you perfect, even as I am perfect,’ which ever urges mortal man onward and beckons him inward in that long and fascinating struggle for the attainment of higher and higher levels of spiritual values and true universe meanings. This sublime search for the God of universes is the supreme adventure of the inhabitants of all the worlds of time and space.”

    and elsewhere:

    “Love of adventure, curiosity, and dread of monotony — these traits inherent in evolving
    human nature — were not put there just to aggravate and annoy you during your short sojourn on earth, but rather to suggest to you that death is only the beginning of an endless career of adventure, an everlasting life of anticipation, an eternal voyage of discovery.”

    1. “I haven’t found anything to suggest that a disincarnate individual is going to have any better cognizance of truth than I do.”

      “I think a really important question is: why do people find revealed knowledge to be so much more valuable than the next door neighbor’s knowledge?”

      Well, Maria, you just got me to spot a hidden bias. Thank you! And thanks so much for writing all you did. Your efforts are always much appreciated! 🙂

  30. Love your posts, Maria! The quote you mention, I apparently understand just a little differently than the way it’s author did –

    “This is the true meaning of that divine command, ‘Be you perfect, even as I am perfect,’ which ever urges mortal man onward and beckons him inward in that long and fascinating struggle for the attainment of higher and higher levels of spiritual values and true universe meanings.”

    “Be you perfect” in archaic language means “You ARE perfect”, not “strive to be perfect”. It is about being, not about becoming.

    It is not a command, but a statement of fact. It is a Gnostic statement. As above, so below. Or Jesus’s statement about making the inner the same as the outer in order to enter the kingdom of heaven. Or that we are all “sons of God”.

    I particularly like your view about “channeling” and knowledge which resides in whole track memory. It could be said that the memory banks each and every individual has access to, contain all the knowledge of all the universes that have ever existed, every pattern of organization, every valence and identity, everything.

    Anything we discover, we are actually re-discovering. We are simply chasing what we already know. Sometimes I think these are the “pretty rocks” LRH mentions, that sometimes distract people along the Way.

    Which is not to say we should not view, study, and enjoy them or deplore them as maybe fitting as we come across them. Just as long as we remember they are just facsimiles.

    “Dream the world all alive, busily conspiring, humming like a hive…..”

    From this song –

    1. “It could be said that the memory banks each and every individual has access to, contain all the knowledge of all the universes that have ever existed, every pattern of organization, every valence and identity, everything.”

      Valkov, I am amazed at how much I have been coming across that very idea recently. And it makes total sense when you consider that there is just One (being/spirit/consciousness). Because in that case – of course all the data would be there available to each and every “individual.”

      If you are interested in some actual scientific studies by a physicist on the subject, check out his “overview” lecture. He explains how anyone can learn to tune in to any type of data bank you can think of. LRH describes “files” in the mind as being capable of being brought forth in any combination of concepts. And it now seems that people can also bring forth any category of data in the complete Oneness/Consciousness data banks – such as those of history and even “probable future” banks (quantum physics principles run through everything in existence, apparently) – and they caneven tune into PT realities or entities such as disembodied spirits or “other worlds.”

      1. Hi Marildi!

        How do you keep up with this blog’s many posts and come up with cogent and intelligent responses to boot?

        I don’t necessarily subscribe to the idea that we are all “one being”, just that we all have, potentially, access to the same “libraries” of recorded experience.

        1. Wow, nice compliment about my posts, coming from you, Valkov. Yours are some of the ones I especially like to keep up with! As to how I keep up – it ain’t easy! But like Diogenes said already in his young career here – it’s an addiction. Seriously, I’ve been telling myself I’ve got to “cut back” and like a typical addict so far I’m not succeeding. (Maybe I have to “hit bottom” ;-).) But hey, you have a lot of frequent poster mileage yourself!

          About the existence of “one being,” I started to get that idea from reading different posts here on this blog, as a matter of fact. Then with recent study of Campbell’s research, I got a better image of each “individual” as an awareness point belonging to the same overall Consciousness/Oneness – each of us being one of its many “eyes,” you could say.

          At the same time, we have our own individual “identity” that is very real to us, not just because of bodies and other physical universe labels and tags but due to our having a whole time-track of personal experience being one of those “eyes.” But in addition to our individual databases, each of us has potential access to the same “libraries” – which makes a lot of sense if you consider that we all are a part of Consciousness and part of the complete “information system of Consciousness.”

          But I know exactly how you feel – and I surprise myself by seeing it somewhat differently now :-).

          1. Yes Marildi I understand, I think, about the “one being” thing. I guess I basically feel the question of whether we are “one” or “many” is inapplicable. The categories are inapplicable. They are categories of quantification. These apply to MEST things which can be located, measured and counted.

            Theta, as conceived by LRH and others before him, cannot

            Here’s an example from the TechDictionary definition of “static” –

            4. something which has no motion. The word is from the Latin ‘sto’ meaning ‘stand’. No part of MEST can be ‘static’, but theta is ‘static’. Theta has no motion. Even when the MEST it controls is moving in space and time, theta is not moving because theta is not in space and time.

            My point is that ‘theta’ cannot be measured or counted, thus considerations of “one” or “many” as an either/or do not apply. We are all like the cat in the box. “Now I’m Many”. “Now I’m One”. “Now I’m All.” etc.

            I guess it’s form of Vinnie’s ‘neti, neti’.

            Calling each ‘individual’ a ‘part’ of ‘one consciousness’ conveys to me the feeling that the individual is somehow ‘smaller’ than the One; thus people fall into monotheism, which I feel is a misconception. That’s why I reject framing it in those terms.

            MEST language and MEST logic don’t cover it. The ‘truth’ is, each ‘individual’ is just as ‘infinite’ as the postulated One is infinite. Infinity is infinity.

            There’s a lot in Hindu literature and traditions about “God-realization.” This is another way of speaking about the experience of Native State.

            I hope this conveys why I reject the idea that we “are all one”. It seems closer to the truth to say that we are all one and all individual at the same time. But we never really ‘cease’ to be individuals. It can feel that way at times, but all we can do is talk around the actuality because any definitive statement one way or the other is not possible.

            Now I better go remedy my havingness!

          2. Valkov, I agree that language is a problem and that it’s misleading to call each individual “part” of one consciousness. Sometimes it’s worded that each individual IS consciousness. And I would add to that – looking outward from one of its many “view points” or consciousness (awareness) points.

            The concept of Oneness just seems to fit the data better, for me. For one (big) thing, it resolves what “life” is – from the microscopic on up. LRH’s construct of individual thetans plus the un-individualized “theta” left me with questions.

            Oneness not only fits all the data better but all the anomalies. Here’s a wonderful “anomaly” for you: http://www.slothster.com/2352-Cat-On-Boat-Plays-With-Dolphins.html

    2. Valkov: “Be you perfect” in archaic language means “You ARE perfect”, not “strive to be perfect”. It is about being, not about becoming.

      Absolutely!

      1. Did you find any inconsistencies in the data presented under the heading of Oahspe and Urantia? Or, is it all very consistent?

        What does it all boild down to?

        .

          1. Maria, I also play with punctuation, as in:

            Be still, and Know, that “I am God”. (Not to mention you are, and you are, and you are, and you, and you, and you and those guys over there too……)

            Ever read Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land” ?

  31. I have a few comments to make>

    Thank you Maria for posting that commentary on Oahspe and Urantia. (I did not go to the link for lack of time.)

    Some of it is pretty good. ( I have read quite a bit of channeled material.)

    Quote of the author:
    “Also, I haven’t found anything to suggest that a disincarnate individual is going to have any better cognizance of truth than I do.”

    My experience is that I do find different qualities of channeled material and some of it is nonsense to me and some of it is amazing to me.

    There seems to be different levels from which disincarnate beings connect with humans to give their messages. Some claim to have been incarnate and some never were.

    I do find some sources that have a better handle on truth than humans.

    I have learned a lot from channeled material. I have learned more from channeled material than I have learned from humans.

    I even suspect that a lot of Hubbard’s stuff is channeled. Especially his books. The reason being is that they ( at least much of it) are so different from his spoken words.)

    I suspect that there is a lot of truth in Joe Larabell’s write up. I came across his article 3 or 4 yrs ago. When I first read it, it rang true for me as I had similar hunches for many yrs prior.

    I suspect that Scientology is a very complex and slick allegory and something else I can’t find a word to describe it.

    Diogenese.

    1. I agree Diogenes, there are channels (sources) that offer tremendous insight. I guess what I was trying to say is that one can’t assume they are wonderful just because they are disincarnate, and I think we all channel (both incarnate and disincarnate sources) whether we realize or not. I think we channel a great deal more than anyone ever suspects, possibly even continually. Channeling may even be how we really communicate with one other, as we form our pretty words.

    2. LRH channelling? Yeah, maybe so. His output of communicating was voluminous plus another thing, he demonstrated a brilliance toward the make up of the mind that he failed to demonstrate neither toward himself nor in other endeavors such as routine education in math and science. Now that in itself proves nothing but it is something to note. One friend of mine claims he stole the materials dealing with implants on the whole track and didn’t invent these materials himself. Just a comment but sequitur to your post.

  32. I find that I am making some assumptions when I am reading posts. I also feel some ambiquity when I am reading posts. And maybe their are some inconsistencies sometimes too.

    The words “truth” and “believe” and “belief” are used so often in this discussion or thread.

    To understand each other, we have to know the definitions of the words and if you have more than one definition for the words and sometimes use different definitions, we should know which definition you are using.

    I have a few questions to ask each of the participants in this group:

    (In answering these questions; I mean your definition and not the dictionary definition or Hubbard’s definitions. So don’t go looking for the definitions or use Hubbard’s words.

    What do you mean when you use the word “truth”?

    Do you have more than one definition and if so what are they?

    What do you mean when you use the word “belief “?

    Do you have more than one definition and if so what are they?

    What do you mean when you use the word “believe”?

    Do you have more than one definition and if so what are they?

    Diogenese

    1. “What do you mean when you use the word “truth”?”

      Mostly I refer to truth as agreement or common creations (same thing).

      “Do you have more than one definition and if so what are they?”

      A deeper definition would be Nothing

      “What do you mean when you use the word “belief “?”

      An estimated truth.

      “Do you have more than one definition and if so what are they?”

      Not really…

      “What do you mean when you use the word “believe”?”

      To estimate truth.

      “Do you have more than one definition and if so what are they?”

      Nope.

    2. Truth = relative term having to do with the consistency of considerations. greater consistency = greater truth. True = more consistent than inconsistent.

      Belief = a wish

      Believe = I wish

    3. (By mistake I put this under another comment so will repost here.)

      truth – something someone considers in PT to be an actuality (but it is a relative actuality since the consideration is always part of some frame of reference)

      belief – (1) something accepted as truth without any inspection (2) something inspected and accepted as the closest one can get to truth without conclusive proof but consistent with the data one has

      believe – the verb form of either noun definition

    4. Truth: An observation deemed valid

      Belief: A consideration deemed valid

      What is the difference between consideration and observation? I´m not sure, but it seems that if the source has high “power” its considerations could become the observations and “truth” for others.

      Consideration/observation are awareness phenomena related to the position of the being in the tone scale.

      Maybe one big problem with knowledge comes from the people´s effort to get their own considerations agreed to as “real”, could they be still dramatizing the process of creation of the MEST universe?

  33. These are the best I can come up for how I define truth and belief right now.

    Truth: 1) Actual process / state as opposed to distorted or altered explanation or perception. 2) Exact time, place, form and event. 3) Stable datum (subject to change on receipt of additional truth)

    Belief: 1) Decision 2) Conclusion 3) Assumption 4) Stable datum 5) What is held dear or of high esteem such as values & ideals 4) Trusted information. Note: All of these are subject to change due to based on exposure of greater truth and they are all in the realm of predominating thought / will.

    1. There has been a few weeks since you said it 🙂

      I appreciate it immensely every time.

      I love that you post here. Your contributions are consistently among the most valuable.

  34. THE BEAUTY OF PARADOX AND THE COUNTER-INTUITIVE SOLUTION
    The counter-intuitive lesson in this thread doesn’t seem to be about LRH Admin Technology nor about the unknowable but about the beauty of paradox.

    The paradox that the Church of Scientology flounders while sporting the very best management technology in the world points to a flaw in the claim that LRH policy letters are the best or even workable. Thus the paradox is an apparency that debunks the claims of LRH and the Church of Scientology.

    The paradox of “unknowable” points toward the fallacious argument about this oxymoron.

    The paradox of Vinay’s argument that “unknowable” has a peculiar characteristic:
    “Chris, I know Geir disagrees with the concept of unknowable. I have no idea what to do about it except that I don’t mention it at all on his blog. If I mention it, it goes into overrun as you are saying. If I don’t address it then the communication cycle is incomplete. But there seem to be no way to address it. I guess that is the characteristic of unknowable.”
    In this example the apparent paradox points to a fallacy, just not the one indicated. The fallacy is in the false major premise that a person can communicate a non-existent idea.

    This is a little bit exciting for me as before I only believed in the idea that a paradox was an apparency, but now I am more confident that every paradox will point toward a fallacious argument.

    Or does anyone have a different take on this?

    1. I agree completely with your take. I would add – there must be a fallacy IF the paradox is contained within one frame of reference. If not then it’s like apples and oranges – i.e. the apparent paradox involves more than one frame of reference. A fallacy (or relative truth, for that matter) in one frame may not be so in another.

        1. Well, let’s use the old standby “flat earth vs. round.” I just heard a description of how surveying assumes the Earth is flat as this works as truth in that frame of reference. It wouldn’t work as truth in many others.

          Or your “value of water vs.that of diamonds.” In many cultures water is scarce or even unavailable and it would have a far higher value. Elizabeth Taylor had a different frame of reference. 😛

          1. p.s. The paradox for the flat-Earth society is that their measurements all indicate a flat earth (and you could also say that they have a missing datum of the relative size of their surveyed distances in relation to the size of the planet). The paradox for Elizabeth T is how anyone could consider water to be so valuable.(she has a false belief that water is always easy to come by). (My examples a kinda dumb, but you get the idea.)

          1. I do agree with you that there are no valid paradoxes. In the water example, someone who considers it obvious that diamonds are worth more than water would find it paradoxical that people would pay more for water. That person’s frame of reference doesn’t include knowledge about certain conditions in parts of the world. You could call this trying to compare different frames of reference and you could also say there’s a false datum.

            A better flat-Earth example might be the one of the seeming paradox that existed when Magellan sailed around the world proving it wasn’t flat. That was a paradox for people as they considered Earth had to be flat or the oceans would spill out and things would fall off – yet this wasn’t happening. Their reality or frame of reference didn’t include any data about gravity. We could say their frame of reference wasn’t large enough or that they were missing data. It’s a “paradox” because of trying to compare two different reality frames (or because of missing or false data).

            I just looked at the definitions of paradox and whaddoyou know, all of them include such words as “apparent,” “self-contradiction,” and “opinion” – essentially agreeing with your idea of no validity to it. But the definitions didn’t include the reason for, like you did. 🙂

        1. No. That’s the point – so-called paradoxes are spread across more than one frame of reference. Even when the frames are only different because of a missing or false datum – or fallacy, as you said.

    2. As for Vin’s comment, “But there seem to be no way to address it. I guess that is the characteristic of unknowable,” I think he hit the nail on the head and showed he does recognize what everyone has been telling him.

      But besides that, I think I get his concept that there exists a realm that is unknowable (whereas at first I was thinking that was an assumption). What I mean specifically is that we cannot ever know what is beyond any reality we can experience – and that there must be such a beyond since the answer to how our known reality even came about precedes, and cannot be found by means of, any knowledge gained within that known, experienced reality (mouthful, I know).

      And also, the practical usefulness of this idea of unknowable is what Vin expressed too – that it’s a tool to keep one cognizant of the fact that knowledge is contained within sub-sets and super-sets.

      1. I will say that arguing about and hammering away at the word unknowable has been a fruitful exercise for me. The Neti-neti exercise is a good one. The debate has been beneficial as it has made me focus on and wring out the inconsistencies of unknowable in a way that I wouldn’t have done without Vinay’s persistence. I am pleased with my cognitions on the subject. Oddly, though Vin and I agree on the MEST substance of unknowable, we yet seem to have created different selves with regard to it. But as he says, I guess that is just the characteristic of unknowable. And as I say, unknowable has no characteristic. I am curious if Vinay’s concept of unknowable has evolved over this past year as a result of his further looking for a piercing look for it.

        My own view has changed as to where I used to make an allowance for it, now I do not. Interestingly to me, my reality of reality has morphed right along with the debate. I credit you and Geir of course, Elizabeth, Valkov, Maria, Roy Harper, to name a few but especially Vinaire whose smartness and sometimes pig-headedness sometimes helped and sometimes forced me learn. It has been a good year.

    3. Chris, I totally do not believe the CoS paradox you mention exists. I believe the CoS does not use LRH’s Management, Admin, Ethics, Auditing,or Training tech at all, or where it does use any part of it, it uses it backwards or in distorted ways.

      They only SAY they have it and use it. As you said, they “sport” it but do not in fact understand or apply it. They are like that jungle tribe who worshipped a crashed airplane. They ‘sported’ an airplane; they had an airplane, but do you think they knew how to fix it or fly it? There are “cargo cults” that worship airplanes flying overhead, too.

      Examples abound; I have posted a couple of examples in this thread already,about how the CoS is destroying itself by it’s own ignorance and non-application of LRH tech, all the while trumpeting how they have the tech that solves all problems.

      In fact, “they” do not “have” the tech; they have written materials they are unable to understand, drill, and apply. The tech is all “Greek” to them. And Miscavige likes it that way, because he can continue to be the Pope and Supreme Rulah of the CoS that way. It’s the “country of the blind” strategy he implemented with the inauguration of the various ‘Golden Ages’ of his. All straight out of Orwell’s “1984”, and having nothing to do with LRH’s actual techs.

      They “have” the tech in the same way that an illiterate group could “have” books, but if they can’t read them, they don’t actually have anything except molding paper.

      1. “I believe the CoS does not use LRH’s Management, Admin, Ethics, Auditing,or Training tech at all, or where it does use any part of it, it uses it backwards or in distorted ways.”

        Valkov; Do you truly believe the absoluteness of what you have written here?

        1. I do not believe in absolutes; I believe in percentages.

          But: 30% good application vs. 70% poor or no application may as well be an absolute in terms of growth, production, and survival vs. succumbing.

          Per the Conditions, if you get things right only 50% of the time, you will eventually Succumb. You have to do better than 50% just to tread water.

          How far ahead would you progress, if for every step forward you took, you took 2 steps back?

          The CoS has long since plunged below Danger and Emergency; it is for all practical purposes in Non-existence(or worse).

          And this has been caused by Management, as in my example of Flag’s By-passing all the orgs below it, thus placing them first in Danger, then eventually driving them into Non-E. Which has already happened.

          Any org below Flag does not in fact exist as a functioning, delivering, productive org. You said it your self recently – “they do not deliver the goods.” It’s only a matter of time that they will lose their MEST(buildings) as well, through bankruptcy, not being able to pay their bills.

          I guess I posted about this in your newest thread, the “Thought Experiment”.

          Orgs have been closing for several years; Ideal buildings are standing empty. Some buildings have been sold.

          The CoS as it’s being managed, is a completely unsustainable operation, and my thesis here is it is not being managed per any kind of LRH tech, nor delivering any kind of LRH tech as far as Auditing or Auditor Training goes. Or Ethics, either. They SAY they are; their promo says they are; some may even believe they are; but they are not. What they are doing is “faux Scientology”, a pretense.

          “Orgs have only 2 major final valuable products. One is well-trained auditors. The other is
          satisfied pcs.”
          “Tech and Admin policy exist only to assist making these two products IN VOLUME.”
          LRH ED 131 INT, Re: Life Repair Block, 8 Dec 1970 (OEC Vol. 4, p. 145)
          * * *
          “The product of an org is well-taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product vanishes, so does the org.”
          TECHNICAL DEGRADES, HCO PL 17 Jun 1970RB, Issue I (OEC Vol. 0, p. 14)

          What does the CoS actually do, actually apply, of LRH tech?

          Virtually nothing. They are not allowed to apply it, they are only allowed to use “DM tech” – direct donations with no exchange, public forced to go into overwhelming debt to contribute to the IAS, the Superpower Building, Ideal Org buildings which they believe they will own but won’t, Library Campaigns, buying the Basics, all on one hand. On the other hand, Auditor Training and the auditing of pcs, especially co-audits, has been almost completely eliminated. The orgs no longer do it, they are supposed to funnel people to Flag, but the public no longer has any money left for it, they have gone into debt “donating” with no exchange.

          Flag keeps recycling the same pcs and pre-OTs; it’s no longer a “Bridge” t’s a hamster wheel of OTs being sent back to re-do Objectives and lower Grades, and sec checks that violate the Non-Interference area per LRH.

          Practically none of what is coming down, has come down, from the “top” is according to LRH. None.

          This is well-documented on many sites by now, over the past 2-3 years, by many different people. Try scientology-cult.com, PossiblyHelpfulAdvice.com, FriendsofLRH, Savescientology.com, as well as Marty’s blog.

          What is called “scientology” today by the CoS is simply not what Hubbard wrote, and what was called “scientology” in 1970, for example.

          They talk the talk, but they can’t walk the walk. And, it is because they ARE NOT ALLOWED TO, by top Management. They are not even allowed to learn how to walk, anymore. Hello, 1984.

          1. I think you are grossly over-exaggerating. I have seen lots and lots of in tech, on policy actions in the church during my 25 years there. Actually, I have seen more LRH policy pushed (and as LRH wrote it) in the latter part of my tenure in the church. There has been a steady increase of on policy actions as well as a steady increase of off policy actions. It is hard to see which grew the most in those 25 years.

          2. I am talking not about “over 25 years there”. I am talking about how it is today, 2011, 2010, 2009.

            I am talking about how the Management has been contra LRH tech for a long time, and it has seeped down through to the public.

            Without specific examples, this is not discussable, in my view. My first guess is there has been an increase in “using policy to stop”, or using policy to make self right and another wrong.

            I guess you will have to provide specific instances of “on-policy” actions you have seen/experienced to convince me.

            Specific off-policy and contra-LRH developments that have been obvious –

            1. The IAS. This was the major reason I started to disassociate myself from the CoS. Not that I was ever very involved with it.
            2. All other “donations with no exchange” programs – Superpower Building donos, Library donos, Ideal Org donos.
            3. Bypass by Flag of all orgs below it, putting them on a descending course. Flag now promotes coming only to Flag for all courses and auditing, including beginning courses and auditing like Objectives, Grades etc. Undercutting all lower orgs and missions.
            4. Promoting getting “quickie” Grades at Flag.
            5. Interfering with pre-OTs in the Non-interference zone, basically by the mandatory sec-checks but also by many other actions, such as requiring “donations” to all the off-policy(illegal) programs in order to remain in good standing and continue OT levels; requiring pre-OTs to go back and do lower levels they have already done is another example.
            6. Various revisions of standard tech which have made it unworkable, like the “3 swings” rule for determining F/Ns.
            7. GAT. The destruction of effective auditor training.
            8. GAK
            9. The Basics requirement, = the virtual elimination of auditor training. In fact, the virtual elimination of the Bridge. There is no practical drilling and application on The Basics. Mass and significance? Good luck with that!

            What kind of meaningful “on-policy” actions could continue to be done, it is no longer the organization’s goal to deliver the VFPs it was created to deliver?

            “Orgs have only 2 major final valuable products. One is well-trained auditors. The other is
            satisfied pcs.”
            “Tech and Admin policy exist only to assist making these two products IN VOLUME.”
            LRH ED 131 INT, Re: Life Repair Block, 8 Dec 1970 (OEC Vol. 4, p. 145)
            * * *
            “The product of an org is well-taught students and thoroughly audited pcs. When the product
            vanishes, so does the org.”
            TECHNICAL DEGRADES, HCO PL 17 Jun 1970RB, Issue I (OEC Vol. 0, p. 14)

            The CoS is no longer about delivering auditing or training auditors. In that context, what kind of “on-policy” actions make any difference?

            Sure, there are many people still “in” who are still trying to make things go right the way they learned to do it by the original materials and methods. There is still the occasional auditor who calls F/Ns the way s/he were originally taught. This kind of auditor does this until s/he is caught. Then s/he is RPFed or declared SP. Fact. There are first-hand accounts online.

            I know 3-4 great people, “old-timers”, associated with one of the orgs in Michigan. I love them. I cringe at what they are up against – which is upper Management taking the entire CoS off-policy and subverting the whole enterprise, whether through ineptness or malice, it doesn’t really matter, does it? For all practical purposes, “The result is the intention”.

            Oh,yes, to continue my list of specific off-policy trends:

            The corruption of Ethics:

            10. The elimination of Comm Evs. There is no longer even a pretense of “justice” or objective judgement of right-or-wrong doings by any staff or public.
            11. “Declares” are verbal, with no documentation at all, and no recourse. It’s pure McCarthyism these days.
            12. No official notice is provided – no “goldenrod”.
            Anyway, there are hundreds of pages of articles and first-hand-experience comments on lots of sites that document everything have outlined above and more.
            13. At this time, (2011), the CoS has apparently taken the course of refusing to pay back unused monies on account. They now have written “policies” that say they do not have to refund or repay any money placed on account for services, even if it is unused.
            This is of course 100% against LRH policy. But they don’t care, they just throw out “old” policy and write new “policy” to meet their current needs, no matter how counter-productive it is to their own long-term interests.

            I posted a short list of sites for verification. It’s a lot of reading, and I have read much of them.

            My conclusion at this time is that the organizations that call themselves the Church of Scientology no longer deliver Scientology. They have been taken off that purpose by their Management, for whatever reason(s). The reasons are only of academic interest, it is the fact that matters.

            Once “We deliver what we promise” is no longer operative as the senior policy, who cares if the forms are filled out correctly and the Ts are crossed and the I s are dotted “according to LRH policy”? It no longer matters.

      2. I’m with you Val. But regardless of how I set it up, you are saying that my paradox is not valid and my point is really that no paradox is valid. I’m open to criticism on this one because I’d like to know if I’m onto something or not with this. Lately, I’ve gotten a few stimulating cognitions from looking at data that was “locked up” for me and used this reverse flow of “counter-intuitive” and shaken the ridge apart.

        I’m embarrassed how this idea came to me. I didn’t mention it before now because I had a consideration about it but I guess I got over it. Anyway, I grew up around animals and this tale is about horses (no pun.) If you ever bridled up a horse and worked with one, you know that you NEED the horse’s cooperation to handle them successfully. Sometimes you pull on a lead rope attached to a halter or just a slip-knot and a half-hitch around their nose and if the horse won’t budge, well that’s kind of it. But as a 60 pound 12 year old, this old farrier showed me several ways of using leverage on the big animals to get them to do what you wanted. I won’t go into the gruesome ones, “twitch” and all, but in this case if you pull on the lead rope and they won’t come with, you only need to push gently on the side of their face to make them move their outside front foot to “catch their balance.” When they take this step you can routinely just pull on the rope and since they already took one step somehow they just continue with the other front foot and off you go.

        So I was mulling over some of these memories and experiences and knowledge and thought the horses were a little bit analogous to my “big” problems. So rather than “force” questions the way Vinaire is afraid of me doing, I changed the vector and voila! I don’t know if that was interesting, but it was fun to remember and to write. It also seems consistent with tech on wrestling and other grappling arts.

  35. MORE ON PARADOX
    Here’s an excellent example: The Paradox of Value
    reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_value
    “Water on the whole is more useful to survival yet commands a lower price on the open market than diamonds.” This seeming paradox ignores “open market value” of commodities being based on relative scarcity vs. demand. And another point is that each year is more money spent on water or diamonds? The answer to this might also falsify the paradox.

    I love the Crocodile Dilemma: “If a crocodile steals a child and promises its return if the father can correctly guess what the crocodile will do, how should the crocodile respond in the case that the father guesses that the child will not be returned?” The answer is that the crocodile should return the child. Creating impossible anthropomorphic situations between man and animals or whatever do not in fact create “aha! gotcha!” moments. The only paradox lies in the degree to which one wants to understand or to refine the answer. This one of the crocodile reminds me of Pi (ratio of the circumfrence of circle to the diameter) where the value of Pi “cannot be known.” Again, the value of Pi can be know to any degree of accuracy one wishes. If “3” is close enough, then it is “3.” If 22/7 is close enough, then that’s the value. If you need a 100 place decimal equivalent, then just run it out – no problem.

    Paradoxes are good as brain teasers only because they can be fun and get the cerebrospinal fluids “flowing.” But the presence of a seeming paradox when problem solving can be relished because they seem to point toward a rapid dissolution of the problem at hand.

    Maybe my favorite paradox is that “You have to be OT to become OT.”

    1. Chris, re: the Water Paradox –

      How much, in fact is spent on “water” per day, worldwide, considering that relatively clean potable water is a necessity of life?

      It takes a Hell of a lot of infrastructure to supply people around the world with usable, drinkable, bathable water.

      These infrastructures are not free to build and maintain – the water reservoirs, the delivery pipelines, sewage systems, water treatment plants, and plumbing necessary……

      My guess is a lot of money is spent on water.

      I’m not sure it’s a valid paradox, or that more is spent on diamonds than on water.

      1. Yes Valkov. This is my point that I believe “valid paradox” may be an oxymoron. Said another way, I don’t believe in paradox except as a tool for shaking out inconsistencies.

      2. 1. How large is the diamond industry?
        Diamonds are one of the world’s, and specifically Africa’s, major natural resources. An estimated US$13 billion worth of rough diamonds are produced per year, of which approximately US$8.5 billion are from Africa (approximately 65%). The diamond industry employs approximately ten million people around the world, both directly and indirectly, across a wide spectrum of roles from mining to retail. Global diamond jewellery sales
        continue to grow, increasing three-fold in the past 25 years, and are currently worth in excess of US$72 billion every year.

        2. How large is the water industry?
        A. (Following is water treatment products, not water) Water Market Continues Growth Despite Global Recession:James Laughlin, Editor. World demand for water treatment products is projected to increase 5.7 percent per year to $59 billion in 2013, well above the rate of economic growth in essentially every region. In addition, the marketplace is evolving, with smaller players filling local needs as the influence of larger, global companies wanes, according to two recent market reports. http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/article-display/9529953248/articles/water-wastewater-international/volume-24/issue-6/regulars/perspective/water-market_continues.html
        B. Value of water sold is on top of this. I did no thorough research but simply googled this to see what kind of snapshot picture of the water value paradox would emerge. I don’t know the motives of the quoted sources.

  36. I started this response a couple of days ago and I decided to wait for a while to see if any more responses came in to my question about the def. of truth and beliefs and besides I was too busy with MEST work to participate.

    Someone posted this and I forget who. ( I think it was probably Maria.)

    Quote:

    These are the best I can come up for how I define truth and belief right now.

    Truth: 1) Actual process / state as opposed to distorted or altered explanation or perception. 2) Exact time, place, form and event. 3) Stable datum (subject to change on receipt of additional truth)

    Belief: 1) Decision 2) Conclusion 3) Assumption 4) Stable datum 5) What is held dear or of high esteem such as values & ideals 4) Trusted information. Note: All of these are subject to change due to based on exposure of greater truth and they are all in the realm of predominating thought / will.

    Thank you Maria, Geir Chris and I don’t recall who else replied.

    For the sake of expediency, I will address all the offered defs. at once:

    I thought Maria’s and someone else’s defs. were the better ones.

    I am sorry I read too fast to note the names.

    The rest flunked due to lack of clarity and in some cases no real definition at all, more of a circular situation. Geirs defs. were that way.

    This topic has been an issue for me for many yrs, so I have untangled that for myself to my satisfaction.

    The only definition of truth there is, to me is:

    The right or most right answer to any problem.

    Some questions or problems would require an exact answer and the most accurate problems are arithmetic.

    (And I do not want to go into those crazy arithmetic problems that ask paradoxical questions or those that require or suggest ambiguous answers or mind traps. So don’t go there. That area is not relative to this issue.)

    Example: In simple or standard arithmetic the truth of 2+2 is 4.

    In subjective problems or questions the truth is determined by the most workability or how many problems does it solve? How well does a certain answer work?

    Not by argument or authority, or opinion, or belief, or majority or ideology or some other arbitrary.

    Now the best definition I have come across for belief is by Deepak Chopra:

    He said: a belief is what people revert to in the absence of facts.

    Someone else said something similar:

    To raise an arbitrary, an opinion, a hearsay, a fabrication to the level of a fact without proof.

    It means that the believer does not “know”.

    It is a confession of ignorance.

    I don’t think it can be said better than that.

    That being the case, it would mean that a person who believes things is intellectually dishonest or intellectually challenged.

    So it bugs me to no end when people use the word belief of believe. Especially scientologists and educated people.

    I think the words are the worst words in the English language and I think it should be banned.

    If you really watch and listen to what people really mean when they use the words is something to do with : they “think”…………

    They do not know.

    Do this when you are listening to someone in the media.

    Some people use the words to make you think they know.

    They want to “slip” you one.

    Diogenese

    1. Here goes Ron defining Truth trough Scientology:

      Quote:
      Let’s take the subject of Scientology and let’s see if there’s any logic involved with it at all. There isn’t a mathematics that can embrace the subject of Scientology, because it is an invented mathematics. It’s an invented mathematics that accepts gradient scales and “absolutes are unobtainable”. And it is a method of thinking about things.

      And is just as true as it is workable. And no truer.

      And is not, in itself, an arbitrary, fascistic uh…police force to make sure that we all think right thoughts. It’s a servant of the mind, a servo-mechanism of the mind, it is not a master of the mind. Scientology will decline, and become useless to man, on the day when it becomes the master of thinking. Don’t think it won’t do that. It has every capability in it of doing that. – LRH, PDC #20

        1. If you have a chance, I reccomend you listen to the whole PDC lecture, describes several things the Church has been violating there.

    2. Diogenes:
      “In subjective problems or questions the truth is determined by the most workability or how many problems does it solve? How well does a certain answer work?
      Not by argument or authority, or opinion, or belief, or majority or ideology or some other arbitrary.”

      The problem of authority remains, though. Who is going to say how well it worked?
      Each one must see and decide by himself.

      You can give them your opinion, but if you are flunking others for not agreeing with you, then you are trying to “slip” them one too….

    3. Deepak Chopra said: a belief is what people revert to in the absence of facts.

      And what exactly is a fact?

        1. And what is a datum?

          LOL I need to change my subscription!! Then I will get some different channels!

          1. Yes you do, if simply to experience it. 🙂

            “A datum is anything you can be aware of.” This is what, I believe, LRH said; and it is a pretty good definition.

            .

      1. Deepak Chopra said: a belief is what people revert to in the absence of facts.
        And what exactly is a fact?

        Absolutely María! That is exactly the point. Who will decide what is a fact?

        Some people tend to call their own reality a fact, and then everybody else must surrender to it, “not because they want you to, but because that´s how things are”.

        Talk about solidity!

        What could be the reasosns for that?

        The Dude has surrendered completely to MEST reality, or

        He wants you to surrender to his own reality.

        In any case I would say the guy is solidly fixed on a consideration.

  37. Well Geir,

    I am not sure what you mean, but I will take a guess.

    ( Was I too hasty in writing again and therefore ambiguous or incomplete? )

    ( Like I said these threads are worse than addicting and I spend too much time here. 🙂 )

    I assume you are asking in regards to why I think the speakers want to slip you one?

    Well, if so, that is just the way it is. They want to make you accept their lie or partial truth as a truth.

    The practice is very common.

    Religions do it all the time.

    Just watch and evaluate what people are really , really saying when you watch people on the media and I mean commentators, pundits, financial analysts, politicians, journalists, preachers and the like.

    I have become extremely aware of this ( become very evaluative) as a result of studying scn.

    Hubbard’s datum: Any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated has become an implant for me. And very valuable too.

    So I have developed a very keen evaluation mechanism on everything and it is almost automatic and instant.

    I do it to sometime, especially when life becomes a battle ground.

    It is probably a way ( although not a good way) of being in control and maintaining one’s universe.

    Or it is not safe to tell the truth or admit you are wrong.

    or promote some covert agenda,

    or maybe many other reasons.

    Diogenese.

  38. I just made myself a latte and while doing so it occurred to me that people, ( probably unconsciously) operate on and with beliefs for many reasons, and say “I believe” because a belief can contain a lie or a partial truth and a partial wrong.

    (I would guess that for the most part, unless a person did scientology, that person is not very aware of much. )

    This is what Hubbard meant when he said: A problem that contains a lie cannot be solved, until the lie is identified and resolved.

    It also occurred to me that Scientology is full of these things too, and I suspect that he knew that too.

    As someone once said:

    The best and most dangerous lies are the one’s almost true.

    The more truth there is in a cognitive set up the more the truth acts as a glue to hold the lies together, thereafter non inspected and often defended to death.

    Note: Being that Scientology is the science of knowing how to know the truth of things, there is no bona fide reason for an accomplished Scientologist to believe anything.

  39. Thanks for posting the thing by Hubbard on truth.

    Yes, very interesting.

    Scientology becoming a way of thinking.

    Ahhhhhhhhhh!

    I read that some time ago and it is good to read it again.

    What can I do about it?

    I can’t function well without it.

    Diogenese

  40. isene commented on On L. Ron Hubbard’s Administrative Technology.

    in response to a comment by Diogenese:

    Well Geir, I am not sure what you mean, but I will take a guess. ( Was I too hasty in writing again and therefore ambiguous or incomplete? ) ( Like I said these threads are worse than addicting and I spend too much time here. 🙂 ) I assume you are asking in regards […]

    Sorry, I didn’t get any of that… was that an answer to my question?

    Yes, it was.

    If you did not get it, I guess I did not understand what your questions was?

    Diogenese.

  41. n response to a comment by Diogenese:

    I started this response a couple of days ago and I decided to wait for a while to see if any more responses came in to my question about the def. of truth and beliefs and besides I was too busy with MEST work to participate. Someone posted this and I forget who. ( I […]

    Diogenes:
    “In subjective problems or questions the truth is determined by the most workability or how many problems does it solve? How well does a certain answer work?
    Not by argument or authority, or opinion, or belief, or majority or ideology or some other arbitrary.”

    The problem of authority remains, though. Who is going to say how well it worked?
    Each one must see and decide by himself.

    You can give them your opinion, but if you are flunking others for not agreeing with you, then you are trying to “slip” them o

    Rafael,

    That is not the kind of authority Hubbard meant, nor I meant.

    And I am not flunking for not agreeing with me.

    The flunk is based on workability or and practicality of the data provided.

    It was not understandable, never mind workable.

    ::)))

    Diogenese.

  42. This may help explain the design of the Admin (and Tech) into a rigid structure:

    Scientologists are gradiently introduced into a system of agreements which start offering freedom and end up inside a new frame of reference. Self-determinism and personal integrity won….and lost… to a new spell.

    To describe it in Scientology terms, the best explanation I´ve seen is on The PDC Lecture # 1, by The Old Man himself. I selected the most representative paragraphs here.

    It is impressive how the term MEST universe he used in 1952, can be freely exchanged with the term Church of Scientology in 2011!!!.

    PDC Lecture #1
    WHAT TO BE DONE IN COURSE
    1 December 1952 66 MINUTES
    (Includes only selected paragraphs,-{{My comments }}- )

    ….“When you realize that you’re studying, then, this subject, don’t be too shocked. Because you are studying the anatomy of universes—the construction, maintenance and destruction of universes of various kinds and dimensions”

    -{{Check how The CoS can be seen as a universe construed by The Old Man}}-

    “ You’re studying the basic structure—this is the most elementary level of its study— we’re studying the basic structure and experience (get that, structure and experience) called the MEST universe. That’s the most elementary of these studies.”…..
    “Now, the reason we have to study this, and the only reason we have to study this, is because it sums up into what they laughingly call natural laws. And these natural laws are the outgrowth of the composite agreement of all the beings in this universe. These are the—these laws, you might say, are the inevitable average of agreement if you start out with something like the first entrance into the MEST universe—the first postulates of the MEST universe. And if you start out from there, you wind up seventy-six MEST universe— seventy-six trillion MEST universe years later with things squirreled up the way they are.

    -{{The laws which compose the CoS universe, as stated by Ron, are the basic agreement of all Scientologists. It is perfectly acceptable to agree with the workability of any scientific (or not very scientific) model, as long as we remember that it is only a model useful in certain aspects of life or work, and maintain our freedom to disagree with it and create different models at will, but when we accept to be forced into complete agreement with it, and consider that model to be an absolute truth, we become its slaves, losing our ability to think outside of it.}}-

    “Now, when you get—when you get this basic agreement; when you get all these agreements summed up, you’ll find out that they are stateable—very accurately stateable. Another thing, they’re experienceable, which is more important. And they’re experienceable by a preclear ten minutes after you start processing him. That’s more important to you as an auditor. Now, he won’t even vaguely know what’s happening. You’ll know what’s happening. You’ve got to know what’s happening, because all sorts of things might start to occur on which you would have no check or track if you didn’t know what you are doing.
    You are undoing his agreement that makes him a part of the natural law which became the MEST universe. And when I say “natural law” I’m not hedging; I’m talking about E=mc2 —talking about those funny gravity formulas that were put out a few hundred years ago. You’re talking about—oh, fulcrums, balances. You’re talking about the most real of real experience in this universe. And those sum up out of agreement; and when we start studying this subject, we start studying natural law, and then we wind up by studying not natural law but the agreement which made natural law. And then it’s inevitable that we would start studying that thing which is capable of making an agreement which then becomes natural law which then can build a whole universe.

    It’s a very interesting thing but all this phenomena is discoverable. So I’m not asking you to agree with me. I’m actually asking you to find out what you agreed with and what you have been agreeing with all this time in order to bring you to such a point of agreement that you’re actually here and think that you should only be here and in the MEST universe and so forth—and examine that track of agreement so that then you can undo it.”

    -{{Scientology started as a method of undoing the track of agreement which enslaved people into this universe, according to The Old Man studies, to restore their freedom, personal integrity and self-determinism, but then The CoS became a method of enforcing agreement, to turn them into slaves of the CoS, with no personal integrity or self-determinism, again.}}-

    …”And the race actually punishes nonagreement. Well, now, the reason Scientology gets by with this very easily is because we’ve been studying agreement We’ve been studying agreement harder than anybody else has ever studied agreement before. We know the anatomy of agreement. We know the laws on which agreement is based and how it takes place, and we could go ahead and set up, by a chain of agreement, some of the doggonedest things—and then take them apart, too.”…………..

    -{{The basic trick of the Old Man was to make Scientologists agree (believe) on things which were not necessarily part of reality, but part of the system of things he created. He became “source”, and that meant he was the only one able (authorized) to look. (KSW).}}-

    “The (MEST universe) -{{CoS}}- has some interesting tricks of making you agree—busting your shinbones, burning your fingers—the overall agreement has a lot of trickery in it. That’s the horrible thing—the one thing you must not do in this universe is find out something. And you know, every secret cult, every cult there has ever been, every block of knowledge ever put forward in this universe has tried to have a big secrecy level on it. The information dives out of sight in this universe faster than anything you ever saw, every piece of information we have had in the past has dived out of sight. The one thing you mustn’t do in the (MEST universe) -{{CoS}}- is know. You must agree, not know. And if you agree enough, it seems to say—if you just agree enough—why, you’ll just get along better and better and better. And sure enough, you apparently do, up to a certain point. And then it’s a case of “agree or else.” And then it’s the case of “You will agree. We don’t care if you’re agreeing—we’re just going to go right on punishing you. And sure, you’re willing to do all this. We don’t care if you’re willing or not—we’ll just go on punishing you.” And the fellow gets into a frantic state. He doesn’t know what to agree to. He’s on his way down the cycle of agreement and he’s finally down way, way, way, way down on the Tone Scale on a sublevel agreement.
    And the interesting proof of this pudding is the fact that you can take your preclears at random who fall into the category of V and you can spot with them—you could just give them a test and find out which one of them was in the firmest agreement with the (MEST) –{{CoS}}- universe. And having found this out, what would you do? You’d look at a tough case—that boy’s a tough case. Now, his deepening of agreement is just fastening him more and more solidly to MEST. And he’s getting more and more MESTy and he’s less and less able to control MEST, until one fine day he’s either mad or very dead. And try to process this por guy”…..
    “It (Scientology) has been under development for a long time and has actually been a progressive development and examination of the agreements which came to bring about the MEST universe, and then became the science of how agreements are made, and then became what are the beings who make these agreements and how can you start all this, from these basics. And that’s where we are now”.

    “And boy, if you don’t think you can’t do something with that, you ought to quit. Because you can do terrible things with this, you can do terrible things with this—just horrible—too grim for words. The only thing that’s a saving grace is as a person comes way up the Tone Scale, his ethic level also comes way up. And is that fortunate!”

    -{{Well……how high was the old man on the Tone Scale at the end of his game?

    It seems as if The Old Man got tired of playing the game of freeing thetans, and decided to face the MEST universe all by himself and take the prize out of its hands, by simply turning over all its slaves into a new universe in which he was “source”: The CoS.
    And he was using the same trick he said the MEST universe was using: gradiently enforced agreement……………..}}-

    1. Wow Rafael. I was just considering along these lines.

      Indeed, LRH was building a universe. He called it a new civilization. And yes, in that universe he is source – after all, he did point out that ideas mark the forward progress of the human race.

      And the purpose of ethics is… ta da! drumroll! to remover counter and other intentions.

      Yet one can just as easily build another. and another. and another. and another. ad infintum. But to have one predominate, ah! that takes some CONCERTed effort, emotion, intention, and with enough momentum it will snowball.

      But those pesky “beings” keep getting in the way. For despite all efforts to CONCENTRATE ideas and form a locus of reality, auditing itself UNDOES the locus and tangled knot and what do you know, being emerges and being is virtually uncontrollable.

      The stupidity of the C of S is in thinking that by removing the physical bodies from the scene and from the channels of communication, there is a disconnection. NOT!!

    2. “It seems as if The Old Man got tired of playing the game of freeing thetans, and decided to face the MEST universe all by himself and take the prize out of its hands, by simply turning over all its slaves into a new universe in which he was “source”: The CoS.”

      I think he was solving the problem inherent with freeing being. As soon as you free being you have source, the source of universes and not necessarily universes intended to free beings. This is not an intentional entrapping it is inherent in the plight of trapped being. Beings who are not free are trapped. Prone to traps. They are trapped because they are not free. And anything can become a trap in that state. Free beings build an unbuild with gay abandon, which is very annoying when you are trying to keep something in a consistent state so you can get something DONE or UNDONE as the case may be.

      1. OMG, Maria! Your last paragraph reminded me of the following excerpt from a study tapes lecture where LRH explains the very thing you stated as regards thetans being freed with auditing who won’t necessarily have the same intention of freeing others as he did. He figured that the only possible solution for this was to make enough auditors fast enough and clear beings fast enough to forestall the possibility of the “other-intentioned” freed ones getting in the way. For me, this is the first plausible explanation I’ve come across for the “method to his madness” as regards KSW 1 and the like. It’s an explanation consistent with the fact of his having been the great being he had to be to have discovered all he did and develop the tech. I had never put it together before! Thank you so much!

        “Now, if you looked around, you would find out that there aren’t on earth at the present moment enough auditors to give enough sessions to enough people to make any significant gain in the society at large in the next century. The mathematics are all against it.

        “If you never made one more auditor, if we just took the auditors we
        had at this particular moment and everybody audited hammer and
        tongs, seven-and-a-half hours a day for the next ten years or something like that, you add it up and you compare it to the world’s population and you get a drop in the bucket. It’s a discouragingly small amount.

        “And if we never trained another auditor, the auditors that had been trained would have long since gone by the boards before they even got through–halfway through the population of New York City. You see, the mathematics are dead against it.
        “Don’t think that you, with your auditing, cannot make a change in the society. You certainly can, you certainly can, but you would be making a — actually, a ‘rico’ and a ‘pobre’ society. In other words, you’d be making the society of the rich and the poor, the aristocracy and the slaves, and so forth. You wouldn’t help but do that, because of course you could pick out people here and there and put them into terrific condition and never fix it up so they’re ever backed up, see?

        “Well, they – oh, yeah! They’ve got a big zone of influence, that’s for sure! And they’ll get things done, that’s for sure; but let me assure you they would not, all of them, be tempered by the peculiarities that I suffer from which is that man should be free. Not even after you’d audited them would they suffer from that peculiarity uniformly, let me assure you. It just wouldn’t be done.” (Study Tapes transcript p.154)

        1. Great find Marildi — I have been looking for that reference for nigh over 30 years – I knew he had said that somewhere and I have told people about it but I could never seem to find the reference again!!

          THANK YOU!!!

          1. Oh wow – that makes me really happy! And likewise, it’s a big, big win for me to now see some of LRH’s “outpoints” in this light – the one y0u pointed to.

            The gods are with us, Maria! 🙂

        2. The solution to this supposedly “impossible mathematics” would have been to create conditions that promoted a grass roots movement. Hubbard didn’t go all out for that. He was fixated on making money.

          The tech that would have speeded up any auditing gain is LOOKING, which is now available under KHTK. It was available to Hubbard too through Buddhism, but Hubbard didn’t highlight it.

          So, Hubbard didn’t seem to practice what he preached. He was great PR man and a promoter. But about Hubbard having a great beingness, I have my doubts.

          Look at Hubbard’s key product… the Church of Scientology!

          .

          1. Actually, a type of grass roots movement was promoted in the form of an FSM system. I’m not sure why it ultimately failed, but I tend to believe it was more likely a matter of mistakes on LRH’s part than wrongful intentions. In any case, KHTH may very well have been a saving grace. (Where the heck were you when we needed you, Vin! ;-))

          2. The Church of Scientology is not a “product” as such. It is supposed to be a delivery system for the actual products – which are a ‘standard’ level of auditing and training.

          3. I seem to recall a grassroots system at work in the 1970s. It was killed in the 1980s by the suppression of the missions, rising prices, heavy ethics, and increasing bureaucratization. Oh, and by the establishment of the ultimate suppressive organization, the IAS, in1984.

  43. I just thought of an important subject in the Oahspe, that should be mentioned here for people who think they are reincarnated.

    The Oahspe says that reincarnation is a deception, a trap, a trick.

    The reason people think they are reincarnated is because they have grafters.

    Body thetans are called “grafters” in the Oahspe.

    ( I am assuming they are the same thing as I have been evaluating these ideas for over 10 yrs.)

    Assuming I am correct, these body thetans are dead spirits who are lost and confused, because they did not do their spiritual homework on earth or do it properly and do not know what to do or where to go after death.

    So they remain on the lowest dimension,

    and they graft themselves on to living humans.

    And they are liars and deceivers, they tell stories of past lives, making the human think they are reincarnated.

    They “speak” to the human in a variety of ways, including dreams sometimes.

    So on speculation, it seems like from a scn perspective and when auditing, it appears that we are in fact or could well be auditing………e.i. talking to these disembodied lost spirits….. and possibly auditing them or who knows what.

    That may be why auditing seems to go on for half ways to forever.

    Don’t ask me to explain any more or challenge me on this idea.

    Don’t shoot the messenger!

    If you want to know more, I suggest you read the Oahspe for your self and come to your own conclusions.

    That is why in my opinion , the Oahspe makes a good subject of comparable magnitude to apply the data of “How to Study a Science” to complete the cycle of learning.

    The Oahspe is a different point of view on the subject of reincarnation for the purpose of broader understanding.

    There are a couple of versions of ebooks on line.

    If you want a hard copy, ask me and I will tell you where to get one.

    Diogenese

  44. Yeah, that works. I absolutely give The Old Man that. He gave it a try, and that grants him a special place in my heart. I don´t think I´ll ever blame anything on him, I´m just trying to get a clear view of the present scene.

    We have to recognize Ron was training us in all the data and processing which can be used both in the direction of freedom or slavery. There is probably no other way it can be done. Anyone who keeps falling for the traps should keep studying, as life itself keeps testing us at every step.

    And the work had to be done by the entraped beings themselves….

    Maybe his ideal scene for the CoS had two sides:

    1- To give the best training and auditing.
    2- To produce and apply the best methods of entrapment, so that those who graduate could really keep their freedom under any circumstance, without receiving any warning as to where a test could be coming from.

    That seems possible, but I still believe it could have worked better if he had not made such a big effort at the end to place all his freed beings back on a leash.

    At this point it seems to me he started this all the way up the tone scale, but ended very low, trying to use force instead of reason on his latest moves. A great, great man nonetheless.

    1. Ups! my last comment ended in the wrong place, it was an answer to María´s on the problem inherent with freeing beings.

  45. “A big problem ( a trap) in Scientology is the data of granting beingness.
    It generally means not to tell a person anything.
    Do not give the person any advice, do not criticize the person. Let the person be. Let him figure it out on his own.”

    This is not how I understand “granting beingness” at all.

    Thank you Valkov for your comment on “granting beingness”.

    You do set the record straight according to the way LRH said it, at least in part and referring to the correct lecture.

    I did not do much official scientology . I mainly read the texts and been coming with freezoners for 14 yrs.

    And I got my understanding of “granting beingness” from comming with freezoners.

    Everytime I told somebody something, that they needed to be told. I was basically told to eff off and grant beingness.

    So what ever the official definition is, it is not the way I experienced it in being in comm with fzners.

    So in a way or to some degree I apologize for the lack of understanding, but the average so called Scientologist is not a good example of the workability of Scientology.

    I have to do the bridge someday and get all the official data and get it straight.

    Diogenese

    1. Hi Diogenes,

      I haven’t been up the Bridge myself.

      The books are interesting, but they are mostly like a Reader’s Digest outlines of Scientology. Some of them are very meaty, but they don’t always explain how the parts relate.

      The lectures are where LRH connects the dots on how the parts work together as an organic whole.

      So I just listen to the original lectures, the Congresses, ACCs etc.

      And I never uncritically accept anyone else telling me what Scientology is, or what I am to think of it.

      1. Valkov, The RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY SERIES is available on eBay and Amazon and elsewhere for like $10 per volume or so… very available, very cheap, and transcripts of just what you are talking about.

  46. Chris, Rather than lack of knowledge, I think people fail from a lack of will. All knowledge seems to have resulted from the presence of a will to know. Thank you for your comment. But from my experience, the lack of will is due to “case”. A person free from case, free from all the […]

    I’ve reconsidered. You’re right – we will audit the cases out of people until they have the “will” to live and be good and worthy people who want to know the right way to do things at which point they will take over for themselves. I certainly wouldn’t argue with 40 years of good research experience.

    For my part, I’m planning to send out the survey you mentioned – actually I copied an OCA personality test to send around to my friends and asked them to fill it out in my name. Then I added some blank pages and asked them to fill them out saying what is wrong with me so I’ll know what personality problems to work on so I won’t waste my time working on personal problems of interest to me. I also thought — please just say if I overstepped — that for my D of P interview I could get Marildi, no scratch that, Vinaire to hold the cans and do the interview for me as he is pretty well adjusted, well educated, etc., and that would make my programming easier for the case supervisor.

    Chris, I am really glad that you have come around and seen the light.

    I give you an “A+”.

    As far as giving you my list of qualified friends, goes, I am so good and perfect now, and have surpassed them, now they can’t stand me any more.

    They are similar to the slaves in “Plato’s cave”, now.

    Diogenese

  47. Since a few of your guys are trying to figure out what went wrong with the old man.

    I thought I would put my two cents in:

    I have a cassette tape in storage, (at least I used to have it) of the old man speaking in a weak and straining voice, very old sounding, probably some of his last words; he said: when you try and help the insane, you go insane.

    I bought all of the scientology stuff from Mark Jones, the guy who first started publishing the Free Spirit Journal, before he died. He was a retired US air force pilot, ….John Glenn’s right wing man.

    Diogenese

  48. Old thread I know but I wanted to have my say: If I remember correctly, in the PL Complexity and Confront (which I like a lot) LRH talks about the basic assumption of a subject and how if the basic assumption is wrong, the entire subject is wrong, or something to that effect (he was talking about how [what he says is] the basic assumption of psychology, that “man is an animal,” is wrong.)

    As someone above noted, the basic assumption of policy is expansion. Well I submit that infinite, unlimited expansion is a bad assumption. It does not exist on this planet. Any species on this planet has to eat, and as any biologist knows, there is a thing called carrying capacity. Any finite system has a finite carrying capacity. If the species produces more than can be fed, natural law will intervene and the population will starve or worse. Resources are finite on this planet. You could argue that eventually we could go to other planets but that is a long way off, and even then, we could expand to the ends of the universe, but eventually we’d hit its limit, yes?

    No, in nature it’s not about infinite growth or expansion, it’s about balance. There is a balance of predator and prey, herbivore and plant food, etc.; otherwise, there is illness, disease, death. LRH says things which remain the same eventually contract. Is that true? Not in nature. Sure there is fluctuation. Big changes come from big natural events, such as asteroids, volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. Weather can effect crops year to year. Otherwise there is general abundance in a fluctuating balance. After all, theta is theta; it creates more theta. Species that adapt to changes survive and those that don’t, don’t.

    No business, no government, no species, can expand infinitely on this planet. So why is it the basic assumption of all policy? Why must there always be MORE. There is ENOUGH sleep, food and exercise, where more would not be beneficial. Why must there always be MORE production, higher stats, more MONEY? I think it leads to greed, stat pushing, irregular finance, etc.

  49. Hi Geir, is it possible to find your own version of the admin scale on your blog? I would be very glas to see and apply it. Thank you very much.

  50. Go to udemy.com right now and get yourself an online MBA course – currently they have the top rated MBA on special for $10.00. Then go to http://www.gazelles.com/ and implement their stuff. Train yourself up in business, find your ideal customer, find what excite you and turn that into a business, find your uniqueness – your differentiator, use the gazelles site and create an actual real no bullshit strategic plan, study the different marketing methods and opportunities available today. Read real business books like eat that frog, millionaires mindset, at least one a month but better one a week.

    There is no cookie cutter admin scale, each business is different, each CEO is different, each ideal client base is different etc.

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