Here’s one for the readers with at least some familiarity with Scientology. Expanding on my recent blog post on L. Ron Hubbard’s Administrative Technology and adding the whole gamut of Ethics Technology and mental/spiritual Technology:
What would the world be like if Scientology totally won out?
What if there was a World Organizing Board and the whole of our society structure was utterly and completely run by LRH policy and ethics, and where tech ruled the scene?
How would the world at large look like? How would the world function? Countries? Democracy? Religions?
How would our daily lives be? Would family life be different?
What would we do at work? On vacation?
Anything we couldn’t do?
What would be significantly different?
Pitch in and help me paint a realistic picture of a Scientology World.
Geir Isene - uncut 
I think the responses of the majority who post here are already obvious if you consider tech, especially admin and ethics tech, of the later decades (mid 60’s on, approximately) – those responses have already been stated many times. A more interesting discussion would be about the earlier decades and what kind of world they would create. That idea has not been discussed here much at all!
Correction: A more interesting discussion would be about ADMIN, TECH, AND ETHICS of the earlier decades and what kind of world they would create.
Let’s leave that for later and see what our future could hold.
I am not looking for a discussion of the tech, ethics or admin. I am looking to piece together a futuristic world view where we extrapolate what we know onto total world domination by Scientology. Let’s write a bit of sci-fi together 🙂
Okay, so by “what we know” you have in mind the whole dirty history of Scn. And you want to project all that into the future if Scn were to take hold of the world. Something like “2084 – Planet Scientology, an Orwellian Saga.”
Only if that is what you believe it would be like. I welcome any angle on a future scenario. Not only a current CoS extrapolated, but also LRH’s vision extrapolated etc.
Okay, an LRH vision extrapolated has my interest! Thinking now…
If the Hubbard’s PR vision should become reality, then it wouldn’t be possible with Scientology. Otherwise you’d get nothing else than extrapolation of current Co$ or companies using the Admin Tech. In other words disaster, tones 1.5, 1.2 snd 1.1 predominant.
I could not say Gere.
I know many scientologists who run well and fluent lives by applying intelligently ethic conditions to thirs lives.
Obviously if The Church would run it we could have the worse “capitalistic” state one could imagine,
It could be even be a strong feudalism: vassals and bondsmes which could work for a whole life theirs ass off to be free next life
or a hard monarchy where nevertheless some able persons could emerge and make theirs life happily
but the major point is that the purpose of the Sea Org was to enroll everybody and export scientology at least to all our galaxy
so a military technocratic state trying to fly to Moon and Mars
one could invent others, but the only certainty I have is that it would for sure be a monarchy.
This thought experiment terrifies me, and I have wondered about it before.
A world where Scientology won-out would be for me a good definition of hell on Earth. A world where your thoughts and actions would be highly scrutinized for signs of dissent, where you wouldn’t know which of your friends and relations you could trust not to file a KR, where RPF “volunteers” would run past your house in their drab uniforms, fear in their faces.
No free press. No independent judiciary. No democracy.
Thankfully this is a nightmare that the freedom-loving peoples of this planet would never allow to happen, so I will try not to dream about it tonight.
Good post Sid.
Assuming that ethics was applied properly, then the tech division would actually work.
(FPA Cert’d)
Other divisions may feel the squeeze at times, but expansion in wrong places would be brought to a minimum, At the same time to have to fill out a REQ form for everything and get approval jams up lines. Software outdated and locked in, computer operates through a proxy. Actual INTERNET not only not allowed, not able (unless bypassed).
ESTO wouldn’t work in a family unless it was the goldfish….
Hold on… in order to leave a job you would have to find a replacement, do a full write up, and train them. That would NOT work for family either.
Reg’s would not exist because they are not ethical.
In such a world, there would be other religions, but they would be barely tolerated, similar to how religions in communist countries survived, but did not flourish particularly. Those that stayed in such religions and did not “lose interest” and join scientology would be considered second or third-class citizens. They would be Degraded Beings because they could not see the “truth” of scn.
Perhaps “squirrel buster”type crusader zealots would have attempted to convert those who steadfastly held their traditional religious views, but this, like similar attempts throughout history, would have failed utterly and in fact, likely strengthened the resolve of the beleaguered.
There would be individuals of other faiths that joined scientology if only to avoid being considered second-class citizens, and thus enjoy the benefits of “membersip”, even if they barely, if at all, participated in scn services. Similar to how individuals joined the communist party in the USSR if only to get better housing, etc.
Sorry. Treasury. Better i don’t multitask, eh? treasury would work, where one would do the accounting, another would oversee and approve in a family unit.
Esto would be the neighbor watching out their window, Businesses would need permission to operate and pay fees, a certain portion (10 percent) of the money. People would pay off a house before living in it unless you have credit, If you did something out ethics the family and neighborhood would know about it. Your statistics would be posted on the wall. You would pick a career out of availability and train to become that career for a certain amount of years or you owe for education. If your stats were up on the job, you would be left alone. Pay would be on a hierarchy scale.
Access to the Arts would be down.
… I don’t see much difference… Except finances and education.
Hi all,
Well, I’m glad I read the comments before posting – I would have gone off-topic quickly.
If I look at ‘LRH’s Vision’ – and I include some of the very basics: a world without insanity, war, etc., the Service PL, granting of beingness, exchange in abundance, ethics as ‘reason & contemplation of OPTIMUM survival’, ability & knowingness to a high degree, and the solving of man’s ills; I think it would be a pretty good world to live in.
Unfortunately it falls far short of that vision and has for many years.
I have always thought that any science or practice that would/could tackle these areas would likely manifest the most outrageous acts by it’s own members – sort of an evolution in itself – the insanities eventually blow off, but it can be a very long road.
I have no doubts that LRH would have wanted this vision to be so – why one would spend years researching & documenting all that he did if only for money. Hell, he could have saved himself 10s of thousands of hours by coming up with some simpler get-rich scheme if that was his intention.
Dennis, maybe it looks a brave and unfounded statement, but actually there is no ethics technology in Scientology.
There is a good system of exploring overts and withholds and that can be beneficial. But this system based on what? Ethics itself is not defined in Scientology. It is said 1) common sense. 2) moral codes. 3) not moral codes but the greatest number for the greatest number of dynamics. This is not specific for the least and this is not clear and this is actually a mess if you examine this closely.
Moral codes are different in different communities. But we all are humans. Indifferently if we live in Alaska, India, Europe, China or Tehran.
It is wisely stated that ethics is a personal matter (I would add unless it is a “serious” transgression – causing harm or more harm to others – of the actual moral codes.) So it is wisely stated in one reference but other references pulls down Scientology ethics to the level of moral codes. And yes, this is because it serves better the aims of a cult.
So when “ethics technology” of Scientology is a mess, than it ruins auditing however great the processing is, this fact ruins all the greatness. And honestly I think this is deliberate.
Thanks for the reply … I agree with much of what you wrote.
When I wrote it, I was going to mention Ethics & Justice & Moral Codes, and I probably should have to clarify.
My own viewpoint is that if one combines LRH’s vision along with some sort of ethics/justice codes, those codes should work in the best interests of everyone and towards better/greater survival. I guess I look at other codes like the Ten Commandments, or the Way to Happiness … to me, a good basis for ‘clean living’. I’m not saying it is the best and could not be improved upon … just that it is a good start.
As you mention, different communities have different codes of conduct whether it be a personal code, or group justice codes.
Whenever I was handling someone, I would be looking to enhance their survival – not MY estimation of their survival, but to have them realize it for themselves.
The church of scientology on the otherhand, has used these codes to threaten & suppress individuals, has expanded them to include almost everything short of breathing and generally driven any hope of justice within the church into the ground.
That`s probably what pisses me off the most – hang out the carrot of freedom and then turn around and deny it to the masses.
I agree. Have a nice day!
Huh? gOd, what about “Ethics is Reason and the contemplation of optimum survival”? And the Conditions formulas.
Ethical vs.not Ethical is implicit in many of the basic concepts of Scientology but they all align with the continuum of Survival. At one end is Optimum Survival along all the Dynamics, at the other is Succumb, failure, death, non-survival.
Touche’
That’s a very broad question.
What would the banking system be like? Politics? Medicine? Legal? Academic? Etc.
Yes, I am trying to paint the whole picture here.
Watching Star Trek, I often wonder about these things. Only Deep Space 9 touched on the commercial aspect of the future outer-space existence.
It’s a pretty big question for a “comment” but here’s a start. This is based on LRH’s original vision for the world – to play a better game. If that vision were being brought about the culture of Earth would look something like this:
Individuals would be making progress in both spiritual growth and wisdom by going up the Bridge OR by progressing in those two ways on other paths. (One reference which that last would be in keeping with would be the Creed of the Church of Scientology as regards the right to one’s own religious practice.) There would be interest and motivation for taking such paths because of their development in the smallest unit, the family.
Family members would be winning as a result of values based on Scn basics, such as TRs and the use of ethics tech (conditions, stats, etc.), etc.
Both the workplace and government would operate according to the most basic admin and ethics tech (not the specific tech for Scn organizations), which would include such PLs as “An Essay on Management,” which itself is based on the most fundamental basics, such as ARC and KRC. Applying those fundamentals would require then a democratic organization and government.
And overall, the world would be playing an increasingly better game.
How would the Scientology go about determining what of LRH’s writings to use and when? How would some writings be discarded, if any?
Having just read Maria’s comment wisely focusing on the tech, I would say that there should be a collaboration of the highest trained auditors to determine what is Standard Tech. Per my understanding this is the type of thing that Dan Koon and others did in the Church itself, sorting out various tech questions and even writing new HCOB’s based on LRH’s notes, making sure the new issues aligned with basic principles.
I would also include in this vision of LRH’s goal of making a better game your idea of continuing the research where LRH left off and doing such would in fact be basic Scientology as well. One reference is DMSMH where LRH asks for help in building a better Bridge (here again, his early-years attitude). Another reference might be the top level of the Chart of Human Evaluation under “Reality (Agreement): Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. CHANGES REALITY [my caps].”
Again, the central thread in this new world of Scientology would be the auditing tech, but auditing would not be forced on anybody as that would violate tech itself and many basic principles. That’s why in my concept of LRH’s vision there would be other paths people could take. But since everyone would have been taught the basics of Scientology at home and at school, they would have datums of comparable magnitude and would thus be better able to evaluate for themselves personally “what is true for them.”
In addition to Scientology, other systems of knowledge including other tech, admin and ethics systems would be taught, particularly ones that followed the basic principles of maintaing and raising ARC and KRC and increasing higher levels of awareness. And such things as basic Scn admin and ethics tech could be evaluated against other systems with the aim of an ongoing evolution of workability in all spheres.
Remember to include all of LRH’s visions – not just the one’s you like. No cherry-picking allowed 😉
Ha ha! It occurred to me you might say that. But no – before all the contraditions came about as a result of expansion efforts, core Scientology was consistent, from what I can see, and therefore there really isn’t much reason to be concerned about cherry picking. Sure, even high tech terminals debate over tech points at times, but eventually they work it out. This is the best anyone could expect of any system that isn’t objective (i.e. general consensus) science.
Gimme the full LRH vision materialized in a sci-fi future – let’s say in the year 2050.
Hmmm… I’m not sure what you mean by the “full” LRH vision. I tried in my comments to give a general idea of his vision of “playing a better game,” without attempting to write a whole book, or write about things I don’t know a lot about (economics, government, justice systems, etc etc). The main point I was trying to make was that if basic Scn principles were applied (with their inherent intentions), all areas of the culture would evolve into more and more beneficial systems – and particularly if standard auditing were promoted and being done. The basic winning factor, then, would be that individuals would be getting closer and closer to their full potential – because it is the individuals who are the building blocks of society.
What would evolve out of the best minds working at their increasingly better potential I don’t think I can say specifically (understatement! :-)).
I can understand “the full LRH vision” only by restating it as “What was LRH’s IdealScene, in terms of Scientology”?
An Ideal Scene monitors all the detailed actions that follow, and prioritizes them.
The ideal scene is what he constantly worked towards – thus the closest to the ideal scene would be what we found in the latter part of his life.
I don’t agree with this because in the latter part of his life there were more and more co-creators of the actuality involved. This diluted his influence over what actually occurred
It’s a big difference between giving ACCs to small groups, and having organizations all over the world with other people running them on the basis of the best understanding they could muster. More and more responsibilty gets delegated; how well was the Ideal Scene duplicated by all those others?
That would have been the purpose of codifying the various techs; to get them duplicated as exactly as humanly possible without his actual personal presence there monitoring it all.
And that’s not even considering all the opposition terminals that were were counter-creating or just individuating away. Those were also part of the co-creation.
So I would say the truest Ideal Scene was the earliest part of it all, when Ron was one-on-one auditing or him directly interacting with groups, giving lectures, doing group processing, giving workshops.
Now it’s true that the Bridge was not fully developed yet in those days, all the research had not yet been done, so the Ideal Scene was not completely actualized.
But what came later was LRH’s development of the Admin tech which was intended to enable the organization to expand and replicate itself fractally, repeating the same
standard pattern. It seems inevitable to me that in the physical universe degradation of the pattern would occur, without sufficient direction by theta.
If that’s not done, we end up with empty shells, forms without substance,”Idle Morgues” instead of “live orgs”.
As Buddha said, All compound things decay”. Unless they are steadily infused with new life, granted beingness in new units of time.
“I don’t agree with this because in the latter part of his life there were more and more co-creators of the actuality involved. This diluted his influence over what actually occurred”
That does not rob him of any responsibility for what he created, though.
It is really hard if not impossible. I would refer to a committee of OT’s, but it is very unlikely there would be a solid, common agreement. Besides all these people would look at this problem from the (sorry) narrow-mindedness of Scientology. Ron said: Look for the Source. And indeed. Look for the source from where his pick-ups, selections came from. Many came from tantric buddhism or even higher teachings I do not name this time.
According to my experience I must say without a solid knowledge of this the above determining does not work.
It would just be another collectivist fascism with all the current “Do as I say – not as I do.
I couldn’t bear to imagine my grandkids KR’ing me for giving a touch or nerve assist without CS OK.
The PR was to have a world without crime so that we wouldn’t have jails – We could weld up makeshift chain lockers and place them next to all the Hubbard offices across the planet.
We could also copy the Muslims and have everyone stand and applause at the closest “bust” of Hubbard at certain times each day.
And insist that Wall street and other exchanges have their stats available before 14:00 hrs on a Thursday so that Int could send out their CSW’s.
God’s strewth Geir – Hypnotism and meditation would be forbidden and each org will have to have it’s own abortion clinic with a competent AO (Abortion officer) trained in SO ethics.
Enough – It’s a horror I don’t want to imagine.
But it may be well worth imagining it.
Geir is doing a group session to get off our great charges on Scientology (i.e. Black Buddhism) and see us across into the Brave New World of Scientology. 😉
just (semi)joking 😀
haha Martin – Good one!
Good post Martin. Yeah, I can easily imagine that scene.
If there would be a World Org Board, then we would become work slaves. 16 hours work per day, rice and beans, and all other amenity current Sea Org members have. Slave planet same style as it is being tried to accomplish by the current “establishment”. Just annother mask. So the choice is: Pest or cholera. Or blow away from this scruffy planet as I will do,when I quitt.
In my opinion this is the most realistic scenario. This was the scenario in Hubbard’s life. At least the ideal scene:) Strange that people do not notice this.
I remember a statement of Hubbard: Total Freedom requires total discipline.
This brings up out-points and questions:
Was ethics designed to get this IN ?
Was he in fear of his own products – “OT´s”? ,
because back on the track they used their power to mess up the (physical) universe ?
Ethics in its most harsh application, is practiced in the SEA ORG. Why ? Total freedom is not available at all, not for publics not for staff. Why enforcing total discipline when no
Total freedon is available.
You see cross data, contrary facts which cannot be resolved.
Some answers I found here:
http://www.xenu-directory.net/mirrors/www.whyaretheydead.net/krasel/books/roos/index.html
one of the most valuable dox available in the net, it answeres a lot of questions.
” Total Freedom requires total discipline.”
That’s pretty much exactly what Buddha said, too.
Very interesting. I won´t become a Buddhist *ggg
Spongebob, what does that phrase mean to you? I see two different ways of interpreting it:
1. “Total Freedom requires total discipline” to be imposed by others on the one who has achieved total freedom.”
2. “Total Freedom requires total discipline” to be imposed on himself (the one who has achieved total freedom).
I thought of Nr. 1
I did not take into account Nr. 2
But you are right, it could be lokked at it both ways.
Buddha said “self-discipline” and not “discipline enforced randomly by others.”
Big difference.
.
(First of all, forgive me if my English is not fluid.)
I can imagine two distinct scenarios.
1.)
The first is the one for which I’ve joined Scientology the first place. The basic data in Scientology would be the first and foremost thing to apply. If other, later data would go against these basics, the later data would be followed keeping in mind the basic data.
Still this world would be a kind of synthetic stuff. No real life, no real joy, but the “Scientology Veneer”.
a.)
One of the first barrier would be that people are different. The basic data would mean different things for each person. Despite any world clearing. What about “attitude clearing”?:) When you define the word honest not by dictionary but by examplified conduct…:) Showing actual examples:) But still that would lead to a synthetic world.
b.)
Second barrier is the dimension in which Scientology would be applied. “This is Sparta!” Sorry:) I wanted to say: “This is Samsara!”
c.)
The third most important barrier is the “source” of Scientology (as a whole system), namely it’s Founder. I think, a person who can invent Fair Game Policy and such things is insane. So there can be serious flaws in the system which must be researched but that is quite a task.
2.)
This scenario is the projection of real Scientology. It is already in implementation by the current “management” or David Miscavage. It is the projection of the good and bad in Scientology. It is the projection of the system, designed by a mind who designed Fair Game, disconnection, RPF and such himself. Who thought of everything, who wrote down policies about how to clean furnitures and windows with newspaper but who did not put down what to do when the system goes “black” (Black Dianetics and Black Scientology) who oddly enough only envisioned and forecasted this:)
This scenario is the most fascisted, 1984 and Brazil type of world one can imagine.
Third Scenario… which I can’t imagine and which was not in the question itself:) which would use the good stuff from Scientology intelligently and would not follow it’s astrays (put it here just really briefly):
Useful stuff in auditing and philosophy would be kept, to advance the person spiritually. Regarding “Source” material an extensive research would be made to point out which material comes from where. For example: Body-mind-thetan comes exactly from the Buddhist principle: Body-energy-mind. Maybe there are more examples of that so for the better understanding and for respect, a research would be needed.
Cultlike and any unprovable stuff would be cut off. Like “LRH is the Source of Scientology Technology”…(besides, I am not a robot and not a machine, so I do not need any technology to be applied on myself. Please…!) or for example, beating up bad people, like suggested in the Ethics book and such violent stuff which is only good for creating fanatics would be left out entirely 🙂
It would be made available for the broad public in society for goodwill purposes.
Right now Scientology pretends to forward religious freedom, but it is just a cover for combating it’s own rejection by society. In the future Scientology should be made broadly available as a subject not as a religion. And free application should be stressed. If a religion would like to apply this subject that religion the Church of Scientology should not apply any authority above that religion.
Especially when it would be available for all than I would apply higher spiritual principles to follow on from there.
As far as I can see there are limits in Scientology. It is not wise to pretend that it takes all or even just anyone to “Total Freedom”.
But personally I would prefer this last Scenario. The workable stuff to be made widely available and without limit for goodwill application.
Than the world could be really a better place.
What I would keep from Scientology is the analytical approach that Hubbard took in consolidating past knowledge. I am only talking about the approach and not the resulting consolidation necessarily.
.
+1
Exactly, I agree Vin. It is supposed to be the “science of knowing how to know”. A method, or a collection of methods, including fundamental principles of discovering more methods of discovering answers, for each individual to discover answers for himself.
Part of this is helping remove those factors/barriers within himself which prevent an individual from being able to see/know/discover answers/knowledge/data.
The “resulting consolidations” which may have been a an appropriate response to any particular events or circumstances may not be appropriate at all ever again.
Thus it is the intelligent application of fundamental principles in new units of time, in present time, is what is necessary. Rote, literal application of “policies” will usually tend to screw things up because they were developed based on some past obnosis, not necessarily for what is “happening NOW”. Fundamental principles expressed as “policy”, like “We deliver what we promise” do always apply but they need to be adapted to the obnosed present time situation. That kind of policy statement refers to postulated goals or ideal scenes.
A “Here’s how we polish our shoes” may not apply at all. What if you’re in a culture that doesn’t wear shoes? That policy would be meaningless.
I hope I am getting across the difference?
LRH’s Ideal scene changed with time – reflected in the changes in the Bridge among other things. You can also hear it in the lectures and you will find a big change with the release of OT III – then the ideal scene is along the lines of a “salvaged sector”. It is well and sound that he kept adjusting the Ideal Scene IMO.
OK, the basic foundation and direction of the Ideal Scene did not change, then. Only it’s scope expanded.
An apple is an apple, no matter if there is one tree or a huge orchard of them. LRH simply expanded from having one planet of healthy apple trees to a having a whole sector full of planets with healthy apple trees. The original postulate was there.
Not so IMO – the original Ideal Scene was to provide a tool. The later was a world take-over. Very, very different.
Can either of you provide any reference? I found the reference below and it made me wonder – were there at some point changes in statistics that would have indicated changes in products which in turn would have indicated a change in the ideal scene? And if so, what is the reference?
“Statistics must reflect the actual desired PRODUCT. If they do not, they are not valid.
If they do, they give an idea of an ideal scene.
“From a statistic reflecting the desired products, one can work out the departure from the
ideal scene.” LEARNING TO USE DATA ANALYSIS, HCO PL 19 Mar 1972, Issue II
Is the assumption that auditing is given the central / senior role and is being delivered without gross auditing errors, with calling F/N s as an acknowledgment / confirmation of already present VGIs / cog / EP and without arbitraries such as 3 times swing?
Are people REQUIRED to have auditing? i.e. has it become the law, with no choice?
Or perhaps not the law, but with enough social and peer pressure to make it into an unwritten law?
Geir, do you want to make auditing “compulsory”? See my post below.
Of course not.
I believe it would be impossible to require/enforce auditing, based on my understanding of the basic Ideal Scene of Scientology.
How do one then administer any Introspection Rundown?
Touche
Not really touche.
The first part of the Introspection Rundown is the very simplest handling that is done today with psychotics in any hospital.- isolation in the very quietest possible environment where they can not hurt themselves, until they destimulate. This is not the only way, but it is basically a pre-locational locational. The person is “lost” and needs to be “found”.
I’m not sure why an Intro Rd is necessary; in the past I had considered that a Locational would work; I did not know about the Introspection Rd. at that time, but I can see now it might be better because even a simple Locational might impact the person too much and leave too many footprints in his reactive mind.
Assists and handlings like this are a much neglected area of Scientology which is a real shame because they are exactly what the doctor ordered for people in serious mental difficulty, who are experiencing a psychotic break, etc.
Basically the Rd. as I understand it is an undercut to a standard Locational because the person is in a super-deep Confusion.
As far as whether it’s “auditing”, there is a difference between Assists, locationals, CCHs and the like – 8-C procedures, and auditing that addresses the mind.
Would you ask an unconscious accident victim for permission to give him an Assist?
He might die while you’re still waiting for him to come out of his coma and answer you.
No, you tell him you’re gonna do it and just start “Feel my hand”. “Thank you”.
The question here is about free will – would we Apply the IntroSpRd on the remaining?
Here’s one reference:
“The auditor and pre-clear are a group. To function well a group must be cleared. The clearing of a group is not difficult. It requires but little time. The relationship of the auditor and pre-clear is not parity. The auditor lends himself to the group as the control center of the group until the pre-clear’s subcontrol center is established under his own control center’s command. The role of the auditor ceases at that moment.” (AP&A)
“The auditor and pre-clear are a group. To function well a group must be cleared.”
This is demonstrably untrue.
It is unfortunate that LRH makes such bold statements presented as fact and then go on building his argument on this “fact”.
The auditor’s job should be to get the pc to LOOK and that is all. The auditor should not be doing anything else at all. He should not be making the pc look in a certain way. He should simply let the pc un-stack whatever is uppermost in the pc’s mind.
So there is no need to “clear” auditor and pc as a group, as found in the KHTK approach. The KHTK approach can be applied by the pc oneself.
.
Sorry, I didn’t post enough to give you the context for the meaning of “cleared.” Here’s more in that same section. The auditor and preclear are “clearing” things that get in the way of auditing. (I had my attention on the part about control as that was the point being discussed between you and Valkov).
“THE FIRST ACT of the auditor concerns himself. He assesses the task rather than the pre-clear and assesses the matter within himself. He establishes whether or not he desires the pre-clear to become established under the pre-clear’s own center of control. To do this the auditor may find it necessary to straight-wire himself for the removal of any reason why he does not want this pre-clear to be owned by the pre-clear. He then postulates to himself what he wants to happen with this pre-clear and postulates as well that he can do this task with this pre-clear. He must feel these postulates solidly. If he cannot he must discover why he cannot. Thus the first session’s first minutes with the pre-clear are concerned with the auditor himself. He should take time out from the pre-clear until he himself is established in his task and then readdress the pre-clear.”
.
Btw, you were missing context so this isn’t a valid example but in a way it shows how people can get a horrid idea based on an MU. Many of the comments here and elsewhere demonstrate this, IMO.
Not to mention the HCO PL on enrolling only on self-determinism.
I will attempt this based on the idea that auditing is delivered per the auditor’s code, without GAEs, and with the full agreement and participation of both the auditor and the preclear with due attention to the full EP with meter phenomena serving rather than dictating.
By 2084, the entire world had been trained as auditors, both on the lower bridge and on the upper bridge. The Sea Organization, which had been operating out of ignorance of the reality released during auditing, had long ago ceased its endless efforts to control everything in sight, mainly because it is simply not possible to control individuals who have broken through the consensus reality. There was an apparency for a time that this could be done, but in reality, an entire new reality had been forming all along the way, one that could not be “owned” but only co-created. Nothing could interfere with that co-creation, for it is beyond the confines and limitations of ego-bound reality, beyond the bound of flesh and bone. Sec-checking fell away along the line as a tool of the fear-bound separate being faced with possible extinction.
The food production regions of the world had been brought under cultivation, and those who love the land and its living creatures flocked to work the land. In fact, there was always a waiting list for these coveted tasks. Never again would there be a shortage of food, for a critical element for auditing is a well-fed preclear.
Science and technology began to flourish long before the tipping point, as the most brilliant individuals began to extend and expand their consciousness well beyond the individual striving for fame, for patents, for exclusiveness. Questions that had been dismissed as mere subjective maunderings were now considered and quantum leaps were made.
And so the problems of energy and scarcity were addressed.
And love, love for one’s family, friends, groups, mankind, and all the myriad forms of life, it had expanded across time and space, and the birth of a child was greeted with joy, for each new body permitted yet another to participate in the grand game of releasing life from its bondage to fear and limitation.
Art, music, adventure, all these became expressions of unity and diversity.
Gone were the days of fears of scarcities.
Gone were the days of fears of isolation.
Gone were the days of fears of other.
And in the far-flung communities of man, real community began to express itself. Coordination with compassion reigned supreme. There was no question of whether one should assist another, for it is insane to regard another as one’s enemy when the world is born out of co-creation. Instead, it is: brother, you have lost your way, will you take my hand, will you walk with me to a place beyond fear?
Utopia? No.
IMHO this would be the true result of the countless acts of compassion of the the most saintly individuals of Scientology, acting under the auditor’s code. The auditors. And in the end, it was the only thing that Scientology had to offer of value.
Bless you, Maria! This is is the mountain we should be keeping our eye on and focusing our efforts on. Brilliant of you to pick out the only thing needed – correct application of tech. All else in an upward spiral would follow.
We would be reading the details of your synopsis in future history books! 🙂
Super well done Maria!
I had already decided that I would not attempt to answer the OP on it’s own terms because should scientology come to “dominate” the entire world, it would be a contradiction in terms. It would be a violation of the principle of separation of Church and State, among other things.
Here is what LRH wrote about it:
“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)
That is LRH’s “vision” right there in a nutshell. The simple assumption is that well-trained and well-audited people will then come up with better, more positive, more constructive and less destructive solutions to the world’s and society’s problems. Better solutions than war, for example, or economic systems that impoverish a lot of people while others get richer, “justice” systems that imprison a lot of people, psychiatric treatments that brain damage people, etc etc etc etc etc.
Aside from the questions about what the OP actually means by “scientology”. The auditing tech? The admin tech? The data series? Hubbard’s own opinions, speculations and fantasies as opposed to any tech? It appears that already, people have problems sorting out what KSW applies to…… Witness what the CoS has been turned into……
As LRH said, “We are not seeking revolution, but an evolution to higher states…..” Or words to that effect. Not necessarily a fascist or totalitarian dictatorship…….
Those interested in governing structures might want to check out the http://www.savescientology.com site. That attempts to lay out what LRH’s vision for how he wanted scientology organizations to be governed after his death,based on verified documents.
The end result of the dissemination and progress of scientology throughout the world ought to result in improved “standards of living” in various ways, just as the dissemination of other constructive technologies – plumbing, agriculture, medicine, etc etc does.
We are talking about tools here. It is really irrelevant what LRH himself might have done if he were “king”. His vision(s) of that probably evolved overtime, and may have depended on how he was feeling any given day. Just as our visions fluctuate in the quality of their loftiness depending upon which side of the bed we get out.
Someone would have to parse all of his words, to even arrive at any idea of what LRH’s total vision was. One would have to completely DUPLICATE the totality of Hubbard to really know what his vision was as to the specific applications to practical problems in society, medicine, law, etc. He actually addressed those kind of issues in Book 1, DMSMH. I think his basic vision was that use of the tech would be a good thing IF it was used forthe purpose ofmaking people brighter and happier, because then they would make better decisions and create better solutions.
Other than that, this question is like a Rorscach test. Each person will project on to it their own hopes, fears, desires, wishes, and “must not happens.”
If it helps sort out what is scientology and what is not scientology, that would be excellent.
LRH himself said that all a scientologist should aspire to is “an empire of wisdom”, not any empires of money, political control, or any of that worldly stuff.
Regarding KSW; I would like your comment on the policy titled “Keeping Admin Working”.
I quote from paragraph #3 of that policy:
“Therefore, to keep Scientology working, all of Scientology, one must insist on standard tech and admin. The principles of unvarying adherence to precise technology, constant alertness to tech alter-is and insistence that every Scientologist abide by these rules apply just as severely to the third dynamic technology of standard administration – POLICY”
And when we look at the definition of Third Dynamic, it follows that LRH intended this Strict Adherence to all green on white be applied to all third dynamics.
That’s only one definition of Third Dynamic. Here’s a quote: “Any group, or part of an entire class, could be considered a part of the Third Dynamic. The school, the society, the town, the nation are each PART of the third Dynamic and each one IS a Third Dynamic.”
And in the context of that LRH quote I think it’s pretty clear which third dynamic he means.
He mentions Policy as THE Third Dynamic Tech in many places. And yes, I do think it is clear that he means that Policy is the only True TDD in existence.
I will quote another Policy Letter:
“THE ORG EXEC COURSE INTRODUCTION
This course contains the basic laws of organization.
Primarily intended for Scientology Organization Executives, its policy letters are
slanted toward a Scientology Org (short for organization). However, it covers any
organization and contains fundamentals vital to any successful or profitable activity.
This course also applies to the individual. Any individual has his 7 (or 9) Divisions
and his 21 (or 27) Departments. Where one or more of these is missing in his conduct
of life he will be to that degree an unsuccessful individual.
No matter how organized any company, society or political entity will be as
unsuccessful as it has these functions missing.”
And from the same PL:
“If anyone knew the Org Exec Course fully and could practise it, he could
completely reverse any down trending company or country. Indeed, here and there at
this writing men have done so.”
And:
“It could be argued or pleaded that this huge body of data should be made into
texts capable of general application by businesses and countries. The one effort to
republish these policies in other terms so badly altered the material that it became a
hopeless bog even though attempted by a very successful business man. He himself was
applying the originals direct to his company and it soaringly became rich. Then he
decided to rewrite it all, greatly altered and edited, for his employees and his business
went on a toboggan slide. His correct action would have been to send his employees to
take the same course he took-this very Org Exec Course. And let them adapt what
they now knew to fit their own posts and activities. Instead, he cut them off from
source and what he wrote for them was only as much as he had gotten out of the
course from his own viewpoint.
At least there are Scientology Orgs around which are successful living models of
these policies and org form.”
It is clear to me that LRH envisioned any third dynamic up to countries and the society at large implement As Much As Possible of the green-on-white. It was clearly part of his vision back in 1969 when this policy was written.
Now, what would our society be like if we did follow this vision?
Geir, in that quoted PL, LRH saying that policy contains the “fundamentals” and “functions” of any organization or individual, or even saying that in a specific case they should have “adapted what they now knew “ is not for me the same as saying that policy (or even its fundamentals) MUST be applied by everyone. I haven’t ever seen that directly or indirectly stated, only strong statements as to the potential value of policy if its principles were implemented.
Read the policy letter in full. Yes, he says that those policies that are only applicable to an org are indeed only applicable to an org – but he advocates changing as little as possible – and then follow that to the letter.
Okay, now I see what you mean – “advocates” – definitely!
And this gets back to my vision (in achieving LRH’s vision) that the very core of Scientology and auditing tech would be a great guilding principle for an ever-evolving and improving society.
“It is clear to me that LRH envisioned any third dynamic up to countries and the society at large implement As Much As Possible of the green-on-white. It was clearly part of his vision back in 1969 when this policy was written.
Now, what would our society be like if we did follow this vision?”
Never going to happen. You, and the others on this blog, along with the thousands that are now independent will never allow it this to happen, and the reference you have cited is very much at variance with the rigid and robotic approach apparently demanded by the policy Keeping Admin Working. This reference tells executives to pick and choose what to apply and how to apply it: “His correct action would have been to send his employees to take the same course he took-this very Org Exec Course. And let them adapt what they now knew to fit their own posts and activities.” It says nothing about blindly and slavishly and “standardly” trying to apply the entire body of policy of a Church organization to everything under the sun, moon and stars – that would be (and is) a ridiculous endeavor given the policies on What is Policy just to name one policy.
As far as org boards go, the fact is that the CofS has been busily designing org boards vastly different from the original 7 div org board since the day that policy was issued and many, many policy letters were either canceled or revised during the time LRH lived.
(I personally think that Keeping Admin Working was not issued by LRH, but is a very poor attempt to mimic KSW and scare the piss out of people – I think that because I see books approved during his time disappearing completely from sight, such as Notes on the Lectures and I see some really stupid directives coming out of the Sea Org that are supposedly from LRH.
I should note that in my vision, there is no single totalitarian Church overlord. There is no need for it.
Well, wouldn’t that have to be the case if Conditions were to be applied to the Church at large. One would have to expand – and into ever new Power ranges – until the whole of Earth was covered. Breaking an affluence is clearly Out Admin. And dropping below Normal gets Ethics into pretty frantic action – with an Emergency across the boards demanding action such as State of Emergency etc. I cannot see a Church on Policy not take over the world.
Geir – do you personally apply the ethics conditions to your life? And if not, why not? And in your answer lies the answer to why the CofS will never rule the world.
Of course it will never rule the world. But this is a sci-fi thread of sorts – a “What If?”. And as I said – extrapolating only LRH policy on Conditions, I see no other course of action for the CoS to aim to take over the world. Now, what would that world look like (even disregarding all the off-beat Miscavige stuff and only counting LRH’s intentions and written words).
Geir – you are asking for a vision of a world that is impossible. If the Church was in power, and all the world on the org board, no expansion would be possible. So I guess the only conditions possible to be applied would be to address forces of nature and entropy. Since there are no excuses for down statistics it seems that entire areas of the world would be assigned lower conditions and those people would have to go work on unwanted tasks until some other random natural event or entropy caused those people to have to be assigned lower conditions. Of course, eventually more and more people would be declared suppressive. I guess they would have to be quarantined. Russia seems a likely candidate for suppressives, And the suppressives would create their own societies since no one in the Church would be permitted to communicate to them. Eventually the number of suppressives would outstrip the number of Church members and…
Here we go. NOW we are paining a possible scenario. 🙂
Geir,
“And as I said – extrapolating only LRH policy on Conditions, I see no other course of action for the CoS (other than) to aim to take over the world.”
Here’s where I disagree with your statement of it – “To expand and deliver auditing and training all over the world” does not equate in my mind with “take over and dominate the world”.
For example, the principle of the separation of church and state is a basic principle that would still apply.
There is no other course of action possible, than to expand – as a Church. PepsiCola has no other choice than to expand – as a soft-drink company. Not as a church. It may compete with other soft-drink companies, takeover and dominate the market against them, but to think of it as a competitor to the CoS is apples and oranges.
Soft drinks are not religions. They are different realms of endeavor, they co-exist they do not compete and try to take over each other’s markets and publics, although conflicts are possible.
For example, Mormons do not drink tea or coffee. I believe it is the caffeine. It would be a stretch for a soft-drink manufacturer to try to eliminate the Mormon religion because they are in the business of selling caffeinated drinks! And vice-versa – Mormons don’thave put the Cola companies out of business to protect their flocks.
In fact, the cola companies have created caffeine-free soft drinks precisely because there is a demand for such. Thus, cola and religion can co-exist, they don’t have to try to take over and dominate each other to survive. After all, what would a study break be, without Cola? Dreary!
“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
Separation of Church and State is the real issue, not whether a religion
or Church becomes widespread. The problems arise when churches get into politics and get political power.
Catholic and other Christian churches exist in virtually every country. Is anyone raising an alarm?
The current CoS apparently has too much power in Washington because of the
money it can throw around. This is a problem, but not insurmountable. And in fact, I feel this is only a problem because the current CoS is not deliveringthe goods; it is not following the senior policy of “We deliver what we promise.”
If it were doing what it is supposed to be doing, delivering the actual originally intended VFPs, who would have a problem with that?
Noooo! Let’s not paint a scenario on the assumption that Earth can never go into Power or it is doomed.
Even if we were doing more than putting in basic Scn and auditing and were using condition formulas, in Power Earth would just have to expand into other frontiers – other adventures and challenges. And I’m sure those could and would be found – in outer space, deep in the oceans, in higher states of being – something somewhere!
Does anyone have a link to this document? HCO PL 10 July 1986, Issue I, KEEPING ADMIN WORKING.
I have been searching online and haven’t found it.
I only have a hard copy in Management Series Vol 1, Admin Know-How Series.
That’s in the Admin Knowhow Series in Management Series Volume I. Here’s one link for the Management Series:
http://torrentz.eu/52f77b35b56ab5fb716a281b41e71636293225f5
Valkov (and anyone interested) – Rummage around “True Source Scientology Foundation” here: http://www.stss.nl/en/ They have lots of stuff, do not charge, unlimited downloads and work on donations alone.
Chris, I don’t believe that site has much of green on white. But here’s a link for the whole OEC Vol 6, where you can easily find that PL. http://www.stss.nl
I think if Scn proved the existence of spirits (or overwhelming evidence of it was accepted) it would change everything
I think that a world with a kind of “enforced” auditing situation would be quite fearsome. A world with a kind of “enforced” ethics technology would be quite fearsome. I must admit I’ve seen great guys who never saw the light of Scientology and bad ones who were OTs. And it is not to invalidate. Scientology undiluted is not a universal solvent and not healthy.
Hmm. Hard question. . .
I’m answering assuming the use of Standard Tech Scientology that is KSW Compliant and applied as written per circa 1972?
((PAUSES…WINCES…LOOKS DOWN…))
God Damn, this is going to get me flamed.
((GRITS TEETH))
Ugh …
Okay.
((LOOKS STRAIGHT AHEAD))
I think It would lead to genocide.
With no oversight on Scientology’s Sea Org and a literal application of LRH tech, R2-45 would be employed AS WRITTEN AND DEMONSTRATED VIA LECTURE to remove from the planet all people who were “suppressive” and “anti-social” according to the Genocidal statements made in “Introduction to Scientology Ethics.”
After the “PCs” assets were seized and submitted of course.
Everything permitting such an insane genocide is allowed in Scientology Scriptures and lectures.
Based on KSW, it would be a place without war, insanity or ANY ZEST OF LIFE OR FREEDOM.
That is why I feel so deeply a liberal Scientology is needed that supplants the fundamentalist version purported by CoS and some independents.
Typo on first sentence. Question mark supposed to be period. Srry.
Lets put China on the RPF.
Wait…. they are already on it.
Geir, please file this post under a new category…..Scary Scary Posts
I’m with you Brian, it does fall into the category of… scary, scary posts.
And Marildi, no fear. We are here and full of life and we are part of an enormous wave of reality that is spreading through the world. We have friends everywhere. We even have friends in “high places.” The “battle” is already won, if there ever was such a battle to be won. That’s why I painted my first scenario the way I did. That’s the wave I experience in my every waking moment. But it isn’t called Scientology. Its called life.
Right you are, Maria. What you say here and in your first scenario has been the kind of thing I have “sensed” too and I was sort of forgetting that. And you can tell from my own scenario that I also see things evolving into something that isn’t a Scientology world as such. It would be Earth in Power, not Scientology – basing that on the trajectory of Scientology itself. Yes indeed, the god of this particular game in the universe is “about” (in whole track terms) to win the game set up for “ourselves” ;-).
Okay, I should relax and let Geir and everybody have their fun creating a sci fi story, and be happy that he inspired my own thought experiment – and the wonderful picture you painted! 🙂
ps Marildi – I found a nice summary of Whitehead’s work: http://www.iep.utm.edu/processp/
Thanks! As you probably guessed, I took a look at the length of that first website for Whitehead that you posted and pretty much put it on the back burner! But tell me, which would you recommend over the others, Whitehead, Oahspe, or Urantia? (Btw, I’ve ordered Tom Campbell’s My Big TOE.)
I’d have to say Whitehead. Its really more useful in terms of sloughing off unexpressed / uninspected and very fundamental assumptions in both science and philosophy.
Yikes, that summary is one scholarly piece of writing. It’s a pretty high gradient and would take a lot of word clearing, minimally, for me to actually study it. But from a light read-over tonight I got the idea that this process philosophy is an appealing one, and that Tom Campbell’s theory probably falls in that category. His book gets a little tedious at times, I’m finding, but is more my gradient. Thanks for the vote of confidence, though! And I did get out of that summary what I can use for now. It and the other two links you posted are still on my reading list of “Maria’s recommendations.” 🙂
Per Science of Survival, anyone below 2.0 on the tone scale would have no civil rights of any kind. Therefore, it would basically be a crime – a situation where the government took away your rights – to be below 2.0 on the tone scale.
So you would have to have some kind of “Tone Scale Police” who spotted peoples’ tones and hauled away those who were below 2.0.
Then, if there were still any kind of rights that the society was recognizing (“What has rights? That bank? Those computing circuits?” LRH in Handling the Public Individual PL and tape called “8C” if I remember correctly) then there would need to be Tone Scale Courts where ethics officers and highly trained auditors testified as to the accused’s position on the tone scale. Once the “evidence” was in, and it was officially adjudicated that the person was below 2.0 on the tone scale, then the person would go somewhere where he had no civil rights of any kind so he could not bring down the tone level of the rest of society.
This scenario is based on basic LRH references which I have given regarding the tone scale and civil rights in the society.
If you want to look around and find an example of what society would be like if Scientology ran the world, all you have to do is go to any area which runs on Scientology now, like Int Base.
And there ya go.
Scientology running the world would be worse than the Taliban running the world.
Actually, per Science of Survival, the person who was officially adjudicated to be below 2.0 on the tone scale and was stripped of all civil rights of any kind would need to be “disposed of quietly and without sorrow” per the standard LRH reference.
Sorry. When I said he would be hauled away I was being too namby pampy – afraid to enforce and scared to offend. My non-standard application would be hammered out of existence, per KSW, in a Scientology-run world.
Alanzo is my True Scotsman …
SoS was published in1951, long before 95% of the tech which resolves cases and raises people on the Tone Scale was developed.
“Disposing” of people found undesirable to have around , quietly or noisily, has in fact been the “standard tech” on Earth from time immemorial. And is still used today, as Osama binLaden found out first hand. Not to mention the millions in prisons right here in the USA…..
But with the tech LRH developed over the subsequent years, that kind of solution would actually be unnecessary, if enough people learned to audit and did so.
How about it Al, did you ever want to be an auditor? Lots of potential PCs out there, waiting and hoping for a compassionate, skilled person like you could be…..
Alanzo: What is amusing about this is that moving the body to a different physical location in no way prevents the “spreading” of that tone level. It just moves the evidence or embodiment of it out of the line of vision. Its like stuffing trash under the bed. Its still there. You just don’t look at it any more.
+1
I would disagree that IntBase is “running on Scientology” right now.
Why exactly?
It doesn’t because Al said it does? 🙂
Kidding. (Maybe)
Now I will have to cull references etc. I work weekends, so there will be some delay.
The short answer is, If IntBase were running on the Scientology Ideal Scene, it would be creating and exporting high ARC, theta, successful programs for enlightening people everywhere, outreach to the communities around it and the country and the world, etc. But I don’t see it doing any of that, so I believe it is not “running on Scientology”. Their results are quite otherwise.
So as some guy quoted in the Bible said long ago, “By their fruits ye shall know them.”
But LRH created the Int Base. It has obviously changed a lot since his days – but in his days we still had the RPF, the RPFs RPF, the rule that anyone leaving the Int Base is auto-declared. And it was totally autoritarian. Did they export ARC in the late 70’s? With the Mission Holder Conference. I doubt ARC was omong their top products even under LRH. I believe it was a well honed command intention – a guiding vision and direction for Scientology world wide.
OK, I don’t really know anything about the history of the Int Base, like when it was established or why, what it’s function or mission was supposed to be etc.
However, if it did not contribute to the expansion of Scientology, then was it “running on scientology”?
What was it’s purpose?
Great thought experiment, Geir.
It was the result of this very thought experiment which set me on the road to being a very vocal and die-hard critic of L Ron Hubbard and his Scientology.
In the 16 years when I was a Scientologist, I worked every day – and for 7.5 years for free on staff – to build a Scientology-run world. I never actually stepped back and looked at exactly what kind of world I would be creating.
I saw lots of insanity in Scientology orgs and in the Sea Org areas under full Scientology control, but I always looked away from it and told myself “that is not Scientology”. I would write knowledge reports in order to try to correct what I saw, which always went no where. I finally began to realize that the insanity I saw in almost every area under Scientology control WAS Scientology.
Because of the way Scientology is constructed, it takes a long time for a Scientologist to realize this. There is always more Bridge to do above you which you don’t yet know about, always something else above you to study, always an area that is confidential like OSA, or Int Base, that you tell yourself – AND OTHERS TELL YOU – that once you learn about that then all of this will make sense someday. So you decide that you are not high enough on the Bridge yet, aren’t trained enough yet, don’t have clearance yet, or are too aberrated to understand why all this insanity actually makes sense. So you look away from the insanity, keep looking at the impossible ideals implanted in your head by LRH, keep your head down, and keep going.
The fact is that what you see right now – right here in the real world – IS Scientology. David Miscavige beating people IS Scientology. Sea Org members lying and being totally crazy in front of TV cameras IS Scientology. Scientology is as Scientology does – not some ideal you have in your head put there by a guy trained in prestidigitation.
Even though in one place LRH teaches that absolutes are unobtainable, he teaches every Scientologist to constantly pursue 100% standard Scientology. This pursuit of an unobtainable ideal blinds them to what is going on around them in the real world right now. Hubbard actually talks about this blindness on the BC, during the era of his development of the techniques of “SOP Goals”. He said that a goal is a thing that makes a person look away from present time.
He knew what he was doing in the mid-60’s when he sprinkled so many absolute goals into Scientology. He was blinding Scientologists to what he was actually doing.
No, no, no, no, no!
It is YOUR REACTIVE MIND which thinks Miscavage is beating people, or if he is really beating people, and you think it is bad, is just because your bank.
So take on your OT boots, get into session with lightning fast speed and go up your OT levels like a rocket in your local org or best at Flag! Mankind needs your help and Eternity is waiting for you!
😀
Thank you, gODd!
Al, the only objection I have to what you present in the above post is how selective you are about your data.
By analogy, it’s like saying “Dropping atomic bombs on cities filled with old men, women, and children IS the USA”. Fuel-air bombs over Baghdad is America. Sending drone aircraft over Pakistan to kill villagers IS America. Beating gays to death or driving them to suicide IS America. Online bullying IS the USA. Rape and murder IS the USA. Drug addiction and trafficking IS the USA. Good health care only for the rich IS America.
That is the kind of “thinking” that led a bunch of young Arabs to hijack some airliners and fly them into office buildings full of innocent people.
Yes, all the bad things I mentioned, and more, have occurred in America. But that is not all there is to America.
I am sorry to see you forwarding and perpetuating that kind of insane,one-sided thinking.
I believe you have the shade of the same, sir – albeit from the other side.
Seeing that most people are basically good, it would be extraordinary for LRH (if in a position to shape the entire world) to use the tech to enslave rather than free beings. That would make him a genuine sociopath. Extraordinary claims like that require extraordinary evidence and I myself don’t see extraordinary evidence for it.
I have not implied in any way that he would use the tech to enslave anyone – only that his intention was to use the tech on every part of society – including the Admin Tech (albeit amended – as little as possible – to the organization at hand).
In my opinion admin tech was an emergency handling. If it was leading to the human race becoming less free worldwide Hubbard would’ve evolved it, imo. I say this because it’s what most people would do in those circumstances.To think otherwise is to think Hubbard was some Hitleresque tyrant which i don’t believe is true. Sorry just wanted to express that 🙂
I understand your opinion.
To understand the whole of the texts, the contexts and the possible intentions behind them, one would of course also factor in such historical facts as the Sea Org, Sec Checks, RPF, Fair Game policies and practices (Paulette Cooper etc.) and the formation and operations of the GO. This together with all the Good of Scientology, the increased abilities, understanding and the enlightenment will paint the whole picture. There is the tendency of people debating this subject to disregard one or the other.
Agreed Geir, also any stress Hubbard was under at the time that might not have been there if Scn was succeeding.
Who bears the responsibility for Scientology succeeding or not?
Not only Hubbard imo. I think the environment was not conducive to Scn getting fair treatment and SO, GO etc were a response to that. Had attacks on Scn ceased I think policy would’ve changed to reflect the changing circumstances (maybe after a comm lag :))
Hubbard often stated things with certainty at the time e.g. ‘THIS is the cause of insanity’ ‘THIS is how to run an organisation’ etc but he did replace certainties with other certainties as time went on
IMO the SO, GO, OSA and other such solutions became themselves problems. If the solutions would have been good, they would have been effective in solving the original problem. It hasn’t.
Totally agree, Geir.
In the Mission/Org I was at, trouble started as soon as the G.O. set up shop: staff rip-offs, secretive, etc.
Even after OSA took its place, they were into the same tactics
How so, Geir? Shade of the same – what? Got an example? I do select my data only when I feel it is necessary to do so because someone omits presenting it in his/her post and generalizes from only negative data or only positive data. Either way, that is propaganda to me. Then I select and present what I feel is the contrary, omitted data, to bring it closer to depicting reality.
Take ESMB for example. I think ESMB is a representative slice of human life. It contains, as Synthia posted, all the “good, bad, and the ugly”. It is a typical representation of human life. It is like any city – it contains ghettos and good neighborhoods. ESMB actually has some Boddhisatvas there, who post little but witness it all and rigorously follow the 2 Rules, whether they call themselves Scientologists or not, it is how they conduct themselves, not in the labels they place on themselves.
It also has the gamy manipulators, the would-be Gurus, the overwhelmed with bpc, the guys who stand on a soap-box and address the crowd but no-one in particular with their rants, the witch with the poisoned apples, etc etc.
They are “typical humanity”, and don’t forget they were almost all “Scientologists” to one extent or another. Many were staff, many were public. There is really not much consensus among them. They tend to accept each other inspite of vast disagreements.
They were what LRH had to work with.
You do realize that all my statements above referencing all those destructive acts as “This IS America” were as analogies to Al’s statements about Scientology, and not my own beliefs about America?
Sure.
Valkov –
You are right that context is important. I said that when I was a Scientologist, I would look at the insanity in areas under Scientology’s full control, and I would say to myself “That’s not Scientology”. I was not the only Scientologist to operate this way when faced with the craziness that exists in Scientology.
I said that when I was a Scientologist, I had ideals for what Scientology actually was, put into my head by Hubbard’s early books, and I refused to see anything bad or insane as “Scientology”.
It was within that context, where I stopped denying – as Scientology – all those insane things I was seeing when I finally realized that “Scientology is as Scientology does”. I quit denying what I was seeing in front of my face.
That is an important step for a Scientologist. It is the first step to being able to see the true results of Scientology right before your eyes. Scientology isn’t just “What is Greatness?” It is also the secret Network Orders of the GO and OSA. It is also the bad and crazy stuff too.
That was my point. Not what you made it out to be.
Al, what is missing here is the that if it is missing the “VFP”, if it is not producing the correct end results, which are well-trained auditors and satisfied winning preClears, I don’t care how much “Policy” it appears to be following and how apparently “standardly”, to me it is NOT Scientology.
By which I mean not in accordance with the fundamental goals, ideals, and purposes of Scientology. Intelligence and counter-Intelligence, “perimeter defense” is supposed to be just that – defense against attack from outside, so the “inside” can continue to deliver what is needed and wanted by the individuals who are seeking the VFPs.
I had several family members associated with the CIA and some military Intelligence agencies. The GO, OSA etc are analogous.
Read “Mole Hunt: How the search for a phantom traitor shattered the CIA”, by David Wise for the reality of a game that nobody wins. Anyone associated with those type of activities is very likely to get tainted and degraded, either by their own actions or by others. Their is actually no way tostay sane in that business.
Yet Intelligence agencies and counter-intelligence agencies are a fact of life and most countries have them. Apparently they are necessary.
I think LRH was trying to create a world in which they would not be so necessary, a safer world. Yet you propose the thesis that it was all a lie on his part, and that he was really trying to create a world that would be more dangerous to most of us!
Well, bubba, it’s really up to you. What kind of a world are you going to help make? And what tools are you going to use?
All I see you doing is running around telling people “Don’t use tools! Tools are dangerous! And the guy who invented tools invented them to hurt you with, not to help you with! He was a liar when he said tools were good! Stay away from tools!”
That’s my conclusion about you, after 2-3 years of reading your posts. I think somewhere along the line you lost your confidence in yourself and stopped trusting yourself. When you get that sorted out, I think you will be OK.
Valkov; Let’s pretend for a moment that Scientology has totally won out in the world. Everyone except a very few are happily moving up the Bridge and some 90% of the world population is Clear or higher. Let’s also pretend that Al here bluntly refuses to have anything to do with Scientology. Now, would your handling in your post above constitute your effort in helping Al? Or would there be another part of the ethics tech more appropriate to help him get rid of his case?
This is a good question.
In a world run by Scientologists, what would happen, per policy, to those who disagree with Scientology, those who criticize it, and those who legally oppose it – politically, philosophically and morally?
In a Scientology run society, where are the checks and balances on Scientology’s power and abuse?
Please cite the relevant references from LRH.
Clue: Look to areas run and controlled by Scientology now, and the policies, tech, ethics and justice extant in Scientology now. Because of KSW, there will be no changes to what you see now, and what we will all get later.
Alonzo: “In a Scientology run society, where are the checks and balances on Scientology’s power and abuse? ”
You seem to continually equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology or some of the goofs that have brought the subject into disrepute.
Are you saying ALL scientologists or anyone who practices the subject to be abusive and power hungry?
Clarifying your opinions may help.
Valkov wrote:
Al, what is missing here is the that if it is missing the “VFP”, if it is not producing the correct end results, which are well-trained auditors and satisfied winning preClears, I don’t care how much “Policy” it appears to be following and how apparently “standardly”, to me it is NOT Scientology.
Fact: Throughout its history, the majority of people who get involved in Scientology eventually leave it.
What if Scientology can not produce the VFPs that it claims it can?
Isn’t that ALSO Scientology?
Dennis –
We are talking about a Scientology that runs the society on LRH tech, admin and ethics.
That system, developed by Hubbard, was supposed to emulate a “benign monarchy”. It has not, as we all now know. It’s an anti-democratic, anti-rights monarchy all right, with no checks and balances on the power of its monarch, but it is far from benign.
Scientologists doing their best to apply Scientology have produced that. It sure wasn’t the Rastafarians, right?
Does that make every individual Scientologist is power hungry and abusive? Certainly not. And I never said that.
But as a collective, this is what the majority of Scientologists have produced through following the ideology of L Ron Hubbard’s Scientology.
Isn’t that correct?
And before you answer – do you know the “No True Scotsman” fallacy?
To answer this question of yours, Geir:
“Valkov; Let’s pretend for a moment that Scientology has totally won out in the world. Everyone except a very few are happily moving up the Bridge and some 90% of the world population is Clear or higher. Let’s also pretend that Al here bluntly refuses to have anything to do with Scientology. Now, would your handling in your post above constitute your effort in helping Al? Or would there be another part of the ethics tech more appropriate to help him get rid of his case?”
If I were in that world, and I were Clear or even a Grade IV release, I am well aware that I would probably handle Al much more constructively and helpfully. My own case in reaction to others is unfortunately something I am aware of and have to struggle with on a daily basis.
I do not know what the actual “correct” handling for Al’s case is; however I do believe that in some cases, “The wrong thing to do is nothing.”
So just as you felt you needed to “Put your foot down” towards some poster(s) on ESMB, I sometimes feel the need to put my foot down when Al posts something that strikes me as particularly thoughtlessly one-sided.
Any and every wise man from Buddha on up to Hubbard, has taught that it is not wrong to invalidate error, that it is in fact necessary, and that to fail to do so could be an overt act of omission.
In a Scientology world, Al doesn’t have to have anything to do with Scientology as far as I’m concerned; it is his right to have nothing to do with it.
However, currently he is very far from “having nothing to do with Scientology”. He is still completely involved with it, like angry, bitter ex-husband who can’t stop thinking about his ex-wife who betrayed him.
He is actually addicted to Scientology. He is driven by his own first postulate about it. It is the energy of that postulate that makes his current condition towards Scientology persist. As LRH writes in Self Analysis I believe it is, when a guy is stuck in a failed relationship, what needs to be straightwired is not the jilt(betrayal), but the times he loved the girl(the subject, in this case).
Unlike Marty and a lot of others who have left the CoS behind but still use scientology and hold to their ideals, Al fits the exact definition of an “apostate”. He has abandoned his own ideals and basic purpose, to instead oppose them, which means he has to oppose himself, his own first postulate.
Why am I so bluntly and aggressively confrontational with him at times? Why do I evaluate like crazy at times. It’s violation of the Auditor’s Code, right? I’ll tell you a secret – evaluation is not always bad, and is sometimes what will bring another uptone.
LRH has some great reflections about this, in his lecture “Third and Fourth Postulates in Living” from the 4th London ACC lectures. I believeit’s the 4th lecture, given October 4,1955.
it is a course of action I decided upon back when we were on The Scientology Forum a couple of years ago. It is how many addiction therapy groups work, I won’t go into the
theory of it, which is basically that straight talk works best with some people.
I do think Al is hard-headed, like Vinnie; being Clears, it’s not really necessary to pussy-foot around them.They are very much “What effect on self?”, as I see them. They sluff off adversity and plow on ahead. It takes some stubborn hard-headedness to get banned from ESMB!
This has turned into a long exegesis of my own personal behavior and thinking. Well, there it is.
I do the best I can with what I have to work with. By which I mean – my mind, myself. And I think Al knows that.
As you are prone to tackle the man rather than the ball at times (referring to your interchange right here with Al), I will let you in on my thoughts on this;
It is almost as Valkov and Alanzo is the same person; Janus. You are both to the extreme – Al vehemently attacking, Val adamantly defending. You are black and white (not quite sure who is the white one). You use similar tactics to forward you biased viewpoints. The viewpoints are unshakable. No matter what arguments arises, the viewpoints remain cemented. They seem mostly at display for the casual readers rather than to engage in any fruitful viwpoint-molding process.
So vAl (or Janus if you prefer); Would you ease off on the quarreling with yourself?
Geir –
It is almost as Valkov and Alanzo is the same person; Janus. You are both to the extreme – Al vehemently attacking, Val adamantly defending. You are black and white (not quite sure who is the white one). You use similar tactics to forward you biased viewpoints. The viewpoints are unshakable. No matter what arguments arises, the viewpoints remain cemented. They seem mostly at display for the casual readers rather than to engage in any fruitful viwpoint-molding process.
So vAl (or Janus if you prefer); Would you ease off on the quarreling with yourself?
For me, the subject is and always has been Scientology. Not Valkov. I have huge respect for Valkov. He turned me on to one of the best books I’ve ever read “Beyond Belief” by Elaine Pagels. It answered so many questions for me.
Again: My subject is and always has been Scientology, not Valkov. My talking about Scientology is what pulls in Valkov’s personal attacks on me. Valkov’s subject is me. I always try to return Valkov to the subject – Scientology.
And Valkov always returns to the subject of me.
This thread is a perfect example of what I am saying.
And now, let’s return to the real subject, shall we?
Scientology.
I hear you Geir. Always have. think I addressed that in my post, along with various related issues.
To answer your question – I will if Al will. If he doesn’t want to, I don’t either. I have noticed that Al has changed and is often less extreme, is more centered, so there is hope for us.
Sure, I adamantly defend – when I perceive that I am vehemently attacked. Is that not natural and right? I do not see it as quarreling. I am showing Al what he looks like to me because I think he needs to know what kind of effect he is actually creating. He does the same for me.
Past a certain point, I don’t think there is anything wrong with directly responding to someone who rubs one the wrong way, and is doing it deliberately, which Al has in the past said he is doing. If Al wants to play Socrates, he should expect to receive some hemlock along the way. And I think he knows and accepts that.
Yes, we are playing to the readers. Al has in the past acknowledged that too.
Between us, we present a more balanced view! It is like a courtroom drama, one of the most popular forms of show on US television.
Psychologically, I show him what he rejects about himself, he shows me what I reject about myself. It’s what psychologists call a symbiotic relationship.
“To answer your question – I will if Al will. If he doesn’t want to, I don’t either.”
You do realize that you are letting Al define you here, don’t you? You are in no unclear rendering showing Al to be Cause and yourself to be effect Effect in the debate between you. And I do question whether that is the wisest choice.
Thank you Geir. Thisi s a helpful post:
“You do realize that you are letting Al define you here, don’t you? You are in no unclear rendering showing Al to be Cause and yourself to be effect Effect in the debate between you. And I do question whether that is the wisest choice.”
I am indeed pondering the wisdom of trying to overwhelm him right back, and am considering the alternatives
Al, your post above in which you say this: “For me, the subject is and always has been Scientology. Not Valkov”, not once, but twice, gets a ROFL from me. 🙂
You do realize that in that post, you did exactly what you say you don’t do, that Valkov does? You made an “address to the man”, as Geir called it.
My dog Bad Valkov (he is a feral Borzoi mix raised by wolves) is straining at his leash because he wants to bust in here to growl that “Al is a favor-currying bootlicker for trying to paint himself as an innocent halo-wearing goody two-shoes who is better than Valkov, when he does exactly the same thing as he accuses Valkov of doing, grrr grrr”, but I am restraining him this time……
Even Bad Valkov the dog sees that Al takes this incident of Geir counselling Valkov to be more helpful to Al, as an opportunity to make himself look good at Valkov’s expense…..
ROFL 🙂
Al, here’s part of what you posted:
” I said that when I was a Scientologist, I had ideals for what Scientology actually was, put into my head by Hubbard’s early books, and I refused to see anything bad or insane as “Scientology”.
It was within that context, where I stopped denying – as Scientology – all those insane things I was seeing when I finally realized that “Scientology is as Scientology does”. I quit denying what I was seeing in front of my face.”
I would say that “Scientology is as Scientologists do”. That illustrates the true causations involved. What Scientology “does” is co-created by all those participating in it, by their actions, commissions and omissions, all of them.
I suggest that if you go back to your original understanding of Scientology and start acting on those again, all will be well with you and you will be helping others by empowering them to achieve their own goals. You know that Gandhi quote was going around a few months age, “Be the change you want to see.”
The things you said “That’s not Scientology!” about, you were most likely exactly 100% right about those, they were contrary to the Ideal Scene o fScientology.
Valkov wrote:
I would say that “Scientology is as Scientologists do”. That illustrates the true causations involved. What Scientology “does” is co-created by all those participating in it, by their actions, commissions and omissions, all of them.
I can totally agree with this.
I’ve got to agree Valkov. “Be the change. . .”
Another friend of mine said a “Sea Org member would do what he does whether or not there were ever any Sea Org.” Another way of saying to be yourself and do the good that you see needs to be done whether you have any group agreement at all.
Wisdom for the ages. And really, as I look at it, can anyone really do more? Whether or not LRH was a “good” person, or whether or not he “applied” Scientology after writing it all down is kind of a side show, isn’t it?
As off-topic as this drifted, this thread is making me work out some of the confusing feelings that I have toward LRH. However, working out the particulars about how effective is Scientology is not a side show, is it.
Alanzo:
“This pursuit of an unobtainable ideal blinds them to what is going on around them in the real world right now.”
I’ll take this a step further and say: this pursuit of an unobtainable ideal BINDS them to what is going on around them in the real world right now..
” There is always more Bridge to do above you which you don’t yet know about, always something else above you to study, always an area that is confidential like OSA, or Int Base, that you tell yourself – AND OTHERS TELL YOU – that once you learn about that then all of this will make sense someday. So you decide that you are not high enough on the Bridge yet, aren’t trained enough yet, don’t have clearance yet, or are too aberrated to understand why all this insanity actually makes sense.”
Indeed there is more bridge. And that is where I met you. And that it where it really unravels. Down to the ground of being.
Maria wrote:
I’ll take this a step further and say: this pursuit of an unobtainable ideal BINDS them to what is going on around them in the real world right now..
Excellent point. In addition to LRH saying on the BC that a goal blinds a person to his own present time environment, he also said that a goal controls a person’s actions and behavior.
He knew what he was doing when he installed absolute goals into Scientology. It’s just exactly as you say, Maria. He was BINDING Scientologists to Scientology.
I’ll take this a step further and say: this pursuit of an unobtainable ideal BINDS them to what is going on around them in the “real world” right now…
If one is subscribing to Scientology, that will be part of that “real world.”
If one is subscribing to Quantum Physics, that will be part of that “real world.”
If one is subscribing to LSD, that will be part of that “real world.”
Its the subscription that is binding.
Apparently anyway.
True.
Many of the posts here express fears about what would happen if a CHURCH of Scientology became the Government of the planet.
Rightly so. That would void the separation of Church and State, setting up the possibility of a feudalism like the Dark Ages in Europe or more recently in Tibet under the Buddhist Lamas.
Religion and government/politics is a bad mix.
Please consider this:
From HCOPL 26. Oct 1967 “THE PUBLIC DIVISIONS”.
On the purpose of Div 6:
“TO HELP LRH CONTACT AND PROCESS THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC BODIES
AND TO MAKE AND GUIDE THE GOVERNMENT OF A CIVILIZATION.“
In a lecture entitled “Future Org Trends” given
January 9th 1962, L. Ron Hubbard said:
“You want to know what happens when you clear
everybody in that neighbourhood, the only thing that
[Scientology] center can become used for is a
political center. Because by the time you’ve done all
this, you are the government…”
“Once the world is Clear – a nation, a state, a city
or a village – the Scientology-organization in the
area becomes its government! And once this has taken
place the only policy accepted as valid is Scientology
policy.”
Indeed…
Here’s an excerpt of what I found in the original transcript (or so the site claims). Note that the first paragraph you quoted is there but instead of an ellipsis it contains additional words at the end. More significantly, the second paragraph you quoted isn’t even in this transcript but a completely different one – and does not provide the same context and meaning at all.
“…You want to know what happens when you clear everybody in that neighborhood, the only thing that center can become used for is a political center. Because by the time you’ve done all this, you are the government and you’ll never be able to refuse it.
“Therefore, these things should be provided for, and this thing should be looked over – And everybody in Scientology should be cared for. And the idea of asking for somebody to go out and sweat it through and stumble and fall on his head and collect his funds and that sort of thing – that day should very soon come to an end. It hasn’t come to an end yet.”
Sorry, Geir, the above reply should have gone under Alonzo’s comment.
Whoa!
Tell you what — if I had seen that within the first couple of weeks of my arrival to do the Comm Course I would have run as fast as I could out the door never to be seen again!
Alonzo, where did you find that quote? I downloaded the lecture (it’s BC lecture #225) from a website which claims they have only original LRH materials. I couldn’t find that quote in it. http://www.stss.nl
Marildi –
That quote is in many places on the internet. I took it from one of them. If you do a relevant google search you will find the places where it is quoted.
I tried to also find the transcript you were talking about and I came across a place on whyweprotest.net where they had also analyzed the transcript and had the same trouble you had finding that 2nd paragraph in their transcripts. Here is there discussion back in 2008:
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/future-org-trends-shsbc-lecture-225-62-leak.16054/
That may have been a misquote, or it may not. There are (at least) two instances of that 2nd paragraph not being able to be found in the copy of the transcripts provided. That BC tape should be found and scoured.
As Gier has pointed out, there really is no question that L Ron Hubbard wrote policies and Advices and other issues with the goal in mind to take over governments. His whole trip to Rhodesia had that purpose, as well. I have provided another reference below – the whole reference itself – as further evidence of this.
Thanks, Alanzo. I already did a google search and could only find it on such sites as zenu, lermanet and whyweprotest, which makes me wonder if it was simply spread around among anti-Scientology sites by someone, without actually having been taken from ANY transcript. That paragraph isn’t in the original one for sure, which you can find at http://www.stss.nl under SHSBC tape #225.
As for “no question that L Ron Hubbard wrote policies and Advices and other issues with the goal in mind to take over governments” you guys have yet to give a reference that actually says that. I can believe that there have been statements to the effect that Scn would become part of every facet of society due to citizens themselves becoming Scientologists and wanting to put the practice in everywhere. But that’s a lot different from wording it as if LRH wanted world domination by a C of S ruling government. You say his trip to Rhodesia had that purpose – where’s the quote? I’m willing to look.
So, is it plausible to state that LRH envisioned that every person on the planet would want to become a Scientologist?
My impression is more like he envisioned the growing numbers of people and the positive influence they effect would be enough that Scn would gradually become a dominant force – but not a despotic one. And it seems his words are being stretched to mean the latter.
SO, it is plausible then to say that his intentions was that everyone would Want To Be (free will) a Scientologist?
Totally agree Marildi,
I don’t think LRH envisioned all scientologists marching in & taking over City Hall, but I do think that with auditing happening in large volume in the field, the chances of scientologists working in the government realm would be commonplace.
And, I also think there would be somewhat of an uprising from those who were not scientologists similar to blacks/mormons/women getting into office.
Theta (and I mean THETA unlike the current church) would permeate & as-is/destimulate.
It’s an evolution.
But would the evolution naturally end up with everyone wanting to go up the Bridge. Is that a plausible future scenario?
Interesting scenario … plausible – yes but i expect a there would be a few who would resist. An example: One who has experienced enlightenment & awareness increases thru another practice. They may not want to change and be totally satisfied in their current state. Would these who do not want to become scientologists become outcasts or would they be accepted as themselves?
Should this person be allowed to BE, or forced to accept the current flavour? Who is to say that HIS practice is not the REAL answer and that it is WE who are delusional? Or are either of us delusional? Or both?
I thought it would be interesting for another to see thru my eyes at times after getting out of session – I thought at times that anyone in an aberrated state, if they had a choice and could see what I saw, would surely choose the state I was in. Now, I have changed and wonder if at times it is ‘I’ who is delusional. This is my current ‘battle’ – am I actually seeing what I am seeing? Is it all just one gawdawful dream from which I will awaken?
On another note, there may be other practices or routes to ‘freedom’ on other planets or far away galaxies or universes/dimensions … who’s to say what we have here on earth is the sacred cow?
I think I better do a locational … Lost in a Lost World (Moody Blues)
“Should this person be allowed to BE, or forced to accept the current flavour? Who is to say that HIS practice is not the REAL answer and that it is WE who are delusional? Or are either of us delusional? Or both?”
Well, LRH already answered that: Scientology is the only road out. Not one among many, not the best amongst a few. It is the only way. So, the question then becomes, what would make a person resist the only salvation he has?
Well, from a scientological point of view it would be case.
Would that person change their mind if he were popped out of that case for a moment and given a choice? Is that ‘popping out’ of another a choice we would be justified in taking if we had the ability.
This type of scenario gives me the willies … visions of 1984 or worse.
Well, if that person is not willing to look at his own case, then that is a matter of ethics. In a society where 90% of the population is scientologists, then it must surely be obvious to that majority that the remaining resistive cases are ethics cases. The only way to handle such cases are with proper ethics. Now what part of the ethics tech would we apply?
Ha ha! You are smart. Good TR 3! I did know that I wasn’t actually answering your question and for two reasons. One is that I honestly don’t know the answer (by means of a direct reference), and personally I don’t extrapolate it the way you do as I think LRH was wiser than that. Besides, I hate to come across like I’m just being contrary to whatever you say (or whatever is said against Scn/LRH) because I don’t want to annoy you, and also because I’m wary that you will interpret my answer as nothing more than knee-jerk. (Sometimes I think you are still assuming that about me. ;-))
The other reason is I’m a bit confused about the intention of the thought experiment. Is it to imagine a world in which all LRH tech was already being applied and how that would be? Or is it to determine how things would evolve in the attempt to bring about LRH’s vision of an expanding Scientology (in which case it may in fact not play out to where all tech and only tech were being applied).
(The great thing about you, Geir, is that I do feel you are “a real terminal” and that I can communicate fully if I want to. Or dare to, ha ha! :-))
I have no assumptions about you. I take whatever you write as what you write without reference to any past discussions. Everything is anew. Same with everyone else.
Marildi; I really like you 🙂
I want to paint a vision of a future where every effort has been made to implement every part of LRH’s writings in all corners of the world. I want to explore the end product. The extrapolated future world. And I tell you, it’s damn hard when people try the best they can to defend an already made-up viewpoint.
C’mon guys!
Now: TR3, Marildi
🙂 I consider myself highly re-assured – thank you! And I really like you too!!
Okay, what you said makes much more sense than to start with an assumed evolvement. Just one other thing about it, then – I do think we have to discuss what LRH did or didn’t say and clear that up as well as possible. Otherwise, the experiment won’t necessarily be based on actual Scientology or what LRH actually intended. I think it will be fun and enlightening if it’s an actual thought experiment and not just an exercise in imagination. based on misconceptions. That’s the reason I keep wanting to get the reference for statements being made about LRH’s intentions, etc I hope you agree!
On your question, it’s not a cut and dry, black and white, yes or no kind of thing. I suppose you could say that he would have liked everyone to benefit in ways that I’m sure he thought were uniquely available in Scientology (in fact, I can say I know this, as he did say so). But I can’t picture him trying to force such an absolute, and I can’t imagine that he himself would not have been flexible enough to “audit the society in front of him.” Personally, I’ve come a long way from thinking that only Scn had the answers and, additionally, I’ve come to understand that people are individuals and both need and want different things. So it’s hard for me to imagine that LRH hadn’t or wouldn’t have figured that out too. 🙂
OK. This, like any LRH quote, needs to be considered “in context”. Like Al’s quote from1962, should it prove to be valid, and I think it could be valid.
Both quotes depend on a context of assumptions that run along these lines:
1. Auditing tech has been applied standardly enough that whole neighborhoods, cities, etc have been “cleared. By this I understand that the majority of individuals in them have achieved the state of Clear or are well on their way towards it.
2. Presumably, Admin tech was applied standardly and sanely enough to facilitate the Clearing of people .
3. An underlying assumption here is that people are basically GOOD, thus Clearing them leads to increased rationality and goodwill on their parts towards their fellows, a greater acceptance of diverse viewpoints etc etc, all the “good stuff” we were looking for when we got involved.
Clearly, at least to me, cleared people would become “the government” by default, not by any other means. If someone wanted to run for City Council or the School Board, of course they would. If they were perceived as trustworthy and intelligent etc they would likely be elected. But by default, if everyone were Clear, then the government of that area would also be Clear, right? Duh!
My point is that there is not necessarily anything sinister in those quotes. They are sinister only if you or your “case” puts a sinister spin on them. They do not have to be read that way.
But keep them away from Chicken Little, he would start a stampeding, witch burning panic with them!
It’s not necessarily sinister at all, but it does break down the fence between state and church.
Totally agree Valkov.
It’s the spin that is put on some of these quotes that really has me rolling my eyes.
You paragraphs said it all:
“An underlying assumption here is that people are basically GOOD, thus Clearing them leads to increased rationality and goodwill on their parts towards their fellows, a greater acceptance of diverse viewpoints etc etc, all the “good stuff” we were looking for when we got involved.
Clearly, at least to me, cleared people would become “the government” by default, not by any other means. If someone wanted to run for City Council or the School Board, of course they would. If they were perceived as trustworthy and intelligent etc they would likely be elected. But by default, if everyone were Clear, then the government of that area would also be Clear, right? Duh!
My point is that there is not necessarily anything sinister in those quotes. They are sinister only if you or your “case” puts a sinister spin on them.”
“From HCOPL 26. Oct 1967 “THE PUBLIC DIVISIONS”.
On the purpose of Div 6:
“TO HELP LRH CONTACT AND PROCESS THE PUBLIC AND PUBLIC BODIES
AND TO MAKE AND GUIDE THE GOVERNMENT OF A CIVILIZATION”
—————
Geir, I don’t think the political definition of “government” is the one intended in the above quote but rather this one: “direction; management.” The political definition wouldn’t make sense as none of the Div 6 stats or promotional actions have anything to do with a purpose of “political rule.”
Also, earlier in that same PL is this line: “Our task is to make a cleared civilization.” This should be the context for the last part of the quoted purpose: “…TO MAKE AND GUIDE THE GOVERNMENT OF A CIVILIZATION.” In other words, grammatically, “MAKE” would take “A CIVILIZATION” as its predicate, and not “GOVERNMENT” as its predicate. So the meaning would then be “make (a civilization) and guide the government of a civilization.”
Maybe “direct object” is more understandable than “predicate.” (My grammar is rusty.)
To “make and guide” the civilization will inevitably intrude on politics and any part of the society – including that of legislation, courts, organizing of cities and counties, etc.
Doesn’t any set of ideals that predominate in a civilization guide it?
It is slightly different to put it on the Org Board of a church. Also, I remember COB on the opening of Mountain View Ideal Org referring to an LRH policy where he says that every function of a society is on the Org Board of the church – the police, the government, everything. On The Org Board, Under Dep 18/Div 6. I think there is little doubt that LRH wanted every government on Earth run according to Scientology Tech – both Red and Green on white. And if it was a perfect system, who could blame him?
Sorry, my dear Geir, but so far I haven’t seen any direct reference to what you say, only interpretations. And mine differ. 😉
Can you please quote what is under Dept 18 that leaves you with little doubt?
Rather than that – I will see if I can dig up the reference that COB quoted.
And I let Al back up his reference. As I have seen similar references to his in other lectures, I have no doubt about LRH’s goals for the whole of the planet – including that of Clearing it.
Okay, cool. I doubt that COB was quoting a PL, though. Here’s a link for OEC Vol 6. I just used the “find on this page” feature to see what there was on “government” and “police” and found nothing related to the org board and nothing else of interest.
Btw, it’s nice that you added, “And if it was a perfect system, who could blame him?” 🙂
Click to access OEC6_txt.pdf
And it was also nice where you wrote, “I have no doubt about LRH’s goals for the whole of the planet – including that of Clearing it.”
Let me say too that what I have understood was that LRH did not want orgs to get involved with government at all, and stated it was not the goal of Scientology to be political. I can probably find the references if you aren’t familiar with them.
Yes, he stated that. He also stated that he wanted to make and guide government of society. And he created an Admin Tech that he envisioned be used in every organization. And he created a church that runs on the policy that it must forever expand until every man, woman and child is on their org board – and there is the policy that every member in a Scientology org IS on it’s org board and subject to standard ethics in their lives.
“And he created a church that runs on the policy that it must forever expand until every man, woman and child is on their org board…”
That says something much different from your OP imagining how it would be if “the whole of our society structure was utterly and completely run by LRH policy and ethics, and where tech ruled the scene.” A society running on LRH policy with a Scn org board pattern vs. one being run by the Church “on THEIR org board” are two very different things, aren’t they?
And we have yet to find a reference for COB’s verbal statement that “every function of a society is on the Org Board of the Church.” Also, I googled the quote posted by Alanzo, supposedly from the lecture “Future Org Trends” January 9th 1962, and can only find it on such sites as zenu, lermanet and whyweprotest. I can’t help thinking it may have been spread around among anti-Scientologists and who knows where it originated.
As Chris pointed out, the natural extension of the CoS is to out-expand the world and the Org Board is the vehicle (ref. Org Board and Livingness), thus the link to the OP.
Michael Shermer has AMAZING “false data tech!” In this TED talk he demonstrates how we come up and believe FALSE DATA.
The extended version of this amazing research is in his book “The Believing Brain.”
Now THIS is what “Clearing” is about IMHO. Learning how our mind deceives us and using reason to circumvent the hijackings!
Enjoy!
That was great.
But there is one thing:
If you can stimulate certain areas of the brain to “see” things that the brain has evolved to perceive – like the “God Helmut” – it doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. It means that you can screw around with the brain and turn perceptions of things on and off, and that’s all.
Perceptions of things are not the things themselves.
True. Just because I perceive you as a true Scotsman who would never fall for the true Scotsman fallacy doesn’t mean that you are.
Because no true Scotsman would fall for the true Scotsman fallacy.
And I hope Alanzo doesn’t fall for the ad hom fallacy. 😉
C’mon, kg, he made a good point!
Marildi, I’m paying Alanzo a backhanded complement! He posted about the “True Scotsman” fallacy over at scnforum.org. And then I used the fallacy against itself.
The True Scotsman fallacy goes like this:
A Scottish man that thinks the Scots are the bee’s knees reads of a crime done by a Frenchman and says “This is horrible, no Scotsman would dare do such a thing!”
And he REALLY is invested in the idea. He really thinks he Scots are morally superior beings.
Later, he reads of a man born and bred in Scotland committing he same crime. He then declares that “No TRUE Scotsman would do such a thing.”
So he retains his bigotry about being Scottish.
This is common in religions.
I am an Alanzo fan. Now for the play on words:
“To me Alanzo is a True Scotsman that would never fall for the True Scotsman fallacy.”
Yes, I uderstood the backhanded compliment and it seemed like you were insulting his comment by insulting him that way (although kiddingly). However…you did start out with “True” so I guess if you just hadn’t followed that with the “compliment” I would have understood it as an ack. Better work on your acks if you want to keep your Honorary Scientologist status. 😉
We really enjoyed that.
I’ve been thinking more about this video over the last few days and its main message – about the brain seeing patterns. It’s quite profound, actually.
Particularly the sequence when he shows you various oblique patterns and has you look for the figures (sometimes) in them. That is a fundamental part of thinking he has identified there. The patterns you see in your environment lead to the conclusions you make.
On this blog, we see each contributor presenting the patterns they see in the Rorschach blot of Scientology. Very fascinating.
There is one thing I see from the pro-Scientology contributors here – eternal optimism. They truly believe, despite all historical evidence, that human beings will apply the best ideals of an ideology for the good of all – even those who are in the “out-group” of that ideology. History has shown over and over that ideologies followed and enforced, have led to catastrophes, genocide and totalitarian nightmares.
But maybe that’s just my own pattern that I am seeing through the big Rorschach blot of history?
Naaaa.
Alonzo & Bunkai, Call me crazy — beginning about two months ago I did TR0 (confronting with eyes open) on the snow of an untuned channel on my TV set. I’ve done this about 10 times for approximately 30-40 minutes at a time. Why? To see what I would see.
With no particular purpose and no expectation but only with interest I watched. After a short time the dots became not just homogeneous but a field of dots with varying shades of dark and light. This too changed and after a time shadowy shapes from X’s and wavy lines appeared and drifted across the screen. At other times, ball or spherical shapes appeared and twice they became 3 dimensional with approximately 1/2 the sphere appearing to bulge toward me from the front plane of the TV screen.
There are more images from shadowy people to other geometric shapes and shadowy blotches I could describe however, I feel the experience was much more interesting for me than for anyone reading me write about it. What’s my point? I dunno, it seemed to fit with yours and KG aka Bunkai’s post.
(A control that I used was to tune to analog TV to a channel which has no local broadcast. Was I successful in screening out any and all actual broadcast signal? I tried to but cannot say with certainty. For one more frame of reference, I would say my attitude conformed with KHTK basic exercises)
Wow Chris … your television experience sounds like a re-run of portions of OT2 🙂
cool Dennis. How so? I was doing it as an exercise drill in looking.
. . . and so what I demonstrated to myself was that given a plain field of oscillating black, grey, and white dots that I consider held no inherent pattern but potential patterns only, my mind was able to organize the perceptions increasingly into forms under my control. I do understand that the black cat was my own.
Chris, ain’t being human a fucking KICK!
yup
It’s not that we are “optimists”, it’s that we have had enough, and have no choice. “Better to light one candle, that to curse the darkness.” There is no choice, either fight if necessary, to survive, than to do nothing and quietly succumb. Those who push for the ideals to be applied may well be keeping the whole mess from descending into that dark final destination, whatever form it takes. Today, the CoS has assumed that form.
Genocide and Totalitarian nightmares are created out of the emotional dynamics of the folks who create them. They have to do with power and money. Most genocides have nothing to do with ideals. Like the Rwanda massacres, or the killing fields of Cambodia. The only “ideals” involved there is the ideal o getting rid of the other guys so the winners don’t have to share the wealth with them.
I agree. Even LRH said that all wars are, “Economic.” Ratchet that thought back down to the org level and see what battles were being fought and why.
A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can pros¬per and honest be-ings can have rights, and where Man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.
– L. Ron Hubbard
FUNDAMENTALS OF THOUGHT
But, somehow, if The Church is the one to take charge, I don[t think this would be achieved. Actually, I agree with the person who said it would lead to genocide…
Here’s one for you, Erk. And I think Al will like it, too. I actually took this quote from the Friends of LRH site, but it expresses my own basic thinking that Scientology is a set of tools. Tools are made to serve the people who use them, not the other way around. it’s like the Terminator scenario, where the tools (machines and computers) become cause and humanity becomes the effect of the tools it created. Additionally, the knowledge Scientology contains can be used for good or ill. The intentions of the people using it are key to the kind of future that might be created using Scientology.
“It [Scientology] is not in itself an arbitrary, fascistic 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. Contained in the knowable, workable portions before your eyes, there are methods of controlling human beings and thetans which have never before been dreamed of in this universe.
Control mechanisms of such awesome and solid proportions, that if the remedies were not so much easier to apply, one would be appalled at the dangerousness to beingness that exists in Scientology.”
Philadelphia Doctorate Course Tape 20
Formative State of Scientology: Definition of Logic
6 December 1952
It does contradict the Ethics Tech, however – the use of Sec Checks, including the search for List1 R/S and the whole range of Ethics offenses that require the policing force we see in today’s churches (or as well onboard the Apollo under LRH).
The main problem I see with these discussions is that the people involved have already decided on whether Scientology™ is Good or Bad – and maintain a stance where the knee-jerk is in full bloom: Defend or Attack by default.
I am trying to sort all this out for myself and I appreciate your help in maintaining an objective stance and as a neutral a viewpoint as possible and evaluate LRH’s text without projecting one’s own wishes as to what it would hopefully mean. I am myself working hard to maintain this standard.
My view is that Scientology, assuming we are even referring to the same part(s) of that elephant, is inherently neither good nor bad, it is knowledge, ideas, and tools.
Those are bad or good depending on what use they are put to.
Might as well ask if an elephant is good or bad.
Yup. Hard to keep this thread on-topic. Maybe we could drift back onto the OP.
No, Geir, I don’t think it necessarily does, because we are talking about something other than unreasoning adherence to some belief system.
Also perhaps we are not clear on what the “separation of church and state” means, or it means different things to each of us. In some of the European countries, there is an officially recognized state religion.
But in the USA, the main issue is seen to be that the state is not to favor any one religion over others, but to let each one have equal rights with the other. Conversely, ministers are not allowed to use their pulpits for political purposes, such as promoting or supporting or favoring any one candidate over others. The law forbids them from doing this.
This is what I mean when I refer to separation of church and state. Now, if everyone, every single person, of a country were convert to exactly the same beliefs, the question would become moot; if all are in total agreement, who is there to protect by separating church and state? However, as far as I’m concerned, a person does not ‘convert’ to Scientology because it’s not basically a belief system (Except maybe someone like Al might appear to have been ‘converted’ at one time. But in fact I believe there is more to Al’s story than that.)
.
Now the question might arise, can a person benefit from, or use Scientology, and still be a Christian, for example? The way I see Scientology, of course he can, just as any technician, engineer, auto mechanic, or say, a psychologist, can be a Christian or of whatever faith, because we’re talking about faith,belief, vs. practical knowledge. Scientology as a technical subject has nothing to say to me about what I must believe about God or angels or anything else; what’s true about Scientology is what I have observed myself, or whichever of it’s ideas I have agreed with, often based on what I believed to be true before I ever came across Scientology.
An automechanic can believe whatever he believes about God or cosmology, there is no inherent conflict that I can see, in the existence of a religious auto mechanic. One doesn’t have to choose to be one or the other, one can be both, and further, one can choose his religion.
As far as LRH’s goals for the planet, well, he’s apparently not around, and even if he were around now or in the future, we just might have something to say about our own futures, don’t you think?
Tell me how you could 1) clear everyone on Earth and 2) salvage this secor of the universe (with everyone getting thorugh OT III) without Scientology being the religion that Everyone adhers to (despite them perhaps also being Christians, etc)? And by that, everyone would be on the CoS Org Board as FSMs, volunteers, IAS members etc.
Geir, what would Scientology going to do with us idealistic, touchy-feely, materialistic, hippy types who don’t want no freaking Scientology?
I think the “undiscovered tech” for such a case like mine would play out like this:
KATAGEEK: “Auditing? I don’t need no stinking Auditing! You guys are stuck in the BITE model of mind control. How are you going to clear me if I say no? EH? EH? …HEY! … HEY! … PUT ME DOWN! … MMPH! … MMPH! … MMPH! … MMMMMMMPHHHHH!”
CS: “This is your third NEW R2-45 mass clearing session correct?”
AUDITOR: “Yes.”
CS: “Good. First get your TRs in. Today you are going to clear a hundred beings in three minutes starting with this one – a real 1.1. But he’s lucky, he’s going to be clear instantly while the rest of us have to work it out ourselves.
AUDITOR: “Yes. He and all these are most fortunate. They will be perfectly clear and able to return to earth to learn the OT levels IF they become worthy. Yesterday, I successfully transitioned over a hundred new clears with NEW R2-45 standardly.”
CS: “Your stats are up!”
AUDITOR: “I needed a partner to maintain the TR0 afterward though. I am still weak. I still need help with focus afterward.”
CS: “That’s normal at first. In a few months of this everyday, this will be easier but remember – it is never easy. This tech is the hardest to confront, but you GOT here and are able to perform it and that says a lot about your thetan. Remember, you must have PERFECT TRs so that you can communicate and sustain everyone you clear today. After your three minutes of clearing these beings, you must sit in the chair for at least 2 hours in PERFECT TR0 to keep these thetans PRESENT in this room. Now, Inspect all 100 chairs and make sure the bodies and heads are secured and completely immobile before you begin. THEY MUST NOT MOVE.
AUDITOR: “Ready Sir.”
CS: “TR0 with R2-45 with TR0. START!”
BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG!BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! BANG! …
God WHAT WAS I THINKING?
Never mind. Please delete this post.
This idea does NOT need to be read by Scientologists.
It … could … happen.
Never mind. Leave it.
This is the monster humanity has not yet learned to face. Our ability to make mass murder seem like something holy.
Please just post the piece and delete all my subsequent replies to it (including this one).
If you feel it is inappropriate, delete it if you wish.
To avoid this horror, we need to learn that we don’t need one perfect Religion, but rather
“Many Perfect ReligionS.”
To avoid this horror, we need to learn that we don’t need one perfect Religion, but rather
“Many Perfect ReligionS.”
ABSOLUTELY TRUE IMHO
Yes, we don’t need one perfect religion, we need perfect religionS.
I stole this phrase from Malcolm Gladwel who stole it from a food marketer. There are plenty of religions looking to be “the one” but THEY ALL DON’T GET IT.
It’s not ONE. It’s many. Working together.
Maybe Katageek, but this blog is about as deep into religionS as I want to be involved.
When we search for ourselves and commune together as we are here, this is philosophy or spirituality. When we begin to tell others “how it is,” then we have religion or government.
I enjoy your posts. You present a gritty side that I find helps smooth the splintery edges.
“I enjoy your posts. You present a gritty side that I find helps smooth the splintery edges.”
Well said. (You really have a way with words, Chris.)
kg, I agree with Chris. 🙂
Thanks for the kind words. I enjoy your posts too.
Yes, this could happen, but it would not be in accordance with the fundamental purposes of Scientology, which is tobe “the game where every one wins” by producing trained auditors and happy winning preclears, Clears, and pre-OTs.
What I find remarkable, is that no-one on this blog is mentioning that “R2-45” happens daily and has been happening throughout the history of mankind on Earth, all outside of the CoS and long before the CoS or Scientology existed! Virtually every government on Earth has departments to implement “R2-45” on whoever it perceives as it’s enemies. And on a mass scale!
Hubbard makes a joke about it, and some people get all up in arms about it. Does that indicate some bpc floating around? He should have known better, that it would be like joking about or even saying the word “bomb” when you’re going through a Homeland Security checkpoint at an airport….
Nobody mentions it because it is not of interest?
Why strive to Clear people who don’t want to be Clear?
By “everyone” I can only understand “everyone who wants to be Clear”.
Eventually I suppose literaly everyone might want to be Clear, but that will take as long as it takes, for those to come around.
Is the church of today an inevitability fi the church is run on all and strict LRH policy?
Or could the church be something else while still adhering to ALL of the Admin tech?
… food for thought in our futuristic vision.
Geir, if the Church were being run strictly on LRH Admin Policy, it would be “delivering the goods” in ever increasing numbers. “The goods” being more trained auditors and satisfied Preclears and pre-OTs. It is in fact not doing this, and that’s why it’s failing to expand and is in fact contracting and well on it’s way out of existence.
The sole reason for any organizing policy, any Admin to exist at all, is to accomplish a goal, ie to “deliver the goods”. To have a bureaucracy for it’s own sake without products to deliver is absurd.
Imagine Ford Motor Company ceases to manufacture and sell cars. What will happen? How long will it survive? Look at Chrysler. It survives in name only, after being bailed out by the government twice. Government bailout = “donations with no exchange”. It helped some people keep working, but in the long run, what happens? Non-E. Chrysler is not the same company it was, but still there is an entity there that manufacturs and sells cars.
If Chrysler or Ford or any company stopped producing and selling a VFP, how long would it’s “Bureaucracy” last? They could follow all of their Admin Policies perfectly, but without products to exchange, how would they survive?
They can seek bailouts, investors, loans, etc, but if they have no intention of manufacturing and selling end products it’s just a scam, if the money is not going into increased production, sales, and delivery. And it becomes meaningless to talk about how well and standardly they are following their “Admin policies” if they are not producing anything people want or not producing anything at all.
“Geir, if the Church were being run strictly on LRH Admin Policy, it would be “delivering the goods” in ever increasing numbers. “The goods” being more trained auditors and satisfied Preclears and pre-OTs. It is in fact not doing this, and that’s why it’s failing to expand and is in fact contracting and well on it’s way out of existence.”
Why do you assume the Admin Tech would work if it was applied as written?
Geir is asking a valid question why Admin Tech would supposedly work if applied standardly as written. I have a similar bias toward the admin tech as you and think you are on a good track describing them as “tools.” I think you have made a good point by characterizing them in this way. On the other hand, from my own experience on post, I have many examples of producing my product over the top of or in spite of following policy which was being applied to me. I have gotten rather than an attaboy into ethics trouble when violating policy in order to get my product on post. (These are MEST products, buildings build, roads build.) I also have many examples of not being allowed to follow standard finance policy, because “this cycle is very hot” and “this cycle comes directly from COB” or when trying to force a senior to follow a policy being told that I was using policy “to stop.” My Hill 10’s were continually being caused by my seniors and not by the environment around me. My environment was controlable much more so than any senior or “command intention.”
In WOG life, I get a lot done. My life is strewn with products. I never ever put up with or acquiesce to craziness at work (such as insane schedules, insistence that I violate OSHA regulations, etc.,.). My business and my life is not run per LRH Admin Tech although much of my success conforms with actions which would be per policy. There are many many examples of LRH ADMIN TECH which I could endorse, such as “The Promotional Actions of an Organization.” Many more. I do not see them as bad tools nor destructive. Neither do I see them as unique and exclusive to the world of Scientology.
Chris, you just made my point –
Doesn’t all that just tell you that COB et al are not actually following LRH policy or philosophy?
Val, I hate to digress to the “common sense fallacy” but many or most people that I worked with had no clue what it took to “get work done.” They were untrained in normal things and mostly untrained in Scientology. While good intentioned and good in heart, they tried sometimes mightily only to fall flat. Then the justice actions would kick in as if they were intentionally sabotaging. I saw this rarely. Most lack of production on post was due to lack of training or correctly posting.
What I really see is that “these people” don’t run LRH policies in the way and with judgement and with the ARC as you or I would run them. I don’t know whether or not I can even follow strictly LRH policies because I don’t need them. For me, tell me what you want and where you want it, then turn me loose. I don’t need help getting up in the morning and I don’t need help staying on task. Too many vias create a stop and LRH policy sometimes fails by creating too many vias. I have a whole load of examples and experiences with this type of thing. In my own business, I don’t run my finances according to LRH policies, don’t have weekly FP meetings, don’t make my employees write a CSW when they need a pound of screws. I trust them and give them the means and tools to get their work done and get out of their way. They typically appreciate this and sometimes someone abuses their gas credit card or buys something at the supply house for their side job, but typically I just handle it with them and everything becomes copacetic without a comm ev or ethics orders or long winded interviews or sec checks or conditions formulae.
Maybe these things are better left to the thetan in charge or whatever. All the minuscule micro-managing that occurs using ALL LRH policy in a company chokes it down. And seriously? I would never consider mixing church and state to that degree ever. Maybe in this there is a lesson. Maybe the lofty aspirations of religion should only be on the Admin scale around Purpose or Goal and never lower. Maybe there is a problem with this.
Chris: THAT’S A FUCKIN’ AWESOME POST.
Great post Chris! Something from real life. About he “justiceactionskickingin” – that right there sounds like a huge outgradient misapplication of Ethics.
Was it on the principle of “if they’re going to wash out, let them wash out quickly”? (Many are called, few are chosen” ?)
It’s obviously poor use of personnel otherwise.
“Was it on the principle of “if they’re going to wash out, let them wash out quickly”? (Many are called, few are chosen” ?)”
Maybe Val. For sure it had to do with your post on “compassion.” Sea Org are not allowed to have compassion. Stats and constant heavy ethics do not leave room for compassion. There is only room for measuring purported “production.” The Sea Org is run in the way my imagination as a child pictured 1950’s cold-war Russia. You know the one – the one where Khrushchev bangs his shoe on the table screaming “we will bury you!”
Like cops giving out traffic tickets, one is not only allowed to but expected to increase the ethics gradient (amount of force) until the desired result is achieved. (“she with the pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me…”) In the world of the Sea Org, might makes right.
There was a point in time for me, 1984 to 1988, when I lived a life in the Sea Org at CST/LRH Archives which was quite fulfilling for me. Day to day activities? Communal living that I would describe as being like “in service” at a mountain resort or retreat. I think I could loosely describe it similarly to the day to day life in B.F. Skinner’s WALDEN TWO. My daily life was very different from the lives being experienced in the service orgs at PAC and at Flag. Sometimes my life was like being on the RPF due to the hard physical work, but I never thought much about that. My life has always been rigorous and MEST work seems natural to me.
LRH’s intentions toward a worldwide org board are clear. I don’t know how his intentions could misconstrued at all. His famous lecture “Org Board and Livingness” highlights his most basic thoughts and purposes for the org board and goals of Scientology organizations.
Paraphrased:
1. groups as small as 3 and unlimitedly large in scope. (This was Marildi’s earlier reference to “millions” and that failure he found was due to a “couple departments missing.”
2. “more communist than communism.” (This was said humorously but he certainly meant it.)
I do understand through history that “start-up” groups suffer. Almost all fail utterly and disappear. These problems, injustices, and even deaths do not alone set the tone for the futures of a groups.
Despite a rockier start-up than Scientology, a contemporary group that is succeeding despite any reasons is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints — The Mormons. How unlikely is this? Possibly we should compare the two. Without saying, the stark differences in the approaches of the two organizations differ utterly in function but not so much in goals. And by goals I mean both proselytize heavily for expansion. Another group is Islam. All share heavy expansion goals but more omniously these share the goal of “take over.” Islam would install Shariah Law. Scientology would install Standard Policy including ethics and justice. Mormons also run a tight ship. More subtle than the other two, Mormons lives are monitored closely by the church and tithing as well as free service and obedience to the bishops is a foregone conclusion.
So, according to the historical expansion results, the Mormons have a better Admin Tech than LRH’s?
Certainly Falun Gong has an incredible Admin Tech that the CoS should adopt immediately (?)
Yes, but why? For fair comparison, I think we should compare the Mormons of the 1820’s to the Scientologists of the 1950’s.
Several ideas come to mind:
1. Their organization evolved, adapted, overcame tremendous obstacles.
2. Without backing up my opinion, I would say they have “better” heart. Mormons care for one another. They stock a “Bishop’s Storehouse” filled with commodities which are distributed freely to the needy.
3. They too began as communists like the Sea Org, but evolved away from this.
4. How do Scientologists express their feeling of community?
5. Bishops and all Mormon activities are performed by the members without pay. Of course Scientologists work without pay as well as most churches of any faith. But most clergy of other faiths work for pay and sometimes very lucrative pay at that. Mormon Bishops work a job to support their lives then donate, on a rotational basis, their time gratis.
Maybe someone has more ideas on this?
Hi Chris,
Like you, I think this is an evolution and I expected things to go somewhat like it has. The comparison to the Mormons is quite similar: break-away groups, independent thinkers, radicals/fanatics, and eventually many groups as there are today.
Years ago in the Mission where I first got in, we were all looking & working towards that basic vision of ‘a world without insanity, etc.’ and really did treat others with decency & respect. The general idea was NOT the taking over of the world like a coupe or thru force, but, thru enlightenment. Put simply, the amount of theta and agreement that this was an honourable and worthwhile goal and working constantly towards that mountain would eventually destimulate society and life would be better.
I remember LRH mentioning in a tape that if you took the heavily pts drivers off the road, this would greatly reduce & likely eliminate accidents & carnage on the roads. Traffic would just flow. Similarly, a planet or society in which nuts & suppressives were destimulated would theoretically run better.
My point is that the basic visions I think are quite good. Yes, there are some policies that need changing – who knows the situation that prompted some of these – I wasn’t there; but I do know there was a lot of hands in the pie in the early ’70s – look at the whole BTB/BPL evolution let alone the individual issues that were produced by others.
Personally, I have always worked towards those basic visions despite some of the bizzare & degraded behavior of some staff/SO & public. My thinking was/is that if I align my actions towards a survival goal, and that includes not only my dynamics but the dynamics of others, that it IS the only way to go. I shudder to think of my disposition if I agreed with and took part in the general trend of the current Church of Scientology.
It’s just not me.
Very much agree. I am seeing many worlds expressed on this thread…
Mormons see their church as the reformation of the reformation of Christianity. My own observation sees this as a possibility. This might be equated to the current independent Scientology movement.
What will the face of Scientology look like in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? This is the topic of this thread. I hate that we drifted so far off into discussing whether or not Scientology is “bad or good.”
I think I can see a pattern of “Oh no, I am not going to paint that picture, because it will reflect badly on Scientology, which I believe/know/wish is all good”.
But this is beside the OP – I am simply asking to paint a realistic picture of how Scientology – as envisioned by LRH and through his books and lectures, policies and bulletins – will be like some decades from now.
. . . from me? I was not flinching from doing that, I was trying to steer back onto topic. Before predicting the future of Scientology, I was just exploring the mechanics of why organizations work or fail.
No-no – not to you. Not at all. It was a general comment – and perhaps least of all directed at you.
The point I have been making is along the lines of the OP, as I see it.
Scientology is anti-democratic, authoritarian, and very totalitarian. That directly addresses the OP because a world run by Scientology would be such a world.
It is true that Scientology gives no room for democracy. LRH berates the very concept in many places – and there is no trace of it in any of the organizational structures he set up.
In his own words, he preferred a “benign monarchy” (you might have mentioned this already). By his own standard, a democracy could only begin to survive in a society of “clears.” He felt that people were way too aberrated to govern themselves.
Mormons practiced polygamy as a survival tactic until that tactic became a liability greater than a benefit. Under tremendous scrutiny and pressure, they let it go. Their splinter group, the Fundalmentalist LDS church hung onto “standard tech” of polygamy and you can see in the news today where this has gotten the pedophile and leader of FLDS Warren Jeffs.
Not to mention the Catholic opposition to birth control. This is solidly based on the Biblical injunction to “be fruitful and multiply.” It’s colonization by outbreeding the natives, for one thing. The principle is applied in many cultures in many different ways. Look at the idea of a “harem”. The rich powerful guys in those cultures get to have more offspring…..
Protoplasm is in fact immortal……
haha I don’t know if protoplasm is immortal but it sure is fractal! If the calculation is allowed to continue then the progeny of the protoplasm continue. If a break in the formula occurs for the reason of no progeny at the macro level or DNA malfunction at the micro level whatever, then that branch of the math stops. This has so many interesting ramifications that it boggles my mind. God I love how simply-complex this universe is.
Oh yes, you are right about birth control. This is currently the WMD of the Muslim, and I would say it is working like clockwork (orange.)
hmmmm but I DO like the harem idea . . . we should leave that in!
I agree Chris … harems are a good idea – they are a group activity and all are working for the same happy ending 🙂
oh wait. The harems – just for rich guys. Nevermind.
Wikipedia has some good articles on the Mormons. Joseph Smith and his followers were factually persecuted and there was even a “Mormon War” in Missouri, which resulted in a “Mormon Extermination Order”. The were chased from state to state until they settled in Utah which was not a state yet.
Their cosmology is very interesting. They belive in the existence of thetans,,essentially.
When I first read about Joseph Smith, I thought “maybe Scientology was not Hubbard’s first attempt at establishing a church…..”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism
haha! Yes Val, I’ve had that same thought! Mormons do not believe in the blood of Jesus Christ, but believe in good works (stats) for salvation. If they are upstat enough, they might be one of the few chosen to move on and if so are rewarded with their own planet to run, etc.,. haha very similar indeed.
In the many worlds scenario, LDS church may have already won. Also Islam. Also the Nazis. Also Scientology.
One reason the Mormons are successful is because their churches have no professional clergy. Their leaders are almost always picked from a pool of successful business owners and/or leaders.
People who know how to get things done and get it on a balance sheet and keep people working.
I am trying not to show a bias for or against a group but to explore the mechanics of the organism of groups. This also was what LRH was doing albeit with the goal of taking over worlds.
In the 70’s when one’s “clear number” was a status, I thought to myself that one day I might be visiting with someone “out there” and when they discovered that I was “an Earth Clear” that would hold a special status and they would go “wow!” haha
I have considering the impact of the ethics materials – in their USE is the reflection of the good, the bad and the ugly of mankind. Long ago I was trained in ALL of the ethics materials and found myself in this weird position of being a “police officer” instead of an ethics officer with people appealing to me to make “Susy” be good – to do something about this or that one. When the prices for auditing and courses were at a reasonable cost, the job was really pretty easy and most of the time it was coaching people on how to ACTUALLY use ARC with the people around them. 9 times out of 10 they were getting bad indicators from people around them because they were so out of ARC and so invalidative/evaluative that they could jack someone else’s TA up within 5 minutes of talking to them! I even used the dirty needle drill to demonstrate just what it was they were doing to others and why those others sought to attack them. It doesn’t take much to get the point across doing it that way.
This whole idea that if its all done “perfectly” then all “badness” is going to disappear is based on the notion that taking care of bodies, protecting bodies, controlling bodies is very, very important and meaningful. Is it really? Is that what we really want? A world perfectly devoted to caring for and feeding bodies, where no BODY ever comes to harm? Where all challenge and adventure is outlawed because it might produce some enturbulation along the way?
That was the real message of the Simon Bolivar materials:
“Unless there is something to free men into, the act of freeing is simply a protest of slavery. And as no humanoid is free while aberrated in the body cycle, it is of course a gesture to free him politically as it frees him only into the anarchy of dramatizing his aberrations with NO control whatever and without something to fight exterior and with no exteriorization of his interest he simply goes mad noisily or quietly.”
[…]
“When the game or the show is over, there must be a new game or a new show. And if there isn’t somebody else is jolly well going to start one and if you won’t let anyone do it the game will become “getting you”.
The way I see it, there can never be any true sanity in a world utterly devoted to physical bodies that by their very nature are going to die, must ever live in fear of extinction and are limited, so limited that their very purpose is to limit the bombardment from the forces and energies surrounding them and to detect possible dangers to them, and thus filter out any reality but that needed for the care and defense and propagation of the body.
In either Scn 80 or 8008, LRH commented that earth is an egress terminal at this time. That might be true or not but sure as hell escape from entrapment in the body cycle is definitely a predominating effort of religions. Whether accomplished while in-body or at the time of death it is very much the effort of people running on a truly religious track.
BTW Geir, it appears that somehow this blog has become a discussion platform for what is now being called integral science.
There’s a great short article about it here:
http://www.uvm.edu/giee/Tom/spirit/docs/InnerKnowledge.html
And many articles about it here:
http://www.integralscience.org
Great links. And yes, I agree with what this blog is becoming. Me likes.
In the confidential HCOPL 15 February 1969 “Targets, Defense”, LRH set up the long term targets that must be achieved “to continue the longevity” of Scientology organizations.
Here is the link to the actual issue. In keeping with Geir’s thought experiment, envision a world where these targets have been achieved in this issue.
Click to access viewer
I think that it is impossible to do the actions of an enemy without becoming that enemy or at least like that enemy. I have a number of friends who are really big on the banker/one world government/enslavers conspiracies – they all assert that those bad guys have already enslaved the world and we must FIGHT to stop them. Crappola. IMO you can’t fight something by becoming that something and end up somewhere else. But you can be across the boards and that reality can prevail, all without harming a single hair on their heads. Frankly I think the craziness is bone deep in ego-bound humanity.
These are the targets that Int level execs, as well as the GO/OSA parts of the Church, and the Sea Org, have been operating on since it was first written by LRH in the late 1960’s.
Again, LRH very much changed the nature and direction of Scientology in the mid 1960’s. And so envisioning any future world created by Scientology must include those changes LRH himself put into the subject.
He was talking about disposing of people low on the tone scale quietly and without sorrow since 1951 in Science of Survival. I believe that he cooled that type of rhetoric until he had enough resources to pull off his totalitarian goals. And he hid behind a public facade of idealistic “freedom” pronouncements while running this covert agenda in the background.
I know that many of you do not share my conclusions, but I have been out of the Church looking at this for ten years now. Maybe it’s a case of me becoming fixed and rigid in my viewpoints, and seeing only what I want to see, as many of you have told me I am doing, over and over.
But I still don’t think so. Even today, on the Village Voice Runnin Scared blog, Tony Ortega has published some of LRH’s OOD’s from the ship in the early 60’s and 70’s which clearly – to me anyway – show that what I am saying is true.
I agree.
OK Maria, so what do you think of the “Occupy Wall Street” and other related movements?
Is this all crazy conspiracy theorist crappola?
What about the concept of the “1%”, the idea of the “rich getting richer” while others get poorer, the cost of living rising faster than wages, the people without medical care, etc etc.?
I’m not saying I believe any of those people you know have correctly identified the villains, but in my own lifetime I have seen a downward economic spiral for most people in the USA.
Europe is talking whole countries going bankrupt. Wars are being fought for control of natural resources in other countries.
Conspiracy theories aside, i believe that if you want to know why things happen in the world, follow the money. When many are starving, some few are getting rich. When war is happening, and many are dying, some few are getting rich.
When many are eating rice and beans and working 100-hour weeks for no pay to speak of, someone(and his cronies) are getting rich and eating gourmet meals every day. Where do we know that is happening?
At the same time as the they are lining their own pockets and crashing the statistics of the organizations they are raping, they are holding public events extolling the virtues of the leadership and trumpeting the ever-increasing “expansion”.
That seems to fit the very definition of a “conspiracy” at the very top of an organization, with the few lying to and misleading the many whose pockets they are picking the whole while.
Reminds me of that “worker’s paradise” the Soviet Union, East Germany and other eastern bloc countries had going for all those decades……..
But no, nobody ever “conspires” in secret, behind closed doors, to benefit themselves at the expense of others…..
I really do believe there is a built-in denial about that kind of thing, that is widespread in this world.
Makes me wonder who is benefiting/profiting by it?
The wealth of nations are far greater now than 100 years ago. There is higher living standards, longer life expectancy… I see a spiral – but it is going up.
Geir, I don’t see this in the USA. I see it being increasingly difficult to maintain the standard of living. I see wages stagnating as Cost of Living goes up. I see more people out of work. I see more people with less disposable income.
It doesn’t matter what the Wealth of Nations is, if most of that Wealth is controlled by a few people while the large majority subsist and an increasing number live at or below the officially established “poverty level”.
Granted the USA is a special case in terms of how good the standard of living has been in the past. I understand that “globalization” is bringing “parity” to the world to some extent, so a leveling of standards maybe inevitable, but that’s not what I am talking about.
Even in the US, the standard of living is way higher than 100 years ago. Waaay higher.
Geir, do you think a substantial welfare system (often found in rich countries) robs people of a certain amount of self determinism and therefor ‘life’? I wonder whether knowing you cannot starve or go without shelter or education no matter what you do takes away the pride of actually providing these things for yourself. Im thinking material wealth in a country (beyond the basics) doesn’t bring increased well being. off topic sorry, im just thinking out loud 🙂
I think Norway is perfect – and the statistics are with me. Our welfare system is one of the best in the world. It works.
Yes, I believe the standard of living in the USA is higher than 100 years ago. However, I have not been around to chart it’s course for that long. I have however, been around for the past 45 years, and the trend is definitely downward over the last 30-40 years. I have lived in the same town in the same state that long and I can see it. Cost of living is up enormously, while jobs and wages are down by comparison. Some of it can be attributed to the loss of the manufacturing sector across the US, as in auto manufacturing for example.
But that doesn’t alter the fact that a small percentage of people are rich and apparently getting richer at the expense of a much larger percentage of people. And it is not necessarily because they are more productive, but because they manipulate markets. It is commonplace in the USA to read about the shrinking of the middle class and the growing gap between the have’s and the have-nots.
It was largely manufacturing that drove the real wealth that existed here 40years ago. Now many of our best and biggest downtown realestate is owned by the Chinese and Arabs, and the Chinese scold the US for not doing more to protect the US economy.
By the way, I will post a link you maybe interested in, to Robert A.Heinlein’s first novel. There is in it a whole chapter about a “board game” Heinlein devised, which he claimed could be used to test any economic theory ever invented by man, and that they all result in eventual bankruptcy by actual test.
The novel is set in a future that uses the only viable economic theory that Heinlein was able to discover, that did not result in eventual bankruptcy, and the implementation of which led to a good standard of living for everyone in the world without exception.
The novel is titled “For Us, the Living” and last I looked, it was available through Amazon.
He calls it a board game. I think of it as a demo kit for testing economic theories.
In the meantime, in my area, what I have seen illustrates Hubbard’s view in the essay on the Antisocial personality, that such create “economic duress” for the general population.
It makes sense that if there are some people who are totally dedicated to controlling as much as possible of the available wealth and amassing wealth for themselves at any cost and without regard for others, that they would create “economic duress” for others. It would be away of keeping most people to busy scrabbling for survival to pay much attention to what the “elites” are actually doing.
I believe the actual government of most countries and probably the entire planet is on the old Roman “bread and circuses” model – provide the populace lots of food, even if it’s of poor quality, and inthe “developed countries” today’s “circuses” are the big -screen TVs in every house, apartment, and bar, which show professional and college-level sports endlessly. Oh yes, and plenty of cheap beer.
Yes, that’s the “higher standard of living” that is pushed, and the game is rigged so that even the “poor” can “just barely” afford it, by working 6 days a week or perhaps 2 minimum-wage jobs. Taxes have to be high so we can fight wars to “maintain” the “wealth of nations”(actually the 1%ters who are really “multinationals” and don’t really have much allegiance to any country) and also to build prisons in which to imprison the millions of people the USA keeps in jails.
Talk about “quietly and without sorrow”! Prisons are a growth industry in the USA.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8289
“Come all ye faithless, thieving and corrupted”…. we need more criminals in the USA! Gotta keep those jails filled!
OK, rant over.
Valkov — I am probably the most conspiracy theory theorist I know! There’s a song entitled: “Everybody Wants to Rule the World” that pretty much sums up what I see on a tiny scale and on a large scale. We’ve watched two World Wars recently and regimes come and go, and on and on it goes and it can be traced back as far as written history goes on this planet. It seems to be pretty much irrelevant who is in charge, there is this consistent disparity between the wealthy and the poor, the entitled and the disenfranchised.
The reason I said crappola was not to dismiss that this sort of thing goes on. Its like me saying that I thought Hitler’s grand plan was shitty. I just used the word crappola instead of shitty. I do think it is an unfortunate consequence of acting as an enemy does that you can end up being like the enemy you are fighting. The downtrodden riot and take over and what do you, the new guys in charge are soon top dogs gloating over the rest. Its an old, old game and one that I am personally very tired of. I find it infuriating that the same crazy attitude is alive and well in the behavior of the top leadership of the C of S. There’s a gazillion things that could have been done with the millions and millions of dollars regged from Scientologists, including finally dropping the flipping prices on auditing so a reasonable number of people could at least get some basic auditing. But nooo… we have to have a jet and a palatial apartment and fancy buildings and all the trappings of wealth and privilege. CRAPPOLA!!!!!!!!
I had sincerely hoped that Scientology did have an effective weapon, called auditing, that could finally and for once and all bring an end to the madness and the crappola, And here we are posting on a website that is examining the reality of that.
I’ll say it again. Crappola or if you prefer – for Gawd’s sake!!!!
Sorry Maria, I must have misunderstood what you were saying!
I thought you were saying that conspiracies did not exist, and that the idea of their existence was “crappola”.
Thanks for posting the link, Al.
It is a great link and I’ll say right of the bat, I see nothing inherently sinister in that issue, and here’s why:
The whole thing is predicated on the thesis that – “Scientology is the only game where everyone wins”, and that there is actually an opposition to “everyone winning” which attempts to disperse or otherwise inhibit the delivery of Scientology services.
From the text of the issue itself:
“our only justification for doing these things is that Scientology is the only game where everyone wins”.
From that viewpoint, if you are being attacked, eventually you will be driven to defend yourself, or perish.
Since you were not around (as “Al”) during the Cold War, McCarthyism, the Vietnam Era etc I don’t expect you to understand. But you could at least study a little 20th century history to get some intellectual grasp of what the realities were.
This goes to the basic issue that is not being addressed in this thread – WHAT IS SCIENTOLOGY? What did Hubbard himself think Scientology is?
If you start interpreting things he said and wrote outside of that context, it’s every man for himself writing science-fiction indeed.
An amusing thought came to me – what if the end result of that seven division org board encompassing the earth finds us in the Urantia realm of knowledge?
Here are the seven divisions (controllers) of the grand universe per Urantia:
“You have been instructed in the relationship of God the Sevenfold to the Supreme Being, and you should now recognize that the Sevenfold encompasses the controllers as well as the creators of the grand universe. These sevenfold controllers of the grand universe embrace the following:
(1273.6) 116:5.2 1. The Master Physical Controllers.
(1273.7) 116:5.3 2. The Supreme Power Centers.
(1273.8) 116:5.4 3. The Supreme Power Directors.
(1273.9) 116:5.5 4. The Almighty Supreme.
(1273.10) 116:5.6 5. The God of Action — the Infinite Spirit.
(1273.11) 116:5.7 6. The Isle of Paradise.
(1273.12) 116:5.8 7. The Source of Paradise — the Universal Father.
(1273.13) 116:5.9 These seven groups are functionally inseparable from God the Sevenfold and constitute the physical-control level of this Deity association.”
It is interesting that the Urantia reveals at least a dozen or more sevenfold schemas, repeating again and again throughout the googleplex galactic immensity described in it.
Maria, I’m not much for studying cosmologies, as it feels like they are a dime a dozen, but it also seems to me there are many correspondences among them, and that many probably have a common root, because the same numbers occur and re-occur – 3, 7, 9, etc.
The Gurdjieff cosmology is interesting for someof it’s details.
One is that the whole of Creation is seen as having a fractal form.
Another is that the “Ray of Creation” has two intervals or gaps in it, which require “conscious shocks” or efforts to be applied, to maintain it’s progress or “flow”, because it’s natural tendency is to degrade(in an entropic sense) as it proceeds from it’s Source.
Here are a some links and an excerpt:
http://mozart2051.tripod.com/law_of_seven.htm
LAW OF SEVEN PER “FOURTH WAY” TEACHING
The Law of Seven is an ancient principle known to both the Pythagoreans and Platonists and was an integral part of the alchemical sciences as practiced during the European Middle Ages and Renaissance. In my opinion, the most lucid account of this esoteric law is that given by the “Fourth Way” teachers P. D. Ouspensky andG. I. Gurdjieff.
In Chapter 5 of his book entitled” In Search of the Miraculous”, P. D. Ouspensky describes
the “Law of Seven” as it was taught to him by Gurdjieff. It was a fundamental dynamic process whereby both
the Cosmos (the macro-level) and individual lives (the micro-level) of people here on Earth were in a
continuous state of transformation. The so-called “Absolute” was the fundamental source of all creation.
Emanating from the Absolute, the process of cosmic creation evolves according to an ordered sequence of
increasing complexity and density. This process follows a law involving the seven note Greek musical scale
known on the macro level as the “Ray of Creation.” The universe as a whole comprises many such emanations
from the Absolute. Unlike the Pythagorean model (see below), Gurdjieff’s scheme involved a relatively
modern, sun centered view of the astronomical structure of the Cosmos. A diagram representing Gurdjieff’s
“Ray of Creation” for the planet Earth is depicted in the table shown below.
This Gurdjieff teaching is almost certainly a slightly updated form of the basic teachings of the Ionian
Greek Philosopher Pythagoras of Samos (569-475 B.C.) and his followers in the Pythagorean School. While
only fragments of the teachings of the Pythagoreans survive, we do know that they taught that the universe was essentially an organic whole which they called the “Cosmos.” The Pythagoreans also taught that the underlying structure of the Cosmos was mathematical in nature and that the principles of the musical octave constituted the key to understanding this mathematical structure. Pythagoras and his successors, like most people in the world until the 17th Century A.D., believed in an Earth-centered universe. In the 4th Century B. C., the philosopher Plato, a Pythagorean initiate, defined the basic structure of this Cosmos as a system of eight concentric shells with the Earth placed at the center of the shells. The outermost shell, a dodecahedron, was the realm of the fixed stars. Each of the other seven shells was considered to be a sphere associated with three things: 1) a note from the Ionian Greek musical scale (known as the Lydian scale in the 6th Century B.C.), 2) a planetary body which moved around the Earth in a circular orbit, and 3) a particular Muse (one of nine Greek goddesses who preside over the arts and sciences). The entire system was called the “Harmony of the Spheres.” In all, this cosmic system had nine levels counting the earth as the first level. The outermost level was the realm of the fixed stars which did not orbit the earth. No musical note was associated with the realm of the fixed stars.
http://www.endlesssearch.co.uk/philo_cosmology.htm
According to Gurdjieff the Enneagram is a universal symbol by which all processes in the universe can be
understood. As the universe unfolds from the Absolute and elaborates itself in the Ray of Creation, its
complexity increases over Time as the various gradations of energy interact according to the Laws of Three
and Seven. Beginning with the Absolute, the Law of Three manifests in its most simple form as the three
fundamental forces in the universe, the Active(Holy Affirming), Passive(Holy Denying) and Neutral(Holy Reconciling). At each step or note of the Ray of
Creation the Law of Three multiplies and generates more interactions. The sequence of elaboration of laws
given by Ouspensky follows a pattern of doubling at every level : 1, 3, 6, 12, 24, 48, 96. Likewise, every
note of the octave of the Ray of Creation generates within it octaves of sub-harmonics, leading to the
formation of galaxies, suns, planets, sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, cells, animals
Since these elaborations all follow the basic, universal pattern outlined by the Enneagram, we see that
Gurdjieff had already outlined in the 1920’s what is now called the Theory of Fractals, which is based on
the self-similarity of a basic pattern elaborated at many different scales. For example, the branching
patterns of trees are similar to the patterns of leaf veins, rivers and blood vessels and air passages in
the lungs.
http://ouspensky.org/needleman2.htm
ABSOLUTE 1 do
ALL WORLDS 3 si
ALL SUNS 6 la
SUN 12 sol
ALL PLANETS 24 fa
EARTH 48 mi
MOON 96 re
ABSOLUTE do
“The Ray of Creation” in the teaching of Gurdjieff: The Absolute is the fundamental source of all creation.
From the Absolute the process of cosmic creation branches and descends (involves) according to an ordered
sequence of increasing complexity and density, following the law of the octave. The universe as a whole
comprises countless such branchings from the Absolute; this particular diagram represents the “ray” containing our planet earth.
http://www.creationray.com/2011/03/12/cosmic-laws-by-gurdjieff-uspenski/
“Gurdjieff focused on two main cosmic laws, the Law of Three and the Law of Seven
The Law of Seven is described by Gurdjieff as “the first fundamental cosmic law”. This law is used to
explain processes. The basic use of the law of seven is to explain why nothing in nature and in life
constantly occurs in a straight line, that is to say that there are always ups and downs in life which
occur lawfully.
The Law of Three is described by Gurdjieff as “the second fundamental cosmic law”. This law states that every whole phenomenon is composed of three separate sources, which are Active, Passive and Reconciling or
Neutral. This law applies to everything in the universe and humanity, as well as all the structures and processes.”
The law of 3 I associate with what Hubbard said about the idea of a “2 terminal universe”, that actually a 3rd element was necessary to keep the terminals from collapsing. The terminals must be kept at a distance from each other for a flow to occur between them. He used the analogy of an electric motor, which has 2 terminals, but the essential 3rd element is the Base which holds the terminals apart.
The number 9 also plays a big part in Gurdjieff’s system, in the form of the Enneagram diagram which is used to plot interactions of the Laws of 7 and 3 as the ray of creation flows through them – or something like that.
LRH put quite a bit of thought into the general organizational structure of the “org board.” He said that it wasn’t simply a “command chart” but mimic’d the organism of living.
Some concepts that I always liked about and was intrigued about LRH’s 21 department organizing board were:
1. The intentionally expanding (conical helical) spiral beginning at department 1 and continuing on through department 21 where the improved and enlightened “particle” (person) was re-injected to the organization at department 1 where this cycle ran again.
2. An “awareness characteristic” of each department. Reading left to right, each awareness characteristic lead one to another and department 21 lead back into department 1.
3. Production concept of a thetan with a mind, body, and product, were represented on the organizing board by one division head (thetan) with three departments as the mind, body, and product.
4. Clay demo’ing organization over and over left me with 7 conical helical coils wrapped around themselves – something like the double helical coil of DNA if it started out small on one end and got bigger as you go. This demonstration of course worked in either direction as I supposed the org board would work if it were mis-applied; as conditions formulae work in either direction; as ARCU works in either direction.
If I think of more features that I felt were unique to the organizing board I will share. Anyone else have thoughts on these features? Is anyone as intrigued as I am? They never seemed quite to gel as I have written them and it is not clear to me if the design is flawed as the OP might suggest or whether no one duplicated and applied this piece of Scientology as Valkov asserts.
It’s a very neat theory. I have never seen it actually work very well.
Hmmm. I thought you were rather productive myself!
(its a joke – after all we are all some kind of a thetan-mind-body production unit!)
Oh it works just fine – its just there’s all this wrestling going on!! Team? We don’t want no steenking team! What?!? I have to be the body? Noooo….. !!! I want to be KING of the castle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Its like putting all these screamy cats into harness – ever seen a cat on a leash? Its a wonder to behold!
All joking aside, its a bloody miracle the C of S exists at all after 50 years. Most groups don’t even get past 5 years. You should see the stats on new business start ups – they are dismal, truly dismal.
It takes a strong Person to get anything off the ground. A Person and not a System is the determining factor whether an organization makes it in its infancy. The more the Admin Tech was pushed and the less “let’s just get the show on the road and deliver an excellent product”, the more the CoS went down the valley.
LRH did mention that it was taken from an organizing system in use long, long ago, but that he fixed it. Well, maybe it wasn’t the right reason why it didn’t work.
But I have to tell you that I had this amusing picture come to mind after I read your post. Here is a little cell which is a microscopic life form, and it too runs on a pattern like that — but what made me laugh was the excretion function. There’s always something there to “eat” whatever is excreted. But what if no one wants what is excreted? Now what? This is fun.
The world would be one giant bore. Many would create new problems just to have…..well……problems. Without bad guys and injustice, we would be desperate to create new games that had some sting to them.
I believe a thetan’s favorite trick is to fix everything up all nice and neat and then completely blow it all to hell, ultimately forgetting everything he ever learned and having to start anew.
If everything were Scientology-perfect, I’d want to get off this rock at once! 🙂
I’m really benefitting from reading everybody’s posts! And I do mean everybody – the very knowledgeable ones (who know a lot about either Scn or other subjects or both) as well as the guys just telling their experiences honestly (which I felt they all were) and also the ones posting relevant references. Thank you to all for your efforts
So now I’m thinking about the fact that the evolution of Scn is already in progress and is at a point where, along with the fast-dwindling number of C of S members, there’s a growing number of Independents, some of whom are already auditing pc’s and offering courses. From what I read on the blogs, the Church’s days are coming to an end and it’s uncertain what will become of it. The major thing to note about the Independents is that they aren’t at all uniform in their considerations about whether to rigidly adhere to Standard Tech or revise it as they see fit. The same goes as regards which LRH policy – if any – to use.
I’m guessing that the Independents will increasingly join forces as a more effective way to operate than going it alone, and the different groups will adopt varying degrees of LRH tech, admin and ethics, on a spectrum of little of it to all of it. I imagine there will be quite a few different ‘sects,” at least for a while, and it seems likely that the ones who adopt the most workable parts of Scientology will be the most successful and will grow the fastest. The question is – which camp will it be and what will be the nature of their expansion as far as how much they will predominate and what changes they’ll make to society?
Quite a few lessons have been learned along our way (e.g. the SO, OSA, crush reg’ing, harsh ethics, etc) whether things went wrong as a result of misapplying LRH tech, admin and ethics – or because of applying those correctly. Either way, I think in our experiment we have to take into account the lessons learned – as the Independents themselves are doing – if we’re going to realistically project Scn’s evolution into the future. From its current point, we could either take it forward with those Independents who would toss out what they consider the unworkable parts of Scn, or those Independents who would stick to “orthodox Scientology” (perhaps including in that last group the C of S, on the possiblity that it will be forced to drastically reform and will be able to survive the whole scandal).
If Scientology splinters, there is no way that LRH’s vision for Scientology (a world without…) will come true. To achieve that, one must have a thoroughly coordinated effort. To achieve planetary clearing requires a massive coordination, or else the splinter groups are left on their own to compete with psychology, psychiatry, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. No way Scientology can win without the coordination mustered by a properly run CoS.
Planetary clearing would be impossible if people can opt out of the clearing process. If there is a choice to opt out, people WILL opt out.
Like me for instance.
With such a choice, the act of “clearing” a person would require forcing them against their will. LRH makes that choice clear in writing and in policy letters.
“BANG!”
I think “clearing,” “saving,” “liberating,” and “enlightening” the planet under the auspices of any religious tradition is JUST megalomaniacal messianic delusion.
What if being yourself was just free enough?
Well, let’s keep painting.
What IF 90% would Want to go Clear and OT. Then how do we handle the rest according to LRH’s writings on the subject. What is LRH’s solution to the last 10%?
I don’t have the reference for it, but in one of his issues LRH said that there wasn’t a need to clear 100% of the population – there would be a tipping point that would would effectively clear the rest. That made good sense to me – after all the bank is a common denominator held in place by group agreement, so really there is nothing need be done about this hypothetical 10%. Now whether or not anyone else would see that as so, I don’t know.
What is obvious is that the 90% definitely will not see things the way the Church taken to seeing them. Just count up the number of people already declared, resigned or simply walked away and you can see that you can pretty much count on that.
My guess is that the 90% or 50% or whatever percentage will not return to an embodied state and so there never will be a end to it.
How could someone be cleared if they themselves do not take responsibility for their own reactive mind? No, that would not be according to the tech. I have seen that quote and I see it as this; When one reaches that tipping point, then the rest of the population would naturally follow suit. Now That would be concistent with the rest of Hubbard’s writings IMO.
If the initial ethnic cleansing was successful, then would the Church loosen up, relax its grip on the remaining 10%? If it did, that would be a change in characteristic from the contemporary modus operandi.
But would it be according to LRH ethics/tech/admin?
But would it be according to LRH ethics/tech/admin?
No, it would be under an evolved and more liberal form of Scientology E/T/Admin.
I remember many discussions over the years as to what constitutes ‘clearing the planet’. If I remember correctly, it did not mean that every Tom, Dick, Harry & their dog would have to attain clear; it was the theta/entheta level (however that would be measured).
There is also a reference somewhere but I don’t remember where.
This is also promoted by the church every few years depending what they are pushing ie. Super Power
Sure – the definition of a cleared planet is not to clear every one – but what would we do with the remaining people?
Well, maybe those remaining are the true blue suppressives and very heavy PTS’s to the point of being destructive. Separating them from the rest of the group may be a solution similar to a quarantine and then hopefully rehabilitate them.
If it is simply a difference of opinion or viewpoint on whether one does want to get auditing or practice scientology or any other philosophy or not, then I can grant them that beingness. I’m not into forcing another to ‘agree’.
On another line, I would expect a real confrontation between the enlightened group and the group of suppressives controlling the planet. These guys will not give up without a fight for control/power.
“If it is simply a difference of opinion or viewpoint on whether one does want to get auditing or practice scientology or any other philosophy or not, then I can grant them that beingness. I’m not into forcing another to ‘agree’.”
It’s not about what You want 🙂
It is: What does LRH writing, extrapolated into that future, tell us?
kill ’em. kill ’em all.
Then Church of Scientology aka Lord of the Flies transition would be final.
This is a great post, Miraldi.
I think you have spotted a very important element here: taking into account the lessons learned.
Spot on.
That was probably my main point, Alanzo. Thanks for the duplication!
I just realized that this idea of 90% clear / OT is a near impossible task, provided that people continue to have children. If you have 1,000 people – 50% male, 50% female, you have 500 couples. Let’s say those 500 couples have the average number of children – 2.3%. Within 25 years you now have an additional 1,150 people who may or may not be clear. So now you have more people who are potentially not clear than those who are. Since this is hypothetical, its not quite right but you can get a sense of what would be occurring.
As well during the process of clearing the Buddhist community, for example, those people will bring their culture into the mix and that will change how life is perceived. Period. All the sec checking in the world will not be able to change someone’s mind about realities encountered during deep meditation. I don’t even think that sec checking will be effective on such a state. I can tell you for sure that if I don’t want to be in session, I am not in session. And when I am not in session sec checking does not work on me. Period. I can assure you this is so because I’ve been there and there is no response on the meter. Further, if I am not interested in my case or I am already in a floating TA state, might as well pack up that meter.
I’ve done enough auditing to know when I have a floating TA. I often do. OFTEN. And it has been over 20 years since I had a major auditing action of any kind. I would love to put a deep meditation Buddhist monk on the meter. My bet is that they have a floating TA, just based on their descriptions of the blissful state they find themselves in.
I think that while all this clearing is going on, the vanguard of integral science will be making very real strides and along the way will work out EXACTLY what occurs during auditing, if only in self defense. Which part of it is ACTUALLY effective? And what ACTUALLY happens at the point of cognition. That is the direction of integral science, process philosophy, and many other “new thought” movements. And they are picking up momentum – a giant wave of discovery and exploration into the wild wild world of what really is.
According to the tech, there is no problem of reaching a level of 90% clears – because all the OT’s would clear enough entities that will thereafter take bodies and start off their lives as Clears or above. Now, the reason I chose 90% is because of a policy where LRH says that 90% are willing and the last 10% is “wholly defiant”. So how do we handle the 10% wholly defiant?
Given the outrageous numbers of entities handled on the upper levels, I would speculate that the 10% would eventually simply be unable to be embodied. Of course, this assumes that entities are clear and that they would even want to be embodied. In fact, the assumption here is that anyone would want to be embodied / return. So really, all this is based on speculation. But I guess you could just pack up that remaining 10% and ship them off to their own little colony or if they appear again, as kg said, bang bang. Since we don’t have any prior experience with such a society or event that anyone can seem to remember, its all just speculation. For all we know, no clear or OT will ever return.
What if there was a remaining 10% of a population of then mostly Scientologists actively using ethics, tech and admin for their own benefit – now how would they handle the remaining people (given that they are not out-embodied)?
It’s “The Alanzo Problem”.
How do we handle The Alanzo Problem?
I love having my own problem named after me.
Bear with me on this one.
“LRH says that 90% are willing and the last 10% is “wholly defiant”. So how do we handle the 10% wholly defiant?”
But was that in the tipping point context or the context of the time he stated that?
He lays it out as a basic truth.
I think the reference would be HCOPL “Policies on Physical Healing, Insanity and Sources of Trouble”:
“e. Persons who are not being audited on their own determinism …Until a personally determined goal to be processed occurs, the person will not benefit.”
p.s. That same PL extends the policy to students as well.
Is it really true that the entities handled on the upper levels are “Clear” when they leave? I haven’t done the levels, but it never occurred to me that they would actually be “Clears” as in “no longer has his own reactive mind” themselves, at that point.
Some of them are taken to that level.
To add to my comment about Buddhists, here’s an article about the Dalai Lama lecturing at MIT. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/The_Scientific_Pursuit_of_Happiness.html?c=y&page=1
Imo LRh thought as soon as Dn/Sn was seen to work empirically it would eventually become accepted. Leaders in their fields would at least have a good reality that their aberrations were separate from them. Just recognising the truth of this might be enough to make a huge difference.
Right – so let’s imagine this does happen and that Scientology really wins the heart, soul and mind of 90% of the peoples of Earth. How do we handle the remaining 10%?
According to LRH, a great amount of theta dis-enturbulates a small amount of entheta. That was how I always looked at the idea that the whole population would be effectively cleared if a majority were. Personal reality tells me that there would at least be a key out.
And I also considered that there is probably some physics explanation for it – if not clearing, then keying out. You as a student of physics might know.
But the clearing tech is very precise on this point. If the pc does not take full responsibility for his reactive mind, then there is no clearing.
You’re right and I think taking responsibility mainly if not entirely involves viewing the underlying postulates – which would not have been done. So at best we would get Releases rather than Clears. However, that would still give us a “cleared” planet in the broadest and most important sense – i.e. the goal of playing a better game would have been achieved. Any other aims, such as everyone becoming Clear, would be at best Purposes on the Scn admin scale.
I’d say a key-ed out SP is still an SP (per tech – the only auditing that handles an SP is that of Power and NOTs) – so how do we deal with the remainder?
There’s also Integrity Processing, FPRD, and Expanded Dianetics to handle such cases.
Granted, they are all handling the same ball of wax.
According to LRH, they are only terminatively handled by Power and NOTs. BTW; That makes it a paradox to have anyone above OT 5 to be declared an SP.
But a keyed-out SP wouldn’t be dramatizing – and wouldn’t be able to get keyed back in if the theta/entheta ratio were maintained.
Really? How do you know?
And if this was so, then an SP confined among clears and OTs in, let’s say the SO, wouldn’t dramatize. Has this ever been proven do we think?
I believe that principle (about a large volume of theta in relation to entheta) is true, not only because I feel I’ve experienced the phenomenon (haven’t you?) but because, again, I think it boils down to sheer physics.
We don’t have any scientific studies to go on, but I think we can believe LRH on that if we just recall times when we’ve been in a situation where, for whatever reason – some happy occasion, or even a dire one when everybody’s necessity level came up (which LRH stated is actually a key out) – no signs of restim were in evidence at all and everyone was “themselves” and uptone (in the case of a happy occasion) and/or non-misemotional and at their best as regards thinking and acting.
The problem with that scenario is that one man’s ally is another man’s SP. There must be two sides or more to have a game. Who will volunteer to be the Bad Guy in an All Scientology World (ASW™)?
“The problem with that scenario is that one man’s ally is another man’s SP.”
That would not be the technical definition of an SP. But it seems you want to make another point which I didn’t quite get.
(Btw, as ASW actually something trademarked?)
No 😦 Not TM’ed.
I am simply trying to extrapolate LRH’s text into a world where those texts are followed and then exploring how that world would be like. And I might had – having a real time recruiting painters.
Hey, I’m painting! Or not? If not, please say again the picture you want to develop.
I still think the tipping point thing would be an end game of sorts. And you haven’t falsified my theory. 😉
But how exactly would a future CoS handle the remaining defiants?
We’ve been making the assumption that LRH insisted everyone must do Scientology. I’d like to see the actual reference for that.
But assuming that’s the case, there is plenty of tech to handle those who are “unwilling” to participate in Scientology due to case or ethics factors or false data. And it may take a lot of tech and various pieces of it, but if indeed the tech does handle all cases they would eventually be handled.
I think this discussion may come down to whether we believe the tech does work and is all that’s needed to handle all cases – or not. If it does, it follows that the whole of society would be handled, step by step.. And if it doesn’t – end of discussion. And no possibility of ASW™ 😦
And if we extrapolate we get this:
The CoS will expand into every corner of the world as it cannot do anything but expand per policy. It aims to cfree every person on Earth. And by the use of Scientology tech since that is actually the only way to set someone free. Everyone should then be a scientologist and would be on the org board of the CoS. They would then have to be on a regular course schedule per week and would be subject to ethics actions if not. If they do any out ethics in life, they would again be subject to the ethics tech. They would train and they would go up the Bridge. They would enter into leadership positions in the government and in all spheres of influence. And again, if they did anything unethical, they would be subject to ethics, tech and admin. They would be required to use policy to handle admin situations, and as LRH admin tech is in fact the only workable admin tech there is, using anything else would have to come under the heading of squirreling or out-ethics. Thus admin tech would be in use most everywhere. Leaders would lead according to LRH scriptures as doing otherwise is again couner intentional and out ethics. It should only be natural that they would want to be ethical as LRH has laid out, use the tech standardly and apply policy appropriately. Out ethics is treated with the ethics gradient and there would be a swifter justice system than the cumbersome judicial system we see in our society today. As no Scientologist could take another Scientologist to court (forbidden by policy), then our system of Law and Order would naturally be replaced by LRH’s ethics and justice policies. Every citizen would deem it only natural to write KRs on any outpoint they see, be it in the work place, in the Church structure, amongst friends or in families. PTSness is thus reported as per policy as it is a crime to do otherwise. No criticism of Scientology would ever happen as that is a suppressive act, and no one would leave Scientology and tell about it as that, too would be suppressive. No one would create any problems, and no one would have any unkind thoughts of LRH, Mary Sue or the CoS Management. Wars would be handled before any ARC break could escalate to that level of conflict. No drugs would be peddled, and the insane would be given the Introspection Rundown and then be given the proper auditing actions to again return to the Bridge and continue on their road to freedom. There would be no splinter groups as the CoS would hold it’s LRH given monopoly on all the tech. Psychiatry would long since have been obliterated and the same with psychology or any other practice targeted by LRH’s orders, advices or policy. Other religions would be tolerated, but only to the point where they would not in any way interfere with the progress up the Bridge for any individual. Christians would be crammed according to the Class VIII tapes as LRH says Jesus Christ did not exist. People would be free to worship their version f the 8th dynamic as LRH touced very little upon that subject. Since we would have a perfectly run society, KSW and Keep Admin Working would be enforced to ensure that no working installation would ever be tampered with and fall astray. It would be a society in harmony, of fun, laughter, ARC and respect for LRH. It would be a world without war, criminality and insanity. It would be a world that all of us have desired since millions of years.
Wow, great summation. Now, if I didn’t know you as a much more liberal-minded being I might have taken it as an utterly serious, theetie wheetie pep talk. But as knowledgeable and somewhat subtle satire I really did enjoy it! 😀 (And I loved the ending. :-))
My dearest Geir, I don’t believe the only interpretation of Scientology is a fundamentalist one. I think there is plenty of LRH that would temper all the things you wrote. Honestly now, don’t you?
Of course one can pick and chose amongst his writings – drop some, take something else. Cherry picking is the only sane way to go here. But that is beside the OP 😉
“BTW; That makes it a paradox to have anyone above OT 5 to be declared an SP.”
Deal breaker problem that. Debunks doing the bridge as a cure for insanity.
Other than those who slipped thru the lines onto the OT levels, I think the majority if not all of the SP declares on OTs are bogus.
As for the ones who have suppressive tendencies, they didn’t make the grade in the 1st place – out-tech
I read your epic post again and I really have to hand it to you for your wit :-D. And for thinking of just about everything! The naysayers are gonna love it – probably frame it, LOL.
Well, I hate to be the party pooper but the fact is, to literally carry out whatever LRH has written, whether or not it applies to ACTUAL SITUATIONS, would in fact be – off-policy. One basic reference for that is HCOPL 13 Mar 65 “The Structure of Organization, What is Policy”:
“GOOD POLICY BASED ON ACTUAL SITUATIONS EXPERIENCED, FOLLOWED WELL, MAKES AN EXPANDING DEPARTMENT, ORG OR CIVILIZATION….
“The wisdom of the policy and whether or not it was a successful solution to some actually possible confusion or crisis determines whether or not it should be added or deleted.”
According to that last line, certain policy could even be deleted altogether. I do agree with you that there are other policies that seem to require a rote application of admin tech. But if the new leaders of Scientology are well-intentioned and know their business, there’s no reason they wouldn’t be able to work out how to apply policy to forward the basic purposes – which is precisely what policy is for. (And if they’re really smart they might even find they can work in the kind of “liquidity” that you talk about :-).)
Your post really got me thinking – there is probably a huge amount of revamping to be done and the new leaders do have their work cut out for them. But I believe they would have what it takes, as regards intelligence and purpose. Intention is what monitors anything and everything – with good intention or with bad, either way, leaders can get around whatever and/or work out whatever they want to. We’re always at the mercy of those in charge, in a sense. Nevertheless, IMHO there are some powerful Scientologists around whose postulates are going to win out. (And I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if they recruited you :-))
You are pointing out a very real inconsistency in the Admin Tech. In fact it cannot be applied fully. It follows the inherent problem of Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem in that any complete system cannot be consistent. LRH aimed for completeness rather than consistency in the Admin Tech.
However – it is that one sentence against all the references cementing the rigor and the sentiment running through the vast majority of the Admin Tech that it is perfect and infallible. I believe most people will err toward the KSW approach. As we can see in the current CoS.
I believe the dominating Independent Scientology view that the CoS is All Wrong, not applying Any Tech or Any Admin correctly and has totally Perverted Ethics is a wrong one. I believe it is a very biased and stigmatized view that is generated daily to foster the Independent Identity as a whole. I believe the current CoS is in fact practicing more than 90% correctly according to LRH. The last 10% includes your quote above and the policies aimed at keeping friendly relations with the public (hard to do when you apply the OSA attack policies) and to always deliver what you promise (this one is grossly out).
Geir, good observation about Independents. I agree with you about the biased view on the part of some of them that the CoS is All Wrong – they definitely do a type of cherry picking which sometimes reminds me of what the sites of the CoS do in reverse (although the CoS also includes some outrageous lies, so it’s a loose comparison). To a degree it’s like the Hatfields and the McCoys all over again (LOL).
As for the admin tech, perhaps it really can be applied “fully” – if priority is given to basic principles. LRH made clear the “single factor governing it [policy]” in HCOPL 4 Dec 66, Expansion, Theory of Policy”:
“It takes many things to ensure expansion. Thus when you are interpreting policy it should be interpreted only against EXPANSION as the single factor governing it.”
That right there tells us exactly how to interpret policy. And you named two other basic guidelines – deliver what you promise and maintain friendly relations. Those two policies, plus the one above and the one I quoted earlier would be more than enough to enable new management (or a new organization) to separate the wheat from the chaff and not throw out the baby with the bathwater (mixing my metaphors, ha ha) and I do believe there’s a baby to save.. Again though, it’s all about intention.
The other thing is this – if you feel that the CoS is practicing tech 90% correctly then you would have to agree with Maria that the thought experiment has pretty much already been run in the physical universe. And besides, as I’ve said, if we want to take it forward from here and imagine what will evolve, I think the only realistic approach would have to include thinking with all the lessons learned – since that in fact is what many Scientologists are now aware of.
Of course – but that would be another OP.
I agree with Maria as I indicated. And that is the line we would extrapolate towards and beyond according to the OP.
In a couple of my comments just above I quoted PLs that state policy is to be interpreted against EXPANSION and ACTUAL SITUATIONS, including ADDING or DELETING accordingly. Those references give the basis for not applying policy rotely and your reply was that this showed admin tech to be inconsistent. It just dawned on me that this inconsistency means the system does not actually violate Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, does it?
Thus I see no reason admin tech couldn’t be successfully applied as those basic references make it completely flexible. All that’s required is being able to think with policy as aligned with actual situations and achieving expansion. In fact, I don’t even see why the principle of a more liquid org board might not be adopted – if that meant expansion.
Here’s a quote that mentions “lightness of organization” and is applicable to this thread otherwise too:
“And I believe that the freedom of the material which we know and understand is guaranteed only by a lightness of organization, a maximum of people, good training and good, reliable, sound relay of information. And if we can do these things, we will win. But if we can’t do these things, sooner or later the information which we hold will become the property of an untrustworthy few. This I am sure, because it has always happened this way. …” (from Anatomy of the Spirit of Man Congress lecture #15 “What Scientology Is Doing”, given on 6 Jun 55) Copied from this site: http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/index_scientology.htm
I say Burn the Books and create a set of Tools and Guidelines rather than Policy.
“I say Burn the Books and create a set of Tools and Guidelines rather than Policy.”
I get it.
In my opinion, policy cannot be applied correctly (in a knowing sense) in the absence of the knowledge of Data Series.
.
I do agree that current admin tech followed to the letter could lead to a fascistic future. However, the stated aim is a civilisation without war insanity and crime and you could make serious inroads without having 100% of humans as Scientologists.
The OP is about a Scientology World, not a “world without….” achieved any other way. We are examining here what would be if the world at large was converted to Scientology as laid out by LRH – all of the ethics, tech and admin. All of it.
And that is the problem. The aim has been confused with the means.The means are NOT the aim. The aim is the aim. And that confusion has been a source of trouble since the day it was introduced.
But LRH is a proponent of “follow the tech standardly and the result will be what 100%” – so “trust the process”, “trust the tech (ethics/tech/admin)” and thy result will be given. So, we will play by those rules and see what society we will have, OK?
Yes, and LRH is the one who confused the aim with the method. And in doing so created an impossible goal.
If so – how much of the world could his methods conquer towards that aim, then?
Based on the current world population of 7 billion, and guessing the current active C of S membership at somewhere between 70k and 700k, between .001% and .01%, with the percentage shrinking in comparison to world population. The shrinkage is because of the restriction against having children in the Sea Org.
I studied the stats on the ratio between people introduced at the Mission of the 1970s and those who continued on and even in that exceptionally mild atmosphere perhaps 1 in 100 continued on for any length of time. Those who made it through to OT8? Perhaps a half dozen out of all the people introduced during my time at the Mission. There may be more than that but one has to consider that I alone personally contacted and introduced a minimum of 1,000 people to the subject at that Mission. Out of my personal 1,000 perhaps 5 continued for any length of time. Out of that 5 only 1 now remains active. And his days are pretty done too. 1 of them continued to associate for at least 10 years, 2 for another for 20, another for 35. Pretty dismal. I sent a number of people in after my days at the Mission, not one of them continued, but were so upset that I eventually stopped sending anybody in.
Of course we know that the OP will never come true – given that the actual number of CoS members is around 50K and the CoS is on the verge of collapse – so yes, this is a sci-fi scenario OP. Let’s paint 🙂
The OP can too come true – you never limited the thought experiment to the C of S, just Scientology. C’mon, Geir, you of all people I don’t expect to do an A=A and equate the two. 🙂
(But seriously, I keep trying to say that we have got got got to differentiate or we’re all talking apples and oranges.)
In any case, on this thread we’ve been painting with the broader brush strokes, haven’t we? And I think it’s been beneficial already!
Of course it is about the CoS. If we were to extrapolate LRH’s writings to a Scientology world – then the CoS would be in control of all Scientology – just as LRH envisioned. There is no splinter groups in LRH’s Scientology. They are per definition squirrels and per KSW must be stamped out.
Well, I sure don’t equate Scientology with the Church of Scientology. The church has become what they rail against.
Maybe I was fortunate in that my early years we cared, were compassionate, really worked towards an ARCful planet, and went out of our way to help others.
Yes, there were nutcases and some pretty sad cases but we carried on. Destructive behavior was looked down upon and instances of this were few & far between until the GO showed up. Then came witch hunts, declares by the dozen, David Miscavige, the destruction of the Mission Network, the IAS, OSA, etc … the rest is history.
A white hat and a black hat can read the same policy or piece of tech.
One will work to better himself & others; the other will rip you apart.
LRH equated Scientology and the Church. Totally. And I don’t think there is any doubt about that.
Yes, but if LRH saw what the Church has become today, what would he say/think? Personally I think he;d have a WTF!! moment.
I can’t believe that he would have wanted it this way unless he had some deep dark intention to create 1000’s of tapes, HCOBs, etc to screw people around … a big leap there.
Personally I don’t think he had thought about the long term consequences of following his writings. I think LRH was pretty short sighted and that most of the policies, ethics and parts of the tech are solutions to immediate problems. Making those solutions into long term solutions only creates new problems. And then you have a spiral of ever increasing written solutions that in turn creates new problems. The only way out of this is to trust people instead of a system.
When I first got in, we were getting research updates weekly from LRH. He was continually looking to improve the tech and making new discoveries.I don’t think this was short-sighted – it was an on-going evolution.
As for policy & justice: we didn’t use policy much early on – servicing the pcs & making auditors was the name of the game. Yes, there was a system of sorts but it was not stopping progress at the time. Justice actions early on were up to the ED ( the Mission Holder ). In those days they were autonomous other than a tithe from Mission Office WW.
One of the main stumbling blocks was interpretation of policy. I’m not saying that there may be policies that were created to handle a certain sit and somehow became the norm when that was not the intention. Hell, the ethics book quadrupled in size from when I got in. It became a book to throw at others rather than help.
The church is vastly different from the one I grew up in – it is now a ‘system’ as you put it. Individuals without dollars mean nothing, justice depends on who’s applying it and the tech/philosophy (what’s really important) has been degraded.
While I agree to a great extent on your statement ” The only way out of this is to trust people instead of a system.”, I look at what’s happened by ‘trusting’ those people.
A system of sorts is necessary if only to accomplish the VFPs.
“of sorts” is the operating phrase IMO. The less the better.
Dennis: “A white hat and a black hat can read the same policy or piece of tech. One will work to better himself & others; the other will rip you apart.”
That has to be one of the most important points related to this thread (along with MU’s and false data). And that’s the reason why Scientology has to be differentiated from the Church nowadays. It’s true that LRH equated the two but that was a whole different era.
Btw, as usual, I’ve been enjoying you posts giving your experience and viewpoints. 🙂
Marildi,
Yes – white hats & black hats.
I agree that differentiation is key here – what is the intent of a person who contacts Scientology – to help, harm or destroy. Pretty simple really although sometimes difficult to spot some of these individuals.
For me it was seeking or regaining knowledge, adventure, moving beyond the confines of current societal agreements & considerations, and my rebel-istic nature. 🙂
For others, having a bit of tech (tech/policy/admin) fed their ev-purps and they left a trail of damaged products in their wake.
I went thru junior & high school during the tail end of the beatnik movement and then into the hippie days – great times in that there were huge cultural changes and the aquarius/love/peace movement was forefront. Great times they were and scientology for me was an extension of that.
After all, banning the bra wasn’t that bad after all 🙂
Hi Dennis,
This whole point about the white hats and the black hats really is the primary thing to keep in mind. Intention is the overriding factor, always. I sat up and took notice one day a while back while I was listening to an interview of Ron Paul (the Congressman, as I’m sure you know). He made a remark about political campaigns and said that it didn’t really matter what the platform was or how promising it did or didn’t sound. What mattered was the integrity of the candidate. Well, that got him points in my book.
Okay, you got into Scientology before I did, but even by the 80’s there were still remnants of the 60’s and 70’s – long hair, loose morals and the antidisestablishmentarianism (ha ha! Remember that word?). It all went along with the freedom ideas of Scientology, didn’t it? And I take it your comment about “banning the bra” was a figurative one (corny pun just for you :-D).
Marildi,
Yes, I like to choose a candidate that way also. Years ago a platform was a sure thing. It slowly degenerated and now it’s a rarity when an item off a platform is implemented.
Guys like Ron Paul (and although I am a Canuck I do follow US politics sometimes) I like – right or wrong they have the guts to say something and even moreso since he is quite independent.
Antidisestablishmentarianism ?? Hahaha – yes, a big word at the time – we all sounded so learned when we used it let alone be able to say it 🙂
Yes, ‘ban the bra’ – corny & figurative, but what a revolution – a little bit of ‘freedom’ in itself hahaha
Good question. Well of course we could not allow them to breed. And we wouldn’t want to interact with those people as their unruly thoughts could be infectious. As they are obviously psychotic or worse and since sterilization would be expensive and all, and since their existence would only have a negative impact on everyone else who was actually on board and with the program I guess they have limited our choices. After careful, yes careful consideration, I believe the right thing to do is simply eliminate them. Yes, I think this is the only choice they have left us.
Pull their air cover 🙂
Well, maybe not.
If in fact we had great abilities at that point, why not just pop them out of what they are in so they can have a look see. I would think the relief and cognitions at that point in time would blow their mind 🙂
Now you are scaring ME, Dennis. Pop them out? Are we talking like hypothetical pop them out; R2-45 pop them out; or do you know something about auditing where they can be popped out? And if they don’t have the correct EP or cognition? Do we want free will or what? Do we only trust one another to be free if they can get their mind right?
Not being snide – just because and I like what happens when we get a session is not proof that everyone would like that.
Haha Chris … no no usage of a 45 cal.
I was just thinking popping them out of their case/considerations for a moment. And yes, I did think about free will. I look more at is that person destructive, or simply has a difference of viewpoint.
In the 1st case (destructive) there would have to be some sort of isolation and rehab. In the case of difference of viewpoint, I would let them be. I’m not into forcing my values on others.
There’s also the theta effect … what effect would an OT group of 90% people have on the remaining 10% … it could be profound.
The Final Solution to The Alanzo Problem.
. . . and about time! Glad I could help. haha
Let them be.
Here is a summary of LRH’s solution to that 10% – I don’t know how accurate the summary is but I do recall reading that it was the solution to the remaining people who would not respond to regular auditing.
http://www.whyaretheydead.info/lisa_mcpherson/introspe.htm
“When the game or the show is over, there must be a new game or a new show. And if there isn’t somebody else is jolly well going to start one and if you won’t let anyone do it the game will become “getting you”.
We clearly see this happening with contemporary Church of Scientology. Miscavige and crew won’t let people get on with the game of making auditors and clearing. Miscavige clearly has misapplied his power according to the Simon Bolivar PL. LRH also truly and well mis-applied the Simon Boliver theory of power even after the fact of writing it. Authoring it? Makes me wonder how or maybe why someone — anyone — sees clairvoyantly into a problem to where they succinctly comment clearly about the solution and then fail to apply the solution themself.
I have often found myself in this predicament.
LOL!
That’s funny, Chris.
Me, too.
https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/thought-experiment/#comment-11327
Valkov, I think people generally accept that LRH was joking about R2-45. But LRH’s was not joking in his general attitude was that one could sacrifice the few in favor of the many.
Was he experiencing a lack of or rollercoasting on dopamine? Was he both brilliant and delusional? LRH’s intention for the handling of power reads like a James Cagney gangster movie. I am not saying that his assessment is incorrect as it encompassed, it took into account how crazy our society seems to be with it’s wars and dramas and intrigues. But his assessment IS brutal and leaves no doubt in my mind, never had a doubt of how far LRH would be willing to go to protect himself and his, well, er, uh. . . himself.
“…his general attitude was that one could sacrifice the few in favor of the many.”
But don’t you remember he added that one would then go back and pick up (handle) the ones who were “sacrificed”?
“…never had a doubt of how far LRH would be willing to go to protect himself and his, well, er, uh. . . himself.”
I don’t see it, Chris. I know a lot of people have concluded something similar but it seems to me like a generality drawn from (often questionable) specifics without looking at the whole picture of all that LRH did and said. I’m sure he made mistakes – everyone does – and they may have been big ones but, here again, it’s the whole picture that would indicate his true purposes and intentions.
Consider the Doubt formula – what were his products, the good as compared to the bad. Even when taking into account the worst occurrences in Scientology, whether perpetrated by LRH himself or Miscavige or whoever – consider all of that against the legacy of the tech (not that I’m saying anything now about means justifying ends!). My point is, I really can’t imagine that the tech could have been developed by a being who was primarily evil or even so narrow on his dynamics and outlook as to be inordinately concerned about protecting himself. Misguided maybe, but not evil and not even the lesser – motivated by selfish purposes.
It’s a know fact that bad stuff attracts more attention than good and I think the bad is what we’ve all been bombarded with, especially on the internet. And some of us (like you and I in the SO) have our own bad experiences that carry a lot of weight for us personally. But I’ve seen you go back and forth on your views of “the LRH enigma,” so I just wanted to give you my 2 cents, for what it’s worth. Maybe it’s me – that I’m biased or blind or whatever, I’m not totally sure. But it’s good that the dialogue continues. 🙂
Oh, one other thing. I do get that LRH was willing to use force and did so – but obviously, in some circumstances there isn’t always a choice of using reason. So on this matter too, the whole picture needs to be considered.
An out cry about “using force” can be a red herring, too.
A parent who picks up a child who is determined to go “thataway”, in order to get him out of the way of an oncoming car, is “using force” on that child.
My point is that “using force” is a very general statement about scenarios that occur daily in normal life.
A problem is defining what is acceptable force vs. unnecessary force, excessive force, etc.
In case it wasn’t clear, what you’ve said was precisely the point I was making and what I meant by considering the whole picture. Thanks for the elaboration. 🙂
00. That you are biased in favor of LRH and Scientology is not in question, is it?
0. I always consider LRH’s products. Scientology in books is his theory. Scientology the Church is both his legacy and his application of his theory — his experiment in real life.
1. LRH blew from Int and went into hiding from the government and all his “enemies” and he stayed in hiding and died in hiding. I don’t think this is disputable. My question is “was his sole and solitary decision to do this the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics?” Was this important to do? Going out of comm with his parishioners and staff was the greatest good? After following LRH’s instructions to the T, he threw Mary Sue, Henning and the rest under the buss. Is this in dispute?
2. Dave Miscavige grew up at the feet of LRH – for real. DM is LRH’s protegy, hand picked and groomed. Is this in dispute? if so, how so?
3. LRH cut comm with everyone in his life including his wife who went to jail for him yet never ever ever betrayed him. This is not in dispute, is it?
4. The net product after 50 years of Scientology is a rotting shell of an organization.
5. Some say this is because the tech was applied and it wrong and some say the tech is not being applied which is wrong.
6. I don’t have a disagreement with people doing what they want, where they want, and being free to believe what they so long as I am afforded the same consideration. Scientology does not adhere to this no matter the pretty language.
7. You (Marildi) gave good and productive years to the Sea Org. You are not there anymore. I never ask you about this but I wonder why the loyalty to LRH and LRH ideals over the top of this separation? What was your reward for your years of service? (I’m really asking this.)
8. I’ve got more but my post is getting too long and boring. I like that Geir’s blog is not just a “hen party” where we bitch about our sad sad experiences in Scientology. This post of mine is simply a devil’s advocate post — that’s all.
Chris: “That you are biased in favor of LRH and Scientology is not in question, is it?”
Well, I would have preferred you leave out the word “biased” but I guess it’s obvious. So…I cannot tell a lie – yes. That you are not in favor of LRH and Scientology, is that in question? It has occurred to me at times that you might possibly be operating over some BPC 😀 or false data or whatever – and maybe I’m operating over something I’m unaware of too. We probably don’t differ much at all in our biases – except for taking opposite sides most of the time :-D.
As for LRH’s products – basically, the fact that he busted his brass balls (Geir’s term, I like it) to discover all he did and to develop the tech, seems to me to be the most significant product of all. And yes, I do consider the tech workable, highly so. This isn’t to minimize all the negative stuff, but there is so much difference of opinion on the matter as to who’s actually responsible and what LRH was really like.
For example, you said, “DM is LRH’s protege, hand picked and groomed. Is this in dispute?” Yes – this is in dispute. I have no data that he was any more LRH’s protege than other Int staff, who did not turn out to be suppressive and many of whom chose to leave. You can even find people who worked very close to LRH – some damn him while others praise him and say what a great being he was to be around.
Some of the claims about LRH are most likely true. Fact is, however, it probably wouldn’t much matter to me. He is a Kha-Khan as far as I’m concerned. And btw, we’ve all given a lot of lip service to not judging knowledge by its source and here we are, supposedly discussing what things would be like in the future if the tech were followed and yet much of the discussion is about LRH and what a bad guy he was.
I tried to find a certain comment Maria posted on one of these recent threads. If I remember right, she said something about reading lots of data on the internet and concluding that it came down to just a few negative claims about LRH. Do you recall that comment? (Maria, if you’re reading this, please re-post it – you’re a reliable researcher for us.) Anyway, the point I’m getting at is that probably every single thing you said in your comment is in dispute – yes.
To answer your question about my leaving the Sea Org – it was a culmination of all the changes for the worse that I witnessed in close to 2 decades on staff. As to what I got out of it, well, in a nutshell, not long after I left it suddenly dawned on me – I’m free! Not just free from the Sea Org, mind you – FREE. (I’m smiling from rehab’ing that. Thanks for asking :-). )
Okay, playing devil’s advocate, you say? Well, you’ve heard the old refrain – the devil gets his due. So here you go – down-home Arizona style. (Btw, I’m the one on the right…I mean the left :-D.)
Apparently LRH gave DM the most important of missions by making him head of the All Clear Unit.
This is what I mean by all the conflicting data. Here’s an excerpt from an apparent 1984 Comm Ev on DM. The data in it aligns with reports that DM sabotaged the comm lines of LRH.
“In June 1981, Miscavige – as Chairman of the All Clear Unit – forged a dispatch purporting to come from LRH. This dispatch removed Diane Voegerding, the then SO CMO Int and Miscavige’s senior, from post. This was an act of Mutiny.
“David Miscavige was a signatory of the splinter group RTC on 1 January 1982. There is no evidence that this group was authorized by LRH. The “legal” documents transferring Scn Trademarks from LRH to RTC bear a forged signature, and in fact Miscavige notarized these documents although he was a party to one side of the “agreement.” Further, re the forged LRH signature, according to two independent experts, John Swanson and Irmgard Wassard, Miscavige was a party to this forgery.
“No HCOPL exists authorizing RTC. RTC has engaged in the perversion of Scn practices. Miscavige was personally involved in the gang Sec Checking of Jay Hurwitz, then CO LA Day, at Gilman Hot Springs in October 1982. This violates HCOB 30Nov78 Confessional Procedure, which states: “If the PC is not in session, you won’t get the withholds… A wrong or challenging auditor attitude can throw the scene off as there is a destroyed comm cycle.”
.
It goes on to cite his major part in the Mission Holders debacle and many other atrocities. Here’s the link:
http://www.scientology-cult.com/1984-sp-declare-on-david-miscavige.html
I am aware of all that. But I have seen no indication that DM was not appointed to the Very Important Post of leading the All Clear Unit in the first place. And thusly he was indeed a highly trusted terminal for LRH.
Marildi, Regardless of any bias, BPC, or dispute, I would appreciate your addressing LRH’s blow from Int. This is slightly off-topic but seems sequitur in the context of a “Scientology World.” I would like to get yours or anyone’s take on this enormous (for me) out-point as the culmination of his career of Savior of Mankind. Other leaders of successful culture-changing movements throughout the history of mankind have fronted up to their detractors with the truth of their claims. Some were martyred. You mentioned the Doubt formula in this context. What is your take on LRH wrapping up his life as a fugitive. Did this serve a useful purpose on the overall admin scale of the Universe saving Scientology? In hind sight, was this the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics? and why so? It is time I applied my own assertion that I do not believe in paradoxes. Any sensible input from anyone on this is appreciated.
As far as DM goes, he may have been trusted to head up All Clear, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that he was trustworthy, nor does it infer that he was posted as he is now. I can tell you that he most definitely spoke of the C of S taking over the government in no uncertain terms at an event in the late 90s. I remember being completely horrified because it was in total violation of the policy on freedom from politics. As well, the dismantling of the Mission network very definitely happened under his regime. Many years later, I spoke to a veteran SO staff member who proudly told me that he thought DM was amazing because he had handled the Missions and that was good because they had been withholding people from the orgs and that’s why the orgs weren’t doing well. When I pointed out that our Mission tried to send people to the local org but failed because the public had been to AO and Flag events and had been regged to go there right away for OT sections instead of to the org for training, he said that DM had fixed that too.
This concurs with Mike Goldstein’s information, which I do have personal knowledge of on many points of his story with the oppressiveness spreading into the Mission network in 1980, while Diana, under LRH’s orders, was mounting Operation Z – it was set up as an autonomous network outside of the control of the other networks. Mike said LRH was completely off the line when this went down.
By 1990, pretty much everything had been put under control and there were even efforts to put Scientologist run businesses under WISE, paying 10% of their gross income to WISE.
That was later canceled, because it was a deadly legal position – it opened the C of S to civil lawsuits if the businesses were adjudicated to be under WISE control.
By everything I mean every network was now under the direct orders of the Sea Org one way or another. There was no MOWW, no GO, and now there was ABLE which demanded compliance in all the social coordination groups, including education programs, Narconon, CCHR, IHELP and so on. The IAS was implemented and became required membership.
I can’t tell you how many times I had to bring out the policy letter What is a Scientologist to disabuse an over zealous SO staff member on just what Scientologists were supposed to be doing and how many times I referred them to the policy that says: it is not our policy to interfere with the private lives of individuals. The reaction was always the same – they looked like they’d seen a ghost and about half the time they admitted they weren’t familiar with the policy letters. I got the same response when I would pull out the booklet The Way to Happiness and point out that their behavior was not in keeping with the precepts.
The main thing that was dropped from the policy issues was the distribution – the policies did have a distribution on the top left hand side of the issue that clearly indicated to which networks, orgs and posts the policies applied. Unless a policy had a BPI distribution, it did not apply to the public. The first policy letter without a distribution notated was Knowledge Reports and it didn’t come out until the mid 80s. In any case the insanity begins with the dropping of the distributions and their importance in terms of which policy applied to which posts. I might note that this business of applying policy outside of the Church was covered by distribution, now conveniently forgotten. It would be just plain batty to try to apply Div 5 policies to Div 3, but somehow this goes by the boards when it comes to applying policy in one’s life and to the public in general. Its A=A=A but only when it suits the purpose of someone trying to use policy to oppress or control. The Ethics book was edited in the same crazy way with policies only applicable to staff posts finding their way into the public zone. That’s how it grew from a little book to a giant tome of offenses.
As far as the ethics policies goes, they are all based on post statistics. Public members DO NOT HAVE statistics. This renders the entire body of policy unapplicable to public. Since public members do not have statistics, they are automatically clay pigeons. And so we see the mess we now have.
Good data – as usual.
My point was only that DM was trusted with one of LRH’s most important missions ever.
+1,000,000
Well put Maria! I remember it exactly as you say.
Yes, the distribution of the various policies/BPLs became quite a blur, and yes, that little ethics book sure grew.
I remember whilst being a academy sup how the expansion of the crimes/high crime section became a real burden. Almost anything short of breathing was actionable. Each evening we came in new goldenrod was on the PUBLIC message board – staff were being crucified daily.
I had a meeting with all my academy students one evening basically to let them know there were some real goofy things going on and if they had any concerns to see me personally, otherwise we were here to get the most out of the tech we could and we would stick with the data in our packs, not someone’s verbal crapola. The students heaved a sigh of relief and we went back to work.
Shortly after, I became the target. Just before the noose tightened, academy stats were the highest ever in the history of that org … today, they aren’t even a 10th of what they were 40 years ago.
Sad …
And yet the growth of the ethics book was mostly due to inclusion of all the crimes strewn across a wide range of policies.
LRH picking Miscavige among all the other people he had to pick from is also very important to examine.
Miscavige was 19-20-21 years old. He had no auditor experience. He had never worked in a service org.
I know of at least three Class 8 auditors who were in that inner circle at that time. David Mayo had been LRH’s personal auditor for 8 years and was Senior CS international – known throughout the world.
Why did LRH pick David Miscavige?
An important question to ask, and to examine.
He was a Class IV auditor from St. Hill who didn’t finish his internship. But he did audit.
I think LRH picked David Miscavige because Miscavige could carry out the command intention without Q&A. In other words, Miscavige was ruthless, and could have his conscience not bother him.
.
I don’t get the implication. 😦
My understanding based on reports by people who were there or knew someone who was there at St.Hill, is that David Miscavige was kicked out of the Academy for hitting a pc during his internship. He never completed his internship. Miscavige has asthma, and the treatment of choice back then was inhalents that are known to induce violent behavior in some people.
He was a ruthless Missionaire and some respected him for it, although there are also reports that he wasn’t that good at it. He did run some successful missions.
He apparently was the MissionOPs for some missions that included Bill Robertson, and possibly originated the term Severe Reality Adjustment at that time and taught it ot to Robertson. I suspect it was based on someof that experience, that Robertson saw the handwriting on the wall, and went off to start the Freezone, and a couple of years later signed off on a Comm EV of Miscavige.
I still haven’t figured out why LRH kept Miscavige around, but all reports from folks who were around back then are that Miscavige had far less contact and mentoring from LRH, and played a far less in important role in things than some people give him credit for.
As intolerant as LRH could seem at times, (R2-45), he was pretty tolerant of most people. Folks tended to destimulate and key-out around him. He tended to see and validate the best, most analytical side of people and probably did so also with DM. LRH didn’t give upon a person easily,and I imagine he saw DM’s potential for good as well as the bad. In any case he was not averse to using DM somehow, but I don’t think he saw DM as anything special.
Chris, can you give me an example of LRH “sacrificing” some few or an individual in favor of the many?
I’m not saying there aren’t, but examples for consideration could be useful/instructive.
There were plenty – like several of the early high producers. Like Reg Sharpe. I have seen copies of a very nasty SP declare issued by LRH on half a dozen people where he actually did order R2-45 run on them(!).
Is that an undisputed fact, Geir? Maybe it’s like the “reference” for taking over the world, where a paragraph got added – utterly changing the whole meaning – that never existed.
And Valkov, the idea I recall (sorry haven’t thought of a reference) for “sacrificing” (figuratively) individuals had to do with not allowing some erring staff member to get in the way of production. If it took putting his head on a pike, so be it. But he would be salvaged afterwards with all needed tech.
Except Marildi that not only were staff members not salvaged after head being put on a pike , but they never were able to reap the benefits of Scientology auditing unless they were willing to pay for it. You know this. You worked at Flag, Mecca of Technical Perfection. How many staff got enhancement? Medical help when needed? Sleep? Liberty approved: 1/2 day every other week if stats up? The promised 3 weeks vacation per year in order to smooth over family friction created by the Sea Org for no particular reason except that staff were viewed as an expendable commodity?
Marildi –
You are assuming a lot there when you say this paragraph “never existed”.
That paragraph is completely consistent with LRH’s goals for Scientology taking over the government. It is in no way out of the ordinary. So to assume it never existed just because you have a transcript found on line that doesn’t have it in it is a large leap.
For instance, go to page 4 and see the highlighted text in the pdf for HCOPL 15 August 1960 DEPT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS
Click to access viewer
Also see Frank Oliver’s Full Hat documents from his days as an Undercover agent for the GO. The LRH references in his hat are not shown to rank and file Scientologists. This is why Frank put them online – so rank and file Scientologists can see the Scientology that Hubbard always meant to keep hidden.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50916806/scientology-frank-oliver-osa
You can assume that the paragraph never existed, but what would you then assume about all the ones that do exist?
Absolutely correct, Chris – and as you know, everything you listed is in violation of policy! LRH and Scn get blamed for what is interpreted as “bad policy” and likewise get blamed when the “good policy” isn’t applied. Let’s think about that. I can’t help but feel that it occurs because of bias and an impulse to make it all WRONG no matter what. Now, let me quickly add that if the shoe doesn’t at all fit, don’t take that personally. I know how it feels – when I stand up for LRH and Scn and get accused of the opposite (the intention to make it all RIGHT) even though I have also conceded some of the negative things. And I know you have had many positive things to say, not just the negative.
Alanzo, I don’t think I’m assuming a lot when I say that paragraph never existed. I’ve searched quite a bit for it and only find it on numerous anti-Scn sites – and as you yourself noted even some of those have questioned its existence! As I said, it’s apparently not on the original transcript and that’s good enough for me. In any case, you’re asking me to prove a negative – shouldn’t it be you proving that it does exist?
The second link you gave I wasn’t able to pull up, but as for the one with highlighted text that you say is “consistent with LRH’s goals for Scientology taking over the government” – did you note, first of all, that LRH writes that paragraph in this specific context: “in the face of danger from Govts or courts.” Here is the highlighted section you referred to:
“The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by a high level ability to control and in its absence low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order.”
Also note that it’s “compliance with the goals of Scientology” – not at all the same as “goals for taking over the government,” as you characterized it. I’m sorry, Alanzo, you aren’t the only one but I keep finding that criticisms are either generalities or are not based on any actual reference or the reference cited is mis-interpreted.
Since LRH claimed to be Source he is to be credited as well as blamed because he did’nt fully apply poke-yoke. In other words, he didn’t fail-safe his technology.
.
If LRH had properly claimed the contribution of others as well as his own contribution, he could be treated more gently.
After all, it is the knowledge that really needs to be criticized and not any source.
.
LRH did in fact validate many other individuals in the original books and many of the tapes.
Of course those have now been edited out.
Marildi wrote:
As I said, it’s apparently not on the original transcript and that’s good enough for me. In any case, you’re asking me to prove a negative – shouldn’t it be you proving that it does exist?
Yes. I also looked long and hard to find the missing paragraph and couldn’t. I believe this quote appeared in the full transcript in court documents and caused a lot of trouble for Scientology. Democratic and free societies, wishing to remain so, perk up their ears at anti-democratic, anti-rights movements like Scientology. And when teachings like this appear to them, they usually take action.
I have absolutely no problem believing that this paragraph was taken out of the original lecture transcript, as so many other problematic pronouncements of LRH have been.
Good riddance, ultimately, tho – right?
I’m sorry, Alanzo, you aren’t the only one but I keep finding that criticisms are either generalities or are not based on any actual reference or the reference cited is mis-interpreted.
Let me examine your statement closely here:
Criticisms are either:
1. generalities
2. not based on any actual reference
3. or the reference cited is misinterpreted
All right.
Do ALL criticisms of Scientology fall within those three criteria?
Can you think of even ONE criticism of Scientology that might fall outside these three?
“I have absolutely no problem believing that this paragraph was taken out of the original lecture transcript…”
Al (okay if I shorten your name?), what I have a problem with is the forwarding of something in a way that doesn’t clearly state that it’s an uncertain claim. So if you do that, giving the specifics, I would have no problem with that.
Of course there are criticisms of Scientology that fall outside those three things – many of them. There’s an ambiguity with language here. When I said “criticisms are either…” that could mean “some” or “all”. To illustrate, “roses are red” means that some roses are red. “Roses are flowers” means that all roses are flowers. It’s a grammar thing but I forget the terms for using nouns in these different ways. My point is that I just meant SOME criticisms, not all. And I specifically had in mind many of those on this thread as the “some.” Good you asked so that I could clarify it.
I have a question for you too. What do you mean by “Scientology”? Some people use it to mean all the written philosophy and tech (all three techs), others think of it as just the auditing tech. Sometimes it’s referring to the current management and/or the whole organization including staff and public. Those are the main ones at least.
Marildi –
All right. I understand the grammar problem you are talking about. I am usually on the look out for cognitive dissonance reduction techniques being used to dismiss criticism outright, so as not to look at it, and to look away from the real results of Scientology. You have proven yourself to be extremely intelligent and quite able to discern the finer points of thinking and debate.
I have a question for you too. What do you mean by “Scientology”? Some people use it to mean all the written philosophy and tech (all three techs), others think of it as just the auditing tech. Sometimes it’s referring to the current management and/or the whole organization including staff and public. Those are the main ones at least.
Because L Ron Hubbard included the Church of Scientology as the main delivery vehicle for the subject of Scientology, I include the Church of Scientology under the term “Scientology”. The Church is an important expression and outgrowth of the philosophy. In fact, it is an important example of the results of the subject which we can all examine for its results and stats.
I understand the complex game of twister that Independents and Freezoners have to play when they start in explaining “See, there is the subject of Scientology and the Church of Scientology and the two are not the same….”
No, they are not the same. One is the manifestation and expression of the other.
So that’s why I include the Church, it’s history, its staff and their actions, etc when I use the term “Scientology”.
Scientology should be defined by what it is actually acoomplishing in the present time, whether it is through the Church of Scientology, or through the Freezone and independents.
The knowledge, which Scientology reorganized has been there before. So, Scientology needs to be judged only by how it put that knowledge to use, and what the overall results have been in the society.
If there are inconsistencies in what Scientology says and what it accomplishes then what it accomplishes has more weight. If Scientology’s accomplishment is inconsistent with what it says, and what it said was very desirable, then it would simply mean that Scientology has been a failure in accomplishing what it set out to do.
That doesn’t bode well for Scientology as a movement.
We need a new movement now.
.
Al, thanks for the compliment. And so far 😉 I have confidence in you too.
Here’s how I see it. As an analogy, there’s a level of truth to the idea that parents are responsible for the outcome of their “products” – i.e. the children they raise. But as an absolute, it doesn’t take into account the fact that children have minds of their own. Someone could say to that – well, if the parents really have done a good job of it and the foundation they laid was sound, all should have turned out well. There may be lots of truth to that – but not the whole truth, obviously. I think most reasonable people would agree with this.
So there’s a certain amount of truth to what you say above: “The Church is an important expression and outgrowth of the philosophy…an important example of the results of the subject.” But there again, it’s not actually a full truth any more than it is to say that children are merely the expression and outgrowth of their upbringing. Just as it is with children, who have minds and free will and intentions of their own – so do and did all the free-willed individuals who have been and are involved with the Church.
This is why I say that we can’t, using reason, consider the Church to be nothing more than, as you say, “the manifestation and expression” of the subject called Scientology. And this is why I personally am looking forward to the time we all start talking about the most significant thing to put our wits to – what will become of the actual subject of Scientology, the philosophy and the tech. I was about to post this comment when I saw Maria’s last post and I think she is saying something similar where she mentions “perennial truths”:
“And methods of handling must be based on what’s happening right here, right now. My question is, are there perennial truths that can be considered in all situations and to all people at all times? Those are the real gems.”
“Here’s how I see it. As an analogy, there’s a level of truth to the idea that parents are responsible for the outcome of their “products” – i.e. the children they raise. But as an absolute, it doesn’t take into account the fact that children have minds of their own.”
This comparison doesn’t really hold as Scientology is put there precisely to handle the minds of people.
“This comparison doesn’t really hold as Scientology is put there precisely to handle the minds of people.”
Well, isn’t that primarily what good parents try to do – handle minds? Like Scn parents want to bring out the best in their children and “best” always comes down to minds/souls – the source of actions and results.
But Scientology is much more than that – it is Only geared toward the handling of the minds of people. It is a whole science/philosophy/religion devoted to that subject. Different.
Maybe I’m not following you. You say, Scientology is “Only geared toward the handling of the minds and people. And I guess you’re saying parents aren’t solely geared toward handling the minds of their children. Okay fine, but Im not getting the point.
Parents are not sciences geared toward the freeing of their children’s aberrations.
Oh wait. I think what you’re saying is that Scn is supposed to be expert in handling minds but parents aren’t and thus we shouldn’t have the same expectation about their products. Okay, well, now we’re back to that “method to LRH’s madness” and why he felt he had to push things hard and hurry up before some “pesky” thetan/s spoiled the game plan. If he could keep them out of the way and keep ahead of them, eventually everybody would be handled.
I got your point, Geir. But did you get mine? The analogy is still good. The free will of children (and later as adults) isn’t fully under the control of their parents and neither are all the minds on Earth under the immediate control of Scn (the tech). That was never the claim. It was a matter of, given the right strategy and being able to GET TO all the minds (in time), the tech would work – on individuals.
And as I said on the previous comment, the admin tech was aimed at making sure things evolved toward the end of clearing Earth before the plan was foiled by as yet unhandled (aberrated) minds.
The fact that a parent fail to handle the issues of a child may point to a parent not being a complete and competent mind-handler. The fact that Scientology consistently fail to handle issues of its members does point to Scientology not being a complete science and a less than competent organization in the area of the mind.
“The fact that a parent fail to handle the issues of a child may point to a parent not being a complete and competent mind-handler”
Let’s assume the parent if a competent mind-handler (even theoretically), do you think the child would be fully under the parent’s control?
No, but if the parent had many children and consistently failed to handle certain issues, then I’d say he or she is lacking in competence.
Got it. (You’re good at analogies. :-))
Well then, maybe the only thing left that we are in disagreement about is whether or not it was truly SCIENTOLOGY that consistently failed to handle its members. My idea is that Scn was betrayed – as a result of non-standard application. And if it was indeed non-standard application at the root of the problem, then what is needed in Round 2 is a more determined and more intelligent approach. That’s all, nothing more.
You might call me Pollyanna or you might say I’m one of those optimistic idiots. 😀
Scientology – as directed by LRH and according to his belief in systems – The system should have handled the issues with the CoS we see today. Tha fact that it hasn’t renders the whole idea of a cumbersome system pretty useless.
Geir sez: “The fact that Scientology consistently fail to handle issues of its members does point to Scientology not being a complete science and a less than competent organization in the area of the mind.”
Do you mean “failED to handle”, or “failS to handle”? And, are you talking about “the science” or “the organization”?
I thought we had established that they are not the same thing.
In any case, “issues consistently not handled” is too general to be very meaningful as written.
Which issues? Which members?
Lastly, it would help if it were presented as a differential – %handled/%unhandled.
Surely there are issues Scientology “consistently did handle”?
As I said – the organization IMO adheres to some 90% of the writings. And it consistently fails to handle issues with its members (and has since its beginning in the early 50’s).
Geir, you are basically asserting as if they were known facts that (1) there has been 90% adherence to the writings and (2) that 90% is enough to determine that the system “should have handled the issues”? I could (as I usually do) give my opinion in return and say that I highly doubt those two assertions and state all the reasons why, but this isn’t actually doing the thought experiment, is it? Why don’t we now limit the discussion to the situations we’ve observed against whether they are/were in accordance with what is written – and state the reference. Otherwise, we’re just exchanging opinions and showing we’ve already made up our minds.
Well, my painting of the future has been pretty much completed on my part.
I believe I have seen and read the same dox online, but I have no context for them.
I have also read first-hand accounts of a person on the ship who worked closely with LRH and knew him well enough to not pass on orders he issued when he had lost his temper. She held them until he had cooled down, then asked him if he really wanted them executed(the orders, he he he 🙂 ) I believe. Originally in Scientology, any order could be “queried”.
Was anyone actually shot?
As far as SP declares go, how are they “sacrificing” anyone “in favor of the many”?
I have no context for deciding whether those Declares were on the level or heads on a pike or what?
Hubbard was a Pisces like my mother is, and I know she can be really hard to take, and she doesn’t even know it! She thinks she is an “easy-going person” and will tell you so just before she let’s you have it right between the eyes!
Al,
“Let me examine your statement closely here:
Criticisms are either:
1. generalities
2. not based on any actual reference
3. or the reference cited is misinterpreted
All right.
Do ALL criticisms of Scientology fall within those three criteria?”
That’s entirely non-seq and an attempt to shift the conversation off-topic. Marildi did not state ALL criticisms are such, or that there are not other categories. Your question is itself an illustration of what Marildi said about critics!
Have you or any critic you know ever in fact 1. generalized? 2. Asserted supposed facts not based on any actual reference, or 3. cited a reference and then altered it in your post so that it’s meaning is changed?
The whole point is a critic that uses false data or falsifies data or misquotes references(a way of falsifying data) or generalizes from single instances or from carefully selected data, quickly loses his credibility. He would not make it as a serious journalist, or example, if he is too stupid or lazy or biased enough to not check his sources and just accepts anything presented to him as “fact”. Especially when it obviously confirms what is already known to be his personal bias.
Bias, by the way, is not necessarily a bad word; it has an objective meaning as well.
“Greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics”
and
“Least destruction toward the fewest number of dynamics.”
and
POWER FORMULA: Step 6. . . . So to live at all in the shadow or employ of a power you must yourself gather and USE enough power to hold your own — without just nattering to the power to “kill Pete,” in straightforward or more suppressive veiled ways to him as these wreck the power that supports yours. He doesn’t have to know all the bad new and if he’s a power really he won’t ask all the time, “What are all those dead bodies doing at the door?” And if you are clever, you never let it be thought HE killed them — that weakens you and also hurts the power source. “Well, boss, about all those dead bodies, nobody at all will suppose you did it. She over there, those pink legs sticking out, didn’t like me.” “Well, he’ll say if he really is a power, ” why are you bothering me with it if it’s done and you did it. Where’s my blue ink?” . . .
and
Myself.
Okay, time to deal with the “R2-45 was a joke” spin. V is spouting the standard line and hopes Goebbels’ principle of saying a lie loud and long enough will work.
He actually directed it be applied to a group that took upper level materials IN WRITING.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/cult/hco-ethics-order-30.html
Since it is a JOKE Valkov, please tell me WHERE LRH HIMSELF DECLARES IT WAS A JOKE? And why is the father of Susan Meister not laughing? And why did Paulette Cooper have a real life story about it?
These questions are RHETORICAL Valkov. But I’m sure you can write a 1000 words that don’t really answer them.
If “It’s not in writing it’s not true” is TRUE, then where is the writing by LRH? I’m not talking footnotes added later, I’m talking official denial.
Was it a joke when Jehovah said “Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.”
Nope.
Batshit murder aint funny. Unless the gun is pointed between my eyes. THEN I FIND IT FUCKING HILARIOUS!
Thanks for the dig. This was the one I pointed to earlier here – although I thought it was half a dozen people declared. It turns out it was a dozen.
OK, I take it back, it’s quite possible it was not a joke. However, in CoHA it sounds like a joke, the way it’s worded. I suppose calling it an “auditing process” could have been a code name for killing someone, but it makes no sense to include it in the book in a list of processes as though it really was one. There it obviously sounds like a tongue in cheek joke.
Clearly if not a joke it’s not funny.
Otherwise, Bunkai, you are quite correct, I spout. It is because I am really an overfilled teapot.
I’m not sure what that makes you.
Thanks for admitting the possibility Valkov.
If you are an overfilled teapot what does that make me?
Just a two-bit shadow of Ksitigarbha.
Funny, Street and Smith’s pulp hero “The Shadow” from the 1930s loved the Colt .45 Automatic even though the radio version of him carried no gun. I don’t remember him shooting bad guys in the head though.
As a kid, my favorite scene of the Shadow was in a DC Comic where he was strapped to an electric chair facing certain death. With his executioner ready to flip the switch, he could hear the laugh of the Shadow peeling through the air. Whether he lived or died, it didn’t matter. Only the laugh mattered. There was life in the laugh. There was freedom in the laugh. Live or die, the laugh won because it WAS.
No super hero has ever lifted the Shadow’s laugh. Such laughter has always been reserved for villains.
Silly Hollywood.
He is unique in the world of hero fiction in this respect, and should remain so.
BTW: Tthe symbol for Ksitigarbha (Jizo) is pronounced “Ha” and here you can see Ksitigarbha casting a Shadow in a delightful 10 minute clip of a BAD B-Movie …
geek,
My only further comment to you is that you have no idea what I hope for.
Geir –
There are many references all over Scientology about how to handle the people who refuse to get on board with Scientology. Probably the basic reference is the ethics HCOPL on removing counter-intentions from the environment and then removing other-intentions from the environment.
But there’s many more where that came from.
In fact, I like to point out contradictions in Scientology, and when it comes to real-world specific LRH handlings for those who flat out refuse to get on board with Scientology, who criticize it, who go to the media about it, who oppose it in any way, I can’t think of any contradictions to the basic LRH policy I referred to above.
Can you?
From what I’ve seen, his attitude was mostly to ignore them and concentrate on the people who were interested. He only acted to handle those who he identified as making trouble for him/scientology. Otherwise he was live and let live.
This group of troublemakers grew.
Ah but Alanzo, the first policy contradicts all of those: Maintain friendly relations with the environment. That one-liner policy was labeled as FIRST policy. Since it wasn’t the first in time sequence that had to mean it was the overriding policy over all other policy. And what do you know, years later, we get the booklet The Way to Happiness, which expresses the same concept in a wordy kind of way.
I’m actually rather pleased to see you here. You see, the “Alanzo problem” was my biggest “kechung!” I had when I was on staff. I could not see how it was friendly to declare someone, no matter what their actions were. I could not see how it was friendly to decide that a group should be attacked, or how it was friendly to deliver an effective blow – at least not one that would be approved at the end of a liability formula.
I think it went like this – if the person was considered to be a friend of the group, then all the “friendly” policies applied, and if they were not, all the “unfriendly” policies applied. Rather like separating the wheat from the chaff. The unfriendly policies are about detecting the chaff and then delineating the actions to be taken against the chaff.
Its the same with the auditing. All the way through to the clearing course, its all about clearing up distorted thinking in oneself. After that its all about detecting and taking action against entities, and thus “decontaminating” oneself. What’s contradictory about this is that it is all based on the premise that one is a spirit, a center of awareness of awareness, the creator of creations and in fact the very genus of ARC. One who builds the world with thought alone – i.e. considerations versus mechanics.
This is the major lesson I have learned in the last 10 years – if you attack another, you cannot do it without lowering your own ARC. Period. And it is nonsense that there is nothing of value beyond this earth-bound struggling existence with petty war and limitation. And that ARC is not divisible between “friends” and “foes.” You either have unlimited ARC or you have limited ARC. And it can’t be “pretend” ARC either, or there is no Tone 40 postulation. I either love you with no limitation (the zone of tone 40) or I fight you (bye bye tone 40.)
Did LRH know that gun was loaded? Intellectually, possibly. Really know? Nope. I don’t think so.
Did LRH know every ramification of his work? I don’t think so neither. But there is so much to know, you know?
I surely enjoy this quote of yours, “And it is nonsense that there is nothing of value beyond this earth-bound struggling existence with petty war and limitation.” With that in mind and by applying the Auditor’s Code it seems there is hope for us yet.
You definitely found a contradiction, Maria.
First Policy is definitely not in line with that basic ethics policy. Or that basic ethics policy is not in line with First Policy. Either way, they contradict each other.
I have to say, though, that having a problem named after me is more of an honor than being declared a Suppressive Person ever could be. Thank you for using “The Alanzo Problem” to make your point. Tell your friends as well.
By the way, we’re running a special this week: 5 uses of “The Alanzo Problem” to make your point for only $5!
Hurry though. Supplies are limited.
Maria,
A group or person can be “attacked” simply by telling the truth about him or them.
Isn’t that what Alanzo and the like think they are doing? It is what Marty and his bloggers think they are doing – telling the truth about the CoS and DM in particular.
Is telling the truth hurtful?
I think, only to those who have something to hide, no?
I think some of the objectors to Sceintology object precisely for this reason – here is a philosophy that promotes telling the truth! Oh horrors, they must be stopped, stamped out!
Also a comment about the ‘famous” quote from SoS, about “disposing quietly and without sorrow”.
That was written before there was much tech at all developed to handle them. It was before the clinical discoveries of what was actually going on in the mind of an SP, and the development of the PTS rundown and the Suppressed Person rundown, which reportedly handle and relieve even an SP case.
Once those were developed, it was no longer necessary to “dispose of” in the most extreme sense of the word.
Without that kind of tech, “disposing of” is exactly what the world at large is doing and has always done – lock people up in “asylums” and prisons, send them to gulags or otherwise exile them. That was how Australia was settled, with “criminals” from Great Britain. They were sent to Australia and of course many of them died. They were “disposed of without sorrow” by the British government.
Now, if the available tech was actually used, the prisons and gulags and asylums could largely be emptied and I think that was basically what Hubbard was always working towards; otherwise, why did he bother to develop that tech?
Less heat and more light, please.
If all the executions of mad dogs (Ol’ Yeller) had been justified by then having made the environment safer I could have gone along with it. If stats — the ones you and I defend of Auditors made and WDAH’s, then I would still be on board with you and be defending standard admin tech as workable. The fact is that people have been shot since the beginning and LRH burned every bridge he ever had to anyone in the world until at last he had a single comm line to the world and that was dave miscavige. He lived the life of Simon Bolivar and though he didn’t die “in a ditch,” he did die surrounded by sycophants, alone in a fancy trailer house with his ass shot full of Vistaril. He could have died at home warm in his own bed surrounded by the ever-faithful Mary Sue and his children but he decided not to.
Was he afraid? Did Scientology auditing technology fail to help him? Was he not responsible for his own reactive mind and so auditing not work on him? or / also did he mis-apply Scientology Admin Technology or does Scientology not work? It’s got to be some of these . . . After all the beautiful talk and all the beautiful prose, Scientology is a real mess.
I think Otto Roos’ story is interesting in this regard – that LRH had lots of bad auditing and BPC that was never corrected on himself.
“Never” is a really long time.
How would Otto Roos know what LRH had handled or not handled up to his last days?
Well, you can take Mr. Roos story up to that point and then take David Mayo’s story after that. Then you can take various people’s story from 1981 – 1986 and I believe you will get the idea that nothing substantial changed from Roos’s description after he was ousted.
Yes, Ottos`story is a very accurate,factual and “close to source” account which describes the basic basic, why and when SCN went out of the rails. Rathbun and Miscavige even Mayo are all LATER on the track. Therefore I consider it to be useless to deal with their noise. LRH missed to face the music in some important aspects of his life.
That could be one explanation.
Another could be that LRH had mental problems that he tried to “C/S” himself through developing various Scientology processes, and his solutions never cured him. The development of NOTs with David Mayo at a time when LRH was severely ill suggests this was the case.
Supporting this is the fact that many people trained to spot various mental disorders have recognized many different disorders in LRH’s thinking (by way of his writing) and behavior.
“The great tragedy of it all is not even that he got caught in his overts to the extent that in the end virtually everything restimulated his OUT RUDS, but is the fact that he finally penalised himself horribly by denying himself the only thing which could have saved him, his own creation, AUDITING.” Otto Roos
Could this be a Scientologist “diagnosing” symptoms of severe mental illness, and applying the “no true Scotsman” fallacy to the auditing LRH received?
I think so. LRH had TONS of auditing and every resource that Scientology could provide – the highest trained auditors, the latest available tech – every single resource it had. The idea that L Ron Hubbard himself had an “unhandled case” is a cognitive reduction technique designed to avoid confronting the fact that LRH had severe mental problems that Scientology can not handle.
Alonzo: ” The idea that L Ron Hubbard himself had an “unhandled case” is a cognitive reduction technique designed to avoid confronting the fact that LRH had severe mental problems that Scientology can not handle. ”
Cognitive reduction technique designed to avoid confronting the fact that LRH had severe mental problems that Scientology can not handle ?? Huh?
More like a giant leap.
Research is one thing, having a finalized version is another.
I apologize Dennis.
It is a cognitive dissonance reduction technique. I mistakenly left that word “dissonance” out.
Do you know what a cognitive dissonance reduction technique is?
Al, I tend to think LRH died as he lived – by choice. A man who could come up with a “process” like R2-45 would be fully capable of applying the principle to himself. As LRH said, a being has every right to leave the game.
This does not speak to whether he could have been technically considered PTS or whatever “having severe mental problems”, for example
What’s the difference between “unhandled case” and “severe mental problems”? Your main point seems to be there are things “Scientology cannot handle”.
The usual invalidation of LRH and/or the tech of Scientology, or am I taking what you said the wrong way?
Do you expect Scientology to force someone to live, who does not want to live anymore?
Not gonna happen.
Because the whole point of Scientology is to put a person up into a condition where he HAS CHOICES and the ability to exercise them – he can be good or bad, smart or stupid, knowledgeable or ignorant, help or hurt, live or die, by his own decision. He is not other-determined – unless he chooses to be, and then he can un-choose when he decides to do so.
My point is that expecting Scientology to do anything else than restore and increase a person’s awareness and self-determinism is a false hope. It can bring a person up to where he is able to change his mind and live, IF that’s what he wants, not otherwise.
Al posted: “Supporting this is the fact that many people trained to spot various mental disorders have recognized many different disorders in LRH’s thinking (by way of his writing) and behavior.”
Having worked in psychiatry for many years, I can assure you that virtually every single individual on Earth can be spotted as having various “personality disorders”. And that is exactly what psychiatrists and psychologists are trained to do. It is built into virtually all theories of personality, including Buddhist psychology.
You, me, Geir, virtually everyone posting on this blog could be found to have various “personality disorders”. That’s just the nature of the psychology game. But there are some here who appear to be free of them, just as in the population at large there are some people who seem to be free of them.
I wrote “mental disorders”, not “personality disorders”.
And my specific point was that L Ron Hubbard displayed distinct mental illness throughout his life which worsened as he got older. His applications of Scientology processes that he himself developed to cure himself (NOTs is just one example) did not work.
You and I have never put a 5 year old child in a chain locker, made people push peanuts with their nose around a ships deck until they bled, developed a routine of “overboarding” for students who made mistakes, order “R2-45” on people who continue on with their own spiritual paths as they see them, develop “Fair Game” for people, etc etc etc.
If you can step back, these are not the actions of a sane human being.
Scientology was not able to help L Ron Hubbard’s mental illness.
OK,plug in “mental disorders” for where I had written “personality disorders” and I stand behind what I wrote100%.
Can you name for me, some famous people who were certifiably sane? Gandhi wasn’t. Martin Luther King wasn’t. JosephSmith, the founder of the “Mormon” church? Was Richard Nixon? Bill Clinton? How about “Ronnie Raygun”, who consulted his wife for astrological advice when he had decisions to make? What about the Joint Chiefs of Staff who ordered the atomic bombs dropped on Japanese cities full of civilians? Were all these people free of “emotional disorders?
Yet they are admired by many, not for their emotional problems, but for the positive things they were able to accomplish, perhaps in spite of in spite their own “cases”.
Why do I pick on you? Because you tend to present a one-sided view of LRH and Scientology. If you bothered to include the positive accomplishments of LRH and the positive side of Scientology at the same time you presented the negatives, I would give more positive feedback to your posts.
But you seem to be simply unable to do that. Perhaps you have an emotional disorder on the subject?
“Why do I pick on you? Because you tend to present a one-sided view of LRH and Scientology.”
Then I suggest you pick on yourself as well every now and then.
Geir, apparently you still didn’t get my point. I “pick on” Al when I perceive he is being very one-sided in his argument, cherry-picking his data to support what appear to before gone conclusion etc. The one-sidedness of my posts to or about him are only in response to the
perceived one-sideness of his posts. It is an old deliberate “policy” on my part, from old The Scientology Forum days. When his post is not an overblown one-sided generality, I don’t respond negatively to him.
Reading over Al’s more recent posts, I can see that my policy may need to be revised and updated. He is much more chilled out and balanced than he was then.
I’m not sure what you mean by “pick on myself”? I, like any person, privately agonize over whether I have done the right thing, how can I do better, etc. I do in fact correct myself, change my mind, admit I was mistaken when presented with new data or a new point of view, etc.
If you mean I should indulge myself in Chinese style “self-criticism”, well…..
If you want me to format my posts to him differently, while making the same point, I can do that.
What I mean is that I see you just as one-sided as Al. That’s all.
I have a viewpoint. That’s all. And that may change and be different tomorrow, or even later tonight.
Isn’t that a basic flaw of everyone posting here? That each person has a viewpoint? Do you except yourself?
Al on LRH:
“If you can step back, these are not the actions of a sane human being.”
Al, that’s one man’s opinion.
And I do not accept you as the ultimate Arbiter of who is sane and who is not.
I think you hit on a good point Geir regarding LRH’s auditing. Who knows how much BPC was stirred up during research, or delving into areas far above the current tech level.
Knowing how crappy I felt with an out-list or out-int, I can only imagine how he felt some mornings. And that on top of running a whole organization.
I gotta hand it to him – it was a helluva run for one man.
Yes. Being a pioneer into the mind must be some of the most challenging adventures anyone can come up with. And a person to undertake such an all-out adventure as LRH must have some serious brass balls.
Helluva run!
There are some good accounts on ESMB of the early research at St. Hill into GPMs and the experimental auditing being done, the search for workable processes for resolving the problems of the mind.
It was factually quite brutal. All who were there were guinea pigs, and many were thrown into some horrible states of mind as a result of being subjected to processes that did not prove to be workable.
Based on some things I heard just after he died, I have since come to think that by 1986 he was just plain tired of being LRH and didn’t really care to continue as such. There had been too much trouble, too many things had gone wrong, too many failures which he took very personally, and he was ready for a fresh start somewhere else. He did refer to this himself, that he “wouldn’t always be around”, and that there was a planet sighing for songs a galaxy away.
I think he had actually completed everything he set out to do; when he developed the NOTs procedures, I think he fet his Bridge was complete. Or complete enough.
It was time to blow this popstand and let others continue as best they could. The kids never grow up if you don’t cut the apron strings and let them grow up at some point.
So he may not have wanted to get any more auditing for himself.
I’m only 67, but I know the feeling – “Should I stay or should I go?”, as the song goes. And I’ve had an easy life compared to all the trouble he got himself into.
There would be plenty of mental and psychiatric problems but no mental hospitals and psychiatric wards.
The fact is that Scientology has no solutions for severe mental problems. Such people would be the responsibility of their family. Troubled people who cannot pay for their auditing may be herded into some kind if isolation camps. They would never be heard of again.
.
Vin,
I’d like to know what you base your assertions on?
I worked in Psychiatry for about 13 years at a “leading midwestern teaching hospital” at the same time studying many materials of many different approaches to Mental health problems. I saw a number of good treatment approaches.None of them were accepted by mainstream “corporate Psychiatry” as taught in medical schools. They were seen as “the competition” by psychiatrists.
Dianetics and Scientology has plenty of effective solutions because they are dealing exactly with problems of the mind and emotions.
Get a copy of “Introductory and Demonstration Processes and Assists”. Most of the problems people go to psychiatrists for, are covered there.
A friend of mine, who is still pretending to be in Scientology, has a son who has severe mental problems. The Church refused to handle him. She went outside the Church to independents. She was asked by the field auditor to pay $25,000 up front before he would even touch the case.
Where is the compassion?
She ended up using the mental services provided by government social services.
.
What was the result?
The son is now much better. He is back at home. He is now in communication with his parents and responding well. He is still on meds and his responses seem to be quite slow.
I said hello to him on Skype. He smiled and waved at me. His responses were very brief but he is there.
His mother is now gradually taking him off meds in consultation with the psychiatrist. She is also planning to put him on Idenics counselling as soon as it is possible.
.
Vinaire: ” Where is the compassion? ”
I would have walked the other way if someone demanded $25k up front.
I wouldn’t paint all auditors with the same brush.
In the independent field, it’s buyer beware – just like buying a used car.
I’m glad your friend found the help she desired.
Vinaire,
I worked with a guy who had severe mental problems. At the time I met him, he was being held (locked up) by the GO.
A very good friend of mine and I took over, Pab 6ed him, fed him well, gave him vitamins and eventually got him a job.
This was from a starting point of a very delusional fellow who believed he was receiving telepathic messages/commands from Chick Corea & LRH ‘To Investigate’. He also, around that time, climbed out of a window and went screaming naked down the street in 20-30 below winter weather.
Yes, applying little jewels of tech can help even those with severe mental problems.
There may be little jewels of tech, but will they be organized into social services for severely mental ill in the future Scientology world?
What is the exchange there? I find the idea of compassion severely lacking in Scientology.
.
Vinaire: ” There may be little jewels of tech, but will they be organized into social services for severely mental ill in the future Scientology world?”
I guess they could be – that would be wise.
Vinaire: ” What is the exchange there? I find the idea of compassion severely lacking in Scientology.”
The exchange? How about goodwill towards others and a healthier, happier individual.
‘compassion severly lacking in Scientology’ – again, one big generality there … How about SOME individuals?
Just to add: While I agree that CCHR’s closing of mental hospitals is likely a good thing to stop the abuses, having no substitute facilities was a big downfall.
This was one of the main beefs I had with CCHR – close the hospitals and let the 1000s of patients who needed help roam the streets – a very stupid plan.
Statements such as ” The fact is that Scientology has no solutions for severe mental problems. ” are, aside from being the usual generality, simply an indicator that one did not try.
And I agree fully.
Dennis –
Are you aware of “The Perkins Tragedy”?
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/JeremyPerkins/
Do you believe this was just a case of nobody trying?
Yes, I am although parts of of the link are pretty sketchy.
Trying is one thing, getting the item is another.
Some definite mishandling there and a whole lot of missing info.
All right. So it is clear that people tried to help Jeremy with severe mental illness with Scientology.
But you say that “getting the item is another” thing entirely. Right?
And now, you are saying that even though they tried, they mishandled him.
Should I list other links where severe mental illness was not handled using Scientology and they too resulted in tragedy? Because I could, pretty much all day.
When do we get to the point where we simply conclude that Scientology is not capable of handling severe mental illness?
Just because those individuals in that individual situation failed it doesn’t mean everyone fails.
I expect there are also many good stories too and countless sad stories.
Painting a whole philosophy as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ and generalities do not cut it with me.
Agreed.
All right Dennis.
If we just stick with one specific point: “Does Scientology cure severe mental illness?”, how many examples of its real world results in handling severe mental illness would you need before you decided yes or no?
My point is that after 60 years of application, there are many many results that we can examine to determine these answers now. And because severe mental illness can be very dangerous, I think it is important to determine this. Too many tragedies have resulted from the blind faith that Scientologists have that Scientology will work in these cases. There really should be a point where Scientologists start referring severe cases to psychiatrists who have the knowledge and the resources to avoid these tragedies.
And just to make sure I am not using generalities, I will list more specific cases for you:
Lisa McPherson
Quentin Hubbard
Noah Lottick
Robert DePlano
Micheal Leube
Bob Mills
John Buchanan
Richard Collins
Patrick Vick
…
Source: Google “Why Are They Dead Scientology” and leave out the people who died of cancer or medical neglect, and look at the ones who died of suicide. Depression is a dangerous mental illness that should be treated by professionals with the resources to avoid these catastrophes.
If we had a world run by Scientology, the rate of these cases would explode.
Al, far more people, percentage-wise, have died during psychiatric treatment than have died from their contact with scientology, or any scientologist’s attempts to help someone with mental/emotional problems.
It is a fact that psychiatrists cannot “cure” mental illness, and they will tell you that themselves any day of the year. Absolutely, psychiatrists cannot cure mental illness, they know it and acknowledge it openly. This is not an “expose” on my part, it is an acknowledged fact.
You are dreaming, and worse, you are once again purveying false data by talking about psychiatrists “curing” anyone. Probably just as you once oversold Scientology to some people. But at least then, you had some personal experience on which to base your claims and promises to them, about Scientology.
Really, you need to rein yourself in, with these grandiose and overblown claims and statements you make. Especially if you have not had much personal experience with a subject, as I suspect you have not had much, with psychiatry.
You just seem to jump from one bandwagon to another.
The reason psychiatry handles serious mental cases with any success at all is it has an infrastructure designed specifically to handle them. It is a specialized area of endeavor which existing scientology institutions were not organized for. Serious psychiatric cases require secure dedicated facilities capable of being locked down, with 24-hour staffing. It is very labor intensive. And the only reason psychiatry has this infrastructure is because insurance companies pay towards them.
There is plenty of scientology tech and philosophy that could be applied in mental hospitals that would improve psychiatry’s results.
In any case it is not a question of psychiatry having some kind of superior “tech”.
Does Scientology has broadly applicable solutions to handle severly mentally ill? If so, why is CCHR not pushing those solutions? Why is CCHR not organizing places where such people can be helped.
By the way, my friend found lot of compassion and common sense in the government social service she got for her mentally ill son. Of course, he was put om meds, but he was also treated like a human being who needed help.
.
Vinaire: ” Does Scientology has broadly applicable solutions to handle severly mentally ill?
Yes, the first is a full physical by a medical doctor, and applicable medication/light sedatives and then there’s a plethora or assists that can be C/Sed.
Vinaire: ” If so, why is CCHR not pushing those solutions? Why is CCHR not organizing places where such people can be helped.”
That’s exactly what I said.
By the way, my friend found lot of compassion and common sense in the government social service she got for her mentally ill son. Of course, he was put om meds, but he was also treated like a human being who needed help.
That’s great. Glad to hear it.
Just to add a bit of personal experience:
My son was a passenger in a vehicle crash with his friend, an OTVIII and an OTVII (driver).
My son & the OTVIII were helicoptered in to the hospital, his friend driven to another, and the driver was dead when I checked her.
My son was in a coma for about 2 weeks, the medical people did their job, and I did mine as an auditor by assists to bring him out of it – many many hours.
Long story short, each profession has their spot & abilities and can work along side each other comfortably if one chooses to.
+ A Lot
I’m sure that assists in that kind of a situation can help a person in a coma. If nothing else it gives him a sonic and tactile lifeline back to consciousness that can eventually take hold and help.
It also gives loved ones something they can do to help, too.
This must have been very difficult for you. Glad to hear things worked out.
I really agree. It is valuable to do objective assists on many levels as you noted. Did your son fully recover?
CCHR did push those solutions in it’s early days, until it was emasculated by David Miscavige and turned into a travelling sideshow by him.
This is interesting. How exactly did they push solutions for the severely mentally ill?
This is a complex area. CCHR was originally created to protect the civil rights of patients, who were often abused by the system in the USA, basically they were often incarcerated without consent and with no recourse. So among the goals was to end this kind of enforcement and give patients and would-be patients more self-determinism and end practices like forced ECT and forced drugging. CCHR actually was successful in changing the climate in the USA. Although there is a lot of work yet to be done, the consumer protection of “mental health consumers” has been increased.
That’s one side of it, that has benefited even very seriously “ill” people who suffer from mental or emotional distress.
The other side is much more complex; what needs to be addressed and understood is there is no consensus about what is “mental illness” or if the medical model even applies.
There areas many different theories of personality as there are religious sects, and they can be very different, one from another. Another “everyone knows” is that psychiatry is a science, and that they “have the answers to mental illness”. This is as far from the truth as it can be. Psychiatry has AN answer, which is currently the “biopsychiatric” model. As I posted to Al earlier today, psychiatrists will be the first to tell you they have no cure for mental illness. They also steadfastly reject the results of any independent thought, research, or practical experience in favor of whatever flavor they are currently pushing, and those flavors are based on what insurance will pay for, because psychiatric treatment, especially if any hospitalization is involved, is very expensive.
Psychiatry in many ways can be described in just the way critics of scientology describe the CoS – a big money-making front which does not deliver the goods as far as “mental health” goes. The main difference is psychiatry really doesn’t promise much and has the infrastructure to handle various types of people.
The other problem is, who do you consider to be “seriously mentally ill”? Psychopaths, sociopaths, and the “criminally insane”? Any psychiatrist will tell those people are untreatable and the only solution for them is to “dispose of them quietly and without sorrow” by locking them up for life to protect society.
They fall into the category of “character disorders”. OCD is also a “character disorder”. There are various others. All are considered to be basically untreatable. Some of them can “decompensate” and become psychotic; these can sometimes be returned to their compensated condition of basic disorder.
On the psychiatric units where I worked, one was unlocked and the people there were there voluntarily; they were for the most part not different from you, me, or anyone else; they were the effect of a life crisis of some kind, had hit a bump in the road, and needed sometime to reflect, think, decompress, and 2-way comm with someone in a safe and quiet environment.
But of course they were all diagnosed as “mentally ill” in some way. They had to be, otherwise insurance wouldn’t pay for their stay. The logic was, “they are in a mental hospital, therefore they must be mentally ill.”
Perhaps the best approach to this topic for me to post some links to books by insiders?
A good overview of issues in the treatment of the “mentally ill” is on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-psychiatry
Another site is http://www.antipsychiatry.org
Here is a specific topic that might be a good place to start:
http://www.antipsychiatry.org/exist.htm
I view “mental illness” as a consensus reality that creates the Drama Triangle with it’s Victims, Rescuers, and Persecutors, per Transactional Analysis theory.
Transactional Analysis is a theory and psychotherapeutic method researched created by a psychiatrist back in the 1960s. It is one of the many different often successful, methods that main stream or”institutional” psychiatry rejects in favor of prescribing drugs.
I don’t think that was ever CCHR’s plan, to close the hospitals and just abandon the patients. I think their original plan was to reform the field of mental health treatment and the hospitals.
There is no reason there would not be mental hospitals and psychiatric wards. Those would remain. The difference would be only what kind of tech was practiced in them.
I seem to recall this actually happened in Italy, with CCHR’s help. An entire hospital came to be manged largely by the patients after the court shut it down thereby taking it away from the control of psychiatrists. The”new management” eliminated the authoritarianism that had been rampant in it, and instead applied more benign methods including compassion, TRs, and 2-way comm instead of drugs, electric shocks, and physical restraints in locked isolation rooms.
Scientology will never win out, unless it is totally transparent.
People are not that stupid.
.
Geir, you posted – “LRH equated Scientology and the Church. Totally. And I don’t think there is any doubt about that.”
I have nothing but doubt about that. Here, from the http://www.savescientology.com site:
“That is to say, the terms ‘religion of Scientology’ and ‘Church of Scientology’ shall be co-terminal only so long as churches of Scientology continue, in the opinion of… the Directors and Trustees [of CST] …, to espouse, propagate and practice the religion of Scientology.”- L. Ron Hubbard, Bylaws of CST, Article II (f)
Of course – but as I said LRH envisioned Scientology practice (as he set it forth) by a monopoly called the Church of Scientology.
Yes but the “monopoly” he envisioned was by organizations that remained true to his original, fundamental vision, his Ideal Scene, using the tech that had proved workable.
I sometimes think LRH’s biggest fault was that he way overestimated the fidelity of humans in general and how degraded they/we really are in bulk. On the other hand, sometimes I think he did not, as even as early as the PDC lectures he foresaw possible scenarios in which the CoS devolved in exactly the ways it has, by essentially being taken over by one “Dear Leader” whose Ideal Scene was entirely different from LRH’s own.
I see the development of the CoS during LRH’s time as a series of “undercuts” he devised to cope with the actual situations that arose, from within and from without. created by the “perfidious humans” of this planet!
Somehow it did not click for me right away, when I read your OP, that what you were talking about was “What was LRH’s Ideal Scene” vis-a-vis Scientology?
If we duplicate that in our understanding, we can then do what the OP asks us to do – envision what the world would be like if LRH’s vision was fulfilled.
“Yes but the “monopoly” he envisioned was by organizations that remained true to his original, fundamental vision, his Ideal Scene, using the tech that had proved workable.”
Not quite true. He continually developed his ideas and ideal scene – as with the undercutting (TRs, Study Tech, SuperPower, Purif, etc). So, the organization would be true to his vision anno 1986.
I can’t cite a reference at this time, but I believe the whole Ideal Scene was present from the beginning, 1950 or before. I’m sure here fined it and it grew in clarity and extent for him, but I think like the Static, it existed in spirit from the beginning and never basically changed.
Valkov, CST is the back-up corporation to the Church of Scientology. It’s public relations (to the staff) was that in the event of the Church of Scientology Int’l being shut down by a government, etc., then the CST corporation would take over thus keeping Scientology in business as usual. The two corporations are, for this practical purpose, one and the same and exist only for legal obfuscation.
I will not here address the darker, or fraudulent possibilities.
Chris wrote:
I will not here address the darker, or fraudulent possibilities.
Oh Chris – where’s the fun in that? :>
Al, I only was trying to answer to Valkov’s comments about CST and not the conspiracy theory of how the works of LRH and the assets of the C of S were stolen and removed utterly from the purview of Scientologists from right under their noses.
Chris, I am going only by the incorporation documents as explained on the http://www.savescientology.com site Those are the legal reality and if the current regime is not complying with them then they are operating illegally, are they not?
As well as possibly counter to LRH’s intent?
Well it is a fact that we were briefed that CST was LRH’s idea and that it conformed to his intention to not let Scientology be “out of business” for even one day. LRH was alive for years while this went on so was the kingdom being usurped from the king in absencia? Draw your own conclusions.
The way it was explained to us seemed both brilliant and benign. This is why I wrote what I did about not going into other possible darker motivations for setting up CST.
It is going to take a grand jury and a tenacious team of prosecutors to unravel the accounting for CST. Ultimately, LRH’s “brilliance” in obfuscating the facts of his life and of the incorporation of Scientology and in assembling the GO and OSA intelligence agencies, works also in favor of insulating the coup d’etat from illumination as well as it worked for hiding LRH.
If you enjoy the farce of it all, review MISSION EARTH for a veritable mapping of the whole of LRH’s view of himself as beleaguered hero and Savior. Even in his view of himself as hero there is little compassion involved even in this fiction. In this telling of his life, the basic motivation for “saving” Earth was to rescue it from earthlings so there would be something here left for IGM (Intergalactic Mining Co) to mine when it finally came up on its invasion schedule some 100 years yet in the future.
Yep, it does obfuscate that too. But it does provide a way to nail DM.
I’d like to suggest that this OP is not a thought experiment at all. It is a logic experiment. It runs in fits and starts because it is attempting to construct a world out of illogical and fallacious thinking. The C of S IS the real thought experiment, carried out in physical reality.
The real experiment is on the basis that an operating thetan simply operates. You put enough necessity in place and you get OT behavior. Its just that simple. The only problem is that OT behavior takes place at tone 40. Tone 40 is a zone where there is no divided mind, no dichotomy, just free-flowing, all encompassing ARC as found at the top of the Chart of Attitudes. Drop from the top, and bang! you are right in the thick of struggle and limitation and fighting and taking sides and on and on and on. Instead of putting people onto the OT sections after the Clearing processes, they should have been put on drills to do with maintaining top level ARC. And there we find the auditor who keeps the auditor’s code, in and out of session. Any game remaining then would be a clean up and maintenance operation, probably rather similar to what Elizabeth has been doing. The process is life.
Good one 🙂
I think that’s a great viewpoint on this OP, Maria.
I have been able to examine a lot of reasoning processes on this thread. The picture Geir wants us to paint is like one of those “patterns” that Micheal Shermer detailed in the video that Katageek put up.
As a person is questioned about the pattern he sees, he reveals his reasoning for why he has presented this pattern for the future Scientology civilization. You can inspect reasoning there – how each person came to his conclusions.
What’s so valuable about this is that the inspection of reasoning – inspecting others’ reasoning as well as one’s own – is what leads people to better conclusions. It’s where you get the chance to examine sometimes unexamined considerations. Once you see it out on your screen, you can make corrections to it, or correct others’ too – whether you correct them publicly or not.
For me, I see a lot of “thinking with Scientology”, which is using the beliefs of Scientology to extrapolate and predict. I also see people using the standard explanations for Scientology’s failures being used to refuse to look at them.
And of course, others see other things in my own reasoning process as well.
Very valuable.
Of course, it’s all you people who need to change the flaws in your reasoning.
My own is perfect.
No Al. No no no no no no!!!!! Mine is perfect!!!!!!
LOL
yes I noticed!
Alanzo, good post! Reason and humor can’t be beat. 🙂
“Instead of putting people onto the OT sections after the Clearing processes, they should have been put on drills to do with maintaining top level ARC. And there we find the auditor who keeps the auditor’s code, in and out of session. Any game remaining then would be a clean up and maintenance operation, probably rather similar to what Elizabeth has been doing. The process is life.”
Maria, in this last part of your post you have basically described why training itself is a road to truth, a path to freedom. And more than anything it’s because of the hours in the chair which demand the discipline of TRs – the basic vehicle to travel on a route upward. The practiced application of TR’s is no doubt the biggest reason why experienced auditors have the lovely beingness they do.
And actually what thrilled me even more was the last sentence, “The process is life.” That’s the process I happen to be attempting to run. I just haven’t been able to find quite the right words to express what it is. I’ve said things like I’m winning because of participating in the discussions here and in other communications, but simply put it’s just as you said – the process is life! Maria, you are really good at indicating the correct item. How many times have I said it already, but I’ll say it again – thank you!
Yep, it is a great post. Thanks, Maria.
Geir, there are way too many good posts! Can you just ease up a bit with the provacative discussions?
Kidding, of course. Good excuse to commend you, another thing I keep repeating myself on. 🙂
I should post more programs for my HP-41 here. That should do the trick.
Funny! I tell you, though, it’s becoming a full-time job just to read them all let alone comment. And I’m supposed to be cutting back! Maybe the holidays will help reform me but those HP-41 posts would really help. 😉
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Yes, agreed. Very good.
Yes, it’s like the thought was there with “An Open Letter to Clears” but then dropped.
“Any two people in constant association who will conduct themselves according
to the auditor’s code will soon find not only that they are clear or almost as a
group of two but also that their knowledge of, and joy in human relationships
has been immeasurably increased.” from Notes on the Lectures
Yes, this is quite a good quote. I had thought early on that the Auditor’s Code had more far-reaching value than only in session.
Yes it does. I have been conducting my own experiment with it and the effect on myself and the other person I have been experimenting with has a source of much insight. Layer upon layer of poorly conceived notions simply come up and are parted with through nothing more than simple conversation and shared activity. There is no “pc” or “auditor” though, we are both simultaneously. You see, for it to work you cannot assume the other to be less than you are – the second that happens, it packs up.
That is how I find KHTK to work. There is simply a discussion with stress on looking. There is no formal session structure.
.
Yes, applying the Auditors Code to Life was commonly practiced by many years ago. That along side the Service PL, Manners PL, You Can be Right, the Professionalism PL and the concept of being 3 feet back of society’s head went a long way to quelling the savage beast.
Marildi, Regardless of any bias, BPC, or dispute, I would appreciate your addressing LRH’s blow from Int. This is slightly off-topic but seems sequitur in the context of a “Scientology World.” I would like to get yours or anyone’s take on this enormous (for me) out-point as the culmination of his career of Savior of Mankind. Other leaders of successful culture-changing movements throughout the history of mankind have fronted up to their detractors with the truth of their claims. Some were martyred. You mentioned the Doubt formula in this context. What is your take on LRH wrapping up his life as a fugitive. Did this serve a useful purpose on the overall admin scale of the Universe saving Scientology? In hind sight, was this the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics? and why so? It is time I applied my own assertion that I do not believe in paradoxes. Any sensible input from anyone on this is appreciated.
He did not blow. He resigned and was replaced as Executive Director in 1966 and continued on with the researcher “hat” for many years after that. Eg. 1967 – OT 3 was released. 1968 – Class 8 course. His last published work, as far as I can tell was the booklet The Way to Happiness, issued sometime in the 1980s.
As far as the fugitive aspect – it started out as a need to wrap up research and mount the Sea Org and as far as I can tell he became very ill somewhere along the line. Then he was beached, as every SO member I can recall has been beached when too old or too ill to continue on post. That has been the fate of EVERY SO staff I have ever known who got too old or too ill to be on post. I know, I asked every time that one of them disappeared from post and I took the trouble to track them down at times to find out what happened to them. Beached.
There is no provision for non-producing SO staff members who have gotten old or gotten ill. No retirement plan, no medical plan. Just beached. Is beaching a blow? I don’t think so. I think it is more like a fitness board action.
Maria, I nearly missed this red herring. LRH resigned in 1966? I didn’t think anyone seriously brought up that obfuscation anymore. He might of “resigned” and he might of pretended to be away from management of the Church, but he continued to manage the SO for another 13 years until the WDC took over. Just as DM “doesn’t run the SO.” All these ruses carefully engineered with the help of Earl Cooley, to throw off the dogs — These kinds of inconsistencies and frauds are what throw someone like me, wanting to give LRH the benefit of the doubt, that throw me into a tailspin on the subject of LRH.
When I asked about LRH’s blow, I wasn’t referring to his resignation (and “forgiveness” of 22 million dollars that Churches owed to him for research) I was referring to his blow from Int circa 1979, with the process servers hot on his trail. The fugitive aspect that I refer to is from this point forward until his demise in 1986.
I empathized with your many-lives story and how you wouldn’t want to be scrutinized for every inconsistency about your life — me neither. But neither you nor I set ourselves up with the type of megalomania to put ourselves in that position.
LRH did, and he blew. I think he ran like a scared little rabbit. I hate to even hint at the similarity to other despots who lived large, talked big, but never wanted to face the music. Other great men and women who stood for something bigger and better and more decent and civilized also stood up and stood out and were counted; the consequences be damned.
LRH beached? I don’t think I’m buying that. Euthanized maybe – but he made those choices and I think the weight of his O/W’s finally sank him.
Good post!
.
LRH did, and he blew. I think he ran like a scared little rabbit.
*looool
He should have been aware,that all his faults,every single one, will be picked up inspected, investigated and published just to nail him up the wall. And exactly this happened. While his tech brought me into a condition (10 intensive FPRD)
where have now got an gloriole, and thinking about if it was an overt to squeeze a spider,
he obviously has never thought about taking over responsibility for all the BS he caused.
This is what he should have done:
Yes, i sent kids into the chain locker. Yes I ordered to ruin Paulette Cooper. Yes I ordered to chase and harras Gerry Amstrong. Yes I prevented that ARnie will marry Suzette.
Yes I had connections to the OTO, Yes I never was a war hero……….Yes ….and YES…..
and Yes……….
And finally: I apologize for everything I did and I am going to make up the damage.
Period.
Scientology woud not have problems today.
Yes Spongebob, They would get a lot of mileage from just a little bit of humbleness.
Chris, in a sense I think you are right, or almost right, in your conjecture about why LRH – 1. disassociated himself from the CoS, and 2. why he died when he did. And yes, it did have to do with overts. Death is often the result of overts, but more broadly, how and when it happens has to do with a person’s judgement on himself and his value to his fellows.
Let me digress briefly to Peter Freuchen’s “Book of the Eskimos”.
The Eskimos, before modern they had more modern tools and weapons, lived a very hard life. Every man, woman and child had to work a lot to contribute to the survival of themselves and the group. If you didn’t work, you couldn’t eat really, because it took all that work to produce enogugh food to feed every mouth.
As a result, when a person got too old or otherwise became unable to contribute, s/he usually found a way to drop the body.
The Eskimo(Inuit) actually had traditions, customs and rituals to accommodate this severe fact. Usually an old man would announce it, when he felt he had reached that point and it was time to go, and that was his intention Usually, his family would talk him out of it for awhile.
But eventually, he would prevail, and they knew there would be no more putting it off.
Then sometimes they would have a “farewell party” with eating, drinking, singing, perhaps group hugs and maybe even some sex, all that good stuff.
Then, at the height of it, when he insisted he was ready and it really was time, they would help him hang himself right there in the igloo, with his entire family all around him.
………………………
Back in the 1980s, it had been a particularly hard time for LRH and Scientology. Many bad things had happened. Mary Sue and others in jail, his son Quentin dead, possibly murdered etc. Bad things had happened and were done by both sides and had been done on both sides of the battle with the “powers that be”, and the US government had been preparing for sometime, a major case against LRH.
I believe that had to do with why LRH “blew”, although I wouldn’t use that particular word.
I believe he was feeling strongly that he had become a liability to the CoS and Scientology in general, and to other Scientologists. And that the best thing he could do was to make himself scarce and see if someone could achieve that All Clear for him.
I think eventually, having completed as much of the upper level research as he,or as much as was really needed to complete the Bridge, he concluded there was not likely to be a good outcome and no AllClear, and then he felt there really was no other way out, and he died.
Because the case the government was building and getting close to completing and issuing the indicts for, was a big time RICO case against LRH as the “kingpin”of the CoS.
And if he was actually indicted and brought to trial, that would severely damage the whole subject and the organizations, maybe bring them down along with him.
I believe that was what he concluded, and the only way out was to drop it before the indictments were brought against him.
Because people are basically good, it is a psychological fact that a person will die rather than cause harm to another or others. Many suicides have this as a motive for killing themselves. They are trying to protect others from themselves,or feel they have already harmed others in someway, which they do not continue to do.
Some cultures recognize death as a solution to some situations, others, never.
It is a basic of human psychology.
Why would LRH be any different? In his case, it may have seemed like the “greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics” to him. Since the RICO case was against him personally, dying would get the Church off the hook, at least buy it some time. His wife was already in jail, his family was ruined, personally he had little to lose at that point, would be his feeling. Good for the greatest number of dynamics.
And for anyone worrying about poor LRH, he lived life on his own terms and took his own advice and kept his own counsel.
When I write upon or utter upon the name of LRH, it is as a symbol and not ad hominem.
–Trademark notwithstanding.
Chris, I really have no data. Wish I did. I tried researching it tonight on a site I discovered that seems to have a lot of information about the corruption of both Scientology management and tech. It is well documented and well organized with a search bar, but I couldn’t find anything specific to your interest. http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/index_scientology.htm
.
I did find a good quote on that site, very applicable to the current discussion:
.“Now, the moment you have found the exact, precise mechanics which apply to all minds, you can then get a broad agreement on the situation because they override the minor data on which the people are fixated. In other words, they also would have this broader perimeter of data and they’d recognize the truth in the broader perimeter of data. But the moment that you move even a sixteenth of a millimeter sideways off of what is generally applicable to all minds, you are again into the particularities and opinions. So therefore, if you had a broad sphere of knowledge which was true, and these were all high generalities and everybody would agree with them, frankly it would be very easy to bankrupt and upset that whole operation by taking it, and by false relay—you see, bad instruction and bad relay of the material, and dropping out a datum here and a vital datum there, and substituting something or other—you eventually could then again effect a sort of a slavery out of that information.” LRH (from Saint Hill Special Briefing Course lecture #308, renumbered 1991: #338 “Saint Hill Service Facsimile Handling”, given on 18 Sept 63)
Thanks Marildi. I didn’t intend to send you on a research project. I was only asking what you thought about his well publicized blow from Scientology for the final 7 years of his life. And to add, I was thinking of it in terms of the lives of others who “cared” about mankind enough to stand up and to stand out and be counted — to front up to the actual suppression in society as did the Founding Fathers, Frederick Douglass, Emiliano Zapata, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Jr., Julian Assange, etc.,.
There is nothing much to research on this as the Broekers aren’t talking and Earle Cooley is dead and Dr Denk is dead, etc., and DM, well, I don’t see a “tell all” book in his future.
Chris, my viewpoint is that there are plenty of opinions regarding LRH, the vast majority of which are probably interpretations and speculation based on little or no data. And that’s what mine would be even if I had some data to go on, which I don’t. Your characterization of LRH as having “blown” is likewise an interpretation, as far as I know. There could have been a lot of circumstances we don’t know about (and maybe never will). No, of course you didn’t expect me to research your question, but I wanted to see if there were any credible accounts that could be found since it was important to you. You still might be able to find some if you want to put some time into it.
As I already commented on another recent reply to you, all our talk about “the man instead of the knowledge” isn’t really of much value (which we’ve all agreed upon but continue to do), and that was not what I understood until just the last day or so that we were supposed to be doing on this thread. But oh, well. 🙂
Not so.
1. I am always interested in your take on things and continue to be so.
2. You avoid answering my questions – in this regard. You work very hard at your blogging and no one researches better than you, but sometimes I just want to know what you think about things.
3. What neither you nor I did was to extrapolate a Scientology run world and talk about it. saying Geir wanted an ad hom discussion is a dodge. I have only just now warmed up to the idea of even trying to do this.
– – – – – – – – – –
“The real thought experiment is to extrapolate the wealth of scriptures and pretend it is all in full use and see if that actually does create that goal.”
For some reason, maybe Marildi is right about the BPC, this subject has been hard for me to warm up to. Maybe I was so happy to be out of the SO and out from under the thumb of children who were running the nursery that I never wanted to try and extrapolate the future out of what was going on in the SO.
Maybe in the context of Star Trek we could do a skit. Captain Kirk could be presiding over Exec Council going over the analysis and conditions assignments handed up by me and Marildi and Valkov and Vinaire and KG/Bunkai as the Ad Council.
FINANCIAL PLANNING-Exec Council
Kirk: “Bones! WTF are you doing with the tricorders? You are going through these like shit through a Romulan goose! . . . and where the hell is your CSW? I’ve a good mind to slap you in the mouth and kick you right out of the United Federation of Planets! Well?
McCoy: Jim! That’s the worst thing I’ve ever heard you say! For Pete’s sake! I ask for a simple gross of Earth-made tricorders and Star Fleet sends me a dozen of these Romulan , these Romulan uh uh worthless!
Scotty: You think you’ve got troubles? Last week when I bypassed the flux capacitors in order to jump-start the matter-anti-matter engines and going directly to warp to dodge that attack by the Klingons? Well the Treasury Sec sent the bill for the damage done to the dilithium crystals to HCO and now they’re billing ME for it even BEFORE my comm ev!
Kirk: Yeah? Well if Spock and Uhura could have kept their pants on they wouldn’t have been sent to the RPF and the RTC of StarFleet wouldn’t be all over my ass to clean up this OTIII sector of the galaxy before the birthday game ends next month!
– – – – – – – – – –
So anyway, yes I will keep my day job, but you get the idea. Utopian societies may only exist in works of fiction. As you see, as soon as Capt Kirk, et al begin having to worry about where the rations are going to come from or how much is left in the budget for jetting about the galaxy or that they can’t beam down the “away team” because the replacement parts for the transporter didn’t make it through FP, it changes the entire slant and feel of the stories and of the adventures the heroes are able to participate in.
My opinion regarding LRH is that of an old man that offered objective cause over phisical universe fraudelently
I would hate to have my life put under a microscope of detailing every inconsistent behavior, every act not in keeping with a saintly life, every failure, every disaster, every loss, every awful thing that I did or that happened to me. This would be a disgusting 50 year chronicle, and I have really been a bit of a goody two shoes all my life.
Take for example, one of my many marriages. I thought I was making the right choice marrying Bill. 5 years later the marriage is defunct and Bill hates me. Talk to Bill, I am despicable and he has long lists of why I am despicable. Anyone who wishes to dismiss me as an “effective” or “good” person can point to that marriage as evidence that I was a failure and a “bad” wife. I did that to myself for a long time. It could have been viewed as a different segment of freeze framing, which begins with my total refusal to even marry, after all, why give up on all those nice men I can sample to my heart’s content? It could be viewed that I gave up my freedom to marry Bill and all I did was restore my freedom by divorcing him, having understood just how important my freedom and autonomy was to me. Now Bill hates me for understanding that. I wasn’t the wife he wanted me to be and for the record, probably never was going to be either. We could also zoom in and understand that in that same time period I started a very successful business which I sold for a tidy sum many years later. Okay. Will the real me please stand up?
Which stereotype shall we choose for me? Bad wife? Free spirit? Successful entrepreneur? Loser? Winner? What shall we settle on for me? How about my intentions in all this? Are they consistent throughout? Do they match what others think my intentions were? Was I really just an evil bitch? Did I set out to mess up Bill? He would assure that I did so and very maliciously at that – characterizing me as a promiscuous, cold-hearted vow-breaker. Talk to my best friend, I am a free spirit, loyal, patient and loving individual who was suppressed by Bill, becoming more and more despondent as the marriage progressed. Talk to my business clients, I am honest, capable, and they would refer me to another with no hesitation.
And the same would go for most people, LRH included. Yep.
Yet another great post, Maria.
I totally get your point.
However….
Some of the things LRH did are so different than most people have ever done. For instance, did you ever start up a fake navy and have people work for you for free on billion year contracts without any kind of medical insurance or retirement plan?
My point is that L Ron Hubbard started an organization that continues to offer people in many countries services that are, basically, camouflage for abuse. Many people have been harmed. As a public figure, evaluating LRH publicly is actually a form of public service – so others can avoid being harmed.
It is important to expose the information necessary for people to make informed decisions about their involvement in Scientology. Evaluating LRH’s life and actions are a very important part of that.
I realize that Alanzo, but I get sick and tired of it. I like to learn new things, examine in new directions and I really dislike looking at everything through the lens of what is right and wrong about LRH and Scientology. I rarely even study anything related to Scientology, I find other directions much more rewarding, such as Integral Science, Process philosophy, 19th and early 20th century studies of the mind and spirit, and all kinds of different subjects. Only in these type of discussions do I look through that filter. And it is a filter.
Maria & Geir: Same wavelength here.
Maria, what you say seems right to me too. And I wonder if you would agree that the filter known as Scientology is a valid one for many, many people as the correct gradient and the correct “wavelength” for raising their condition. Isn’t it at least one valid path for possibly most people, and maybe one of the best that would suit the majority? (Not everybody is at your level of advance, to put it mildly!)
And the same question to you, Geir. I’m really interested. 🙂
From my point of view – it is unfortunately the best we’ve got.
Where’s Diogenes? The one looking for an honest man. 🙂
So Geir, I’m looking forward to the thought experiment where we think through an evolution toward a scenario in which Scientology achieves, or helps to achieve, its ends.
There is no point in having a thought experiment where we all hold hands and imaging “A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology. ”
The real thought experiment is to extrapolate the wealth of scriptures and pretend it is all in full use and see if that actually does create that goal.
And I am concluding that it does not. The method does not produce the result.
Yes, absolutely! That’s exactly what I had in mind too. And that’s why I keep wanting to look at the admin policy that would actually be applicable and how it would intelligently be applied, based on LRH’s own the theory of organization – as you say, sticking with the LRH. And likewise – working out what standard tech really is.
Maybe achieving all this would realisitically take the topmost admin and tech experts, I don’t know. But minimally, I think it would be very enlightening just working on it. 😀
As Chris so correctly noted; A Tech and Admin expert doesn’t need it. So, no – the system would not produce the result. No system could produce freedom.
Marildi – there was a time when I did think that it was a valid path for many people, a correct gradient and a correct wavelength, maybe one of the best – perhaps it still is. But I believe that until it is stripped of the condescending, us versus them, elitist mentality, it will continue to to educate in that direction. And I am referring to the words such as “raw meat,” “wog,” “downstat” and so on. Fighting words. Dismissive words. Words that convey an attitudes that are both evaluative and invalidative. But you see, to do that you must take the man, LRH, who said those words out of the picture, simply because HE IS THE ONE WHO SAID THEM FIRST and they are strewn throughout the books and tapes. Don’t get me wrong — I love LRH for the work he did. Very much. But the state of the learning materials is simply a mess.
To see excellence in parenting and child-rearing, just follow my wife around for a week. or a month… She should write the book but has no ego for it so it will have to be someone else. To call her amazing is not a strong enough word.
She is like the Sun to my children’s planets.
“The method does not produce the result.”
Agree with that. Method has to be modified by intention, which is senior to mechanics – method is just mechanics. I see intention as the indispensible, 100% LRH principle that is part and parcel of the admin tech itself, and definitely intended by LRH to be used to monitor its application. Tech also includes intention as its key principle and, as with admin, it is part of the “method” of tech.
So far in the history of Scn there has been an overuse of method and force (both are mechanical things) and not enough understanding and intention. Aside from misapplication, there’s been too much rote adherence to the mechanical policies and not enough to the theory underlying them – which involves intention.
I think we need to steer away from looking at LRH’s actions and assuming from those what he “must” have intended in policy and in tech, and instead just look at what is written in green and in red. That would be a valid thought experiment and I don’t think we have done much of it yet.
Why specifically are you already concluding that Scn correctly applied would not achieve its goal? And in any case, if it’s “the best we have” don’t you think we – us, you, me, whoever wants to help – should pitch in to make the best we can of “the best we have”?
(Ha ha! I just got a “picture” of our forefathers trying to work together to draw up things like the Magna Carta or a Constitution that would ensure freedom and liberty for all. :-D).)
“So far in the history of Scn there has been an overuse of method and force (both are mechanical things) and not enough understanding and intention. Aside from misapplication, there’s been too much rote adherence to the mechanical policies and not enough to the theory underlying them – which involves intention.
I think we need to steer away from looking at LRH’s actions and assuming from those what he “must” have intended in policy and in tech, and instead just look at what is written in green and in red. That would be a valid thought experiment and I don’t think we have done much of it yet.”
LRH inspired a rote following of tech and policy. He should have inspired individual responsibility and initiative, and an everchanging dynamic organization with no holy cows in the admin structure (NO holy cows, not even the Org Board).
“Why specifically are you already concluding that Scn correctly applied would not achieve its goal?”
It is obvious. History shows that the CoS turned criminal and abusive under LRH and continued so after his death.
“And in any case, if it’s “the best we have” don’t you think we – us, you, me, whoever wants to help – should pitch in to make the best we can of “the best we have”?”
Yes. This is one of the purposes for this blog.
“Yes. This is one of the purposes for this blog.”
Did you mean there is a purpose to forward “the best we have,” meaning Scientology specifically?
Okay, you say LRH “inspired” a rote following of tech and policy. However, as described above – the LRH references in fact require a non-rote following. In previous posts I quoted a couple of them that clearly state this. I can also find references that call for a non-rote application of tech, if you aren’t familiar with those.
But to tell the truth, it seems like you have already made up your mind that there’s no way Scn will ever work because there are better ways and because it hasn’t worked in the past and the past HAD to have been based on LRH because what occurred couldn’t possibly have occurred the way it did if it hadn’t been based on LRH and the reason the writings were interpreted the way they were interpreted is because of the writings themselves and if they were interpreted that way then that must be the way they were meant to be interpreted… That’s kind of what I’m getting :-(. Maybe I’ve exaggerated but at least to some degree aren’t you begging the question?
I thought we were trying to mock up a scenario based strictly on LRH writings, not on what has occurred in Scn up to now with the dubious assumption that adherence to LRH has been being practiced all along. Doing otherwise than basing a scenario on written policy and tech seems like an exercise in merely confirming what I think everybody already knows – that Scn as it is being practiced is a failure and headed for extinction, at least as the current organization.
I meant that this blog’s purpose is to attempt to improve on whatever – Scientology included 🙂
Regarding the thought experiment vs. the realities of the CoS – Maria already answered that pretty well IMO.
And yes, you can find most anything in policy including both to take what you find and go with that, to improve any policy, to treat people well, to harass people, to never take “no” for an answer, to never deviate from policy, to follow it rotely, etc. But in the main, he inspired a rote following – just look at all the High crimes, crimes etc. If that is not an outlining of a Very Narrow Path of rote following, then nothing is.
Even I, doctrinaire as you like to portray me being, don’t disagree that the organizations have become very abusive. They are abusing the basic Ideal Scene of Scientology, and they’ve got to go. They are simply not following the fundamental ideals of the philosophy of Scientology as written by LRH.
As far as LRH having done things that are very different from what “most people” have ever done, duh! That’s just the point,isn’t it? Most people are too busy being wage slaves and watching TV awhile drinking beer in their off time, to do anything larger. How many people do you know that created a philosophy and launched a wordwide movement with established churches all around the world, in about 20 years?
In the 1970s the services were real, and were offered sincerely and many people benefited, liked the services, and were very satisfied.
That seems to gall some critics and they have to deny it anyway they can, that anything is ever honestly offered and delivered. There are in life people who are cynics who profess to see everything as a scam and a gimmick. They see no honestly in the people of the world. I wonder if the duplicity they see “out there” is actually just a reflection of what is in their own hearts?
Well taken.
Now lets look at another angle from my life. 20 months as an ethics officer. During that 20 months at least 400 ethics interviews and remedies carried out. Out of that 400 I can think of only a dozen or so that went poorly – i.e. ALL the people involved were not VGIs at the end of it all. That’s 3% that failed to come to a satisfactory conclusion for ALL involved. Speak to the 97% that did well, and I was a brilliant ethics officer with good intentions and an excellent command of the true intent of ethics, which is to improve conditions. Speak to the 3% and I am a vicious, stupid, inconsistent, robot thinking, cult-driving, excuse for a human being, promoting a vicious agenda. Which one am I? Were my intentions consistent throughout? Did I intend to lock people into a mind-set designed to entrap them? Did I intend to lock people into a mind-set designed to free them? Was I simply incompetent? Was I stupid? Was I duped? Was I duping everybody into thinking they were doing better? Vicious mind controller? Saintly helper? Take your pick.
My last two comments are why I really dislike this type of discussion. It assumes that an individual is going to somehow be perfect and consistent over a lifespan. It assumes that a particular method of handling something will be true and perfect on all occasions and for all time. That’s the false assumption. I have never seen anyone be that consistent. Not ever. The true datum for me is that people are INCONSISTENT. Consistently inconsistent. And methods of handling must be based on what’s happening right here, right now. My question is, are there perennial truths that can be considered in all situations and to all people at all times? Those are the real gems.
I think Buddha had it right: life itself is transitory. It is a process. It changes. And in that change there is suffering and there is pleasure and there is always an opinion of what is really good and what is really bad, an opinion that changes all the time. We can scream to the high heavens that its not fair and its dangerous and its glorious and racka racka racka, but all the screaming and moaning is just a whole lot of noise that is run over by the process of life as surely as I now live and breath.
And this is precisely why I like this type of discussions; Posts like these surface 🙂
Wow Maria, more excellent stuff.
Very honest. Very truthful.
It’s good for me to hang out on Geir’s blog. There are very intelligent, truthful, honest and genuinely original thinkers here.
I’m sorry if I genuinely believe that a Scientology world would be more dystopian than Brave New World and 1984 combined. But I genuinely believe that, based on a lot of evidence, and I feel its important to say it out loud to as many people as I can.
But maybe I’m just trying to save my own behind from the Final Solution to The Alanzo Problem. The thought has occurred to me.
Yes my friend, I surely get it. And also perhaps the lingering seed of the weed that there is something we should be invalidating ourselves for? If you never experience this, then you are better than I.
Thanks Alanzo.
I think it comes down to this: Was I duping everybody into thinking they were doing better?
And I think the answer is this: No. I was assisting the people I “helped” to change their minds about who they really were, how to regard the others in their life in a better way, and how to focus on desirable outcomes. Of course, they thought they were doing better, and of course they were then doing better. Were they able to maintain this without coaching? No, not usually, at least not at the outset. But with continued coaching, the 97% all learned to see differently and in seeing differently, they saw differently and that difference manifested in their worlds as doing better. And the only thing I was ever coaching them on was holding a position of high, REAL ARC and working from that viewpoint.
What is fascinating about this is that I simply made it safe to change their mind. They did the changing. All I did was make it safe while coaching them and they learned by example how to make it safe for others. They imitated my actions, and while in learning mode, they ‘duped” themselves (because they really didn’t believe they could do it themselves) until it became their own real or predominating operating basis.
GOD DAMN MARIA!
“My question is, are there perennial truths that can be considered in all situations and to all people at all times? Those are the real gems.”
The only one I can think of is “There isn’t any Universal truth – including this one.”
Paradox is the only thing that can apply to everyone…
Does a dog have a Buddha nature? NO FREAKING WAY!
And yet …
Others Pretty Good Ideas (Not Universal Truths) for Consideration I Came Up With:
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions and signs that say ‘Heaven Just Ahead!”
And yet…
“… And the walls of hells go up with the truthful bricks from ‘Liberation Stoneworks.'”
And one road out of hell is made with Right Understanding, Right View, Right Thought, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Vocation, Right Effort, Right Concentration and Right Mindfulness.”
And “right” is as Maria said … INCONSISTENT.
“Right” is the hard part. It’s the one that is so God Damn temperamental. But you usually know it when you see it.
Marildi – if people were given a document before they started their auditing or training, that explained that once started on this path, there is no going back and that any refusal to continue and any voiced disagreement with the teachings could result in being declared suppressive and shunned by friends, family and associates who plan to continue, I don’t think there would be any takers. If I had known when I began that it would come to this, I would NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER have introduced a single person to the Mission. NEVER. NOT ONE. As it is, I still have a few people who have continued on and I know very well that my efforts to get them out of there must be done with great care so that I do not trigger this disconnection mania the Church is currently engaged in.
Maria, I am so glad you are in the debate – you know the tech and so many references. On the point you bring up in the above, is it based on LRH or was it instituted by others, and if based on LRH can you state the reference?
Marildi: I’ll name a few references: KSW, the ethics codes (offenses and penalties), disconnection policies (canceled in 1968, reinstated in the 80s), Sec Checking (canceled and reinstated), Blows, Sources of Trouble policies, PTS/SP tech, KAW, hard sell, the Supreme Test of a Thetan, Rewards and Penalties, Case Remedies, policies on other practices.
Now I am not saying that these policies come right out and say what I did above, but taken as a group of policies that are enforced by people who are trained to enforce by example or by orders, that’s exactly what they result in. The staffs are trained by being apprenticed under others who enforce, who ignore the basics of ARC, who learn to MAKE it go right NO MATTER WHAT, who listen to lectures that state overtly or by inference that they are better than everyone else, smarter, stronger, and that those who don’t do Scientology have something wrong with them and those who are on staff are the elite who must ensure that those who are not go up the bridge PERIOD. Add to this the ongoing anxiety that you have something triggering that distorts and messes up your ability to be rational. Add to this the injunction against “verbal tech” which is now translated to mean any disagreement or communication on or about the subject and you’ve got a hell of a mess. The real training is not happening in the course rooms. It is happening on post and on RPFs.
So you get really weird “handlings” such as me being told very early on that my mother (not a Scientologist) was suppressing me. That was FALSE data. Absolutely false. What was actually going on was that she couldn’t understand why I had become so distanced. Lucky for me, she was smart enough to understand that if she pressured me too hard, she would drive me away so she pushed on ARC instead. SHE did the handling, not me and I learned from HER, how to do the right thing. Then I was lucky enough to be apprenticed by a very experienced Cl 6 auditor, who showed me references like the one about it being illegal to challenge people out of session as having withholds, references on how auditing fails if it is not done on a self-determined basis, references on ARC and APPRENTICING me on how to realistically apply these things. i.e. She TOLD me what to do. But the current staffs are not apprenticed or managed on that basis, quite the opposite. You screw up on your post (i.e. fail to get your stats, no matter what) then you are toast and those who exit the SO are treated with contempt and derision by those who continue to be on post.
“Then I was lucky enough to be apprenticed by a very experienced Cl 6 auditor, who showed me references like the one about it being illegal to challenge people out of session as having withholds, references on how auditing fails if it is not done on a self-determined basis, references on ARC and APPRENTICING me on how to realistically apply these things. i.e. She TOLD me what to do. But the current staffs are not apprenticed or managed on that basis, quite the opposite.”
Thanks, Maria.
Where you answered my question about which references you were basing your previous post on and what you say in the last part of your post (quoted above) has been the main thing I’ve been trying to say – that there actually has not been an application of Scientology in its truest sense, and less and less so over the years.
Obviously, it isn’t that I haven’t seen the way things have in fact been done – of course I have. It’s simply that I was trying to consider what the scenario might be if the written materials themselves were applied (and I imagine that you have duplicated that). The huge problem I see for any group who would now try to practice actual Scn is that so much of it, for so many years, has been altered. And it will be difficult – if not impossible – to do so. Here’s part of a longer quote I posted yesterday which makes that dismally clear.
“So therefore, if you had a broad sphere of knowledge which was true, and these were all high generalities and everybody would agree with them, frankly it would be very easy to bankrupt and upset that whole operation by taking it, and by false relay—you see, bad instruction and bad relay of the material, and dropping out a datum here and a vital datum there, and substituting something or other—you eventually could then again effect a sort of a slavery out of that information.” (SHSBC lecture given on 18 Sept 63)
.
Nevertheless, it does seem that it will all turn out fine in any case :-). And I really appreciated your posts commenting likewise (as I do all of your posts!)
Marildi – I am aware that if you strip the tech down to its essentials, there is a great deal of truth there. But the seeds of the destruction of it are expressed IN THE MATERIALS THEMSELVES by LRH. Every condescending word, every expression of hostility, every time he opens his mouth and out comes something like the word “degraded being” or “wog” or some such, he is demonstrating the exact opposite of what that Class 6 taught me. That is the example that was set. And all you have to do is go over to Marty’s blog and read the comments – those people are DIEHARD and utterly dedicated LRH fans, carrying out his intentions. Read their comments and ask yourself where does that lead to eventually? And there is no way around that.
Its okay to love LRH. I do. Very much. But what needs to happen is to get down to the actual effective agencies of change that we so wish for the others in our lives. It may be that only LRH ever discovered them, but I think that isn’t true – I think there are real “principles” if you will that do not and cannot ever belong to any one philosophy, religion or science and I am 100% with Geir on this one – it needs to be open source, it MUST be open source, because truth at that level is source, OPEN source.
You are THE QUEEN. Brilliant reply.
This is also my take on the materials. We were taught and believed that the wheat had already been separated from the chaff. So the job remains ever before us. Onward and upward.
I do not regret this. My experience is invaluable to me. I would not take for it.
Maria, I do know what you mean about the use of the word “wog” having been a big mistake because of how it implies superiority and promotes the worst kind of attitude. Yet I never got from LRH that this was his intention or actual viewpoint – and there are many references to that effect as well. Be that as it may, the main thing I’m holding to is the possibility that the core of tech could be salvaged, and the belief that it is more than worth attempting to do so – whether it’s “the best we’ve got,” as Geir put it, or not. And I fully agree that other paths should be encouraged as well.
As you say, “what needs to happen is to get down to the effective agencies of change that we so wish for the others in our lives.” I’ve said before, I no longer take the viewpoint that there are no other workable paths besides Scientology (in fact, LRH himself said there is no monopoly on truth, as you know) and I’ve already stated my agreement with open source – absolutely. The need for continued research as well.
The only reason I have been taking the viewpoint of strict adherence to LRH is because that’s what I thought was intended for the thought experiment – to see if and how that might work. But I know now that this wasn’t actually the idea. It probably isn’t even doable. I’ve started to believe now that it would take a huge project and require people very knowledgeable in tech and admin and management history to untangle the web. That’s a good thing to realize, I would say, and that has been the eye-opener for me.
Hate to say it but much of this thread and other threads here seem pretty much like the anti-Scn forums. And, IMO, the problem with the steady downgrading of LRH and Scn is that it takes away from the viewpoint of salvaging a hugely valuable body of knowledge and tech – not unlike the way many comments on Marty’s very pro-LRH blog are taking away from the actual value of Scn. (I just wish I had the time to try correcting with references and definitions the many obvious MU’s I can see in comments here and all over the net, LOL :-).)
I believe it is a Good Thing when some people think of this thread (and other threads) as anti-Scientology, because many people consider this thread (and my blog as a whole) totally pro Scientology. Balance is OK.
Marildi, You can’t expect that links and definitions of words are going to bend someone’s point of view who isn’t looking to change their point of view. You can see this from the viewpoint of your own bias as I can from mine. But you can listen and you can respond in kind and you can examine your own viewpoint as I do mine and be the change we want to create.
I don’t care about all those nasty things people say about you (ha ha!), you’re still the best. 😀
“Hate to say it but much of this thread and other threads here seem pretty much like the anti-Scn forums. And, IMO, the problem with the steady downgrading of LRH and Scn is that it takes away from the viewpoint of salvaging a hugely valuable body of knowledge and tech – not unlike the way many comments on Marty’s very pro-LRH blog are taking away from the actual value of Scn.”
Marildi, I think it would be a wonderful and extremely valuable action to sort through the LRH materials and establish the best of the best of it organized in terms of priority. But even if this done, it will not be usable. Identified as Scientology, it would be attacked by the C of S, attacked by the critics, and attacked by the Independents at least for now and in the immediate future. Like it or not, people do judge the book by its adherents.
The direction I am coming from is the exact same direction LRH started from, freshly examined with the data gleaned from the Scientology endeavors to hand. I have already found the late 19th and 20th century texts that I believe he drew from. For example, this quotation is from the Kybalian, which was published in 1908:
“Light and Darkness are poles of the same thing, with many degrees between them. The musical scale is the same-starting with “C” you moved upward until you reach another “C,” and so on, the differences between the two ends of the board being the same, with many degrees between the two extremes. The scale of color is the same-higher and lower vibrations being the only difference between high violet and low red. Large and Small are relative. So are Noise and Quiet; Hard and Soft follow the rule. Likewise Sharp and Dull. Positive and Negative are two poles of the same thing, with countless degrees between them.
Good and Bad are not absolute-we call one end of the scale Good and the other Bad, or one end Good and the other Evil, according to the use of the terms. A thing is “less good” than the thing higher in the scale; but that “less good” thing, in turn, is “more good” than the thing next below it-and so on, the “more or less” being regulated by the position on the scale.
And so it is on the Mental Plane. “Love and Hate” are generally regarded as being things diametrically opposed to each other; entirely different; unreconcilable. But we apply the Principle of Polarity; we find that there is no such thing as Absolute Love or Absolute Hate, as distinguished from each other. The two are merely terms applied to the two poles of the same thing. Beginning at any point of the scale we find ”more love,” or ”less hate,” as we ascend the scale; and “more hate” or “less love” as we descend-this being true no matter from what point, high or low, we may start. There are degrees of Love and Hate, and there is a middle point where “Like and Dislike” become so faint that it is difficult to distinguish between them. Courage and Fear come under the same rule. The Pairs of Opposites exist everywhere. Where you find one thing you find its opposite-the two poles.”
http://www.divineparadox.com/AgelessWisdom/Kybalion/kybalion.htm
IMO, these concepts are pretty core to Scientology. And there are many, many, many more texts along this line. I am just getting started on this.
Why do I want to do this? Because there are people I love VERY much, who believe that if they do not do as they are told by the C of S or toe the line LRH envisioned / wrote up then they will lose the priceless gift of the rehabilitation / ascension / realization (choose whatever word you like) of their eternal soul. And I am completely horrified that anyone would even think to use such a dire threat to control another human being. I damned well intend to demonstrate that this information belongs to man, to all the citizens of the universe. Not to LRH or anybody else for that matter. PERIOD.
Maria, re your post – ” I think it would be a wonderful and extremely valuable action to sort through the LRH materials and establish the best of the best of it organized in terms of priority. ”
I feel this is exactly what is happening on Marty’s blog, and what Marty is trying to do for himself.
It is a constant thread with in the overall threads of his. He is very pro-LRH and very anti- CoS and it is not stated purpose of his blog to sort out the materials in that way, but it is an inevitable by-product of what he is doing there, which is identifying what exactly are the outnesses of the current CoS scene.
As a result, he and some others frequently bring up references, citing chapter and verse, about various points of tech and policy. He also produces blog posts and references from many writers other than LRH and one of his favorites is the Tao Te Ching.
These are often developed in the context of a commenter or commenters posting their actual experiences with the CoS and why they left.
Jim Logan is working his way chronologically through the materials and sometimes pops in with references.
Maria, I see that what you quoted absolutely does have principles of Scientology in it. And if I got you right, you’re saying that you want to start out anew, similar to how LRH did and develop a workable path based on the writings that LRH based Scientology on – so that people like your friends could follow it confidently and get out from under the suppression they get in the CoS.
Earlier on this thread I actually had in mind an approach somewhat like yours. Here’s a part of one of my comments: “From its current point, we could either take it (Scientology) forward with those Independents who would toss out what they consider the unworkable parts of Scn, or those Independents who would stick to ‘orthodox Scientology’ (perhaps including in that last group the C of S, on the remote possiblity that it will be forced to drastically reform and will be able to survive the whole scandal).”
The possibility that the CoS could survive the scandal and carry on with new leaders was a huge “IF” in my mind, but I was trying to create the scenario Geir had in mind for the thought experiment. Anyway, I get from you that you want to completely distance any new movement from Scientology and that seems absolutely right to me. Your idea differs from mine in that it would not be an “Independents” activity. But would you still keep some or all of the tech that LRH developed, after sorting it out?
Also,judging by reports “from the field”, this does not appear to be true –
“But even if this done, it will not be usable. Identified as Scientology, it would be attacked by the C of S, attacked by the critics, and attacked by the Independents at least for now and in the immediate future.”
There seem to be an increasing number of auditors working in the field, auditing and training others, and they are not just “preaching to the choir”. Although they do a lot of rehab of folks leaving the CoS, they are also bringing in new people.
And interestingly enough, they are not being attacked by the CoS and not particularly being attacked “by the Independents” because there is no such “group” as “The Independents” as such. It is a loose coalition at best, of people who have left the CoS but most of whom are still pro-tech. But even so, there are Buddhists who post on Marty’s blog still who do not consider themselves Scientologists at all anymore. Two of them are old-time OTVIIIs who walked just as Geir did.
If by critics you mean the “antis”, they are a minority even on ESMB and can easily be ignored. Alanzo, who was banned from ESMB makes it seem like there are a lot of them and they are a force to be reckoned with, but it’s not true.
As Marty demonstrated by going to Germany and publicly meeting with Ursula Caberta, a “critic” is not necessarily an enemy of the philosophy or religion itself.
Even the Independents are “critics” of the CoS. But there is no real, official doctrinaire group called Independents, if you are referring to Marty’s blog and the commenters thereof. Mark Bunker has posted there, Tory sometimes posts there, Jesse Prince has posted there etc. They all agree on nothing other than they take a dim view of the CoS.
They don’t agree on much, otherwise. Marty does not promote tech terminals who he believes are not practicing ‘standard tech’, but he lets others post links to Freezone directories,as well as critical material if it is apropos to the thread.
Also, it functions as a meeting place of ex-staff, especially ex-S.O. many of whom are a little to a lot acquainted, but lost track of each other as they were “hey-youed” and musical chaired around the world by the current regime.
If you’re getting the impression that I think Marty has done and is doing a lot to further exactly what you and others here are talking about, you’re right.
Quite a few people who post over there are auditing others or Solo auditing, and training others if they are capable of doing so. And also working to bring others out of the CoS. There is a lot of interest within the CoS from current staff and public about what’s going on “out here”, and they need terminals out here who can answer their questions and provide accurate data about the availability of the Bridge out here, support systems, etc.
The CoS generally seems to attack only those who go to the media. Otherwise they leave those who leave, pretty much alone. People have been quietly auditing and training others for decades without much trouble.
My post above also points to this: It is very important to differentiate between the philosophy of Scientology, and the existing organization, the “Church”.
That is the only way to decontaminate the subject itself. That is why I object to those who conflate the two, the CoS and the subject itself, referring to both indisciminately as “Scientology” ; conflating them will only result in the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, the beneficial parts of the subject will wither along with the bad if they are not publicly differentiated. And that is what has already been happening for some time..
There could be a thousand sects, churches and groups formed around the basis of the LRH materials just as there are a lot of churches based on other basic materials, Judaeo-Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu,Taoist etc. Some would prove out, some might not.That’s life.
Marty posted about this last year. I think he is way ahead of the curve on this. He is promoting it and doing it and encouraging others to do the same. I mean actively practicing what he understands as “Scientology”, apart from the CoS.
It’s an important differentiation to make.
Very true.
I’m voting for Maria for President.
She’ll be a write-in candidate. I’ll take a crayon in with me and scrawl M-A-R-I-A on the blank space there.
Maria is awesome.
Maria for President!
And this is why I so love this blog! All this great input from everyone!
Valkov, I agree with you that Marty et al are doing a great job of working their way through the core Scientology concepts and it is also true that the C of S is ignoring the independent auditors who do not focus on media exposes. Marty himself is drawing that fire, and it is clear to me that DM sees him as a real threat. I applaud their work, and I really admire Jim Logan, who has an extraordinary ability to sift through the materials and identify what is really important. I have no doubt that he, and others like him will do that work and do it well.
I think that the C of S has backed off because the independents are taking the position that they are practicing their religion. That position cannot be attacked without re-classifying the materials of Scientology as commercial property (non-religious) for the purposes of protecting trademarks. Re-classification will definitely result in loss of tax-exemption status. They cannot have it both ways. It is either a religion or it is a business.
The direction I have chosen is based on a great deal of reflection and study into the realm of the metaphysical and spiritist traditions. I have learned that studying these core principles outside of the “lens” and “filters” of the highly organized and “pre-digested” approach of LRH and Scientology is highly instructive. I believe that cutting people off from the groundwork materials that it was derived from is disastrous. I understand that the effort was to create a consistent body of work, principled work, and to keep people from materials that would send them off in “wrong” directions, but the problem is that the subject then becomes a law unto itself, which it simply is not. On the contrary, many baffling aspects of Scientology become very clear when the groundwork materials are taken into account.
Where I hope it will end up is with a set of “perennial” principles, concepts or functionalities that people can reflect upon as agencies of change and transformation whatever their particular path may be. I don’t know if there is a right or wrong in all of this, but I do know that there are predominating beliefs that yield particular circumstances and conditions.
Valkov, thank you for the wealth of data in the above posts! This point about whether or not the name of “Scientology” is too stained to carry forward is a crucial one to debate and determine. Maria takes the viewpoint that it is but if you and others are right that it can successfully be differentiated from the CoS, then I go back to my tendency to believe that the Scn philosophy and tech should be continued and forwarded as such after a thorough study and sort out and “decontamination.”
The other crucial point to consider is the one Geir made in a comment above:
“If Scientology splinters, there is no way that LRH’s vision for Scientology (a world without…) will come true. To achieve that, one must have a thoroughly coordinated effort. To achieve planetary clearing requires a massive coordination, or else the splinter groups are left on their own to compete with psychology, psychiatry, Islam, Christianity, Buddhism etc. No way Scientology can win without the coordination mustered by a properly run CoS.”
Marildi, here is a cross-post from Marty’s blog. It was made by LDW, a long-time (decades)Freezoner and field auditor and trainer who along with his wife and others, is a practicing Scientologist. This comment was in response to someone expressing similar concerns:
“You are obviously not “disseminating” or really talking to people about the subject from an auditor’s perspective. More than half of the people who have visited us this year, and half of the folks currently here, have had zero prior involvement with scientology.
It is extremely easy to fill people in on the difference between LRH tech and the cult that Dave has built. Just tell the truth, and they see it easily.
This entire subject expanded and evolved based on word of mouth from people who were actually helped. All the hype in the world won’t expand the number of people who use LRH tech to better their lives. Only results will. Correctly taught, correctly applied, with good heart and honest intentions, the subject will be applied by many. Deliverd by a money hungry cult, it will wither on the vine.
We can be honest about who we are and what we do, can do and can’t do.
That makes it all very simple and very acceptable.”
Maria, I couldn’t agree more: “I believe that cutting people off from the groundwork materials that it was derived from is disastrous.”
And to my knowledge LRH encouraged people to look to previous works and not cut themselves off.
It’s true I am not very advanced in studying Scientology, but so far Scientology has clarified and deepened my understanding of other studies, more than other studies have clarified. For that reason I am still considering Scientology to be “senior” to those others, and I would recommend to most people starting out, that Scientology is the fastest, most accurate and most practical way to start on the path.
I think once they are perhaps OTIII or above, they will have the “disposable time” to study whatever, but that if they spend too much time wandering around looking at this and that, window shopping, they are likely to fail to go Clear or get onto the OT levels.
I think sometimes it’s hard for folks who have walked a lot of the Bridge to remember that.
That’s just it, Maria, where did LRH say that staff are to ignore that basics of ARC in handling others?
“Now I am not saying that these policies come right out and say what I did above, but taken as a group of policies that are enforced by people who are trained to enforce by example or by orders, that’s exactly what they result in. The staffs are trained by being apprenticed under others who enforce, who ignore the basics of ARC,……”
I think that’s contagion of aberration happening right there, inspite of LRH’s best efforts to counsel and guard against it.
Anything given to aberrated people can easily go off the rails, and does.
+1 — The last person I sent into the Org here in Phoenix was an employee. This was 5 years ago and he was quite a bright young man who had no end of interest in both me and the fact that I had given credit to Scientology for improvements in my life.
The Org here took his money for the Comm Course, then immediately regged him for the Student Hat for which he paid approximately $1,500, then began regging him to reg me for more money to purchase auditing, and when he didn’t produce the money, they sent him to ethics where he was ordered to disconnect from me, a suppressive person and his employer and “FSM.” When he refused, they routed him off course until he came to his senses and in order to help him come to his senses they then telephoned him daily for months.
I never related this story to anyone except my wife as it embarrasses me to be so gullible as to have sent someone I cared about into this slaughterhouse.
oh, and when he asked for his money back for the course which they refused to deliver to him, they refused. All this over the top of a completely empty “org” with four staff members — all old timer die-hards who still aren’t allowed to have the internet.
Yes, Chris, been there, done that, twice. Both times, the people in question were completely impressed by me. Whatever I had, they wanted it. The first blew off the line before any money was obtained and moved to another state! The second one went in on her own – then came to me to ask how to get off the mailing and phone list. I got her off the phone list by using sheer intention. I ORDERED the staff member in charge of the phone list to take her off the list. TONE 40. It was: “Take this person off the list immediately. racka racka racka. Take this person off the phone list right now. racka racka racka. She’s not a Scientologist. Take her of the phone list. Yes sir.”
They take orders you know.
And I bet they had policies that justified this behavior.
No doubt they did, or thought they did. The human mind is infinitely clever at seeing what it wants to see, rather than what is. It is not really necessary for them to actually have any policy that justified the behavior; all they needed was the belief they did, and some policy on the general subject they could interpret as justifying it.
Beyond that, they now write and issue “policy letters” that are unsigned by anyone and that were written in the 1990s, that express their current position on something.
I was sent one such last year when I was talking to someone at Flag about getting a repayment of unused money I had on account. It was a complete alter-is of LRH policies on repayments
Since your claim is based on “the human mind”, then that is something in common with all other religions, too.
So look at the majority of buddhist and christian and jewish temples, and churches. Do the majority of them act like this – using their human mind?
Or is it only the majority of Scientology churches that act like this?
I’ll answer for you: Only Scientology Churches act like this.
Then what is the common denominator of all these churches of Scientology?
I’ll answer that one for you too: They are all trying to apply L Ron Hubbard’s technology and policy and ethics tech 100% standardly.
If this is what all these churches of Scientology have in common all over the world, could this then be closer to the cause of this behavior, rather than “the human mind”?
Interesting take.
Al, you apparently completely misduplicated what I was saying in my post.Try reading it again and see if you can get what I am saying in it. What you are saying is already covered in my post to a large extent.
You say, “They are all trying to apply L Ron Hubbard’s technology and policy and ethics tech 100% standardly.”
That is exactly what my post has already refuted – or, as Yoda said, “there is no TRY”. If they are TRYING to apply it, that already implies that they have failed to duplicate LRH. If they have to TRY, it means they are NOT applying it standardly. If they understood it they wouldn’t have to TRY – they would just do it.
And most other religions don’t have any better track record than the CoS does. Perhaps you should read a book titled Beyond Belief.
Humans can take anything and spin it, any teaching no matter how benign, can be spun to justify their own mind sets. That’s why Buddha and earlier teachers characterized humans as “asleep”, each living in his own world of delusion. Buddha tried to teach people how to wake up and see reality. Buddha means “I am awake” or “an awakened one”.
Also, Al, you didn’t respond to my example of them applying a repayment policy that was not LRH at all, but that was written by someone long after LRH was gone.
Really, I am not interested in playing logic games with you. Especially when you don’t actually respond to specific points I make.
And Al, as to other churches – read their history.
The Jews were among the most warlike people ever.
Christians frequently massacred each other over doctrinal differences supposedly but I think it was really politics. And the “Church” burned people at the stake etc.
Islam has a bloody history and what about some of them now recruiting young people and even raising little kids to be suicide bombers?
Even Buddhist Lamas in Tibet who for several hundred years participated and profited from a feudal system which held the majority of Tibetans as slave-like serfs?
The potential is in “the human mind” or “human nature”.
I am conducting my own thought experiments in knowing how to know. Part of that has been sorting out EXACTLY what were the effective agencies of change that resulted genuine “wins” or insights while engaging in Scientology processes. I am not interested in theories or models. I am interested in WHAT OCCURRED that effected / resulted in a change of consciousness / reality in ways seen to be beneficial.
Current questions I am examining are:
1. Why was the communication course, circa 1976 to 1978 so life changing for many?
2. What exactly happens at the point of cognition/EP of a process?
3. Why is 2WC so beneficial and under what conditions?
4. What exactly happens when there is a floating needle?
5. What exactly happens when a person has VGIs? i.e. what have they “acquired” that produces such a massive sense of satisfaction?
6. What is the ultimate punishment – i.e. when we want to really punish someone, what do we do to really PUNISH them. Death penalty doesn’t count – it ends the game. I am thinking that by observing what the ultimate punishment is, we can extrapolate its opposite and work out what the ultimate reward probably is.
7. What activities will invariably result in bad indicators? And what are the opposite activities to those?
8. For those who have moments of extreme “illumination” or “enlightenment,” what happened? What shift occurred? How do you see the world differently?
This is a really good thought experiment.
Count me in. I have picked up a few insights along the lines of your questions through discussions with Vinaire who harps on “consistency” which I have found useful. I am for the time being a true believer in this idea of consistency and it is an offshoot of this which lead to my cognition that paradoxes are false yet are useful as an indicator of where to look for inconsistencies to examine.
Maria, the worst kind of torture and its recovery is explained here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10694267
And an example of the beginning of recovery …
Once can’t get completely get rid of such abuse. And one should learn not to blame oneself for its return. But eventually, it can mentor one. It can open more resilient compassion. It can empower us to stare into suffering and breathe it all in. Hold it. And release a wish for liberation.
Tonglen.
Picard shows here that friends come and go, but a good rival can last a lifetime …
Actually people CAN completely recover. That statement was not correct. But it takes time.
In your estimation / observation what is / are the effective agents of recovery?
I’ve done a pretty good study of torture and am ramping it up currently.
I think the biggest asset is social. People help people. People and time and the freedom to talk about what happened.
And giving oneself (often through the encouragement of others) the permission to NOT be normal and be okay with it. To love oneself when one wakes up in the middle of the night in a flashback and not invalidating oneself.
But some torture victims become deeply socially isolated. They cannot even relate to fellow humans because of the horrors they faced and the depth of their PTSD.
Such people need CHAMPION friends and professional help. And some even with great backup never recover.
I think tonglen is AMAZING for many people. A friend of mine is a Psychologist that works with recovering soldiers and she recommends tonglen a lot to people.
It’s also the same practice that Matthieu Ricard famously flexes his Gamma-Brain-Waves-of-Happiness with.
But then … torture recovery is INCONSISTENT …
kg. Tonglen sounds remarkably similar toho’oponopono: http://www.idreamcatcher.com/hooponopono/
Also, do you have a link you could give me for this info:
It’s also the same practice that Matthieu Ricard famously flexes his Gamma-Brain-Waves-of-Happiness with.
Also, do you have a recommended site for tonglen?
and please define “recover.”
Maria, Google brings up Pema Chodron, and the top result is Shambala, where I believe Windhorse from Marty’s blog attends.
Chris “recover” is an “inconsistent” definition IMHO. It means different things to different people. Jack LaLayne “recovered” from being a sickly child to being probably the fittest man alive.
A man recovering from a head injury may find walking down a hallway recovery.
A person may “recover” by developing different skills all together than one may have had before the trauma.
Maria, here is one article that discusses Tonglen (AKA: “Compassion Meditation”) and recovery:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081007172902.htm
I really am sorry, but I cannot find the published Scientific study that reports the findings on compassion meditation (Tonglen) and gamma waves. I’ve read it but I didn’t bookmark the site. I’M REALLY SORRY MARIA. I’ll see if I can dig it up for you (and myself!)
There is one. Really.
The organization that is driving a lot of this research is “The Mind and Life Institute” and the Dalai Lama is involved a lot with its efforts. But sadly, finding the hard science on their site is tough. Lots of info on extrapolations of the work but not the work itself. It may be there somewhere.
http://www.mindandlife.org/
Here is a Wikipedia Article on Matthieu Ricard. He has been given the unofficial title of “Happiest Man in the World” of which he strongly denies. He has given a TED talk as well as several books. Ricard’s gamma brain waves are the strongest of any known human. Gamma waves are considered by many in neuroscience as a benchmark of a person’s immediate experience of happiness or well being.
And oddly enough I kind of find him boring as a speaker – LOL! But I will listen to anything he says anyway.
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Matthieu_Ricard
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-happiest-man-in-the-world-433063.html
Thank you for the links kg!
I’m hoping that if you come across the other one, you’ll post it!
I googled lojong and tonglen and found this website — it has a great deal of information on it that could be fruitful:
http://lojongmindtraining.com/
Even better, all of the materials is openly available (i.e. not copyrighted in a book you have to buy), with an emphasis on a particular teacher’s point of view. The viewpoints of several teachers / students of the method are represented, which really helps to understand the materials and practice.
I’m glad you found the Lojong Proverbs site.
That site in particular is amazing and one of my favorites!
I keep forgetting to log into WordPress.
– Katageek/Bunkai
Count me in too Maria.
Maybe this will be another thread or we can email.
New thread – I’m on board.
NEW THREAD!
🙂
🙂 Geir, would you be willing to host such a thread on your blog? I really think you are the ideal host for such an endeavor as you have unfailingly demonstrated even-handedness and sincere interest in peeling away layers of inconsistency in the spirit of open knowledge. I like this space. Very much.
Coming up.
Oh, Maria!!!!!!!!,
8. For those who have moments of extreme “illumination” or “enlightenment,” what happened? What shift occurred? How do you see the world differently?
There is music, where others hear none, I, the soul is the song, and that song is the universe.
So one answer to the question of what punishment is used is physical cruelty. And pain is a signal of dismemberment and death of living tissue. It tells you that something is being destroyed, removed. Since the body is an aggregation of living aggregations, it tells / screams that something has been dismembered, taken out of circulation in terms of living functionality.
So the opposite would be continued memberment, continued connection, continued functionality and participation in the aggregation in optimum performance, at least at a purely physical aggregate level.
The OP is what would a world be like with only scientology. There would be two worlds – the underground world of “db’s, sp’s, 1.1 and belows, jokers and degraders, the attackers and the disaffected etc.” that would live on the fringes of a vast planet wide Sea Org. The Sea Org would have zero or negative population growth, constant emergencies, putting out “fires” “created” by the SP out casts.
The only history in the Sea Org would be that of the triumph of Scientology, and the reign of COB. None of the former COB’s would be ever spoken of. No images of them would exist. Few of Hubbards writings would be recognizable by anybody from our time. There would be rumors of actual OT powers amongst the cast offs however, CGI videos of OT powers will be viewed in awe by the SO world. Each world would vilify the other, and yet neither could exist with out the other.
Further in the future this period in history will be known as the second dark ages.
Mimsey.
Beautifully prophetic!
.
Good job. Short and to the point. I have no factual basis to disagree. You were remiss in leaving out “cal-mag” as the only approved pharmaceutical product.
They will all gather in Lebanon Hall and be shown pictures of past COBs, at which they will scream and hiss every day for 2 minutes.
“The next moment a hideous, grinding screech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set one’s teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of one’s neck. The Hate had started.’
“As usual, the face of Emmanual Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed onto the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago nobody quite remembered) had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities and had been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared. The program of Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principle figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Party’s purity. All subsequent crimes against the Party, all treacheries, acts of sabotage, heresies, deviations, sprang directly out of his teaching….” George Orwell, “1984”
A Note to Marildi from Alanzo:
I appreciate your posts very much. Here’s why:
1. You present scientology in a thinking way. You are not just rotely applying policies, you engage in no personal attacks, and you present the viewpoint of Scientologists in a very levelheaded, sensible, and even persuasive way.
2. You give hope that a dedicated Scientologist has a future on this planet. I am sure that you have the ability to find a way to make Scientology work for Scientologists in a non-abusive way which supports human rights and generally helps people with the least amount of harm. And for that, I am behind you 100%
3. Your viewpoint on this blog, and on the general Internet, is important. It matters. I wish more Scientologists could communicate like you are able to. There needs to be many more like you. Your viewpoint needs to be well-represented in a lot more places than it currently is.
On many things, we do not agree. But that doesn’t reduce my ARC for you one bit.
Thank you for being here and communicating.
Alanzo
Wow, Alanzo. I so appreciate the validation! And you know what? I appreciate you too. Even more so because the attitude you showed is obviously a willingness to be fair – and shows you care! You have inspired me further to carry on “the good fight” (so watch out ;-)) and I hope you do the same. I feel I get where you’re coming from and it’s a good place. 🙂
Much ARC, marildi
+1 My sentiments as well.
And you are a valuable poster and friend. 🙂
Good God! I better go see a Doctor! Al is starting to seem like a likeable guy to me!
Plus, Al, I like your avatar. It’s good picture.
Now I’m sorry I threw you in the hamburger machine so many times on this thread. Habit I guess.
I’d like to sum up for myself, what I believe is the answer to the OP from my point of view, also responding to some of the concerns and considerations raised here.
1. I do not agree that for Scientology to “Clear the planet” or “dominate the world”, it is a particular iteration of the CoS that must become predominate. No. I think it’s entirely possible that one day in the distant future Scientology will have spread very thoroughly throughout the world, but it will be by way of the proliferation of sects, groups, churches, missions, field auditors and trainers, secular and religious, and general application of various fundamental principles LRH discovered and formulated.
The basic I think with in considering this is _ “Scientology(knowing how to know and how to get results) is senior to any particular church,, group, or organization that anyone can ever actualize based on the philosophy.
I believe LRH tried to say this many times and in many ways, and that he knew very well how it would play out in the long run, in terms of Scientology spreading in many diverse ways through diverse organizations.
In fact the original model included various organizations each operating on it’s own set of policies and expectations – FSMs, Field Auditors and Field Offices, Gung-Ho groups, Missions, Class IV orgs, Various gradations of UpperOrgs, the Sea Org, etc.
2. To the extent some or even many of these future groups will actually help people achieve the state of Clear, a “cleared planet” will be the result. Keeping in mind that any “state” is an operating state and is not static but ever-changing.
3. I don’t agree that LRH’s choice to “let it all hang out” and not censor himself in his choice of words to any great extent is unfortunate. His 1950s style may seem politically incorrect today in 2011, but so what? It confirms his own observation that he was just a man, not some God or saint. Like Nixon did, he did us a great favor by recording himself, “LRH Uncensored”.
4. Rote “policy” is there for those who need it, not otherwise. If needed in an emergency, fine. If something is proven by extended use to “work”, fine. If not then it doesn’t. So what?
5. The “tech” to me is the Auditing tech. That is senior to other techs; it contains the fundamental principles of the workings of existence. The basic principles of existence underlie the auditin tech. There is a hierarchy in the body of knowledge. It is like a big pyramid. All “datums” within what we refer to as “the materials” are not equal at all.
These are the kind of thoughts I am taking away from this thread, it was interesting.
Also, the opportunity to clarify my thoughts about LRH himself, why he lived, why he died.
As Jesse Prince once posted on Marty’s blog, “LRH was a lion of a man”, in the context that not much got by LRH. So I think that just as LRH lived on his own terms, he also died on his own terms, applying to himself his own philosophy that he had developed.
This may be a realistic vision of a future where Scientology tech wins over in society, and it may be what you hope will happen. But it sure ain’t what LRH envisioned. They way he so vehemently went after any unauthorized practice or use of Scientology after ca 1955 and the way he so freely labels anything done outside the CoS as Squirrel and the way he so adamantly attacks any other ways than whet he deemed Standard Tech and Admin shows that your vision here is out of step with that of LRH’s.
Doing any Independent Scientology is against basic policies and against LRH’s vision for Scientology.
I applaud the use of Scientology freely as you all should know. And I realize that I am on a tangent with the Old Man in my view on this.
Geir, I’m interested in what you say here. My concept of LRH’s reasoning was that he wanted to protect the tech from being altered while calling it Scn, thus hindering expansion because of the lack of results. I’d like to look at references on unauthorized practice or use but am not sure what they are, especially ca 1955, as you noted. Can you direct me?
There is an article in a Sci-fi magazine from 1955 – an interview with A.E: Vogt (the sci-fi writer and friend of LRH), then the director of the Diantecs Foundation. He expresses tolerance for all the splinter groups and is quite OK with all the off-shots. After that and gradually stronger, LRH started going after the groups like EST like they were the greatest of enemies. With the advent of OT III, we got the SP declares as linked earlier on this thread.
Back in the day, I heard that EST was kind of implant-y, with elements of Marine bootcamp and bullbaiting included but not by twinning. It was like yelling drill sargeants addressing the group, who were not permitted to respond or leave their seats for any reason.
Sounds like the Sea Org to me!
The seminars were two weeks, 30 hours a week. Erhard doesn’t mention scientology at all. He credited Zen as being the basic inspiration.
Satori in 2 weeks. Did they offer “Or your money back”? It wasn’t a cheap two weeks, either, as I recall.
What I heard was that many people did “get high” on it, but later crashed, sometimes down to below where they had been before. John Denver did EST and seemed to be on top of the world for awhile, but later started drinking a lot and died in a private plane crash. But perhaps he got into EST to solve a drinking problem he had in the first place, I don’t know.
“Back in the day, I heard that Scientology was kind of implant-y, with elements of Marine bootcamp and bullbaiting included but not by twinning. It was like yelling drill sargeants addressing the group, who were not permitted to respond or leave their seats for any reason.
What I heard was that many people did “get high” on it, but later crashed, sometimes down to below where they had been before. Someone did Scientology and seemed to be on top of the world for awhile, but later started drinking a lot and died in a private plane crash. But perhaps he got into Scientology to solve a drinking problem he had in the first place, I don’t know.”
Yeah…
Except that “back in the day”, my day, early 1970s, “Scientology” WASN’T like that – but the Sea Org possibly was heading that way. However the Sea Org wasn’t Scientology. It’s a fallacy to equate the S.O. with all of Scientology back in the 1970s.
Today, Miscavige, not even the Sea Org, IS officially Scientology, according to Sue Wilhere I believe it was.
My main point is that there is room for both interpretations of LRH’s vision, in various things LRH said at different points in the evolution of his thinking.
I think LRH evolved his thinking about what needed to be done to insure the survival of Scientology and the perpetuation of the tech in response to the world’s responses to his ideas. The increasingly rigid policies were undercuts.
He kept dropping his expectations of how much responsibility the common run of humanity were capable of taking for actually duplicating the tech and applying it.
There are technical reasons for this. And you are quite correct in spotting 1955 as a pivotal time, because in late 1954 he was lecturing about his discovery of the role of the first and second postulates in living and why earlier efforts to understand human psychology had run up against a wall.
The first postulate is “I don’t know”, “I have no idea”, “I can’t do”, etc
I think he then understood that to get people through this “Cloud of Unknowing” it was necessary for a structure to be in place to get them through that state of mind. To keep their feet moving even when they had “no idea” where they were going.
Apparently all founders/establishers of religious organizations/churches/self-realization groups had some inkling of this, as a just about any church I can think of was settled into a rigid formalistic structure with it’s own version of KSW. Because there really IS an “abyss’, a “Pit”, that a person can fall into in his quest to come up to a full beingness.
One can get lost in the “Cloud of Unknowing” and not make it through.
The Cloud of Unknowing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing
See also The Dark Night of the Soul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Night_of_the_Soul
“Typically for a believer, in the dark night of the soul, spiritual disciplines (such as prayer and consistent devotion to God) suddenly seem to lose all their experiential value; traditional prayer is extremely difficult and unrewarding for an extended period of time during this “dark night.”
This is an experience each person has to pass through on his way to higher more knowing states. Rigid structures are devised to help him not fall off the Way when he hits this “wall”, similar to the deepest darkest depression ever experienced.
That’s why all religions in some way develop a rigid disciplinary structure – detailed prescribed rules, submitting to a guru vows, etc etc.
It’s what LRH meant by ” a closely taped path”.
The crux is, it is not necessary for those who have already passed through it. But it may be necessary for most all that are just starting out on the journey.
Point being, the basic Ideal Scene was he would release his discoveries and methods into the world, people would duplicate them, including their application, and they would spread around the world. Easy-peasy.
Upon further experience he saw a lot of misduplication and realizing a major why, (the first postulate), he started developing the undercuts in the form of more rules, policies, and KSWs. At the same time he kept lamenting and reminding people that Policy was “to think with” not robotically follow, that Policy was a poor substitute for the presence of a living being, etc.
The rigid rules were developed to cope with human limitations. Just as with any other organization.
Yet, the organizations with less rigid rules seem to out-expand those with rigid rules.
You do well at justifying anything LRH, but the actual results do speak for themselves.
Regardless of any LRH intention, mankind now has all the materials of Scientology and they are ours to dispense with as we please. If anyone wants to start a church with rigid rules or moderate rules or no rules there is no longer anyone standing in the way.
The Church of Scientology is an empty and lifeless shell with no more ability to blackmail. One needn’t worry about missing out on any further discoveries or improvements or OT levels as this would be impossible per policy. If they produce them now one can be sure they are fraudulent squirreling from within the Sea Org.
So “do as thou wilt be the whole of the law” regarding Scientology technical and administrative technology. The future is in our in our own hands, same as it ever was.
Valkov does make some good points regarding rigid structure. And his point about people at the bottom of the bridge needing it more is analogous to parenting. The Mormons practice a rigid structure including ethics counselling actions and justice actions including excommunication — similar to what Scientology’s might be in a future time.
I have an explanation for this. I think that for dynamic beings on the move who are attempting to rapidly learn the physics of their existence, to move into and through these physics, and to come to a superior understanding of themselves and their relationship to the universe, that rigid structure is suffocating.
I think that for a being who is lower toned (not meant dismissively or ad hom) one whose curiosity is sated by promises of “pie in the sky” or who can be corralled at “waiting” then the rigid structure is not only workable but reassuring.
Rigid structure bypasses free will. If free will is what you want to enhance, then putting it on continual bypass is not well justified IMO.
Yes, I agree. It is just that this question of rigidity of structure is interesting. I have to equate it to parenting. I use more firm structure when they are young and learning basics than I do as they mature. All the friction that I ever have with my children revolves around the subject of “how much rope to let out.” My judgement as a parent has revolved around how rigid a structure to enforce. Most arguments with my children revolve around what they are allowed to do. Most of my own travails as a parent revolve around “what should I allow them to do?”
When I cut the apron strings, and I do, our relationship forever changes from that of a parent and child to that of equals. It is quite a balancing act and the responsibility for its success is utterly upon the parent. As it is within civilization, so it is in the wild.
Mypersonal experience with my three boys is that no structure works as well as communication and understanding. I find myself re-learning this over and over again.
“Mypersonal experience with my three boys is that no structure works as well as communication and understanding. I find myself re-learning this over and over again.”
Yes, we are still on the same page, and I keep learning it as well. The structure of raising my kids resides in my head and not in rote set of rules. I wasn’t clear writing this. Our structure is situational. There is not one rote way of handling situations. For instance, we don’t have punishment such as “grounding” or “paddling” in my home — unless performing responsibilities like homework before killing on vid games is punishment. I do have bed time. Eat your veggies before defaulting to sweets. I don’t have curfews. Instead I have reasonable reasons. My kids don’t always agree with me but I always talk over the reasonable reasons for why they can and can’t be allowed to do things. Routinely, the reason is mathematical or statistical. Sometimes I curb their freedom for only a statistical risk which I am not willing to take.
But after all, ARC is structure is it not? For the next thread of Maria’s Q’s, is “understanding” the tipping point where ARC culminates and ceases to be structure? Does understanding have mass? . . . or does understanding have decreasing mass in layers? As one understands does one remove a layer of inconsistency which is to say a layer of mass?
Yup, we agree. ARC is not structure as in Policy. Understanding tends to resolve policy like dew before the Sun.
Beautiful.
I thought this thread was done but we didn’t stop the fractal process and so it bloomed again for me.
Yes-yes exactly! And so per the Danger formula it must not remain perpetually on a bypass or the activity is kept in Danger. I am coming to think that the KSW think was either an error in judgement or there is a missing bridge from KSW to “Do as thou wilt being the whole of the law.”
It is undisputed that LRH personally practiced “Do as thou wilt” as the whole of his law. Is there an indication that he afforded others this graduation?
No, I don’t think so – the higher the training and processing, the higher the demand for perfection (yes – even under LRH; Google “overboarding”)
I think you are right. Even Kha-khan status appears to have been an arbitrary designation which was removable at whim.
Crowley’s “Do as thou wilt be the whole of the law” freewheels as a subprocess in my thinking and I don’t seem to want to stop thinking about it since years. I reactively want to find fault with it as It is beautifully at odds with my Lutheran-judeo-christian upbringing. Its smooth consistency seems seductively sharp as a straight razor.
CHRIS: “It is undisputed that LRH personally practiced “Do as thou wilt” as the whole of his law. Is there an indication that he afforded others this graduation?”
Captain Bill Robertson?
Is there any reason to think LRH knew that Captain Bill was off to the launch the Freezone, and that he had LRH’s blessing?
LRH seems to me to have been too smart to put all his eggs in one basket….
Another interesting study might be to study upon whom “R2-45 was ordered, and who was Declared but left alone and not harmed. There were plenty in the 1970s and 1980s, and many of them continued to practice in one way or another, apparently without a lot of trouble being sent their way.
It was confirmed on Marty’s blog this summer, that during the Squirrelbuster seige at his place that the only thing that drew in attacks from the CoS, was exes going to the media.
But Captain Bill stands out in my mind. I tend to think R2-45 was largely bluster. A lot of people with connections to LRH being shot in the head would not have been good for the movement. Like the lawsuits or the threat of lawsuits, I think it might have been an intimidation tactic. Psychological warfare.
What I noticed about the Declare w/R2-45 on those 12 people was, it appeared to be unsigned. The thing is, where is the original? And, coming from a family with Intelligence connections, I am well aware that the CIA, KGB, M1,,Mossad, any of them, are perfectly capable of forging documents.
That said, I do think LRH could get very pissed and wish someone dead on the spur of the moment. Doesn’t mean he wouldn’t reconsider after awhile. Been there, done that myself. Was the Sea Org so incompetent or undedicated that they couldn’t have offed a few people if they thought LRH really wanted it done?
Valkov, I would like to ask a favor of you: Could you please, with the same ardor, try to defend David Miscavige as you do with LRH? It would be interesting to see someone here actually justify for COB as well.
Good one Val.
“The rigid rules were developed to cope with human limitations. Just as with any other organization”
That was also my explanation of LRH´s behavior when I was in, and after all these years I am geting back to it again, but I still can´t avoid thinking there was a bit of madness making him press the emergency button that hard.
I believe that indicates a lack of trust in one’s fellow (wo)man.
I must agree. LRH was definitely untrustworthy one human to another, and so he wrote. Very soon I will stop picking on LRH but not just yet. He understands.
You guys(Geir and Chris) crack me up!
LRH didn’t trust people?
Have you ever tried to work with run-of-the-mill humans off the street? If they were all uniformly trustworthy we wouldn’t need Human Resource Departments, background checks, provision of references and all that good stuff. We could just go out on any street in any old ‘hood and say -“Hey! You wanna job? Good! You’re hired, come along now….”
But that’s essentially what LRH did right from the start. He trusted people to an extreme and learned the hard way that he had to run a tighter ship. That’s one reason the increasing micromanagement through more and more detailed policies etc. Helearned by experience that he couldn’t trust everyone across the board to be competent, the way he had started out doing.
And in fact, the more intelligent people who are not “off the street” may be even worse. Ever hear of “office politics”? Try working in a hospital! Cutthroat!
Granted, the other reason was he wanted it(the establishment of the CoS) done faster.
You should read Ken Urqhart’s story.
While you were slumbering, I found the following which backs up precisely what you said about no unauthorized practice or use:
“4. It must be kept in mind and brought forward emphatically that Scientology does not work in the absence of official control and, no matter who sought to use its principles, has uniformly failed in the hands of non-Scientologists and organizations not controlled by the Central Organizations of Scientology or myself.” (HCO PL 14 June 65 “Politics, Freedom from”)
As you could guess from the title of that PL, it’s also a reference (among others) for another subject we’ve been discussing as regards Scn and politics:
“1. I hereby declare Scientology to be nonpolitical and nonideological….
“8. Scientology is for a free people and is itself on this date declared free of any political connection or allegiance of any kind whatsoever.”
So far, no one here has posted anything in writing that says something different from the above. I know that the lecture “Org Board and Livingness” has been cited as a reference for taking over governments but we haven’t seen any quotes, and I don’t have the transcript to hand but I don’t recall getting that idea when I listened to the lecture.
Good one .
“Doing any Independent Scientology is against basic policies and against LRH’s vision for Scientology.”
I just don’t get why you think this. At it’s inception, people were doing it very independently, once they were trained, they were turned loose to go and get it done. Field auditors applied what they had learned. I think that was LRH’s original ideal, and it largely carried through into the 1970s. Then the Sea Org came along. I think LRH decided he wanted to establish a “solid” Church, like Catholics had, only he wanted it NOW! Well, it’s “solid” now, allright. Empty, but the buildings are SOLID! Where’s the balance of mass and significance, of MEST and Theta now?
That as time passed he backed away from this and introduced more and more force into the scene, I don’t deny either. But the concepts of using just enough force to get the job done, not too little and not too much, and the principle of minimum destruction seemed to get lost along the way. Not by him necessarily, but by others. I can only imagine what getting Objectives at Flag is like these days. Do coaches now bellow “Walk over to that wall!” at the top of their lungs, and then frog-march you at the wall until you crash into it? I have the impression that’s about how much fine tuning exists at Flag these days….
Whatever happened to “correct estimation of effort”?
LRH invented the Class ( and the FEBC to ensure a qualified, standard application of tech under the supervision of the SO. The SO was his solution to safeguarding the future of Mankind. Whatever was the pre-1955 tolerance of splinter groups was turned into a full blown witch hunt by the late 60’s (R2-45 included). So, no – LRH’s vision did not include ANY splintering, squirreling or Independence.
Geir, on “R2-45 included” I don’t believe you would make such a statement without convincing data. Please say what it is, or the source site or whatever.
The link to the SP declare where LRH ordered the use of R2-45 on 12 defectors should suffice.
“On March 6, 1968, Hubbard issued an internal memo titled “RACKET EXPOSED,” in which he denounced twelve people (Peter Goodwin, Jim Stathis, Peter Knight, Mrs. Knight, Nora Goodwin, Ron Frost, Margaret Frost, Nina Collingwood, Freda Gaiman, Frank Manley, Mary Ann Taylor, and George Wateridge) as “Enemies of mankind, the planet and all life,” and ordered that “Any Sea Org member contacting any of them is to use Auditing Process R2-45.”[7][8] Former Scientologist Bent Corydon wrote that in late 1967 at Saint Hill, he personally received a copy of an order naming four former Scientologists as enemies and “fair game” and ordering any Sea Org member who encountered them to use R2-45.[9][10]”
I actually don’t disagree with this. His thinking did evolve to that point by1965. It’s pretty much what I was referring to when I posted that he had realized that many people either couldn’t or wouldn’t duplicate without some degree of a hard line from him – up to and including “do it this way, or you might even be shot!”
It started with his releaseof Dianetics, the way I see it. Plenty of people saw it as a potential cash cow, for one thing. I don’t doubt there were people who would have liked to get exclusive rights to it and make a mint.
Also, I think he wanted to see the CoS be a powerful, established Church in his lifetime. He came remarkably close to succeeding in that. I think it’s pretty amazing how far along he went towards achieving that goal in a few short years.
It puts me in mind of his thoughts on the wild Celtic tribes vs, the Romans. The Tribesmen were very powerful individually, no Roman could take one on one-on-one, but the Romans were disciplined to work together and they decimated the tribes and brought them to heel.
I think LRH decided that’s what was needed to preserve Scientology, so here comes the Sea Org, some of whom were ruthless assholes. I think LRHh decided that WAS the “correct estimation of effort” in terms of establishing and maintaining a powerful and lasting temporal Church. Plenty of examples of that in history – “Only the strong survive”.
Except I don’t think he anticipated the extent to which all the positive and caring qualities of the people in the church would be suppressed by the pervasion of the heartless, ruthless attitude filtering down through the entire ranks of the Scientology world. Or the way the succeeding regime milked the compliance of the ranks for their own greedy benefit without delivering the goods in exchange.
But he knew it could happen as he spoke of it in some lectures.
It would be interesting to compare the development and stats of Bill Robertson’s breakaway orgs, since1982 or when ever it was he took off and declared the the existence of the Freezone, as Ron’sOrgs were originally called. I think those have always been on a more decentralized basis,perhaps more analogous to the Eastern Orthodox structure which did not recognize the absolute central authority of any “pope”.
Interestingly enough, the R. O.s have apparently been quite conservative and have preserved most of the original “standard tech” Bridge at least up through OTIII, whereas it appears the highly centralized and authoritarian western branch of Scientology is the one which has alter-ised and squirreled the tech the most! The R.O.s have apparently stayed a much more “grassroots” type of movement and have not alienated public or any government, the way the CoS has. They have “maintained good relations with the environment”.
Also, Bill Robertson was reputed to be “the best administrator I ever met”, according to a recent commenter on Marty’s blog, who had worked with Captain Bill
Wow Valkov, this is a very excellent appraisal of LRH’s reasoning.
I actually don’t disagree with this. His thinking did evolve to that point by1965. It’s pretty much what I was referring to when I posted that he had realized that many people either couldn’t or wouldn’t duplicate without some degree of a hard line from him – up to and including “do it this way, or you might even be shot!”
From Gandhian point of view, contemplation and use of excessive force means desperation and loss of intelligence.
.
In rebuttal of Geir’s statement: “So, no – LRH’s vision did not include ANY splintering, squirreling or Independence.”,here is evidence that LRH originated the term “FreeZone” in 1973 and advocated for the creation of such to some close associates of the time.
http://www.rons-org.de/englisch/42_ex-churchis_en.htm#06
It appears to me that the “American viewpoint” as represented by Marty and all those who received services from the ‘official’ CoS, whether themselves American or from overseas, is very slanted and only half the story.
It seems to illustrate the old saw about History being written by the ‘winners’, who in the USA were the ‘official’ CoS.
Pure heresay. Back it up with LRH pure.
Sure it’s hearsay. But by that standard, so are your links to Otto Roos, Ken Urquhart or anyone else.
But all data needs to be sifted and evaluated.
Your link is much, much vaguer and one step further away, so no it’s not comparable at all.
Yes, my link may be an additional step of separation away.
However, you challenged me to “back it up with pure LRH”.
Therefore I responded that your links such as to Otto or Ken were likewise not “pure LRH”.
Your links and my link are alike in that none of them are “pure LRH”, which is the parameter you set yourself. Whether they are of the same order of separation is not relevant; they are all ‘hearsay’ in the technical sense. And in that sense they are ‘comparable’.
That’s a loong stretch, mister 😉
Good posts Val, Geir, and everyone
We sure covered a lot of ground on this one and it seems so commendable that so many points of view, so many biases and non-biases came together and communed over a highly charged subject with hardly a drop of blood spilt.
In one of the many summations that are possible, I would like to write that LRH did have a helluva a run and a good record of all the data and conclusions of his research exist well preserved in chronological form. These materials were LRH’s gifts to mankind and today they are ours to have and to hold and to do with as we please. My earlier objections to Scientology being considered a religion may have been wrong as most of mankind agrees that you can’t isolate the precepts of a religion. Scientology is now out of the corporate box.
Another point is that I feel that for anyone wanting to move ahead using the name of Scientology but feel that the reputation is too sullied, don’t feel this way. Many businesses and religions have suffered horrendous PR problems only to bounce back. Best business example that comes to mind is Amway (multi-level marketing) who went on the internet a few years ago trying to rebuild a fresher image by calling themselves Quixtar. However today they have resurrected the name Amway and use it successfully yet again. The Mormons overcame horrendously bad PR, MUCH worse in my estimation than the Church of Scientology and persecution without changing their name and today are enjoying quite an affluence of success.
Scientology may or may not clear the planet and salvage this sector of the universe from the perverse effects of the OTIII materials, but I think it will persist and I am absolutely sure that it will splinter and splinter and splinter again for that is the nature of *Nature.*
“Another point is that I feel that for anyone wanting to move ahead using the name of Scientology but feel that the reputation is too sullied, don’t feel this way.”
For me, it is not a matter of reputation – I really couldn’t care less about that. If the only problem was that LRH and other adherents had been ill tempered along the line or less than perfect, then again, who cares!!!
But as I see it now (and maybe its only where I am at these days) if you assist another to realize who he really is, an unlimited creative being who creates his universe, and you assist him to rehabilitate his true creativity, and on the same breath you get him agreeing that there are those “others” who are “bad,” “unworthy,” “victims,” “downstat,” etc. i.e. they are “over there” being “bad” in some way, it comes as no surprise that they are indeed so. As you create them, so they are. And it worsens as a phenomena as minds unite and share such concepts and bring them into reality. And the shame of it is that as one’s will is strengthened, individuals who have not had their own will strengthened are very much prone to being overwhelmed and quickly go into agreement with what is being created. There are no victims without perpetrators and there are no perpetrators without victims. The road out, at least form, is acting from a recognition that it is all created. And the question for me I guess is why on earth would I go to all the trouble of undoing all the false perceptions and ideas that made my life a misery only to turn around and re-create it by electing another as a “bad guy?”
And let us not forget, that even in those who are seemingly “unable,” there is still continuous creation going on, largely unknowingly, unwittingly, reactively, and automatically and that creation stems directly from who he really is and his own true power, which never went away, merely became clouded, distorted and forgotten.
Electing others as “bad” or as an enemy transfers Cause to that entity and lowers one’s own responsibility. That just can’t be healthy.
And yet, in the concept of pan-determinism we find a “cause-cause” relationship. So it could be that if both are acknowledging cause and both are working from cause point… Unless it is simply the point of view that what appears to be effect is always the manifestation and so both can be cause over the manifestation because the problem is identifying oneself as the manifestation instead of being the source of the manifestation.
But then there might arise the same kind of liabilty in electing another as “unhealthy”. It’s difficult to avoid all judgement, isn’t it? Are they (the less than “healthy”) to be quarantined as lepers were? Disposed of somehow?
I recall having discussions with Scientologists back in the 1970s. The issue came up, of what to do with a real enemy, in case one should arise? The consensus seemed to be that one had to deal with a real enemy as reason dictated, but that the crucial issue was not to succumb to hating him. “Hate the sin, not the sinner?”
This discussion reminds me of one we had going a few months ago, about how a person could train to become invulnerable.
I have just spent some time looking for a reference from 8-8008 which I had recalled part of, which might be relevant; in the process I found 3 or 4 others that seemed to apply to several topics on this thread. My favorite LRH book in many ways. Here’s some of what I was looking for, are from the “Universes” section:
“One’s ability to handle the MEST universe is conditional upon his not abdicating from his right to use force, right to give orders, his right to punish, his right to administer personal justice, and so forth.”
Then, a few lines later:
“In the MEST universe ethics seem to be a liability, honesty all but impossible save when armed with force of vast magnitude. Only the strong can afford to be ethical, and yet the use of strength but begets the use of strength.”
“In one’s own universe, on the other hand, honesty, ethics, happiness, good behavior, justice, all become possible.”
Maria,
I think I get what you mean, but I’m not sure. LRH has many technical lectures where he talks about just that – that it is all created. But I ‘m not sure what that has to do with the issue of whether or not the word “Scientology” is tainted beyond redemption and purposes of dissemination?
I guess what I am trying to say is that when it is called Scientology, it calls in all the aspects of it (including selecting enemies to the “cause”) and therefore misidentifies actual source. But like I said, this happens to be where I am at now and as Geir has often said: I am a work in progress.
Thanks, Maria, I guess I just don’t quite get it. It’s easy for someone to say, “You’re actually creating it all anyway”, but it’s not so easy for someone who “doesn’t know” that he is because he has long since put it on automatic and forgotten that he did so,and forgotten that he has forgotten.
As far as dealing with “all the aspects of it”, that’s just the point – again from 8-8008:
“All angels have two faces. They are commonly represented in mythology as having a black and a white face. To be complete cause, theoretically, a person would have to be willing to be bad cause and good cause. Only in this wise, in the MEST universe, could he escape the liability of becoming the effect to bad cause.”
I’m trying to focus here on the reactions and judgements folks have to LRH and Scientology. What is the standard, or standards, by which a person judges LRH?
Some don’t like tha the used terms like ‘wog’ and ‘raw meat’; others that he made up words. My daughter the engineer who strives for very concise and precise expression, listened to a lecture and was put off by the fact that LRH spoke at length off the cuff. She was not impressed.
My biology teacher in high school lectured us about how improper it was to mix Greek and Latin combining forms; he was so anal, he would have dismissed Hubbard just on the basis that LRH mixed the two in the very name of the subject! (Scio – Latin, Logos, Greek)
As I have read through this thread, I have realized that I admire LRH for all the things he did not conceal about himself. At first it seemed incredible to me that he actually published Declares and HCOBs in which he openly included stuff about applying R2-45; there are many organizations that have departments that assassinate others but they do not admit it, ever; that he lectured extemporaneously using prejudicial language that most people would not publicly admit to even thinking, etc.
Do you see where I’m going with this? LRH actually concealed nothing, or made it easy to discover the truth about him.
LRH did not censor himself. He was who he was and people react to that in various ways. With revulsion, distaste, embarassment,, etc. Many people love his tech, but…..it is as though the tech was discovered and codified by a lying braggart who just wouldn’t stop farting in public. Would you have him for a friend? Would you invite him to dinner at your house, or a good restaurant with friends and family? Horrors! What if he started talking about ‘wogs’, or ‘raw meat’, or DBs, or SPs he’d like to kill? I admire LRH because he did, for the record, let it all hang out.
I think LRH and Scientology are often like a Rorschach test. They bring out and reveal standards of judgement the people themselves may not have realized they hold and use.
I do not mean to offend anyone here; I am actually reviewing the arc of my own experience vis-a-vis LRH, Scientology, and the issues every Scientologist will have to work through and come to terms with, if s/he is ever to be able to unabashedly use LRH’s tech and credit him for it.
“Do you see where I’m going with this? LRH actually concealed nothing, or made it easy to discover the truth about him.”
How about all the research done into the lies about his past?
“As I have read through this thread, I have realized that I admire LRH for all the things he did not conceal about himself.”
Do you admire him equally much for all that he didn’t reveal about himself?
I was trying to make the point that LRH created a fanciful persona for himself that could relatively easily be proven false by honest researchers and historians, just as has in fact done. A Barnum and Bailey type autobiography, for example, that was sure to have been found out as false. It was child’s play on his part.
Or the R2-45 bit – surely he was smart enough, that if there was really such a department and provision for assassinating people, it would have been very well concealed, not openly published! Nobody is that stupid, least of all LRH! That’s what makes me think it was a tactic, a “combat engineering” tactic (a la Mission Earth) to put virtual “heads on pikes” in order to discourage the type of activity he was pissed about, by anyone. A ‘manufactured threat’. I’d be the wanted word to get out about it to some degree. Psychological warfare.
This is not to say that LRH was not 100% capable of killing someone if he felt it was really necessary and there was no alternative. LRH had been in the military after all, during a major war.
Remember the “angel with two faces”? Such an angel is capable of being destructive when justified.
So, my point is, LRH put very little effort into covering his tracks as far as the fact that he was lying in the first place about many things. It is true that it was, still is, “a tangled web” he wove.
Imaginative, fanciful, teller-of-tall-tales and fish stories, “you should have seen the one that got away!”
He is Everyman, stripped of seriousness and political correctness; when he wanted to, he caricatured political correctness. He knew how to act like a ‘wog’ which is the word he used for an inveterately, solidly, politically correct person.
Well, if I haven’t indicated my POV by now……..
So, would you pick up the challenge of being a defense lawyer for DM – just for sports?
Geir: “I say Burn the Books and create a set of Tools and Guidelines rather than Policy.”
My own thinking is that there has probably never been a correct and intelligent use of admin tech, or at least not for long enough periods of time to actually test its workability. The concept I have of it is that it is just a TOOL – or as you say above, a guideline – to help an organization achieve its intended purposes. I’m not convinced by all the talk, or even by the history of CoS management itself, that admin tech is too rigid. The policies I quoted above show that it is as flexible or as rigid as current situations require, and CoS history does not show that it has been applied in that way.
I will admit that, there being no real test or proof so far, my reasoning is also influenced by the consideration that LRH was a brilliant man, basing that on his research and development of “tech tech.” Geir, you yourself stated that it is “the best we have” and I’m sure you would agree it’s the best there has ever been as well. Thus, considering the fact of LRH’s brilliance, my bet is that there is probably yet another treasure chest latent in the admin tech. And, as LRH himself advised, the only way to determine the workability of any of his developments, is to follow them to the letter. Following admin tech to the letter very much includes thinking with it in a non-rigid way.
My current view also includes the idea that admin tech is so broad in its basic, underlying theory and principles that any of society’s developments in organization which have come along could easily be incorporated – so long as they are seen to create expansion. As well, if policy has become too complicated or cumbersome as a result of the needs of past situations (or whatever the reasons were), we even have the reference I quoted above that such policy can be deleted! In other words, there are no stops inherent in admin tech at all. Again, it is only a tool to be used like any other tool – and with the same attitude that a tool is only there to help, not to hinder an intelligent approach or to bypass free will.
Valkov made a good point that “There is a hierarchy in the body of knowledge. It is like a big pyramid. All ‘datums’ within what we refer to as ‘the materials’ are not equal at all.” Here is a datum I think is basic in the pyramid: “There is no substitute for understanding.”
And Chris said, “I am coming to think that the KSW think was either an error in judgment or there is a missing bridge from KSW to ‘Do as thou wilt being the whole of the law.’” It seems to me that the “missing admin bridge” is simply the fluid, conceptual application which admin tech itself allows for and requires.
“I will admit that, there being no real test or proof so far, my reasoning is also influenced by the consideration that LRH was a brilliant man, basing that on his research and development of “tech tech.” Geir, you yourself stated that it is “the best we have” and I’m sure you would agree it’s the best there has ever been as well. ”
This is reverse Ad Hom.
LRH taught you to ONLY look at the results. And I have not seen ANY single example of the Admin Tech creating a better result than any other Admin Tech, or Common Sense, or nothing at all. And believe me, I have Been There, Done That. I was active in WISE for some 15+ years and tried avidly to implement the Admin Tech all those years and have seen scores of others up close trying the same. It doesn’t work. And if it is so intricate that it requires a genius more brilliant than any I have ever seen or heard of, then the Admin Tech is a worse failure than both of us should be able to fathom.
Your admitted bias is blinding you.
Geir, I knew that comment could be looked at as reverse ad hom, which is why I phrased it the way I did – as an admission. But you might have missed my point – that I was actually looking at LRH’s incomparable “stats” and from those concluding it would be smart to implement and test other ideas of his too. As I said, he has shown himself to be brilliant and capable of great insight.
Also, I myself made the point about looking only at results and stated that this hasn’t been done to my knowledge – i.e. admin tech hasn’t been given a real test. Your experience is that it has in fact been done and tested. But I know too that you haven’t agreed, as regards the org board, for example, that it is only in a basic way (e.g. the functions) that LRH advocated its use in other organizations. And I don’t know that these WISE groups have implemented it in that way. What I do know is that verbal data and false data and group think have been prolific in Scn. In any case, you’ve never given a convincing quote where LRH recommended the org board per se or admin policy in general be used elsewhere.
What I do know is that he considered Scn organizations to be different from “businesses.” But if you can tell me some LRH references for applying policy to other groups, please do so. You probably have observed that I can be skeptical but I assure you I can be open-minded as well. :- )
Applying the Org Board to other groups – one reference is the lecture “Org Board and Livingness”.
And; I have seen the Org Board tried implemented EXACTLY per LRH and most any variation thereof, again; Scores of Org Boards. But I have also seen the rest of the bureaucracy applied in various levels of “standardness” – from PURE LRH to adopted Admin Tech in several fashions. And again – none have been more successful than the WOG (sic) Common Sense. None of the Scientology Organizations have been stellar successes either. Not even under LRH. Lots of organizations, religious or otherwise have expanded better than LRH’s own run orgs on virtually no Admin Tech; Falun Gong, All World Gayatri Pariwar, Wikipedia, Google…
And if all the attempts I have seen have failed because of misapplication, then LRH Admin Tech must be the hardest to understand Admin Tech ever invented – and that does not bode well for it.
Sorry again; Look at the results. Without justifications.
Okay, you made a good sounding case :-).
However, I know that even something as basic as the ARC triangle can be almost universally misunderstood. That was proven on your blog thread (I sure hope this is no longer a sore subject 😦 ). And you still haven’t given any references except to repeat the name of a very long lecture with no actual quotes from it that specify what you’re saying. Can you please do that, or give any other references. I really want to know about this.
In that lecture LRH talks about a totally different organization using that Org Board (albeit without Div 5 {Qual}) and that it was so successful because of it that it lasted for thousands of years – and that this was his inspiration for the Org Board.
As for the ARC triangle – I will add that it was never a sore subject, but you never got my point regarding the falsification. So, I gave up on you ever understanding that point. My point still stands unrefuted.
I can’t really comment much on the Admin “tech” to any great extent because I really know squat about it’s details.
I can see where Marildi is coming from, because the few HCOPLs I have read all seem to indicate that Policy was something “to think with” and not to follow rotely in every detail. I also had the impression that there were many detailed Policy letters regarding very specific situations that would solve those situations, but that all subsequent policies after the very top monitoring policies were actually monitored by those “first” or “senior”policies, like “We deliver what we promise”,or “Maintain friendly relations(ARC) with the environment. Those kind of policies were, I thought, like the Hippocratic oath that physicians are supposed to follow.
It sounds like Geir and others have tried applying various specific policies that were to be applied to the “specific situations” they were supposed to solve. And those policies did not solve those situations.
p.s. The thing I didn’t clearly understand is whether or not any of the WISE groups using admin tech followed the only reference I know of for how to do so, the PL you quoted earlier, “The Org Exec Course Introduction.” That one talks about “functions,” “general principles” and “fundamentals,” and says about students who are actually businessmen – “let them adapt what they now knew to fit their own posts and activities.”
You said you’ve seen admin tech adapted “in several fashions” and “various levels of ‘standardness’ applied,” but I didn’t get if any of that included the type of general adaptation described in the above PL. That is the only type that should be considered a valid test – unless there is another reference.
So if you haven’t seen much of that type of application done, then I would just like to know what the reference is for any less than general application of policy, which LRH described as “policy to fit a Scientology organization” (same PL).
“You said you’ve seen admin tech adapted “in several fashions” and “various levels of ‘standardness’ applied,” but I didn’t get if any of that included the type of general adaptation described in the above PL. ”
I have seen that. Plenty.
As long as you cut me a little slack for having MU’s at the time, I’m happy. 🙂
But oh man, I just wish I could take the challenge again, this time with MU’s cleared. Your point would be under considerable fire! 😀
“It seems to me that the ‘missing admin bridge’ is simply the fluid, conceptual application which admin tech itself allows for and requires.”
As I said, the Tech belongs to us to do with as we please. I don’t predict anyone writing here to robotically apply datums which do not fit situations, or allowing themselves to be bullied by others who might.
There you go again with the best phrases – the Tech belongs to us. 🙂
We’ll get ’em next time!
BTW I love it when you simply write from your heart without bankers boxes of backup. Your pig-headedness I love too. Good post.
uh…thanks. 😀
Listen, I can be as opinionated as you. (ha ha!)
Oh, and the other phrase – bankers boxes of backup. LOL!
Marildi, well you do know that alliteration is the cowboy’s actual stock in trade? (and not the cows. haha) Where would all the good Western poetry and campfire songs come from if he couldn’t express himself?
Yes, well I know. And the alliteration was a big part of what made your line such a good one.
“…the cowboy’s actual stock in trade, not the cows” ha ha! Do they make good puns too?
Keep ’em comin’, cowboy. 😀
Marildi, about your quote of Chris: And Chris said, “I am coming to think that the KSW think was either an error in judgment or there is a missing bridge from KSW to ‘Do as thou wilt being the whole of the law.’”
This is exactly what I was referring to in my post about the “Cloud of Unknowing”. What is appropriate depends on where a person is on a scale. For example, a person who spends a lot of time near the top of a scale such as the Chart of Attitudes may have a lot of leeway in “doing as s/he wilt”. A person near the bottom of that chart may well require that a KSW-type of 8C be applied to him.
Once a person has made it through that Cloud, his responsibility and judgement levels are high enough that he can follow rules, but doesn’t have to. He can be allowed to not follow them and make his own rules if he wants to. “Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”
For the same reason rote application of policy is not a good thing and should not apply to everyone all the time. Here’s how LRH phrased it, in an HCOPL, by the way:
HCO PL 23 Oct 63, Refund Policy, OEC Vol 3:
“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 GPM’s. So why not have live orgs?”
Yes, Valkov, on the “Cloud of Unknowing” I duplicated you utterly. And what comes to mind now is something similar that I expressed in an earlier comment, where I paraphrased LRH’s “audit the pc in front of you” with “audit the society in front of you,” referring to LRH’s rationale.
Great quote in the post above! That may be the very reason some people take the viewpoint that there is little need for structure – they’re thinking at their own high level and most likely the level of those they’re surrounded by.
Valkov, I don’t think your comment about the R2-45 stories should be dismissed as mere justification. Geir wrote a very good blog post not long ago about the need to be both open-minded and skeptical. Well, it’s probably true that those inclined to be pro-LRH would tend to doubt the allegations and in so doing consider themselves skeptical. But likewise, those inclined to be anti-LRH would tend to accept the stories and consider themselves open-minded. The question is, how much actual convincing proof is there? It apparently never got to a court of law – just the court of public opinion, the specific public being critics.
You make some very good points as regards what makes the evidence not convincing. The unsigned Declare w/R2-45 and the fact that the document could well have been forged by enemies of Scn is much more plausible than imagining LRH would be so stupid as to order such a crime, with a number of SO members supposedly knowing about it. His actual tactics were along the lines of the following quote from the lecture “Future Org Trends,” January 9th 1962 (quoted earlier on this thread but relevant to another point). The context in this section of the lecture is “in the face of danger from Govts or courts”:
“The goal of the Department is to bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance with the goals of Scientology. This is done by a high level ability to control and in its absence low level ability to overwhelm. Introvert such agencies. Control such agencies. Scientology is the only game on Earth where everybody wins. There is no overt in bringing good order.”
Thus, it is much more plausible to believe as you suggested that it was an intimidation tactic – that would go along with his think for handling both antagonistic governments and Black PR, per Black PR issues.
I look for “inconsistencies”, as Vinnie calls them, in my own way. When things don’t add up for me, I look for a plausible explanation of how it really was, might have been. It does not make sense to me that LRH would endanger everything he had been working for by putting his name to a permission for Sea Org members to kill some people if they happened to encounter those people.
But it would be entirely like him, to try making those people believe they might die if they didn’t cool it with trying to ripoff Scientology in some way.
Rather than enemy agencies, I would even entertain the notion that he himself said “Let’s forge an HCOB ourselves and leak it a little bit so they get the idea…..”
He wrote stories like that, and his mind could work that way.
Just as it does not make sense to me that LRH would approve of the way Policy has been interpreted and the CoS has been managed since his death. I find it totally implausible that he would put all that work into creating it, only to build it’s own destruction into it’s Policies, as some critics theorize. Inconsistency.
Today, we have “non-compete agreements” for folks to sign. Many companies still don’t use them, until they learn the hard way that they should have. I worked for a company that made this mistake. They lost a lot of business to a departing manager who started his own competing company after he left, and used his knowledge of our accounts to take some of them away from us. You can bet the owner of our company felt like killing him! Now the company makes everyone sign a 2-year non-compete agreement.
This seems to me like an Anti-Occam’s Razor LRH Justification Machine.
Does it make sense to you that Operation Freakout happened under LRH and Snow White, or locking a 5-year old into the chain lockers for hours and hours, overboarding, fair game, always attack the enemy (creating more enemies than you can shake a stick at)…?
I was addressing R2-45 specifically. But since you ask, doesn’t Operation Freakout roughly follow the R2-45 scenario, but carried to a far extreme? Whether it was done, in all it’s details, the way LRH himself would have done it, I don’t know. It seems to me to illustrates the dangers of taking a specific example of something LRH did(the R2-45 thing) and generalizing it into a “policy”. and then delegating it to others to carry out., There are some salient differences. In the R2-45 declare matter, there was no specific operation launched to track these people down and kill them; it was worded as “If you happen to run into them, you have my permission to R2-45 them.” (But don’t bother wasting any time looking for them. The possibility should been enough to deter them).
Op Freakout was much more a matter of a prolonged campaign to target her. It obviously created enemies. It was obviously either an incorrect estimation of effort, or an entirely wrong targetting in the first place. If the target was correct it may have been a very wrong estimation of effort, in my view. Poor application of Ethics. Overkill. But, I was not there. so I don’t really know. I haven’t even read the book. If there were some falsehood in her book, I would think legal action would be in order. If she was put up to writing it, or paid to write a negatively slanted book, she was not necessarily the correct target, but she may have been an appropriate head on a pike to deter others from taking money to do the same kind of thing.
But the principles of minimum destruction and correct estimation of effort still apply.
Having lived through the days of Snow White, I have nothing but praise for that operation. It was awesome and justified, just like the “criminals” who refused to be inducted into the Army against their will.
You seem to me to be A=A=Aing a lot of incidents and concepts that are not really similar. The concept of fair game does not equal putting a child in a chain locker. Even equating a specific incident with a concept doesn’t work for me. It’s A=A.
You’re not going to overwhelm me by lumping together dissimilar destructive incidents from LRH’s or the CoS’ history and throwing them at me all at once, as some critics try to do. It should be obvious that putting a child in the chain locker is in a completely different category of action.
I don’t think that’s what Occam’s Razor is supposed to do.
Perhaps you should start a thread devoted to discussion of “the negatives”.
Your other examples, like always attacking an enemy, is just the old basic principle of winning chess – the best defense is a good offense. The thing is, LRH refers to attacking REAL enemies, not phantom enemies, not inventing phantom enemies to get people to donate until they’re bankrupt etc etc. And LRH assumes “correct estimation of effort”, which principle he lectured on and taught.
That’s where you ought to apply Occam’s Razor, yourself, to LRH’s words. When he said “enemy”, he meant enemy. He did not mean “invented enemy”, or “elected enemy” or “fake enemy to raise money”, etc. He meant someone or something who attacked you without any apparent provocation.
And now you have got my dog Bad Valkov started. He is over here snarling that If I have or am an “Anti-Occam’s Razor LRH Justification Machine” running, that is clearly an ad hom, in the first place. It characterizes me as a “machine” rather than a thinking, reasoning person. It downgrades the quality of my post, minimizes the possibility of it’s being intelligent, dismisses it from consideration as “you can’t really believe that”. It shows a possible lack of confront on your part, he says.
BadValkov is likely to emerge from your monitor and growl menacingly at you while slobbering the whole time. But I’m restraining him. Now he’s saying that my post apparently cut across some stable datum of yours and activated a machine of your own. Did I forget to take him in for his distemper shot? Must check. 🙂
For some reason, you don’t seem to like my acknowledging that LRH had the ability to be evil as well as good, which has been the entire point of several of my recent posts.
“Horrors! The source of Scientology was not a meek theetie-wheetie namby-pamby halo wearing 100% goody 2 shoes! But he must be!”
Occam’s Razor might be a good thread topic, too. Try reading David Wise’s book “Mole Hunt” about the CIA, and tell me how Occam’s Razor would work there.
You seem to take that personally. I was commenting on your posts – which almost exclusively attempt to justify LRH’s bad actions one way or the other. You do a great job of discrediting yourself as completely biased on this thread. And all the while Alanzo seems more level headed than ever in his posts on this thread, your posts have clearly turned more extreme.
Using humor in the context of a punishing document such as a SUPPRESSIVE PERSON DECLARE seems inappropriate to me.
Chris, where did I use humor in the context of an SP Declare? Not in the post under which this comment of yours appeared.
I’m not saying I didn’t somewhere along the line, but not in that post.
No – not you Valkov. You said that LRH was using R2-45 “humorously” when writing SUPPRESSIVE PERSON DECLARE ORDERS. Letting it all hang out when tying the noose around people’s necks. I don’t think of SP declare orders in a humorous way having the social structure of my life dissembled by one. My oldest daughter has not been able to communicate with her own mother for the past 20 of her 30 years due to mine. A social personality would not issue one lightly and anyone desiring to apply “true scotsman fallacy’ to that think can go f**k themself.
I would say that including the R2-45 in am SP declare humorously is cruel. If it was in a non-humorous way, it is just insane.
Geir to Valkov: “You seem to take that personally. I was commenting on your posts – which almost exclusively attempt to justify LRH’s bad actions one way or the other. You do a great job of discrediting yourself as completely biased on this thread. And all the while Alanzo seems more level headed than ever in his posts on this thread, your posts have clearly turned more extreme.”
No argument with any of that.
I apologized to Al a bit upstream in this thread for “throwing him in the hamburger machine” out of habit. He seems a lot more centered and level-headed than he ever did when on TheScientologyForum a year or two ago. It is also possible I have changed my view of him, but I think he has changed, too.
You use “bias”as a bad word, but I don’t take that way. The only way not to be biased, is to not assume a viewpoint.
The way to not take things personally, is to not be….a person? 🙂 I am tempted to say “Now you are seeing the real Valkov”, but in fact I think what you’re seeing is not much different than the Valkov you saw on TheScientologyForum a year or two ago.
If I am discrediting myself with you, in the end, who cares? Should I bow to the prevailing political correctness on this blog, to maintain or regain my “credit”?
I am an “extremist”, no doubt. Many Russians would be extremists in your view. Try reading Dostoyevsky, or Nicholai Berdyaev. I particularly like Berdyaev. Read some of his quotes here:
http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/essays/index.htm
Among Russians, level-headedness is not a major virtue. It is not a vice, either, it is a good quality.
Do Norwegians have the same saying as Swedes do, “The nail that sticks up, gets hammered down”? It counsels the avoidance of extremes.
My son-in-law is of Norwegian ancestry and it seems that might apply.
As I just posted about it here, I won’t repost it, but I speak to what I am doing vis-a-vis LRH, that you take as “justification”, is trying to get into his head. It is justification in at least one sense of the word. What I don’t understand is, Why is it an issue at all?
No comment.
Phantom enemies? The justice actions and publications of Scientology deal almost exclusively with phantom enemies. They always did. If LRH hadn’t been into the government for millions in dodged taxes, if he hadn’t been running a shell game, maybe his perception would have been better.
Did he start out that way? Not so much. That he deteriorated through the years, this seems evident to me. Wasn’t he just brilliant during the 1950’s? Running from continent to continent. Creating shore-story after shore-story. It is funny to me how my puzzlement about how evil the environment must be in order to hate someone so good as LRH and a technology of how to free people. But from where I sit now, it just seems to me that LRH made these problems everywhere he went — starting years before Wichita. Just as LRH changed through the years, so did DM change. Weaned on a diet of the old man’s wrath in his senior years, during the mid 1970’s it is my belief and recollection that DM began idealistically. But nurtured on the old man’s hubris and supreme dictatorial power that he wrenched from a leaderless and confused cult, he thus decayed to what we see today.
I once did a project of buying a car for DM. The year was I think 1986-7 and the car was a nice car, but not a Rolls or anything – an Acura Legend, gold in color, and I spent $25,000. This was a Christmas gift to him from Author Services and the car was purchased by CST. Considering the decadence that is fully in view today, my story may seem discreditable, however, DM did not want to take the car. He thought it was to much, too luxurious, more than what was right. Did he “break down” and take it? Well, yes he did but by comparison with current events, he was quite humble about it. Back then he was a fire breathing dragon but I think he had to grow into the idea of being in LRH’s shoes and to feel the power and to develop a first a taste and later the appetite? Isn’t this always the way, though? My how he did learn!
You are a very smart guy Valkov and right now you seem to be displaying an urge to be on the side of something whose time I think has both come and gone. If your heart’s desire is to be like a present time SO member or have a game something like that, well the Tech is still here, and there’s life still in you, and you make your tomorrow. Or anything else — that you feel like pursuing. Make your choices freely for if we’ve received and positive message and a constructive Technology at all from LRH — this would be it. (nothing snide here written or intended — like the animal damage disclaimer at the end of movies)
You know what I forget to give DM credit for? For being a top-notch, first-rate zealot. As I flip through my memories of the 1980’s, the image of DM that I have was one of a totally dedicated, single minded, frying-no-other-fish, fire-breathing zealot — The epitome of someone on board with KSW. And you know what else? I think this was his “endearing” trait that got people “on board” with him because he ran every mission like this. It tapped into the “guilty” gaps and chinks in the KSW armor of the rest of us. Maybe this is what caused and continues to cause otherwise good people to acquiesce to his madness. Maybe it is because SO members are not-on-board with KSW when they think that they should be that causes them to shrink from this little tyrant?
This would be the counter-intuitive solution.
Chris: “No – not you Valkov. You said that LRH was using R2-45 “humorously” when writing SUPPRESSIVE PERSON DECLARE ORDERS.”
I don’t recall posting this. Can you find it? I recall posting that I thought R2-45 was meant as a joke. That was when I read it in the list of processes in CoHA.
I do feel that the nature of Declares has changed considerably over the years, and you need to differentiate between the Declares written in say, 1968, the Declares written in say 1982 or later.
You guys equate a lot of things that are not equal.
DM may still believe that he is carrying out LRH’s “vision”; I posted the question on Marty’s blog recently. Some people over there feel DM knows he isn’t. I think he could be fooling himself on it. In any case, how he acted in 1986-7 would fit the logic o fth e situation then, presumably.
I will say this – to every “conclusive theory” I have heard from anyone anywhere including this blog or Marty’s, accounts for the available data about LRH or the CoS and it’s history.
There is contrary data for every view point I have ever read posted.
For example, there is technical data about the tone scale in the auditor training materials that can even account for the “child in the chain locker” incident.
I won’t bother to post the reference here, because I know (that is “logic” tells me, based on recent past experience), that my post would be received with a knee-jerk response of “there he goes again, the extremist, justifying LRH’s unacceptable behavior!”
I bring things up for discussion, not to change anyone’s mind.
Past a certain point, logic IS aberration. Logic is trying to know before you actually go. Before you actually look.
Interesting point about DM being a “zealot”, Chris, as you said: “You know what I forget to give DM credit for? For being a top-notch, first-rate zealot.”
Here’s LRH on the subject:
“When any disordered mind grasps the fundamentals of a thing, one cannot predict the way that mind will use the information. Zealotism has many times made religion odious to a people and zealotism is definitely undesirable to a religious group since it too often masks sadism and paranoia. Churches have long been troubled with this problem. It is not a problem of faith. An orderly faith alone can promote religion. Zealotism is a problem in aberration; it is generally caused by a manic engram and, quite unlike faith, is as likely to flash back against religion as it is to carry it forward. The action is unpredictable and the zealot alters his faith easily.”
L Ron Hubbard… “Dianetics and Religion” from the “Dianetic Auditor’s Bulletin” October 1950
Good post Val. Those words came back to haunt. Maybe even LRH became the effect of his own words.
Geir: “I would say that including the R2-45 in am SP declare humorously is cruel. If it was in a non-humorous way, it is just insane.”
Ok then, by those standards, most of the world’s governments and the “defense contractors” they cater to are insane because they are in the business of killing people wholesale.
Try Googling “US arms sales news”. Billions and billions of WMD sales are involved.
Cruelty?
As for LRH, I have never denied he was capable of Cruelty. That’s just the point – angels do have two faces. Ability is ability. A person can be able to be cruel and he can be able to be kind, both.
What Scientology can do, is rehab a person’s ability to choose. It can take abilities off of automatic so the person can now choose which he will be, cruel or kind, and when.
The real issue might be, is it ever appropriate to exercise your ability to be cruel?
Someone evidently thought so, when they ordered the atomic bombing of 2 Japanese cities full of civilians in 1945. That was a massively cruel decision and act. Perhaps insane?
Is it more or less cruel, to “order” R2-45 humorously as a psychological ploy in order to deter certain others from certain actions, with the implication you don’t actually expect it to be carried out, or to order it in all seriousness?
That’s an “ethics gradients” type hypothetical question.
Oh, with the atom bomb as an example, I guess it’s totally OK then to write that SP declare with R2-45 in it.
“Oh, with the atom bomb as an example, I guess it’s totally OK then to write that SP declare with R2-45 in it.”
This is Straw Man, as I specifically posed the question in the context of “ethics gradients”:
Nice try at sarcasm though, gotta give you credit for that. 🙂
Good to see I matched your tone 😛
Forgot to answer your question. Does it make sense that all those things could happen on LRH’s watch?
Sure. It’s hard to argue with reality, isn’t it? But explaining reality and making sense of reality is not always so simple as to say “He was crazy”, or some such pat dismissal. Any human person is a complex organism driven by conflicting motivations, goals, and purposes, by definition, in addition to external obstacles he might face. That is perhaps a common denominator of all religious, philosophical, and psychological teachings from time immemorial.
I thought we were trying to sort some of that out here. It can only “make sense”, to the extent that we make sense of it by examining it and accounting for apparent inconsistencies. Whatever accounts for the apparent inconsistencies IS in accordance with Occam’s Razor, until a simpler accounting is discovered.
How about you propose a way to account for the known facts, yourself? Instead of dismissing others attempts as running “LRH Justification Machines”?
The OP does not call for rationalization of LRH’s dark sides. Seems you are on a spree, though…
It occurs to me at times, that you may display an unhealthy detachment, as though you are trying overly hard to remain even-handed and uninvolved and non-judgemental and dispassionate and not let your emotions get involved. Is that really what you are like?
It resembles spectatorism. TO NOT BE EXTREME. Is “even-handedness” a Norwegian virtue?
But I wonder how you would respond if someone invaded your home with malicious intent for example. Would you wish to use force against them? Would you revert to your Viking heritage? Before the culture was Christianized to turn the other cheek?
Do you experience considerations of right and wrong as ordinary folks do?? I can see why some on ESMB have taken your attitude as “arrogant”. It’s all very well to be “objective”, and weighing the evidence is always desirable to do so as not to shoot someone out of prejudice, but sooner or later, in life, I think it is impossible to avoid making a judgement.
Is it possible to live a life without committing any act that requires justification? At bottom, isn’t any and every act committed by anyone, an unmotivated act?
As for Snow White, what’s to justify? I lived through that era; the government at times acted against the best interests of the people; sometimes the people acted back. The government infiltrated various groups it was not 100% sure of; Scientology was one group that infiltrated right back. More power to them.
Or do you intend “justification” in some other sense?
Interesting counter-attack. I tend to keep to the subject matter at hand, that’s all. If building Lego with the kids is the action before me, I passionately do that. If a sad movie is on the screen, then I easily start crying etc. In debates on the Internet I see logical fallacies as something to avoid.
“The OP does not call for rationalization of LRH’s dark sides. Seems you are on a spree, though…”
True indeed. I often go on sprees, don’t I? Am I simply justifying myself, then, if I say I think there are other posts that do not exactly speak to the OP. I myself find letting the conversation go where it will, can be more interesting.
I just let the thoughts come. Much of what i post is associative. Should I curb that, and try to stay more focused on the OPs? I’m much better at commenting from the peanut gallery.
Also, what I am primarily doing is acknowledging the existence of LRH’s “dark side”. The existence of his darkside should go without saying – everyone has that darkside. To know of the existence of a darkside, all one needs to do is look within oneself.
I feel that what you are failing to duplicate is that my interest is in exploring how and why he brought his dark side into play.
What was the particular circumstance? What brought it out of him at that particular time?
How did he justify it in his own mind?
A person cannot be wholly understood without entering into his mind and experiencing things the way he experienced them. That’s basic.
If you call that “justification”, OK. But are you averse to doing it? Are you averse to others doing it? If so, Why?
I am calling it justification or rationalization or PR’ing. I am saying that you try as hard as any dies hard CoS party line toes to paint anything dark about LRH in as a positive light as heavenly possible.
Complete freedom should allow being completely evil.
.
Yes, it must. Complete means complete.
Complete freedom allows being condescending too.
🙂
Sure. But why do you emphasize that? Was it that you thought I was condescending? If so, I apologize, because I was only trying to back up your point.
No. I didn’t think that at all. It was something else completely.
.
Goodie 🙂
Geir: “I am calling it justification or rationalization or PR’ing. I am saying that you try as hard as any dies hard CoS party line toes to paint anything dark about LRH in as a positive light as heavenly possible.”
I call it trying to account for ALL the facts, not just some of the negative or some of the positive ones, however you personally define negative or positive.
Is it then a statistical coincident that you always defend and justify for LRH (use “justify for” in the scientological meaning)?
And so, What does your own application of Occam’s Razor come up with, when you apply it to all that?
I bet you thought I’d never ask?
Well, I have just a poor wog’s mind to work with.
I bet you’re way ahead of me on this topic, and I’m even likely to agree with your conclusions as you’re a pretty sharp guy
Maybe Ossamson is your middle name?
I see evidence for both a good side and a bad side of LRH – Just like Ken Urqhart saw. And I don’t invent justifications for chain lockers, overboarding, stupid OSA attack policies, trying to monopolize freedom, Freakout or Snow White or his later years of demise. And I don’t vilify his brilliant sides either.
I meant to type “Occamson”.
Let me amend this part of my previous post: “Just as it does not make sense to me that LRH would approve of the way Policy has been interpreted and the CoS has been managed since his death. I find it totally implausible that he would put all that work into creating it, only to build it’s own destruction into it’s Policies, as some critics theorize. Inconsistency.”
It seems possible to me, that he actually could plan to play both sides of the CoS/Freezone game and set it up that way on purpose. His successor in the CoS would play the MEST side of establishment, while Captain Bill and others would quietly go about
disseminating, training, and auditing Standard Tech, keeping to the original goals of the subject, including the original fast and light, mobile, decentralized, bare-bones Admin.
See Isaac Asimov’s “Foundation and Empire” sci-fi trilogy for reference. LRH was well aware of the “2 terminal” nature of the universe, and also of Asimov’s ideas, as they were contemporaries and I’m sure they were acquainted.
“For some reason, you don’t seem to like my acknowledging that LRH had the ability to be evil as well as good, which has been the entire point of several of my recent posts.”
Valkov, this is a tough one for many. As I see it, all angels have two faces…
You used to sign your posts “Feral White Russian” I believe, and I for one love that you bring all your passion and fury and joy to your posts. There is some kind of problem with perfect… Its perfect… And you have to wonder if perfect includes any novelty, any adventure, any grand moments of trial or tribulation. I rather suspect that were I to be perfect, I would be sitting absolutely still and doing nothing. Ever. Forever.
And I do agree with you that LRH could very easily have launched Captain Bill off to set up the free zone just exactly as you have suggested. And LRH and Asimov were buddies once upon a time!
Maria,
Here is evidence that LRH originated the term “Free Zone” in 1973 and advocated for the creation of such, to some close associates of the time.
http://www.rons-org.de/englisch/42_ex-churchis_en.htm#06
I am skeptical. This is a fourth-hand hearsay, if that. If this type of quote dovetailed with any type of reality that I think I know about the LRH personality then I could be a little softer.
Uhh, No. I bow down to your rationalization on this one. Only in the fractal many-worlds scenario is this a possibility. I kowtow in defeat as your medicine is greater than mine.
Sylvias Kusada has posted Captain Bill Robertson’s briefing he gave in 1982.
It is his account of the events he was involved in from 1965 through 1982.
It is long, but well worth reading all the way through.
http://silviakusada.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/why-msh-was-kept-separated-from-lrh/#comment-4216
There is a website that belongs to a Swedish guy named Michel Snoeck, who it seems has extensively studied many areas of Scn, including the apparent crimes. Below is the summary of his conclusions about Snow White, found at the end of the whole article about it which is fully documented with references and reports.
“This Snow White Program initiative appears presented unfavourably out on the Internet at various places. It is seen by these as some sort of ‘conspiracy against governments’. In reality as far as I can adjudicate from its targets, the actual plan, the Ideal Scene it aimed to achieve, and the actual situation that the Scientology organization was facing, it was rather a matter of defense and self-preservation.
“Considering (1) that nothing directly can be pointed out to be wrong or illegal about the Snow White Program itself; (2) that there is sufficient with reason presented to have and execute such a program; (3) that purposely various of the targets contained in the Snow White Program and/or the program itself are portrayed as something immoral or presented with bad associations/interpretations on various places out on the Internet, when these claims can not actually be substantiated with fact strictly per the written materials and the information available at hand; (4) that authorship or co-authorship of L. Ron Hubbard of the Snow White Program can not properly be confirmed from the printed materials themselves as the last page with the signatures is absent.”
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/site-orientation.html
The link to the specific page is: http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1_lrh-whereaboutsb.html#justice70
I love his website, he is so diligent!
The following is an excerpt taken from near the end of an article about Operation Freakout, which I found at the website of the same person who did the research on Snow White (excerpt on that posted above). Here again is a fully documented report of what appears to be thorough research.
“The approval for the plan to frame Paulette Cooper came on 5 April 1976. Some additions were added, new CSW attached which got then approved on 13 April 1976. These given approvals are interesting as these are signed with an ‘R’. At various places on the Internet I have seen that it is claimed that this would be L. Ron Hubbard that personally had approved all this. This however is indeed a very silly claim. For (1) approval lines within the Scientology organization follow an exact routing (list of particular persons/terminals indicated in the upper left corner of such a document), and L. Ron Hubbard is not among these 3 terminals that are listed; (2) it is not in the handwriting of L. Ron Hubbard; (3) there is nothing that indicate that L. Ron Hubbard would have been involved with the operations of the Guardian Office in person, also because this was ‘for’ or ‘by’ the Controller or Guardian (see HCO PL 24 Sept 70 “Issues – Types of”); (4) many during that time were imitating the mannerisms of L. Ron Hubbard, by imitating his ways and also writing just an ‘R’ for signature. It is noted that the 5 April 1976 approval note has in fact 2 different persons signing with just an ‘R’! One of these R’s in fact appears to be a ‘Randy’.”
http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1_lrh-whereaboutsb.html#justice70
Note to Chris: This page of the website is entitled “The whereabouts of L. Ron Hubbard® chronology or A closer look at 1972, 1977 & 1982.” I think it could answer your questions about LRH in his last years.
Marildi, What types of questions do you have about LRH’s life?
Chris, this has been my viewpoint. Many things can be alleged and can appear to be factual but often are not. As regards all the things said about LRH, when I compare them to things I know to be true about him, most of the negative stories just don’t seem plausible – so I doubt them. For that reason, the answer to your question is – I haven’t had any particular questions about LRH’s life.
There is also the fact that it wasn’t really feasible for me to research the stories myself. However, because this subject has become a hot one here, it got me thinking and I decided to search that wiseoldgoat website and discovered, lo and behold, that the guy has already done a very thorough research on a couple of the most prevalent stories (maybe more, it’s a huge site and I haven’t searched it all yet). And this guy has fully documented his findings!
Frankly, dear buddy of mine, you kind of surprised me that your reply to my post was the question you asked, rather than something like “OMG, look at that – LRH has virtually been exonerated by detailed research on the facts of the matter. (And, btw, Maria has even commented that this man is very “diligent.”) So wow and yippee!! Marildi, you weren’t so far off not believing those stories and having faith in LRH.” 😉
Marildi –
I think you are whistling past the graveyard on this one.
If L Ron Hubbard had all those criminals working for him, signing papers for him, and they were doing all these horrendous things without his knowledge – how OT could he possibly have been?
If we adopt your interpretation of that “R” then the ramifications of this are also clear: L Ron Hubbard was not a good manager at all. His stats and conditions and his admin reporting functions were completely broken, leaving him totally blind and incompetent to what was going on around him and under his direct control. Which means, basically, that the Church of Scientology was a complete mess while he was in charge of it.
If your interpretation of that R is true, then why would anyone say that Scientology worked?
Criminals had completely infiltrated the Church to the very top – even into his very own bedroom – and taken over everything. Your scenario proves that L Ron Hubbard had NO IDEA that any of this was happening.
Really. Think about the ramifications of the explanation you are accepting here. Either L Ron Hubbard was a complete incompetent idiot, or that “R” stands for L Ron Hubbard.
Good analysis.
Alanzo, you are on a roll these days. I am astounded by your piercing look.
.
Alanzo; I would like to add that you have been a very valuable contributor lately – and a level headed at that. Thanks.
+1
Wow. Compliments from the Peanut Gallery.
That’s a switch.
(:>)
Al: “Really. Think about the ramifications of the explanation you are accepting here. Either L Ron Hubbard was a complete incompetent idiot, or that “R” stands for L Ron Hubbard.”
Either/Or is a pretty low level of logic, just above A=A=A=A. Do you get that??
From 8-8008:
“The widest possible differentiation exists at the moment of creation. At this moment one is committed to a cycle of action which, as it continues, is less and less governable by himself and is more and more governed by his environment. As his degree of havingness increases, he is increasingly governed by what he has had and what he has, and this determines what he will have which, of course, is less freedom, less individuality and more havingness.”
Tangentially, the quote from 8-8008 seems to correlate to Gurdjieff’s exposition of the Ray of Creation’s devolution and faltering at a couple of points, requiring “conscious shocks” to be delivered to re-invigorate it and keep it going.
Hi Alanzo, I figured I would have heard from you sooner on this one. 😉
Well, let me say first that I’m an Alanzo fan too, but here are my thoughts. What you said may be valid in terms of a certain set of data or within a certain frame of reference. But there may have been a bigger context than you know about, and according to the research writings on the wiseoldgoat site there seems to be a lot more to some of the claims about LRH than most people know about. Have you read the whole article or any of the other articles? I wonder if any of LRH’s other critics, here or on other sites, have either. The researcher’s data indicates that there are other circumstances and facts not mentioned around the net.
Okay, you had your chance for conjecture so I thought I would quote some conjecture coming from a different standpoint:
“The Guardian Office as time went by would have gotten involved with illegal activities maybe not as early as 1973, but various may have lead to that what happened in the few years following. Different answers can be given for the reason why this would have evolved like that. It simply could have become corrupted all by itself. The book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 Edition), says on page 508 that it ‘had become entirely autonomous, operating without regard to Mr. Hubbard’s policies.’ But what if it would have been a carefully calculated infiltration attempt executed by outsiders making then the Guardian Office appear as if being criminal, which then would give government agencies (such as the FBI) a carte blanche to raid the organization. Further developments then would have made it possible to effectively overthrow the Guardian Office, the entity that had been created solely for the purpose of protecting the organization from amongst other infiltration. The time coincidence of all this is rather interesting.” http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_vs_nwo1_lrh-whereaboutsb.html#justice70
.
You questioned how much of an OT LRH was. But I’m sure you would agree that it must be a lot easier to be OT in a small pond than being OT in a very large pond. Or try to manage a huge organization while there exist tremendous counter-efforts – within and without. That’s assuming LRH actually was, at any given time, actually managing – or even keeping an eye on management – rather than trying to wear other crucial or strategic hats. Maybe his attention was on a lot of other plates besides the GO that he had to keep spinning. Do you remember that statement by LRH in HOM that OTs will always be defeated by low-level MEST beings who are better organized. And to that we could add – whose organizational ability isn’t being countered by sabotage.
It’s easy to look at how he failed but are you sure you have enough data on how much he may have had to “bite off ”– maybe more than any one man could possibly ever chew. And yet he made the decision to try to do so. And there may have been no other choice but to delegate to others who didn’t have his full confidence and just hope like hell that things would turn out okay. Realistically, there must be a limit to how much any one man can reasonably be expected to be responsible for. And yet he took on the huge responsibility of Scn in an antagonistic world because he saw the situation as one where time was of the essence. That challenge was descrobed by him in various places as the most urgent situation that existed and had to be contended with as the priority. Hence the less than perfectly organized strategy. And on top of it all, with most likely all odds against him he was setting himself up to be criticized if he failed.
LRH had potentially full control over the creation, formation, running and expansion of Scientology. He could pick the people he worked with. He could set all the rules. He could form the organization he wanted. Yet it failed under his command. Why? Because of “odds against him”? There has bin just as big endeavors in terms of number of people and with greater odds against that succeeded far better. Why?
I will quote Maria’s eloquent words:
“The C of S was pitifully small and poorly financed, and it was hounded to the ground with little time, resources or experience to bring to bear against the vested interests that wanted to completely control the medical, psychological, psi and holistic health arenas…
“Never underestimate the power of multi-billion dollar industries and corrupt government groups to drive small groups and individuals to bankruptcy, desperation and madness. It happens every day, all over the world…
“And faults and all, failures and success, I still love LRH and wherever he is, I wish him well. If I sound apologetic, I am. But I am apologetic for all of us. And I am truly sorry about all the pain and sorrow and broken dreams…
“I thank everyone on this blog for their goodwill and the love that inspires to take the time to deeply consider the good and the bad and the possibility of better. I am so glad you are all here and that you care.”
.
My sentiments exactly.
From 8-8008:
“The widest possible differentiation exists at the moment of creation. At this moment one is committed to a cycle of action which, as it continues, is less and less governable by himself and is more and more governed by his environment. As his degree of havingness increases, he is increasingly governed by what he has had and what he has, and this determines what he will have which, of course, is less freedom, less individuality and more havingness.”
What unspecified “just as big endeavors in terms of number of people and with greater odds against that succeeded far better.”? How about you name one?
The All World Gayatri Pariwar
All World Gayatri Pariwar. Now there’s a household word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shriram_Sharma
They claim 20,000,000 devoted adherents worldwide. More power to them, but…….
The CoS claims “millions” too. How are the numbers arrived at?
I wonder how many people in India itself have heard of AWGP, and know what it is?
How have there been “greater odds” against AWGP’s “success”? Assuming it has “succeeded” in any meaningful ways.
What are the measures of it’s success? Since it is in the Vedic tradition of things in a country where that tradition has existed for at least 3,000 years, what is the source of the “odds against”?
Has AGWP’s techniques been scientifically validated?(Not that I care, but that is a standard some here have applied to Scientology, so why not apply it across the board?)
India has been producing “acharyas” and the like for thousands of years, since before the Gautama Buddha. What dent have they made in the worldwide scene, as far as reducing it’s savagery and getting the planet to be more civilized?
They’ve had 3,000 years or more to create a world without criminals,without war, without insanity, etc etc.
Interesting that the Founder was born the same year as LRH. He apparently started 10 years sooner than LRH, first publishing in 1940 vs. LRH in 1950.
Etc.
I have nothing against them. Don’t know anything much about them, really. ERxcept the country, culture, and the tradition from which they say they emerge.
But you have not backed up any of your claims about them, either.
Valkov, Valkov, Valkov….
Your post reeks of sarcasm and of Scientology defensiveness.
You did not ask me to back up any claims about them. You asked me to mention one example. I did. I have scores more if you want.
As for the AWGP; I suggest you read up on them. Their PR are way more honest than the CoS – not that it is any standard to go by, as few things are so bloated as the CoS PR.
I can reveal this much: I visited the HQ of the AWGP in 2004, met with their leader five times and most of their leaders in fact – as Dr. Pranav Pandya asked me to hold a seminar for the 15 wisest people of his religion. He then hand picked those 15 and I gave them a 2,5 hour lecture on Scientology, past lives etc.
I suggest you take your sarcasm elsewhere. This time you are well out of your league.
Touchy touchy.
And you think I’m the one who sounds “defensive”? Good luck with that!
Am I supposed to know all that about AGWP before you posted it? There maybe some mild sarcasm in my post, but I posted some valid questions, too. You note the sarcasm but fail to focus on and respond to the actual questions. That is your pattern.
“Gurus” from India do not have a particularly good track record in the U.S. Check out the RickRoss site, which I’m sure you have in the past, actually. There is a plethora of Hindu/Vedic/Yogic organizations in existence. They are literally a dime a dozen on the www. What kind of a track record do they have? Or is it perhaps not even valid to speak of them collectively, to “generalize” about them?
I actually would tend to trust your judgement, up to a point, about any one of them which you a have actual experience of. I wish you and them well, no problem. If you make specific assertions about any of them, especially in the context of comparing LRH Scientology unfavorably I feel I have a right to ask for DOX PLOX, as someone on ESMB is fond of saying.
So, what “odds” did AWGP have to overcome to be successful? That was an assertion of yours, and a question I had in response to it.
If you don’t want to deal with factual questions on specifics, OK. I guess I can censor myself from posting them.
If you seriously want me to stop posting here, just say so. You do apparently want to stop me from “justifying LRH” as you see it. How level-headed or even-handed is that?
You have been quite helpful to me over the past 2+ years, and your blog is a good space. You like to apply analysis to Scientology and the statements of others, but you don’t seem to like it much when the shoe is on the other foot.
I guess you have your foibles as anyone does.
Right now it appears mine are treading on yours and vice-versa. Referring to me as somehow “minor-league” does not bode well.
Suggestions?
DOX here: http://www.awgp.org
Mild sarcasm? I think not. Re-read your post.
And when you are faced with very concrete criticism like above, you immediately counter-attack. It happens to be one of LRH’s most self-damaging policies.
I really do want you to post here – and I really do want you to participate in honest discussions – discussions where one is not merely promoting or defending one’s already made up viewpoints, but honestly try to seek new knowledge by continually forming one’s viewpoints.
I very much appreciate your comments Volkav. Its easy to fall into the groove of ‘looking for the bad stuff’, I’ve felt the thrill of that myself. So I’m glad you’re here flagging up possible omitted data and putting things into context.
I see it as easy to fall into either of the camps – of making it all bad OR making it all good. I am contemplating a blog post on that. Maybe…
Very true. Voltaire said ‘uncertainty is uncomfortable but certainty is absurd’ 🙂
That’s a good one 🙂
Geir, you do not understand my “issues”; we are not on the same page; I think you have unexamined assumptions; saying that does not imply that I believe I do not have unexamined assumptions; far from it, I use this blog to uncover my own unexamined conclusions of the past, long since filed away. Reading what someone else posts, brings those past conclusions to the surface where I can look at them, examine them, and possibly re-evaluate them. In that way, this blog helps me grow.
It could conceivably become less helpful if it becomes more doctrinaire.
So, here’s one of my “issues”: it is differentiating Form from Substance.
Yes, I am quite often a sarcastic person. This is often how I express myself. Perhaps it is a “fault”. It is also true that I have gotten”worse” in this regard in the past 6 months. There is a reason for this which I won’t go into. Suffice it to say I am aware of my increased tendency to express myself this way, and am trying to cope with it.
That said, one of my issues in the current brough-ha-ha here is that I feel I am being criticized for the Form(sarcastic tone and phrasing) of my posts, rather than for the Content of my posts.
I have had entire posts dismissed as “justification of LRH”, without any response to the actual ideas I expressed in the post.
I have had posts dismissed because “I sounded like a Scientologist”! Al used to try that on The Scientology Forum.
The fallacy there is that everything a Scientologist says is not necessarily wrong or untrue.
If Stalin told you that 2+2=4, would you automatically dismiss that statement and disbelieve him because it was coming from Stalin, a Communist?
I would hope not. It is likewise a fallacy to dismiss an interpretation of something LRH did, because it does not agree with your own take on it.
Try reading “You Can Be Right”, a little essay by LRH.
Another fallacy is that because I don’t agree with your take on LRH or whatever subject, it means I have not examined it enough or looked at it deeply enough etc. Al likes to play this one and often does, as a punchline to his posts.
Maybe I have looked less than you, maybe I have looked more than you, maybe I have looked at different aspects of it than you.
Al is totally convinced that if a person looks into Scientology deeply enough, he will come to the same conclusion as Al has come to. Paradoxically, he rarely has a cogent response to contrary data and just trots out the same-o same-o.
It never seems to occur to him that a person could actually look at the same data as Al looked at, but evaluate it differently.
So, if my sarcasm is a problem in that it bars some folks from actually considering the Content I am presenting, OK.
It is a little like complaining that an angry man’s posts sound angry, or a sad man’s posts sound sad, and therefore you won’t consider WHAT he said, but only HOW he said it, but OK. I will try to make my posts more “pie-faced”, less (mis?)emotional. :-_
Smacks of Q&A though, on their part.
Thank you for opening up like this. It is appreciated.
Marildi:
” It’s easy to look at how he failed but are you sure you have enough data on how much he may have had to “bite off ”– maybe more than any one man could possibly ever chew. And yet he made the decision to try to do so. ”
Great line … he made the decision to try to do so.
This to me was/is one of the most admirable qualities of LRH. Impossible odds, a young rag-tag organization manned by untrained adventurous young people looking for a bit of freedom and moving thru huge social changes against the status quo.
My hats off to anyone who even attempted such a feat.
Great summation Dennis! That is how I see it, too. He created something out of nothing for sure. And it was an effort to create something positive for all.
Dennis, thanks for the ack and the backup! Your input is so valuable here because of all your experience in both the history and the tech. And you write so well and word things so well. I wish I could comment on so many your posts and would if there were more hours in the day.
This time of year especially, I have to try (try!) minimizing time spent on the computer, with the holidays being such a “distraction” (joking – I love the holidays too). I don’t dare look too much at the newest thread as I’m sure I would plunge right in, but I had to peek a bit the other day and then had to at least ack a few of the posts – including yours! You always shine when it comes to being able to give a knowing picture of tech done the right way – from both sides of the e-meter. And, as I say, this goes for the early history stuff, too. Keep up the good work! 🙂
Valkov, I want to ack you too. I’ve said it before – you are so well read and knowledgeable about Scientology and many other things and this makes your comments a valuable contribution. Believe me, I read all of your posts and want to comment on many of them but don’t quite manage to get to it as often as I would like – and partly because they usually stand on their own so well. And besides, you help keep Geir on his toes and giving the counter-arguments ;-). Keeps things well rounded and humming. 🙂
Marildi quoted wiseoldgoat’s conjectures:
Different answers can be given for the reason why this would have evolved like that. It simply could have become corrupted all by itself. The book ‘What Is Scientology?’ (1992 Edition), says on page 508 that it ‘had become entirely autonomous, operating without regard to Mr. Hubbard’s policies.’
I think it’s clear that the use of “What is Scientology?” as a source of evidence is deeply flawed for any of the true history of Scientology. The book itself is used in dissemination in order to make people into Scientologists. It is a sales tool. It is certainly not an unbiased source of information on the history of Scientology.
Its statement that the GO ‘had become entirely autonomous, operating without regard to Mr. Hubbard’s policies” is extremely suspect as L Ron Hubbard himself frequently operated without regard to his own policies. If you’d like examples of LRH operating outside of his own policies, just ask. I have plenty of them.
But what if it would have been a carefully calculated infiltration attempt executed by outsiders making then the Guardian Office appear as if being criminal, which then would give government agencies (such as the FBI) a carte blanche to raid the organization. Further developments then would have made it possible to effectively overthrow the Guardian Office, the entity that had been created solely for the purpose of protecting the organization from amongst other infiltration. The time coincidence of all this is rather interesting.”
This conspiracy theory is an attempt to look away from the factual evidence which exists on the court record of documents seized by the government. You yourself refused to believe that an approval signature of “R” stood for “Ron” but instead stood for some guy named “Randy”.
I’ve seen promo materials with “R”s on them, which most certainly stood for “Ron”.
Haven’t you?
I have seen many hand written notes from LRH signed “R.”
Alanzo, I don’t think your comment here is as astute as you are capable. 😉
1. You said, “This conspiracy theory is an attempt to look away from the factual evidence which exists on the court record of documents seized by the government.” Actually, he did look at factual evidence, some of which you may not have seen. Did you read the whole report or just that small excerpt?
2. He wasn’t saying anything about “What is Scientology?” being a reliable source, only that the idea it presented may in fact be a conceivable scenario.
3. I fail to see the logic in the following: “Its statement that the GO ‘had become entirely autonomous, operating without regard to Mr. Hubbard’s policies” is extremely suspect as L Ron Hubbard himself frequently operated without regard to his own policies.
4. You you implied that in the quote he was saying LRH never used “R” as an approval, thus making his actual statement into a generality. Here’s what he said: “…many during that time were imitating the mannerisms of L. Ron Hubbard, by imitating his ways and also writing just an ‘R’ for signature. It is noted that the 5 April 1976 approval note has in fact 2 different persons signing with just an ‘R’! One of these R’s in fact appears to be a ‘Randy’.” There again, if you read the whole thing I think you will see what evidence he has that suggests one of the R’s appears to be a Randy.
5. You stated that I myself “refused to believe that an approval signature of “R” stood for “Ron” but instead stood for some guy named Randy” though I never said that at all.
6. And while I’m at it, in an earlier comment you said, “Marildi used your reference to the madness all around us as the reason why that “R” of approval on those papers was written by “Randy” and not “Ron”. That again was a leap of logic on your part.
Marildi –
In the rapid back and forth, I often do get sloppy. So I have copied your numbered post above and I am going to give you the research and results that you deserve for your highly intelligent response to me.
So give me about a day, and I will respond to your post properly.
Alanzo
Alanzo: “So give me about a day, and I will respond to your post properly.”
Sure. Looking forward! As commented in my reply to your other comment, I have a new attitude…
Marildi –
Thank you for numbering your points. It makes them much easier targets! :>
1. You said, “This conspiracy theory is an attempt to look away from the factual evidence which exists on the court record of documents seized by the government.” Actually, he did look at factual evidence, some of which you may not have seen. Did you read the whole report or just that small excerpt?
I read the whole report and it is what prompted me to step back, as your Qual terminal, and ask myself, “Instead of correcting Marildi on every little thing, what basic MU does she have that she can be corrected on which will help her understand Scientology better?” I looked at WiseOldGoat’s inability to apply Logic 8 to Scientology and I realized “That’s it!” Marildi is only thinking within the confining parameters of Scientology to explain what she sees in Scientology. Her Logic 8 is out!” And so that’s what prompted me to write that post to you about Logic 8.
2. He wasn’t saying anything about “What is Scientology?” being a reliable source, only that the idea it presented may in fact be a conceivable scenario.
The scenario is only conceivable if you believe that Hubbard did not control Scientology. That he ran some kind of hey you! org board without lines and terminals and strict discipline in the Sea Org. It is only conceivable if you compartmentalize all that you know of Scientology and block it out in order to cling to this one explanation that keeps LRH pure in your mind.
3. I fail to see the logic in the following: “Its statement that the GO ‘had become entirely autonomous, operating without regard to Mr. Hubbard’s policies” is extremely suspect as L Ron Hubbard himself frequently operated without regard to his own policies.
Here’s just one example of LRH violating his own policies: the HCOB The Hidden Data Line vs. all the secret LRH Advices which the Sea Org runs on. In fact, these advices supersede HCOPLs in most instances. There are more. LRH himself was “entirely autonomous”, and frequently operating without regard to his own policies, and so What is Scientology?s statement is a kind of “I’m shocked! There’s GAMBLING in this casino!” statement.
4. You you implied that in the quote he was saying LRH never used “R” as an approval, thus making his actual statement into a generality. Here’s what he said: “…many during that time were imitating the mannerisms of L. Ron Hubbard, by imitating his ways and also writing just an ‘R’ for signature. It is noted that the 5 April 1976 approval note has in fact 2 different persons signing with just an ‘R’! One of these R’s in fact appears to be a ‘Randy’.” There again, if you read the whole thing I think you will see what evidence he has that suggests one of the R’s appears to be a Randy.
Do you believe the “R” was for “Randy”?
5. You stated that I myself “refused to believe that an approval signature of “R” stood for “Ron” but instead stood for some guy named Randy” though I never said that at all.
Do you believe the “R” was for “Randy”?
6. And while I’m at it, in an earlier comment you said, “Marildi used your reference to the madness all around us as the reason why that “R” of approval on those papers was written by “Randy” and not “Ron”. That again was a leap of logic on your part.
If you believe the R was for Ron, then it was a leap of logic on my part. If you believe the R was for Randy, then it wasn’t.
Do you believe the R was for Randy?
Hey Alanzo, what every happened to your initial reply that my comment was “highly intelligent”? 😀
1. Okay, you say, “I looked at WiseOldGoat’s inability to apply Logic 8 to Scientology…” Well, be that as it may, it isn’t actually relevant to the point in #1 that we were debating – which was whether or not he had looked at factual evidence on a specific issue. That’s all. To now get into whether he did or didn’t have the ability to apply Logic 8 to “Scientology” would be changing the subject – Q & A.
2. You say, “The scenario is only conceivable if you believe that Hubbard did not control Scientology.” From what we know, he very likely (or at least “possibly”) was not in control of Scn at the time. He mentions in KSW #1, for example, that he had been “off the lines.” So, yes, the scenario is conceivable.
3. Earlier, you had said, “Its statement that the GO ‘had become entirely autonomous, operating without regard to Mr. Hubbard’s policies” is extremely suspect as L Ron Hubbard himself frequently operated without regard to his own policies. Reworded, that seems to be saying: Since LRH himself operated off policy it is not believable that the autonomous GO operated off policy. Makes no sense – which is why I said I failed to see the logic there. And now you go on to seemingly try to make your “point” with examples of (or what you interpret as examples of) LRH operating off policy – once again (as in #1 above) you are jumping to a subject we had not been discussing at all. Are you deliberately using Q & A as a debate tactic? ;-). In any case, we’re not going to have a productive discussion if it jumps around without resolving anything as we go, one thing at a time.
4, 5, and 6. You ask, “Do you believe the ‘R’ was for ‘Randy’?” From the data I have, I believe that it is just as conceivable, if not more so, as believing it wasn’t. Neither was WiseOldGoat so irrational as to have come to the conclusion that it definitely was Randy’s “R”. The specific point I would like you to understand is that there are other possible scenarios than the ones that critics assume are the only possibilities and thus take them for conclusive evidence.
Al, I think we should stick to one thing at a time or all our efforts will get us nowhere.
Marildi wrote:
It’s easy to look at how he failed but are you sure you have enough data on how much he may have had to “bite off ”– maybe more than any one man could possibly ever chew. And yet he made the decision to try to do so. And there may have been no other choice but to delegate to others who didn’t have his full confidence and just hope like hell that things would turn out okay. Realistically, there must be a limit to how much any one man can reasonably be expected to be responsible for.
We’ll set aside LRH’s own definition of responsibility which he had Scientologists follow. You know the one I’m referring to, right? All flows on all dynamics? I could say that if it’s good enough for Scientologists, then it’s good enough for L Ron Hubbard.
But I won’t.
Instead I will step outside of Scientology and compare LRH to an executive in another organization, like let’s say, McDonald’s. McDonald’s was founded around the same time LRH founded Scientology and so it is sometimes good to use these two to compare to each other.
Let’s say the CEO of McDonald’s, in the 1970’s, created a department inside of McDonald’s to handle “external threats” to their technology. This isn’t so far-fetched. They did develop a technology of fast food preparation which was being copied at the time by their competitors. So let’s say Ray Crock handed over this department within McDonald’s to his wife, just like LRH handed the Guardian’s Office over to Mary Sue.
And let’s say this dept in McDonald’s became overrun with criminals, sending his wife and 11 other top McDonald’s Executives to jail on very solid evidence obtained in an FBI raid of McDonald’s corporate offices – just like happened to Mary Sue and 10 other Scientology executives in 1979.
Questions:
1. Why would Ray Crock hand over this particular dept to his wife?
2. If his wife was running the day to day operations, do you think that Ray Crock’s wife would discuss with Ray whether or not they were going to infiltrate government offices? Why or why not?
3. If there was an author who wrote a book about McDonald’s, and Ray Crock’s wife decided to hatch a plan to frame her for bomb threats to send her to jail, and if that did not work to drive her insane, drive her to suicide, or to kill her themselves – why would Ray Crock’s wife go to such extremes? Was this her own madness? Or could it have been Ray’s franchise teachings that said things like:
We’re not playing some minor game at McDonald’s. It isn’t cute or something to do for lack of something better. The whole agonized future of this planet, every Man, Woman and Child on it, and your own destiny for the next endless trillions of years depend on what you do here and now with and at McDonald’s. This is a deadly serious activity. And if we miss getting out of the trap now, we may never again have another chance. Remember, this is our first chance to do so in all the endless trillions of years of the past…”
Just questions to consider.
Kick em around.
I would suggest Ray Crock would need a Comm Course or perhaps some Auditor training to be able to spot such Huge withholds on the part of his wife.
Maddening!
Alanzo: “We’ll set aside LRH’s own definition of responsibility which he had Scientologists follow. You know the one I’m referring to, right? All flows on all dynamics?”
You mean this one?
“The non-recognition and denial of the right of intervention between oneself and any being, idea, matter, energy, space, time or form and the assumption of full right of determination over it.”
I never understood that to mean that anyone is up to that level of responsibility YET. Now that would be FULL responsibility.
There’s also this: “Full responsibility is not FAULT, it’s recognition of being CAUSE.” I like that one a lot – a real LRH piece of wisdom.
As George Washington supposedly said when confronted as a little kid, “I cannot tell a lie. I chopped down the cherry tree.”
Marildi –
Why would L Ron Hubbard turn over the operations of the Guardian’s Office to his wife?
Because MSH was the only person he trusted with the sensitive nature of the materials and also because she was the most loyal officer of all… Are you paving a road?
I’ll reply to myself here. Bill Robertson’s account covers various aspects of things; one thought I took away from his account is this: Bill Robertson worked with closely with LRH for nearly 20 years; he was one of only two people, he and Mary Sue, ranked by LRH as any kind of “Commodore”. So here’s the crux of my question:
Robertson went on quite a few missions to fix orgs that were in trouble one way or the other, from falling stats to the Toronto org building burning down to the ground necessitating it’s complete re-establishment. etc. for 10-15 years at least. He cites several examples of putting or rehabbing orgs until they were in Power. He refers to LRH tech a couple of times. Here’s his last reference in that story”
“That’s all there is to it. And you don’t have to believe that, that it’s “suppression” or anything, you can make all kind of reasons about it, but if you just go ahead and do what LRH says, you keep expanding. So you don’t worry about that. Just go ahead and flourish and prosper.”
He credits LRH tech with his successes.
So here’s the “problem” if you want to call it that:
Captain Bill uses LRH organizational tech repeatedly to troubleshoot various situations, very successfully by his account.
Geir Isene uses LRH organizational tech for a coupe of decades himself and says it mostly doesn’t work.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
It´s basically hearsay. We don´t know what exactly either one of them was doing.
You are quite right Rafael!
But both of them are quite convinced that their conclusions are true. Yet their claims are opposite. One says it works, the other says it doesn’t.
Who are we to believe? Either, both, or neither? We are missing some data. Maybe a lot of data.
We can´t have all the data, we have to see the results, I mean positive results, if something works results should be on plain sight.
That is how life works, It will flourish and prosper to the degree it is workable, and will stop doing it when it reaches the level in which it doesn´t work.
I am finding this blog format difficult for having the kind of freewheeling discussion I like to have; my posts tend to be too long and the central points I think I am making in my posts, often get completely overlooked and not responded to at all.
I am thinking if I post on these topics at all, I might go over to The Scientology Forum and start threads there; here I seem to take the threads off-topic more often than not.
I have deliberately shortened my own posts for exactly your stated reasons. It’s easier on me to make a single thought clearer and easier on the readers to read. If I put something down that I think might have long term usefulness to me, I try keep these in a note file separately.
If you want to start your own blog, you’ve already got a ready made format right here on wordpress. I don’t know how or why this is good business for them to give free blog space but oh well. I think you just click on your icon and go start writing… I’ll read it if you do… You’ve good things to say and write. I think it’s a good idea.
Or L. Ron Hubbard was caught up in fighting a madness that permeates our society. A madness that sees fields lying fallow while millions starve, that sees women stoned in the street for being raped, that sees little girls sold as sexual playthings, that sees horrors perpetrated by good men and women in military torture chambers, it goes on, day in and day out, while vultures sell their armaments and corporations spill millions of gallons of oil, and multinational corporations rape desperate people in third world countries, paying them a pittance in substandard working conditions in the name of cheap luxury items, annual profits and consolidation of power.
It will take legions of heroes to contest this, legions of free-thinkers, legions of people resolved to bring an end to the madness, to really get behind discovering how to create strong and ethical systems that do not produce the bad barrels that spawn the Lucifer effect.
The C of S was pitifully small and poorly financed, and it was hounded to the ground with little time, resources or experience to bring to bear against the vested interests that wanted to completely control the medical, psychological, psi and holistic health arenas. These are systems of big business and big government at its worst, erecting systems of power, systems that spawn bad barrels and the makers of bad barrels. They are headed up by good people willing to spend billions to protect that power and that profit. Never underestimate the power of multi-billion dollar industries and corrupt government groups to drive small groups and individuals to bankruptcy, desperation and madness. It happens every day, all over the world.
And yet there have been inroads – we do have a freedom of information act in the U.S., we do have wikileaks, we do have Internet access, we can buy vitamins and choose alternative and holistic methods of healing, there is no stigma against practicing eastern religions and new age beliefs, but we’ve got a long, long ways to go.
Let us never forget that when the government actions began against the C of S, they shot students on campus, they shipped thousands of young men to Vietnam, they lied about Nicaragua, they blasted atomic bombs underground and out at sea and envisioned total annihilation for all of us.
When you sleep in your nice safe bed tonight, and you type on your computer in response to this, remember that millions of people over the long history of humanity have been driven mad, tortured, killed and fought hard for the possibility of creating something wonderful for all of us.
And perhaps you will cry for all of us. And perhaps you will pray for mercy and forgiveness. And perhaps you will light your light of integrity and acts of kindness and pray that your strength will never be tested in the cruel light of man’s inhumanity to man.
And perhaps we can come away from this discussion with lessons that will serve a new and better tomorrow for everyone, including the dire lessons we can see playing out today in the C of S. And faults and all, failures and success, I still love LRH and wherever he is, I wish him well.
If I sound apologetic, I am. But I am apologetic for all of us. And I truly sorry about all the pain and sorrow and broken dreams. Forgive me if I sound like I am ranting. I thank everyone on this blog for their goodwill and the love that inspires to take the time to deeply consider the good and the bad and the possibility of better. I am so glad you are all here and that you care.
This is a great post. I’ve already quoted portions of it.
“I am so glad you are all here and that you care.” Back to you, dear Maria. 🙂
Passionately and beautifully said.
I couldn’t put it better myself.
Maria, you are a gem.
Have you ever considered a viewpoint which sees madness everywhere, instead of just human beings?
There’s a verb for that. It’s “diseasify”.
A person who looks out onto all of human civilization, onto this planet, and onto all of his fellow human beings and sees madness everywhere is diseasifying his own existence. It’s a very very bad habit which I myself have spent many years trying to break after I picked it up in Scientology.
Human existence is not a low level, down in the mud existence for me, you, or anybody else. If you continually see your life as a human being as a kind of diseased state, it’s really bad for you over time. It was really bad for L Ron Hubbard and it is really bad for any Scientologist who picks up this way of seeing their lives from him.
L Ron Hubbard was not a sane man. And his constant diseasification of human existence is a tell-tale symptom of this.
I really agree with and try to practice this Al.
I quite agree, Al. Most people are normal and OK. Except for L. Ron Hubbard and those crazy Scientologists.They are diseased to the max, just as you say.
Hey, you guys, no picking on Maria! Kidding (mostly) :-).
But seriously, I am sure Maria does not have a viewpoint of “diseasifying” – she has commented quite a bit to the contrary. She was simply expressing the importance of looking at realitie. Without data on the true situation, one couldn’t come to very intelligent evaluations.
Ah Marildi – Alanzo is not picking on me – he is teaching me as best he knows how. To my way of thinking he’s often a bit of harsh headmaster, and even if his lesson isn’t one I agree with, I’d rather hear from him than not. So I am good with that, although I do feel he should have given me credit for excellent writing!
Everybody should 🙂
I just wanted to make the point that the world is not filled with madness and human existence is not a low state – even for a “thetan”. The madness that LRH was caught up in fighting was his own.
Marildi used your reference to the madness all around us as the reason why that “R” of approval on those papers was written by “Randy” and not “Ron”. It’s the “We build a world with broken straws” justification people use in a certain stage of their education about Scientology.
Learning what Scientology really is can be very hard, and it usually takes a long time.
But in the meantime, find all the love and sanity in the world that you can, and in your fellow human beings, because there’s plenty everywhere. Don’t make the mistake LRH did.
+1. My opinion too.
No, Maria, “excellent” isn’t quite right. Brilliant, moving and eloquent would be more like it. And exceptional – line after line. (Are you working on your TED speech? :-))
About Alanzo – I too would rather hear from him than not! But he needs a harsh headmaster himself, doesn’t he? Someone’s got to do it, might as well be me :-D.
I have had plenty of instances where I was his harsh headmaster. This time around I find him more level-headed, logical and less abrasive. I welcome his viewpoints because of that form and not because I necessarily agree with the contents of his posts.
Geir: “This time around I find him more level-headed, logical and less abrasive.”
Me too! But I wouldn’t go so far as to say his form is perfect enough that he doesn’t need a “headmaster” now and again like I’ve been doing. In any case, more than anything I was just being playful. Did you note the emoticon grin at the end?
I didn’t say his form was perfect 😉
…only that I don’t feel the same need to be his harsh headmaster (with or without a grin).
Valkov, on the other hand…
“Valkov, on the other hand…”
Now that you mention it – yes, with Valkov you are pretty harsh! 😉 (with or without the emoticon)
But then again, there are so many dynamics of potential growth here, for every one of us. and I guess that would have to include both you and Valkov.
Did you know your blog is like a little “Bridge” – both sides of it, case gain and training. 😉 It’s not necessarily an easy route – with the comm being on a writing via, comm lags in between, and no visible indicators to note how much you may have broken someone’s reality or whatever. Yes, kinda rough at times, but a lot of us hang in there. 🙂
Yes, that’s a good viewpoint.
For myself, this has been a very interesting journey, a process of regaining self.
After completing OT VIII, I really thought that I had regained myself. In fact, I was certain of it. Little did I know that this certainty in part was based on accepting data without thorough personal inspection. I found myself defending my certainty in fear of loosing it.
Geir, do you now feel you had no gains from OTVIII?
If the answer is yes i think we can take it 🙂
No no, quite to the contrary. I had excellent wins on OT VIII -just as I have had with everything I have done in Scientology – OT VIII was among the very best.
Beautiful. 🙂
Ok, thought i had a scoop there 😛
“Valkov, on the other hand…”
Now that you mention it – yes, with Valkov you are pretty harsh! (with or without the emoticon)
Marildi,
I don’t think I perceived Geir as being “harsh”.
I was definitely very surprised by the bias(es) he expressed, at the same time apparently denying he had any bias. Although I had seen a little of that side of him before.
I think you are assuming too much, or perhaps it’s a snide attempt. Nevertheless; Here is my take on it: I have treated you almost exactly like I treated Al on a couple of threads over at The Scientology Forum – exactly because he showed a strong bias and seemed not to be interested in a discussion but rather to assert his own rightness in already cemented viewpoints. At that time you applauded my handling. Now, when you are showing similar bias toward the other side (and similar discussion tactics – as admitted by yourself {e.g. sarcasm}), you see it in a whole new light. Well, it is the same light, only now the light shines at you.
Al has proven to be much more productive in these discussions.
Geir, the omitted data on your part is that the viewpoints I am presenting here are very newly created by me.
Two or even 1 year ago, or even 2 months ago, I had not nearly the data I have today, and tomorrow I will have more data and my viewpoints will expand based upon any new facts or data I acquire.
What I think you are missing is I am not ‘defending’ LRH because I do not feel he needs any defense. I speak up in the face of limited views of him, to point out contrary data or an expanded view. But mainly to point out the ambivalent nature of life and humanity.
It is a major stable datum for me, that every single person in the world is fundamentally capable of being as evil as Stalin or Hitler or a cannibalistic killer like Jeffrey Dahmer or a mass murderer like Breivik. I have the potential to be like that. So do you and everyone else posting here. What monitors the actual actions a person undertakes is his goals and his ethic.
Angels have two faces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrathful_deities
The Eight Dharmapalas (Sanskrit: Dharma, ‘religion’; Pala, ‘protector’), known in Tibetan as Drag-gShed (Tibetan: དྲག་གཤེད). The Dharmapalas, or defenders of Buddhism, are supernatural beings with the rank of Bodhisattva, who “are supposed to wage war without any mercy against the demons and enemies of Buddhism”.
The Eight Dharmapala are:
Yama, the God of Death;
Mahakala, the Great Black One;
Yamantaka, the Conqueror of Death;
Kubera or Vaisravana, the God of Wealth;
Hayagriva, the Horse-necked one;
Palden Lhamo, The Goddess;
Tshangs Pa or ‘White Brahma’;
Begtse, the God of War.
Google for “wrathful buddha”. Here is one site in the results:
http://approachingaro.org/wrathful-practice
DM could be ‘defended’, but it is not necessary. I think the above ‘wrathful-practice’ site could shed light on DM’s career to date.
The basic nature of ‘man’ is the potential for ANYTHING. That is Native State. Out of that we make the First Postulate(Not Know) thus creating games, randomity, civilizations, various cultures, ethics and mores, opinions about good and evil etc.
Could LRH have “done better”? Think about whether or not you could walk the walk, as well as talking the talk.
I’m still trying to know WHAT happened, much less WHY. I try to account for or reconcile all the data as I become aware of it. 3 years ago for alI I knew the ‘official biography’ of LRH was all true.
Virtually all of my viewpoints are practically brand new, contrary to what you have posted.
But I still think you are an OK guy!
“What I think you are missing is I am not ‘defending’ LRH because I do not feel he needs any defense. I speak up in the face of limited views of him, to point out contrary data or an expanded view.”
But never here against LRH.
I don’t particularly agree with this slant on potential. Going back to an earlier point in one’s existence there exists this potential, but once the “wave has collapsed” takes a firmer direction in which this “infinite potential” is no longer available. Someone with the inclination might be able to plot this in the complex plane as a graph of “decreasing potential.”
So no, I don’t have the potential to become a serial killer or a Stalin, or even a Valkov. There is both a similarity and a uniqueness that differentiates us all. I believe this is because of the mathematically fractal Nature of the origination of the universe.
“Chris Thompson” may not have the potential to be a murderous cannibalistic serial killer, it’s true. But “Chris Thompson” is one concrete expression or manifestation of an infinite potential that is basically ‘you’, or that ‘you’ basically are.
That ‘earlier point’ is actually ever-present. It is ‘Native State’.
Gotcha. I can see that. So then we arrive back at the wave-function aka “Field of Dreams.”
“If you build it . . .”
“But never here against LRH.”
Y’all never really provide me with the opportunity to do so.
My function right now is to provide balance where ever it may be lacking.
The difference between me and Al in the way we post or have posted in the past is that he (used to?) generalize to support a foregone conclusion, and to associate items that have no causal connection, as well as frequently leaving time out of the time place form and event.
The fact that I have taken the opposite side is incidental; it is his lack of factualness and logic I have opposed, his failure to include contrary data in his computations, his generalization of characteristics to ‘all Scientologists’, stuff like that.
My own current “thought experiment” is to balance. Further, to reconcile apparently contrary facts rather than to ignore any facts.
There is no doubt in my mind that LRH could be a real turd at times; at other times, he wasn’t. Just like anyone.
My bias is that LRH’s intentions were primarily benign or neutral, more constructive than destructive. That’s not about to change.
We have the rare opportunity to get to know someone who was very original in the “master game” or whatever you want to call it. We have thousands of hours of him actually expounding all he observed and cognited about life and the universe.
I call this pure BS if I ever saw one;
1. You were ardently defending LRH before Al came onto the scene here.
2. Out of more than 1000 comments on this thread alone, and with a hundred critical points against LRH, you have done nothing but defend and justify.
3. You didn’t have the opportunity? To acknowledge just one of the specific criticisms (just a general “yeah, he can be a turd at times, but…”)?
Sorry, Val – this is crap.
Hmm….
Who said anything about human beings being low level?
Who said anything about disease?
I am talking about very real human behaviors that do bring pain and suffering to others. I am talking about ignoring that pain and suffering in the name of a “cause,” whatever that cause may be. I am talking about a lack of compassion. I cannot say that I have always acted with compassion and without cruelty, living a stainless life. I wish I could, but it just isn’t so. I don’t even know if it is possible to do so. But I do know that it is possible to recognize that my own actions or lack of actions has the capacity to bring suffering and harm, and I can at least try to act in more reasoned and more compassionate ways, with less blindness and less ignorance. And I can apologize for that ignorance, for that blindness, for that cruelty and I can ask for and grant forgiveness. And life goes on.
I believe that a world that acts with compassion starts with each one of us, and spreads from there to our associations and groups and governments. I believe that it can be brought to the fore into our groups and systems. I have seen it come forward in my own life like a spreading wave, coming forward even in the face of opposition.
+ lots
For some reason, I am now talking to you about your post, rather than talking to Marildi about hers. That’s because Marildi answered my post about that “R” with a quote from you.
I think Marildi has tricked me into talking to you, rather than talking to her.
This must be some OT/Jedi Mind trick being played on me.
hehe – House of Valences.
Very astute of you. 😀
Yes, I think you are right, and in his mad fight he lost his freedom.
Perhaps there is some insight here in this video, insight that can aid in understanding what happened to the C of S and to LRH:
I think so too.
There is a podcast from Scientific American Mind where a follow-up to the Stanford Prison Experiment was detailed. The follow up experiment validated the results from Zimbardo, but because they built in safeguards for the safety of the participants, they were able to complete the experiment. And their results were greatly expanded.
When I listened to that podcast and heard them layout what forces they believed were at work, it sounded exactly like the history of the Church of Scientology.
I tried to find that podcast on line but can’t.
Here’s the beginning of a related article by Micheal Shermer.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bad-apples-and-bad-barrels
Maria and Alonzo both of your links are really good. In 1954, this subject was well and eloquently covered by William Golding in his first novel, LORD OF THE FLIES. There is a short but very good synopsis of the story on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies
Thank you Maria! You go, Girl!
Faith, Hope, and Caritas. It is the root of the English word Charity. It does mean Spiritual Love or Compassion, but something a little more, too. There is a well-wishingness associated with it. It is not passive. It is more like Spiritual Love AND Compassion.
This is a pretty good version but I believe the actual lyric he sings at the end is “This world will never LAST”, not “will never relax”
Changed my email address so I could get notifications. I’ve been missing many responses.
I just found Geir’s post about defending DM. I do know how I would go about doing that. I recently posted a related question on Marty’sblog, about whether or not DM actually believed he was furthering LRH’s vision for Scientology.
I would base my defense on answering “Yes” to that question. It’s easy enough to cherry-pick LRH writings to justify many of the things DM has done; however I believe in the end the effort would fail because of the many things he has done and instituted that are so compeletly contrary to LRH policies.
What DM fails on, is the bottom line of LRH’s vision of expanding churches that help an increasing number of people, by delivering training and auditing around the globe.
If DM claimed he just followed cherry-picked policy, he could be defended on that basis; but he doesn’t. In fact he has changed policies and materials and defacto cancelled LRH policies. So he has violated KSW and that’s pretty hard to wiggle out of. But some of his initiatives could be justified as “in the spirit of LRH”.
My defense of him would go along the lines that after he got into power he couldn’t handle the power or the pressures of the top job and eventually went nuts. He was seduced by the power, a la “power corrupts”, but that to the end he believed he was trying to do the best he could for LRH and that he HAD TO stay in power to make things go right in the end. That, because he was aware of having made mistakes and that he was basically not competent for the job, but couldn’t admit it and wanted to come up smelling like a rose eventually. But the more he lied and covered up the more there was to be covered up, etc. and of course the worse things got for him. A vicious circle. So the more he drank and picked on others and the more mistakes he made. etc.
In the end, if in court, it would have to be an insanity defense. But that is how my justifications of him would run. I would have to look at specific actions of his to decide which justification would be most plausible and work best.
Dostoyevsky, wherever he is, could write a dynamite account of DMs “descent into madness”.
OK, so now go on to actually defend DM – by making it all right for DM to act like he does. Do not in any way put him down – justify for him so that you make him right in what he does. It would be an interesting exercise.
Justify for him so that you make him right in what he does:
The body is little more than an animated vegetable controlled by a thetan. The body does not have any meaningful existence, it is an identification and tool used by the thetan. You can’t really hurt a thetan, because a thetan is not physical in nature. The body is a created thing, and so are thoughts, ideas and emotions. Therefore being hurt and being well are both just considerations, creations of the thetan. Therefore, hurting “someone” never really happened. If some hurt should appear to be happening, it can be audited out so there really isn’t any foul play. The game called life as a human being has no real meaning or value because these are body games – the game of care of the body. Nevertheless, the body is useful for delivering auditing so one must take care of the body. To get more power being used, one rewards the use of more power and severely penalizes helplessness, failure, and lack of guts.
OTs are powerful. They make things go right. It doesn’t matter what the odds are. Even if things are currently wrong, the OT is still OT if he/she is in process of MAKING things go right. If things are not right or are not being made to go right, then the person is not an OT. There are a lot of things that are wrong, we need all the OTs we can get. REAL OTs. OTs who are magical, and 100% right – if they are truly OTs then they always naturally act in right ways.
If OTs do not have their shoulder to the wheel of getting themselves and others to OT then they are not OTs, because that is the right way and OTs only act in right ways. If they have had a lot of auditing or they are on OT7 / 8 this means that they did not well and truly do their auditing, or they are a continuous overt case, PTS or SP. If they did not get the expected gains from their auditing it means that the auditor did not apply the tech standardly. There is something wrong with the delivery – it was non-standard. It was non-standard because it was misunderstood or wrongly applied. If OTs do not wish to be on staff or they are not devoted to forwarding the cause, they have OWs. Therefore OTs who are not progressing or contributing must have O/Ws, if all OWs are cleaned up, then they must not have made it on their earlier auditing or they are bonafide SPs who cannot make case gain.
If they are not getting with the program and MAKING things go right, then they need to come to their senses. Sufficient pressure will bring them to their senses and then they will straighten up and make things go right. This may involve redoing their bridge several times from the bottom up. And all of this is okay because you cannot really hurt a thetan and thetans thrive in challenging environments.
That’s what I call a good defense.
Valkov; Your turn.
I think Maria pretty well covered it. What’s there to add? But is it really a “defense”? What does it defend DM from? It just outlines his thinking, his rationalizations of what he does.
Nail on head! I had to re-start reading your post 3 times until I queued into your very literal answer to Geir’s assignment to Val. That put me straight into a rudiments session!
“Making him right” in what he does, and “making it all right” for DM to act like he does, are not the same thing.
Try both.
The problem with LRH lies with his desire to achieve Total Freedom in a shared universe. It is an impossible dream. One can’t have a shared universe without agreement; while each agreement binds one down and away from Total freedom.
If one insists on Total Freedom in a shared universe, one becomes the “Only One.” This attribute can be seen in dictators and insane people. They are aspiring to be totally free in a shared universe.
.
That is an awesome post. I agree fully.
Yeah, that is a path which leads into trying to control or own all other beings and universes, becoming “source” of everything, self-determinism overcoming all other-determinism, bringing “unity” by overwhelm, being the only one which is right, convincing all others they are wrong, trying to place oneself at the top of the pyramid with the agreement of everyone else.
Anyone who believes that is the game will place himself in oposition to everyone else, and end up trying to destroy everything. Total freedom for one in a shared universe means total slavery for everyone else.
It seems to me that LRH went that route, and now DM is attempting that route… the route of OT who is totally free.
Contrast them with persons like Buddha and Christ.
.
Really good post Rafael. I agree and this week had an idea about affinity that dovetails with what you wrote about *-determinisms.
Pan determinism is moving closer;
Self determinism is ensuring distance;
Other determinism is out-of-valence.
Vin, nothing wrong with what you say here, except maybe the apparent, implied criticism of LRH. Michel Snoeck did a study of the references on the history of the name of the Grade Chart and wrote an article entitled: “‘The Bridge to a New World’ or ‘The Bridge to Total Freedom’?” Here’s a excerpt from his summary near the end:
“…In 1975 it was introduced as the ‘The Bridge to a New World’ which name was maintained in 1980, then in 1983 it turned to ‘The Bridge to Total Freedom’….I don’t know who is responsible for changing the name of this Grade Chart (it was changed somewhere between December 1980 and mid-1983).” http://www.wiseoldgoat.com/papers-scientology/hubbard_story_of_mayo3_grade_chart.html#name
And here is what LRH says in FOT about freedom:
“Barriers are composed of inhibiting (limiting) ideas, space, energy, masses and time. Freedom, in its entirety, would be a total absence of these things. But it would also be a freedom without thought or action – an unhappy condition of total nothingness.
“Fixed on too many barriers, Man years to be free. But launched into total freedom, he is purposeless and miserable.
“There is ‘freedom amongst’ barriers. If the barriers are known and the freedoms are known, there can be life, living, happiness, a game.”
.
Based on the above I would say that your comment is a good example of criticism that is based on missing data. And I’m sure that both the defenders and the critics are guilty of this, and also guilty of searching out and gobbling up data (or mere opinion) that suits there own bias. We have to be willing to at least make an attempt to get the facts and see the bigger picture and hold off on our convictions until that has been done as well as possible. I’m going to try doing a better job of it myself!
The website quoted above I feel is a good source because it is not just his opinion based on very narrow evidence. It includes data he has thoroughly researched and documented. I think it would be good if more often all of us here would back up our comments/opinions with the sources so that readers can decide how reliable they are.
If a person wants to share an opinion, it seems to me they only need to share it clearly and explain what they mean if queried. Sometimes I feel that it is detrimental to a person’s opinion when they confront with a banker’s box of backup. It smacks of an appeal to authority so naturally gets rejected out of hand before getting a good review.
I like a short, clean, and concise statement of opinion which is as consistent as possible and this is what I am trying to learn to write.
And what would your opinion be based on? “Consistent” with what? I can’t believe you are dismissing the value of looking at the best data that can be found as opposed to creating it out of whole cloth.
I was not dismissing your ideas. I was expressing my own opinion about posting and what I enjoy reading and writing. I am not trying to dissuade anyone from going to the well for backup, but sometimes I just like to know what people think. I can always do research and read mountains of data on a subject. For me, blogging adds the flavor of human interaction even if just letter writing to pen pals we never meet. After all, it is YOUR opinion that I am interested in.
“Creating it out of whole cloth?”
Generality?
Thanks, Chris. Here’s where I’m coming from. The bulk of the discussion is usually on what did or didn’t happen in the physical universe. Any opinion about such would have to be based on some sort of fact, obviously, not just pulled out of thin air or “made from whole cloth,” as the saying goes (that’s for Alanzo’s edification). From my viewpoint there’s way too much opinion given that isn’t backed up with enough bankers boxes (still love that) or without enough going to the well (that’s good too). Yes of course you can always do research yourself, but each of us sharing what we’ve “picked up” is actually the biggest part of the discussion. And yes, sometimes I even search some more for data that I feel it lacking.
Hey, I’m not nearly as good as you are at pulling from memory all kinds of anecdotes or analogies to books or movies or the like to illustrate a point. That’s your inimitable style. I do appreciate your interest in my opinion but maybe I’m still not getting exactly what you mean about “liking to know what people think.” It seems like I’m saying what I think all the time! And you know me well enough by now to know that I like the human interaction as much as you or anybody. 🙂
I know you enjoy our blogging and work very hard at it, me too.
To be clearer, an opinion needn’t be based anything. Using a gelatinous meat-wad of reformed data as a Spam of opinion can make a solid opinion out of bits but then it might not be interesting to read nor present a fresh look. To make a point, it might only be necessary to say your point. To make a point, when using someone else’s point, we routinely couch a very short quote (the point) in a lot of words. Regardless, make your choices freely and enjoy creating!
Chris: “a gelatinous meat-wad of reformed data as a Spam of opinion can make a solid opinion out of bits.”
That’s rich! And meaty. And funny! Also cowboy-type smarts. 🙂
Yet another signature Chris line.
May I quote you? 😀
Always. But I like more to read the witty things that you say.
p.s. The other thing I wanted to say is that I really don’t have a backoff or consideration about myself or anyone saying what they think. If it seems that way, realize that not everyone has as much to say as someone who can make a memorable statement out of Spam! :-). I wrote a foreword for a book I helped edit not long ago and a few people told me that I should write a book myself. My laughing response was – I would, if I just had something to say. No self put-down there, not everyone has a book in them. (Btw, I think you should write a book. :-))
Well that’s a very nice thing to say, but what would the book be about? As you say, I don’t have a book in me. I barely have a thread post in me!
The writers I admire are the ones who somehow can wrap their minds around a mountainous pile of sometimes technical material or complicated historical data, or both together and then issue a cogent compilation of that material which a novice like myself can then read and begin to grasp grand ideas. The first person that comes to mind is Louisa Gilder’s “THE AGE OF ENTANGLEMENT, When Quantum Physics Was Reborn.” I’ve been slogging through this rich text a page at a time for a month. MU phenomena galore so I just go back over the material and clear it up as best as I can. But to have confronted the task of assembling the mainline physics breakthroughs of two dozen of the smartest men of the last century and to have then bound these ideas together into a consolidated whole seems as great an achievement as that of each of these certified geniuses.
Personally, I’d like a short, clean and concise statement of opinion from you which agrees with an earlier opinion I wrote. I’d like the statement to praise me on what a wonderful person I am, too. And I’d like you to offer me money.
Would a 5 spot raise your spirits?
Great to see you opening up Alan 🙂
oops, almost forgot. AND you are a wonderful person too. Better?
+1
There is a lot of contradictory data which lead us nowhere. The Old Man is not here to explain it, and don´t need to defend himself anymore, we just have to extract the workable parts of his work and improve upon them if possible.
Chris, if the idea of writing a book actually does interest you at all, I’d say to keep all your thread posts and emails and whatever other writings. Also keep a journal that includes notes on all your adventures, like the one of reading that daunting physics book, stuff with the kids, whatever – you have so many interests. Then, if and when the spirit moves you, you could organize it all and you’d have the material for maybe a memoir – or maybe the general musings of a born philosopher. (And I’ll be your editor. :-))
Marildi –
It seems to me that your Wise Ole Goat Guy has a tendency to leave out all kinds of information, and add in other info, too. And in doing so, I think he’s trying to re-write history. The missing data here is the data which shows LRH contradicting himself later.
Here is a full essay on Hubbard’s own contradictions in the area of TOTAL FREEDOM, written by an early Hubbard-appointed Int Base Sea Org biographer of L Ron Hubbard, Gerry Armstrong. It’s very well documented, all with the relevant dates and LRH references.
As you read this, ask yourself if this was just a mistake Hubbard was making by pushing totalitarian goals into Scientology, like “TOTAL FREEDOM” or if he knew exactly what he was doing – and he did it very much on purpose.
http://www.gerryarmstrong.org/50grand/writings/total-freedom.html
Al, I read over that Gerry Armstrong essay on the link you posted and saw that he did include HCO PL “Attacks on Scientology,” the one that gives the context to what LRH meant by “total freedom.” But in his excerpt from the reference, he left out (either conveniently or ignorantly) the very paragraph that gives that context. Here’s what he quotes:
“That is the policy — advocate total freedom.
“[…]
“This is also the basic purpose of Scientology and the basic purpose of people, so it all agrees well.”
Below is the paragraph he omitted, replacing it with the ellipsis dots:
“There are technical reasons for this which an auditor will recognize. To discharge later incidents from a mind, one must get the first or basic incident of that kind. In this case the basic aberrated incident was the suppression of freedom of the being. Just before that there must have been freedom. Thus advocating total freedom hits the true basic incident.”
So where you say above, “It seems to me that your Wise Ole Goat Guy has a tendency to leave out all kinds of information… And in doing so, I think he’s trying to re-write history” – I would replace “Wise Ole Goat Guy” with “Gerry Armstrong.” Note that the paragraph he omitted is the one I immediately picked out to put in my reply to your comment just below (where you reference the same PL) – as that is the paragraph where LRH explains why he wanted “total freedom” to be advocated.
Other than the “abbreviated” quotes from that particular PL, what you called a very well documented essay has nothing more than quotes from issues that merely repeat the slogan itself, “total freedom.” And we already know LRH wanted that slogan to be pushed, but for the reason stated in the quoted paragraph above – that “it hits the true basic incident,” clearly implying that it would indicate to people. The only other references he quotes were earlier ones where LRH says strongly that he does not intend an absolute meaning for “total freedom.” Yours and Gerry Armstrong’s interpretation that “LRH contradicted himself later” is not shown to be true in his essay.
As you can see, what you said – that “Wise Ole Goat Guy has a tendency to leave out all kinds of information” – isn’t backed up by your comment above. Can you back it up otherwise? Or the other thing you said, that he “adds other info, too”? If, by “other info” you’re referring to his drawing inferences from the data he knows I would have to say that Gerry Armstrong certainly does the same.
But let’s see what you have to say. This is a good challenge for the both of us to do our best to look honestly at the facts we’re presented with (by each other or otherwise), rather than just try to win a debate – which we’ve both been guilty of, I’m sure. I actually get that you would basically want to do that. Me too! 🙂
This is also another important LRH HCOPL which dates to 1966.
http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/1062
Great find, Al.
I don’t get that kind of literal meaning from the issue that you do:
“That is the policy—advocate total freedom.
There are technical reasons for this which an auditor will recognize. To discharge later incidents from a mind, one must get the first or basic incident of that kind. In this case the basic aberrated incident was the suppression of freedom of the being. Just before that there must have been freedom. Thus advocating total freedom hits the true basic incident
Good post.
Marildi –
I shouldn’t have given you that second reference. There are also technical reasons having to do with the technology of brainwashing to advocate, push, and imprint totalitarian goals.
How about the first set of LRH references contained in Armstrong’s essay? It much more directly pertains to the Wise Old Goat’s assertion that L Ron Hubbard never meant for the Bridge to Total Freedom to be called the Bridge to Total Freedom. What do you think of that one?
And by the way, when I was on the BC, I saw a film Ron made at Saint Hill from the early 60’s where he first introduced the Grade Chart. (Not many Scientologists realize that prior to the early 60’s, there was no such thing as a grade chart in Scientology). From my memory of that film, L Ron Hubbard unveiled a Grade Chart that had “BRIDGE TO TOTAL FREEDOM” written across the top of it.
Al, with regard to what you say about “…the Wise Old Goat’s assertion that L Ron Hubbard never meant for the Bridge to Total Freedom to be called the Bridge to Total Freedom.”
Here’s the exact quote posted in my comment above:
“I don’t know who is responsible for changing the name of this Grade Chart (it was changed somewhere between December 1980 and mid-1983).”
Seems you have mis-duplicated again. Naughty naughty :-D.
Al, you seem to be stating that use of the word ‘total’ is somehow automatically related to “totalitarian goals”, totalitarianism,etc.
I submit that you cannot base any logical argument on this kind of basis. ‘Potato’ has the word ‘pot’ in it but here is no logic that can be generated from the similarity of appearance there.
And, it’s time for Al’s daily hug. Whose turn is it? Anyone?
I propose you give him a real good hug. Not a snide one. Not a sarcastic hug. Just a real heart-felt warm hones hug.
“I propose you give him a real good hug. Not a snide one. Not a sarcastic hug. Just a real heart-felt warm hones hug.
Ah, c’mon, Geir. I didn’t get it that way at all. It seemed like a guy’s way of communicating affinity to another guy.
Are you sure you’re not still picking on Valkov? 😉
Yhat should be the end of the disciplinary action – as long as he mellow down on the sarcasm and snide covert ad homs.
One last stepped up picking-on aside, for the intention to tone it down a warm honey hug to you (really). 🙂
Enjoyed 🙂
How about a bear hug!
.
Marildi, I’m with you on this: ”
In this case the basic aberrated incident was the suppression of freedom of the being. Just before that there must have been freedom. Thus advocating total freedom hits the true basic incident”.
To understand how it all fits together, ALL of it, I can only most highly recommend the 4th London ACC lectures. most, most highly! They are available for free download:
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/requested-4th-london-acc.64801/
Those clarified so many things for me. For example, the nature of the basic incident.
The basic basic seems to me not the suppression of “i”, but an attachment to “I”.
.
Maybe.
Is there no such thing as suppression, but there is such a thing as attachment?
Valkov, I appreciate the comment. And thanks for the link! 🙂
Words are words. The best interpretation we see of Total freedom is in the actions of those who have controlled or who are controlling Scientology… the route they have followed, the actions and products that have defined them, and where they have ended up.
Again, words are just words. Didn’t Hubbard hope to increase the life span of Scientologists?
The actual data doesn’t mean a thing. The significant parts are the inconsistencies. Consistencies are recognizable only after inconsistencies have been discarded.
.
Alternate to Total Freedom the following models are subscribed to in the East.
(1) Total Understanding (Jnana Yoga)
(2) Total Playing of a game (Raja Yoga)
(3) Total Orientation to Action (Karma Yoga)
(4) Total Devotion to an ideal (Bhakti Yoga)
Each of them lead to a feeling of freedom in a balanced way.
.
I think you are adding “Total” in this context of Yogas. It sounds like PR for Eastern philosophy. How can “Total” anything, ever lead to balance?
Interesting point there.
I am just on a kick for TOTAL. 🙂
.
You are so Totally Vinaire! 🙂
I meant to write TOTALLY VINAIRE.
Yep. Vin and Raf nailed it.
Vin, I don’t think LRH had any desire at all to “achieve Total Freedom” for himself in that sense. He had all the freedom he wanted/needed.
However it might be possible for a person to “achieve total freedom” for himself by completely as-ising all of his involvement with this universe and it’s creation. Then he would be completely free of the co-creation he had been a part of, and would have ‘total freedom’ to create his own universe completely from scratch.
It is not possible to have ‘total freedom’ in this universe.
I tend to think this is what Buddha meant by attaining ‘nirvana’, because he made a point of saying that he would not be born again and would there after not be found anywhere.
Buddha was saying that he was essentially ‘totally free’ and that we could be too by following his path into ‘the trackless’.
Using the phrase Total Freedom is a type of processing, like Rising Scale Processing or Postulating a Static. Or postulating Nirvana.
That’s why I don’t think there is a “problem with LR” in that regard.
Sorry, I can only see what is there. LRH heavily promoted Total Freedom, and I spotted inconsistency in that route. Of course, I am assuming that he wanted for himself what he wanted for others and that seems to be consistent with his utterances and activities.
I am neither accusing nor defending LRH. It is just part of looking (obnosis) for me.
.
You have nothing to apologize for, and I am not attacking you.
I simply think using the phrase was a type of processing he decided to use, for the reasons stated in that bulletin. Isn’t that Occam’s Razor? That he was doing exactly what he said he was doing? To me, that is what is there.
I think personally, he had all the freedom he felt he needed/wanted.
Let me repeat here that the idea of freedom seems to be inconsistent when there is no need for freedom in the first place. How can “I” be suppressed if there were no “I” in the first place?
One has to create an “I” and then say that the “I” is being suppressed before the idea of freedom can be sold.
The basic basic seems to me not the suppression of “I”, but the creation of an attachment to some “I” in the first place.
.
I get you now. Not bad… gonna think on this.
Vin,
This is actually what LRH says, too, in his lectures from October of 1955.
The “first postulate” is the basic incident. Prior to making the first postulate, there is Native State. Native State potentially knows everything and is everything but doesn’t know any particular thing.
Thanks, Valkov.
.
A thought just popped to my mind; In face of rather easy criticism as offered by Alanzo and many, many Internet sites, it takes a friggin’ genius like Valkov to be able to defend the many seeming inconsistencies in Hubbard’s writings and lectures. Now why would LRH make it so darn difficult to defend him? And isn’t that an inconsistency all by itself?
“TIME STATES THE UNTRUTH OF CONSECUTIVE CONSIDERATIONS”
Axiom 43: Time is the primary source of untruth.
Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations.
________________________________________________________
Yesterday, Al is a Scientologist.
Today, Al is not a Scientologist.
Which statement is true? Each statement is “true”. Each statement is also untrue.
Thus both statements are true. Both statements are also untrue.
Did LRH actually make it so difficult to defend him?
OK, back to basics. “Criticism” has two distinct meanings. Which one are you using?
crit·i·cism/ˈkritəˌsizəm/
Noun:
1. The expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes: “he ignored the criticisms of his friends”.
2. The analysis and judgment of a literary or artistic work: “methods of criticism supported by literary theories”.
I think the two often get confused in discussions of LRH.
TIME STATES THE UNTRUTH OF CONSECUTIVE CONSIDERATIONS”
Axiom 43: Time is the primary source of untruth.
Time states the untruth of consecutive considerations.
_______________________________________________________
Yesterday, Al is a Scientologist.
Today, Al is not a Scientologist.
Which statement is true? Each statement is “true”. Each statement is also untrue.
Valkov –
There is such a thing as being a Scientologist based on a set of information and assumptions, and then – after that – learning new things not known before which prove that your previous information and assumptions were false. You can learn things by becoming more experienced and then realize that Scientology was not the group you were told it was.
So you quit.
It appears that hindsight is 20/20, no?
This, by the way, solves the Church’s “Apostate” problem. When a person learns that he has been lied to and deceived, it is perfectly legitimate to leave and to then warn the public about those lies and deceptions. It does not mean that the person “has an axe to grind” and therefore is not providing reliable information on his former religion. It means the person has learned new things after being in Scientology for a while that new people are not told, or are intentionally lied to about.
This is a very level-headed post Al.
Seems so.
It is not difficult for Valkov because he is identifying himself with the good side of LRH. He knows how it was for LRH.
.
Vin, I think you’re kinda on the right track.
I would put it this way:
People who defend LRH are defending themselves.
People who attack LRH are attacking themselves.
This is consistent with, and logically follows from, the theory of the 8 dynamics.
This also relates to “compassion”. Compassion requires empathy. It is the response to perceiving what another feels.
Rafael understands. Simpatico.There is a similar word in Russian.
I believe you have misinterpreted Vin’s communication.
How so?
My interpretation if Vinaire’s communication is that to defend another is to first identify oneself with that other and then end up defending oneself, one’s own ego if you like.
Vinaire; Amiright?
haha well I see. It is hard for Val to agree with Vin so he wrote a lot of words but I got that he agreed with Vinaire who was uncharacteristically compassionate toward Valkov. hehe – Maybe it is the Season!
This reminded me how much I’ve changed this past year as well. My overall tone has raised and this has resulted in a quieter me. Once I wrote something to Vinaire like that I was at the root of it all an “eternal unchanged being” and he wrote back “are you sure?” Which might have set the theme for this year just past.
Changes in myself? Numerous and satisfying. Got rid of some things I used to know and know a few things I didn’t used to know. Made friends. Made adjustments at home. Family life grew and prospered. Kids changed schools for the better. New music and musical instruments. Made new friends and became reacquainted with old. I only lost two friends in Scientology this year due to disconnection, and then got one of them back. Lost friends = -1 (temporary.) Net gain of friends? +Lots! I sure do love you guys.
Peace.
🙂
I really, really like you Chris.
Geir: “I really, really like you Chris.”
+ 1
.
Chris: “I sure do love you guys.”
+ 1, Happy Holidays, everybody!
I think what is being missed here, is that I may well be “identifying” with LRH’s ‘bad side’, not his ‘good side’. Or I could be ‘identifying’ with both sides, no?
“He knows how it was for LRH”. Does that involve ‘identification’?
It depends on what y’all mean by ‘identification’.
I do believe you are simpático Mr Valkov, hope to share with you a couple shots of vodka and tequila someday. “Una buena parranda” is consistent with, and logically follows from, the theory of the 8 dynamics combining a White Feral Russian and a Brown Mexican Macho.
Thanks Raf! I feel the same about you.
It would be great to have a good beer, on my end. Can’t take the hard stuff anymore, but I can enjoy any kind of beer and like to sample them.
OoPs, what does ‘parranda’ mean? My Spanish is close to nil.
Parranda is an all-nighter party with a lot of alcohol, mariachis (strolling musicians playing mexican folk music), etc,etc.
If I have to be honest, I don´t drink tequila anymore, and fall asleep before midnight, but still enjoy a couple of beers at weekends, so we are still on!
Parranda = Par-tay
OK! Thanks Chris and Raf. The Cubans call it “el rumbon”. There is a great jazz composition by Chucho Valdes of Cuba with that title.
I couldn’t find it on Youtube but here it is on Myspace:
http://www.myspace.com/chuchovaldes/music/songs/el-rumbon-the-party-34490314
I’l try to embed:
El Rumbon (The Party)
Possibly if this blog thread were rendered into music, it might sound like the above.
Good point.
Well, Valkov is the one person, I know, who has been diligently studying LRH, not just the books but as many tapes as possible. He seems to be getting very familiar with LRH the writer. He is almost identifying himself with that viewpoint of LRH. He can feel and think like that LRH. But that is only part of LRH.
LRH used to employ automatic writing. In those moments his eyes used to go into his skull while his hands wrote. That part of LRH seems to come through his writings. I have also read from different accounts that LRH used to be high when he delivered his PDC lectures. This may be so with his other lectures as well, but that is a supposition.
Whether this is true of not, I believe that knowing LRH through his writings and lectures is knowing only part of the man. That is what Valkov seems to know the most. That part of LRH was genius. It tapped into an aspect of his mind, which was brilliant. However, when we read or listen to LRH, it is that only aspect which we become familiar with.
And Valkov seems to be more familiar with that aspect of LRH than the rest of us.
.
.
Vinaire: ” I have also read from different accounts that LRH used to be high when he delivered his PDC lectures. This may be so with his other lectures as well, but that is a supposition. Whether this is true of not, … ”
Sheesh, why even forward crap like this – ‘ different accounts ‘, ‘ this may be so’, ‘supposition ‘, ‘ whether this is true or not ‘
Gimme a break.
I heard rumours that Santa Clause was real … yep – saw it myself on TV – letters to Santa, proved it in court too …. blah, blah
I heard Santa likes to drink!
🙂 ‘It’s the real thing’ … although he *does* have that awfully red nose
Santa and Rudolph have reportedly been seen at the bar together.
I’ve heard of sheep & Billy the Burro down Tijuana way, but RUDOLPH ??!!??
Wow! Get a room you two! 🙂
Whatever you may say I find that most people know only “LRH the writer and lecturer” and incorrectly assume it to be all of LRH.
.
Thanks Vinnie!
I have indeed been listening to as many lectures as I have time for. There is a huge amount of data in the verbal lectures that is not found anywhere else and without which I believe it is not really possible to understand Scientology and how it applies to life, where LRH was really coming from, etc.
And I read as many accounts as I can, by people who actually had personal contact with LRH and knew him to any extent at all.
One question that has occurred to me recently, and of course I think no-one really knows, is WHY did LRH do what he did? WHY did he develop the auditing tech in the first place?
Why did he codify it and try to establish an organization to transmit it?
The same questions can be asked about Buddha or any of those kind of guys.
I believe I will start a blog so I can set down my own thoughts and clarify for myself what I think about things and what I am doing.
Again, thanks for your post Vin.
+1 both of you
Drugs have helped a person get in touch with some untapped potential since the ancient Vedic times. The drug of choice at that time was soma.
It is not the drug that is bad. It is the ignorance and abuse of drugs that is bad.
.
Part of the reason for this is that he continually changed the direction of the technology for years and years. From 1950 to 1980, there were constant changes. For example, when I arrived at the Mission Sec Checking was forbidden and so was disconnection.
HCO was supposed to go through the policies and keep them updated to reflect current policy. They didn`t do this consistenly after the green volumes were issued. Before they were issued in 1968, new policy letters and revised policy letters came in on the mimeo line. HCO was to pull the canceled and revised issues, remimeo the new ones and update all the hat packs. That was a big part of the Div 1 hat. HCO was also supposed to ensure that policy letters were distributed per the routing indicated at the top left hand side of the policy letters and was supposed to periodically review all policies and strike out and revise any inconsistencies. They didn`t keep that up either. I don`t know why. I just know that I was in HCO at the time and it was the nightmare from hell trying to figure out what was and was not current policy at any given time.
Also around 1978, the tech bulletins were compiled into the red volumes. They too were supposed to be kept up to date and they sort of were but putting them into hardbound editions really made that problematic. Again, the HCOBs came in on the mimeo line, same thing for HCO, pull the canceled and revised editions, update the coursepacks. Lots of work doing that.
In 1976, the books were not considered to be scripture, but were considered to be a record of anything that was found along the way. The current materials in use were those authorized for use by checksheet. Everything else was supplementary information and the record of past techniques and findings. Then a policy letter came out saying that calling any book or policy letter or HCOB old or we don`t use that any more was a high crime, a tech degrade.
Even back then if one took these policy letters and treated them as if they were all in use all at the same time for all divisions and all sectors then they looked absolutely ridiculous, and are a mass of contradictions.
I assume that the hat function of keeping things updated fell by the boards under the pressure of get your stats up now and there`s no time to organize or review anything. Staff positions were always very very hectic and largely characterized by p.t. production only and stat pushes despite policy published to the contrary.
All that wiseoldgoat does is carry out the function that HCO was supposed to do as his first step, so he can figure out what policies were in force at the time period or for the issue he is researching. C of S should hire him. He`s quite good at it and actually does understand the mimeo and HCO hat on this.
If you want to know what Scientology is supposed to be now, you have to collect up the issues that are still in force, with their most current revisions and ignore the books unless they are specifically used in part or in full on a course checksheet. Taken that way, there are really very few issues to study and at least up until 1981, they were reasonably consistent. It wouldn`t be hard to go through those and strike out contradictory info in earlier policies and HCOBs and reissue those. Then and only then you could actually start to analysis what the hell you are looking at and trying to apply for each division and sector of the Scientology organizations.
Here`s a good example: In 1975 the book Dianetics Today was released. It did contain the most recent Dianetics information — and it was very very consistent. And it was consistent with the HSDC Dianetics auditor course of the time. The Clear definitions matched the grade chart and the course and the book. All other materials were considered to provide additional historical data, but they were definitely not the current standard material. By 1978, NED was released. Of course the Dianetics Today book became obsolete immediately, as did the HSDC course. So now there were no books that you could say were Dianetics Today. And there went the information that explained Clear and the Grade Chart changed too. So really all that remained for Dianetics Today was the NED course.
Maria, your post above is one of the most constructive on the thread. Firstly, since you are so experienced and knowledgeable about both tech and admin, it is very heartening that you say determining the correct tech and admin would only be a matter of sorting out inconsistencies in a relatively few PL’s and HCOB’s. And as for what you say about Wise Old Goat, I have the same impression as you that he is already well in progress in a huge and diligent effort to do so (and to do so as regards all the controversies as well).
Ultimately, it won’t much matter what did or didn’t happen up to now in the management of the organization or in the so-called practice of Scn or as regards what LRH did or didn’t do. The actual thing that matters, which I’ve realized more on this thread, is the workability of the tech as well as admin and ethics in their purpose to support it. The key thing comes down to what LRH said about results being the important thing to focus on.
And I’ve come to the conclusion that the only thing that will decide the validity of Scn – or that will change anybody’s mind about it – is the tech and its proper use. That means having the correct tech. Ha ha – I realized while writing that last sentence that what I was saying was actually KSW point One – “having the correct technology.” And “its proper use,” in thinking about it just now, I realize means all the other points of the Ten need to be applied too in order to have a valid test of Scn. But this next time we will have learned the lesson of not rotely applying KSW #1 or any other part of the materials.
Marildi: “But this next time we will have learned the lesson of not rotely applying KSW #1 or any other part of the materials.”
Chris:
1st: How else would one apply KSW other than rotely?
2nd: Your consistent argument is that Scientology has been deteriorating due to poor application. So to give Scientology a fair trial KSW would have to be applied rotely.
3. KSW stipulates that Scientology is both consistent and complete. We have gone over this in detail and this is physically impossible.
4. KSW loads every failure of successful application onto the auditor. Therefore, there is no provision for correcting “Scientology.” Qual exists only to correct the Auditor and the Auditor’s mistakes. This becomes a circular data storm. I once had a good auditor whose ARC was very conducive to going into session and I got very good results from her. Yet she was totally hammered every day for “years” to pass her TR’s video which recording was made daily and sent to Int for evaluation daily. The more she was hammered, the more rigid she got. I never noticed a flaw in her auditor’s code but this damn video’ing of my sessions was a distraction. The solution to the big clunky video camera sitting 5 ft away and being a distraction was for her “to get her TR’s in.” It was the 800 lb gorilla in the room. She felt it and I felt it. She is both out of the SO and no longer audits.
5. I can go on and on but my point is that KSW is the rot at the core of Scientology and it is the root source of the aberration and leverage which allows DM to maintain his hold on corporate Scientology. How? Because no one can apply KSW. This softness which is the result of the basic goodness in well intentioned people leaves them open to the fascist attacks of DM who is a zealot. In the world of KSW, there is not and never can be enough zeal to go around. Because everyone knows they could improve their 7, 8, 9, & 10, thus they acquiesce to attacks on their weaknesses due to their O/W’s on 7, 8, 9, & 10. More of the circular data storm.
6. To me, this is the nightmare of KSW: The lesson learned results in a circular data storm and a dwindling morale on the part of every Scientologist who cannot apply it which is everyone.
+e^pi
yes. crazy^crazy power. 🙂
Chris: “1st: How else would one apply KSW other than rotely?”
My point about not applying KSW #1 rotely is mainly that it has been (rotely) extended to admin policies and then rote application of those. But even applying tech “exactly” is not the same as “rotely.” Tech has its own moderating datums built into it, one of which you quoted earlier – “There is no substitute for understanding.”
“2nd: Your consistent argument is that Scientology has been deteriorating due to poor application. So to give Scientology a fair trial KSW would have to be applied rotely.”
No. As stated above “roteness” is not what LRH intended.
“3. KSW stipulates that Scientology is both consistent and complete. We have gone over this in detail and this is physically impossible.”
First, we have to keep in mind that the PL is referring to tech – not admin. But even as regards Keeping Admin Working HCOPL, I have commented several times that we can’t just look at one policy and not think with the whole, backing that viewpoint up with quotes from other PLs, those on the theory and purpose of policy and HOW TO INTERPRET IT. They indicate clearly that policy is flexible and thus not “complete” in the strict sense. As a matter of fact, the usual criticism of it is that there are “inconsistencies” and to that I have said there has to be a conceptual understanding of the whole of admin tech. (Haven’t you been playing close attention to my comments? ;-))
“ 4. KSW loads every failure of successful application onto the auditor…”
I don’t see that at all – look at it again – it is directed at everyone. Supervisors, C/Ses, and other tech terminals are just as responsible and so are ethics and admin terminals – especially “Administrators and Executives,” who can be comm ev’d. You gave an example, like many people do, of a something you have personally witnessed, and all I can say is that it is entirely conceivable to me that this occurrence was indeed a misapplication – but as usual, neither you nor I have any way of knowing for sure since we don’t know all the facts. That is why I said in my comment above that it seems to me the only thing that will resolve these controversial stories is another run of Scientology with the mistakes under our belts.
5 & 6. “I can go on and on but my point is that KSW is the rot at the core of Scientology and it is the root source of the aberration and leverage which allows DM to maintain his hold on corporate Scientology…”
For me, DM and his rote application of KSW – when he isn’t violated it utterly – is done when it suits his purposes for the manipulation of people and events to his material and sinister ends. (And I can get out the bankers boxes to back that up if you like. :-))
I should not have fired that shot so directly in your direction Marildi as it is fired at KSW and not at you. This just bubbled up in response to your post but is not competitive with your post. It is just what I think about KSW in part. I hope anyone reading it would pay attention to what 7, 8, 9, & 10 have done and have allowed to happen to Scientology. There is a grievously large analysis that can be done from this pivot. Everything from PR to making auditors and financial considerations.
Wow, Chris! You are really good here. Very clear presentation.
.
.
Where does KSW say to put a video camera in the auditing room?
Thanks for that, Chris. But it’s fine that you had your disagreements with what I posted. It gave me further material (he he) to express how I see things. Btw. you made no comment on my reply to you and I wonder if you saw any merit to it. Vinaire and Geir commented positively on yours and I’m sure they read it with interest, but I wonder if they even read mine (with any degree of concentrated interest) or if they would give it a thumbs-up on any particular point – but I thought you might. (As you probably noticed, I’m kind of tired of this kind of thing and am now calling ’em like I sees ’em.) Not that you have to say something good or that you don’t have the right to totally disagree. I know that you aren’t fixed on one viewpoint or another – and I’m to do better on that too. 🙂
Anyway, I hope you got my main idea – that the tech works and that the admin tech might also be workable if it were applied correctly. Like everything, it depends mainly on INTENTION. But I also think that the only way we’re ever going to know for sure is to carry out another trial of it but this time with all the experience we have gained.
Come to think of it, I think communism has a better workability track record than the admin tech. Just think how good it would work were it not for all the misapplication.
Well now, that’s more like it – a negative response is as usual. I have to say, though, I didn’t expect the heavy sarcasm to go along.
(But if you intended humor, I admit I did laugh. :-D)
The word “garrulous” comes to mind.
.
“Now why would LRH make it so darn difficult to defend him?”
What you imply here seems to me would be based on the viewpoint that LRH should have been, to whatever degree, omniscient and omnipotent. And that’s unfair.
And btw, you said it right – “easy criticism” – it’s very easy for people to not look any deeper than they want to. This goes for both sides of the debate – I know. It’s like that blog post you wrote where you described people at two extremes, one leaping at all the negative and the other at anything theetie wheetie. (I forget your exact words but I recall that concept.)
I’ve come to think that many of us have already made up our minds and we’re not really being open-minded. We might throw in something here and there that makes us feel that we are, but probably deep down we consider that it’s not okay that some people continue with their misguided viewpoints and so we speak out accordingly – trying to convince them otherwise. Or else, as you say, we’re defending ourselves in some way.
You did say above, “seeming” inconsistencies in his writings. That was fair enough.
This is a relevant and good one:
People are zealous for a cause when they are not quite positive that it is true. (Bertrand Russell)
Yes, really good!
And I think this is true too: “People are zealous for a cause when they are not quite positive that the reverse ISN’T true.” Have you ever noticed that? 🙂
Or, the cause can be a negative one. Works just the same.
I believe that sometimes people engage in discussions mostly to convince themselves of the rightness of a viewpoint.
Yes, I can see that too. And then the opposite of that also: Sometimes people engage in discussions mostly to convince themselves of the wrongness of a viewpoint. These last two might be different wordings for the first two. No?
Yes.
I actually disagree with Bertrand. IMO zealousness is an effort to overwhelm the ideas of others so that one`s own ideas prevail and predominate. It is a refusal to acknowledge another idea for fear that other idea will prevail and dominate. Kind of like holding your hands over your ears and yelling la la la la la la la to hold off hearing that other idea so that other idea cannot take root in one`s own ideas. Zealousness is always characterized by an effort to dominate and prevail, and typically it starts with a decision that an idea or cause is wholly correct and there are dire consequences that can result from holding some other idea. I think people know instinctively that doubt in an idea erodes the power of a postulate. Have you ever had a person who is big on positive thinking tell you that you are negative and they don`t want to listen to you – same thing. They don`t want to have their position ideas by you because they fear that by agreeing with you it will become reality and they don`t want it to become reality. Trouble is – its a trap. On the same breath of wanting to be positive, they act in a negative way by acknowledging your power to alter the reality they are trying to create.
I think both views can be right. Simultaneously.
Hello folks.
I have decided today’s lesson will be about “Consistency”,
Here are some definitions:
con·sis·ten·cy (kn-sstn-s)
n. pl. con·sis·ten·cies
1.
a. Agreement or logical coherence among things or parts: “a rambling argument that lacked any consistency.”
b. Correspondence among related aspects; compatibility: “questioned the consistency of the administration’s actions with its stated policy.”
2. Reliability or uniformity of successive results or events: “he pitched with remarkable consistency throughout the season.”
Here is a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson, the American Transcendentalist philosopher:
“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — ‘Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.’ — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood.”
Here is another quote from the same essay. In it Emerson shows how the pursuit of consistency can be a huge trap one creates for oneself. Or rather an ever-closing trap that will eventually force one into a complete immobility.
Consistency could thus be called “The Road to Total Entrapment”
“The other terror that scares us from self-trust is our consistency; a reverence for our past act or word, because the eyes of others have no other data for computing our orbit than our past acts, and we are loath to disappoint them.
But why should you keep your head over your shoulder? Why drag about this corpse of your memory, lest you contradict somewhat you have stated in this or that public place? Suppose you should contradict yourself; what then? It seems to be a rule of wisdom never to rely on your memory alone, scarcely even in acts of pure memory, but to bring the past for judgment into the thousand-eyed present, and live ever in a new day. In your metaphysics you have denied personality to the Deity: yet when the devout motions of the soul come, yield to them heart and life, though they should clothe God with shape and color. Leave your theory, as Joseph his coat in the hand of the harlot, and flee.”
These quotes are from Emerson’s Essay titled “Self-Reliance”. It’s got a lot of good thinking and observations in it.
The entire text can be read here:
http://www.emersoncentral.com/selfreliance.htm
Another note about consistency: is that sometimes to find it, you must look in the right places, at the correct level of things.
Example: Is a man consistent in that he acts irrationally some of the time, most of the time, never, always? If a man acts rationally most of the time, what outside pressure might lead him to suddenly act irrationally at any given time?
Example: A man has a goal. He acts to achieve it and fails. He then rethinks his strategy and again acts to achieve the same goal, using new strategy.
Is he being “inconsistent”? No, his consistency is in the goal he is trying to achieve, not necessarily in the specific actions he takes. .
Great point Val. Consistency, solidified into certainty, becomes a trap.
One should not be focusing on consistency. Anything consistent with aberration will itself be aberration.
One should only look out for inconsistency and pull the string on it.
.
That seems to be the consistent slant on consistency.
The fact that Scientology can be used to enslave people is a proof of its workability.
The workable parts of Scientology can stand on themselves, but we have to be able to discern what works and how it works.
That is all that matters, how it is used depends exclusively on us.
“The fact that Scientology can be used to enslave people is a proof of its workability.The workable parts of Scientology can stand on themselves…That’s all that matters…”
Rafael, IMO what you say here is actually the best point on the whole thread! If I do say so myself. 🙂 Seriously though, way up near the beginning both Maria and I made comments mocking up scenarios where standard tech was actually in use. But the OP was to do a sci-fi mockup that included the admin tech and we were off to the races… 😀 That and the debate about LRH have been enlightening too, though. I learned a lot, including about biases.
“…but we have to be able to discern what works and how it works.”
This is what I see more clearly too. A big old sort-out of the tech is needed and I know from other blogs I read that the Independents are very aware of that – and capable of doing it. I feel pretty confident that a successful grass roots movement is bound to happen. How could it not, when you have answers to a long-sought dream?
I appreciated your post! The voice of reason. And wouldn’t you know – that of an auditor. 🙂
No one has ever demonstrated to me that Scientology really can be used to enslave, except in theory. In practice, the C of S has been dwindling in numbers for at least two decades and the S.O. which is the only demonstration that even comes close to using techniques that could produce enslavement certainly has a lot of ex staff members, a growing and very vocal lot of ex staff members. This seems contrary to the effectiveness of the enslavement methods.
If its power to enslave is a testament to its overall effectiveness, would its lack of power to enslave be an indication of general ineffectiveness?
I think that to get to the bottom of this question, you have to examine the motivations of the individuals that utilize it. In other words, effectiveness depends on the individual using it and what they are using it for. It also depends on what it is claimed to do and how the individual interprets that claim. It is just too sweeping to examine Scientology as if it is all just one technique or method and as if it will be used the same way by everyone. It just does not happen that way.
In the case of Scientology, give it to the CIA and they will use it to try to develop PSI methods to spy on enemies. Give it to a Buddhist monk and it will be employed to aid in comprehending impossible thinking. Give it to a person trying to repair their marriage on the rocks and you will get a different answer. Force it on somebody who does not want it and you will get yet another result. Can you really divorce the use of it from the purpose of the use of it and the willingness of the use of it – that is really the question.
Taking it outside of Scientology, there is this concept of love bombing – I have experienced love bombings and I have to tell you – it feels great! The love bombings came from my family when I returned from being out of town for months. Compare that to love bombing being done to reward an alcoholic who has stayed on the wagon for many months and to love bombing as a kind of coercive method of getting someone to agree with something they have been reluctant to accept. All three are love bombings, yet all three are quite different in practice.
OK, it’s time to give Al his hug. Who’s up?
“If its power to enslave is a testament to its overall effectiveness, would its lack of power to enslave be an indication of general ineffectiveness?”
No, it would be an indication of it’s misapplication of tech, admin and ethics. But you don’t seem to want to concede that. (I’m in a snippy mood :-))
I was asking. Not suggesting. And probing the original suggestion that its power to enslave shows that it is effective somehow.
Got it. Seems right to me that if the mind and spirit in all their toughness and power could be so subjugated, you would have to have a technology based on full knowledge of their nature.
I really do not think that slavery is a term that applies at all. From Wikipedia: Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property (i.e. they do not own themselves) to be bought and sold, and are forced to work. Slavery is differentiated from forced labor and bonded labor. If we change the laws of the country to enable slavery, then slavery can exist regardless of the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Scientology or any other philosophy, religion or system of self-actualization or religion.
To my way of thinking, this is like saying that the Christian Church must be effective because it was successfully used to enslave on the basis that races other than white do not have souls and therefore it is okay to buy and sell them as animals. It just does not make sense to me.
Good point. Like brainwashing, slavery has an everybody knows feel to it until one breaks it down as you have.
” Seems right to me that if the mind and spirit in all their toughness and power could be so subjugated, you would have to have a technology based on full knowledge of their nature”.
That is exactly my point Marildi, you expressed it much better than me! :-).
For me, Scientology is a tool which can be used in one direction or the other, depending on the ability and the intentions of the user, but the hard facts don´t show much support for it.
Also, to say they are slaves or have been brain-washed doesn´t seem right, I´m still searching for a better description 🙂
Maria and Rafael, the physical body concept of slavery hadn’t even occurred to me in this context. I assumed the meaning of “slavery” had to do with definitions like “submission to a dominating influence” or “a state of subjection like that of a slave.” “Like” that of a slave but – mentally, spiritually.
Where I used the word “subjugation” I had in mind something like – subjugation of the will. A complete breaking of the spirit. Brainwashed – but total. Compared to this kind of thing physical slavery would be nothing.
Excellent point. Well formed and stated.
slave
noun
1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
.
Marildi – I am not trying to be difficult here, but this discussion happens to be exactly what I have been exploring for the last six months. I have come to think that this idea that you can break a spirit is the very idea that breaks a spirit. This is because you cannot break something that is not something.
You can scare the shit out of people about unknown threats and dangers that will happen if you do not obey. You can seemingly wall off a point or center of awareness as a response to attack. You can manipulate fear and that fear can result in separation and hiding and not being where the fear is. Kind of like building up walls or tearing down walls (figuratively speaking). You can break down the composite known as man. Rip out some cells, set them to devouring themselves (hunger), keep the composite in an emotional or mental state that is dissonant. But you can only go so far anyway because if you totally break down a human being, sickness and death is the inevitable result.
Any which way this is done, it is always the cohesiveness and vitality that has been interrupted or diminished. And since it has been diminished (at least in willingness) it is not much use as a so-called slave anyway.
This is all the further I have gotten with this – I am very hopeful that you can take a look at what I am looking at and perhaps you and the others here can aid in this sort out I have been doing.
Maria, I see no argument that what you describe – “manipulation of fear,” “response to attack,” “kept in an emotional or mental state that is dissonant” – are things which, to the degree they have succeeded, you would have an individual of not much use as a slave. And I would imagine that to the degree that you do still have a useful slave, you would also have the potential for the slave to rise up again in resistance. But in any case, where this type of enslavement has been done it wasn’t based on a full understanding of the mind and spirit. More to the point, though, is the fact (at least as I have understood it) that “Black Dianetics” would not have the purpose of that type of slavery.
It would be more like what can be done with drugs that are used as chemical straitjackets or even the use of brain operations to destroy the personality. – but it would be done without the tell-tale via of the physical body. It would be done “in session.”
Nevertheless, what you are saying about it not being possible to enlave a being I agree is ultimately true! I don’t remember the reference, but according to LRH himself a slave of any kind will always rise up again – eventually.
I think not.
The reason for that is obvious!
They are not applying reverse Scientology in the standard fashion! Ha, ha, ha! 🙂
No, seriously, I get the point, those are the hard facts, thanks.
Rafael: “They are not applying reverse Scientology in the standard fashion!”
Hilarious! I love your humor. 🙂
+1!
Note: I said the green volumes were issued in 1968 – I meant to say around 1977 or 78.
Marildi –
I very much appreciate your very well thought out and even crafty responses on the subject of the “Bridge to Total Freedom”. My point, which I think you have been addressing only obliquely, is that in the mid 1960’s, after the BC, Hubbard changed Scientology drastically and instilled totalitarian goals and many socially coercive brainwashing techniques into Scientology.
“The Bridge to Total Freedom” is one such change that he – L Ron Hubbard – placed into Scientology.
But before we go much further, I have a request of you to apply Scientology Logic 8 to the fundamental assumptions and technical explanations by Hubbard. Logic 8 is “A datum can be evaluated only by a datum of comparable magnitude.”
Are you willing to do that?
My request includes that you go *outside* of Scientology for data of comparable magnitude to data *inside* Scientology. Despite Hubbard’s claims that nothing compares to Scientology, this can be done, and must be done if you are to really evaluate Scientology – per Logic 8.
Right?
So when I say “totalitarian goals” and “socially coercive brainwashing techniques” I am going outside of Scientology to grab these data of comparable magnitude to compare to various parts of Scientology in order to evaluate it. This is totally acceptable to do per the Logics, and as Hubbard wrote, it is the only way to evaluate something.
Am I correct on that?
Plus, Hubbard said that an OT is as OT as he can assume viewpoints. So let’s be OT and assume many different angles and viewpoints on Scientology in order to evaluate it. I think that is in keeping with Geir’s purpose for his blog and I myself have found it to be extremely valuable in increasing my understanding of both the good and bad in Scientology.
Maybe even Geir might want to start a new thread on this, as it is a kind of thought experiment. Something like “Applying Logic 8 to Scientology itself.”
What do you think?
Alanzo; That’s an interesting angle. If you like, you can write a proposal for a blog post (like Maria did) – simply a rewrite of the above to be less of an answer to Marildi, and I could post it.
Alanzo: To do this, we will need to debate whether brainwashing is even a viable theory. I personally have come to the same conclusions as the APA did in 1987 about brainwashing, and the courts in the U.S. have: “neither the APA nor the ASA has endorsed the views of Dr. Singer and Dr. Ofshe on thought reform”. After that time U.S. courts consistently rejected testimonies about mind control and manipulation, stating that such theories were not part of accepted mainline science according to the Frye Standard. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainwashing
Note: I am not suggesting that there is no such thing as coercive or abusive behavior, rather I am
rejecting the concept of brainwashing as brought forward by Singer, et al. that suggests that brainwashing is so overwhelming that NRMs grow because of those factors alone. In fact, the lack of growth of NRMs is one of the primary reasons why brainwashing is rejected as a valid theory. And sure enough, we see the C of S dwindling rather than growing in numbers, and that lack of growth parallels their use of coercive and abusive behaviors.
This is a good point Maria. The term ‘brainwashing’ has an ‘everybody knows’ feel to it, but it is not what the sensationalistic tabloid mentalities would have us think it is..
If this thread ever comes about,, I will post an article I abstracted from a book by two ‘positive psychologists’ who analyzed North Korean brainwashing, how it was done, and what the results actually were.
Alanzo, once again I like your willingness and spirit :-). And I think that if, in the discussion you proposed, everyone starts out with the idea that they may in fact learn something contrary to whatever they started out with and realizes that this will only benefit them, as truth always does – then there’s no way we can lose. Pretty cool if we each make that commitment to ourselves, don’t you think? I’m jazzed, actually.
Okay, the first thing I figure we would have to agree upon is what we are meaning by “Scientology.” I personally am not interested in discussing the travesty of it that the CoS became more and more over a period of the last 2-3 decades. I don’t at all go along with the conclusion that it “must” have been the natural outcome of Scientology itself, as if to say that no other factors or arbitraries would be possible. I see that particular notion as true only past a certain tipping point of Scientology being practiced and expanding accordingly. So a discussion of the CoS would merely be one of comparative cults, which may be worthwhile but it has already been done quite a bit, even here on Geir’s relatively neutral blog. The discussion I think would be productive would be one involving the datums in the materials themselves. Is that what you had in mind?
Meanwhile, as regards the other thing in your comment above – I was surprised that you continued the claim that “The Bridge to Total Freedom” is an example of LRH “instilling totalitarian goals and many socially coercive brainwashing techniques into Scientology.” The references you gave as evidence of this were actually shown to be evidence to the contrary. I would have expected you to either try to refute that in some way or just concede and go on to your next point. See what I mean? Over to you again, Al.
The truth is that each one of us carry a unique perception of Scientology, because it so intimately affected us.
It is difficult to have an objective view of Scientology for anyone who was deeply involved in it, unless that person also immerses oneself in anothe subject of comparable magnitude.
It is a waste of time to want to come to a common agreement on what Scientology is. There are different strands here:
(1) How has Scientology affected oneself positively?
(2) Howhas Scientology affected oneself negatively?
(3) How is Scientology supposed to have affected one?
(4) What have been the social influences of Scientology?
By its fruit you know the tree, but also see if the tree is infected, or if the fruit you ate had a worm in it.
.
It is a cop out to say, “Scientology fails when it is not applied correctly.” That is true for any process and not just Scientology.
The question really becomes, “How well Scientology is error-proofed?”
Poka-yoke.
I believe it would have been a very different Scientology had LRH known about the concept of Poka-yoke.
I think LRH poka-yoked quite a bit in the early years … after all, research was happening daily – I know we were getting almost daily updates from the Apollo and MOffice WW. He likely didn’t know the term ‘poka-yoke’ but there is much evidence of correcting and furthering the basic goals & truths as he saw them.
As for later on, it seems to me that the organization became a behemoth to handle – one assigns a hat – basically a judgment call, and hopes like hell the person will handle as he would. Some won; some failed.
Well, bad things happen, upsets or worse occur and those who have a fairly sane head on their shoulders try to correct & carry on. It can take years to repair and evolve.
I believe the reason LRH wrote so many bulletins and policy letters is exactly because he was trying to fool-proof the system as much as possible. In the end, though, the fools got the better of him.
Adding complexities will tend to make the system more error-prone, not less.
. . . depending on the complexity of the subject. I think the subject of NASA space travel generates quite a bit of complexity, manuals, jobs, people..Lots more than the subject of Scientology. Lots of room for error there. Yet mistakes NASA makes seldom rise to the level of public awareness. (of course when they do they are brilliant mistakes)
So how do these two subjects compare in complexity and in relative success?
Dennis’s post is a good example of justification, rationalization, not looking or ‘looking through a filter’.
The fact is Scientology cannot be used for a gross roots movement in its present state. There is ample opportunity to poka-yoke Scientology for greater workability on a grass roots basis.
.
Poka-yoke makes a subject safer and easier to apply no matter how complex that subject is. Unmanageable difficulty in the application of a subject comes from a lack of poka-yoke.
.
I know. See my reply to Valkov.
Ahhhh, but adding a correction to prevent therepitition of an observed mistake isn’t the same as adding complexity, is it?
Poka yoke is about making something so good in the first place that it prohibits incorrect ude – not merely about correcting mistakes.
Good post, Chris. And a good comeback, IMO, that no one even challenged.
Poka yoke is about making something so good in the first place that it prohibits incorrect ude – not merely about correcting mistakes.”
About pokayoke I know only what I read on Wikipedia, however I see little chance of someone creating something that good without taking possible mistakes into account, if you see what I mean?
I have been wondering for some time about where this discussion is going, in this sense:
Statements about how much better Scn would have been if LRH knew about pokayoke, or that “Unfortunately it’s the best we have”, etc lead me to believe you (and Vin) think you could do it better.
Well, what’s stopping you? You already have the advantage of all of LRH’s work to build upon – go for it. Walk your talk.
Streamline the existing auditing tech, or develop a new simpler one that gets equal or better results, codify it, develop a training program for transmitting it, (pokayoked of course, so new practitioners don’t make mistakes applying it), then launch and establish a worldwide system of organizations to deliver your new improved tech.
You have 30 years.
Start.
I have. Hang on.
Valkov, KHTK is an attempt in that direction. It is a work in progress. I would like you to contribute to it.
I believe that if Scientology is done with KHTK principles of Looking there is no possibility of overrun.
.
In examining Scientology, one usually looks through the filter of how it has affected one.
But, one should be clear about what did affect one so positively in Scientology. If you really contemplate on that one factor alone, those positive results were in fact achieved by your own looking. When a person is trained on looking, the positive results increase by leaps and bounds.
The only thing that can be said to be unique about Scientology is the system it developed, which encourages one to look in many different ways. It is not the theory of reactive mind or O/Ws etc. Actually, some of those theories hinder one from looking, as obvious in the sec check abuse.
The various theories in Scientology only helped in coming up with various processes of looking. The theories may be discarded, but the processes will still work when one uses them in looking.
There is a technique underlying looking, and that technique has not been developed fully in Scientology. That technique is now being developed under KHTK. That technique of looking combined with Scientology processes has the potential not only to increase the positive results, but also error-proofing Scientology processes.
I would go so far as to say, “The abuses and deficiencies exist in Scientology because the technique underlying looking is not being practiced.”
.
The technique of Looking (KHTK) helps error-proof (poka-yoke) the processes of Scientology.
.
Vinaire: ” In examining Scientology, one usually looks through the filter of how it has affected one. ”
I think we all constantly look thru filters of one sort or another including yourself.
Vinaire: ” When a person is trained on looking, the positive results increase by leaps and bounds. ”
Sounds like auditing to me … for that matter, sounds like daily life – we are all ‘looking’ – the only difference is what we’re looking at – truth or a mock-up.
Vinaire: ” Actually, some of those theories hinder one from looking, as obvious in the sec check abuse. ”
What about regular old sec checks without the abuse?
Vinaire: ” That technique of looking combined with Scientology processes has the potential not only to increase the positive results, but also error-proofing Scientology processes. ”
And who is going to error-proof this new technique? What gave you the idea that Scientology processes did not involve ‘looking’? What were you doing during your auditing?
Vinaire: ” . I would go so far as to say, “The abuses and deficiencies exist in Scientology because the technique underlying looking is not being practiced.” ”
/facepalm
“But, one should be clear about what did affect one so positively in Scientology. If you really contemplate on that one factor alone, those positive results were in fact achieved by your own looking.”
.
Marildi: ” I personally am not interested in discussing the travesty of it that the CoS became more and more over a period of the last 2-3 decades. I don’t at all go along with the conclusion that it “must” have been the natural outcome of Scientology itself, as if to say that no other factors or arbitraries would be possible. I see that particular notion as true only past a certain tipping point of Scientology being practiced and expanding accordingly. So a discussion of the CoS would merely be one of comparative cults, which may be worthwhile but it has already been done quite a bit, even here on Geir’s relatively neutral blog. ”
Agreed Marildi – this is the same old, same old.
There are many blogs/websites with members who continually want to trash some subject or another. To me – boring.
The fanatics on both ends saying that it is the ‘natural outcome of Scientology itself’ or ‘everything in Scientology is perfect’ are equally off the rails. The great middle ground is where sane discussion & improvement can take place and this is where I sit.
Having to continually assert how bad or how good something is are concepts that will contain lies, half truths and innuendo. A big shell game on both ends of the scale.
There is no doubt that many have realized great gains from various philosophies including many well known ‘cults’, and, there have been many who have walked away with sadness & empty pockets or simply did not get the expected results.
Each of us has the right to continue, change it for the better or leave.
This also applies to those who dabble with a bit of Scientology mixed with some Eastern practice or philosophy or Yoga or treadmills . Totally fine, but it doesn’t give one the right to rail against Yoga as the cause of their disappointment if the end result is less than one expected.
Btw, the ‘treadmill’ reference was in reference to some post on some blog where the guy was running some OT II mixed with some other practice while on a treadmill. Yeah, that’ll work /facepalm.
Many church policies can also be poked full of holes just as many corporate or government policies can. Policy was set as a guide for tech (auditing & training) to occur – nothing else.
Dennis: “Totally fine, but it doesn’t give one the right to rail against Yoga as the cause of their disappointment if the end result is less than one expected. Btw, the ‘treadmill’ reference was in reference to some post on some blog where the guy was running some OT II mixed with some other practice while on a treadmill. Yeah, that’ll work /facepalm.”
Chris:Dennis, I respect your opinion but this one seems voiced with the same inconsistencies of which it complains.
Simple … what I am saying is that if I am baking a cake and using a manual on how to fix a car engine, don’t rail against the writer of the recipe or the car manual if the cake flops.
If your mixing something with Yoga, call it something else – it sure ain’t Yoga anymore.
I’d love to see someone auditing that OT II while on that treadmill … Scientology? Nope.
Every subject deserves a fair shake when it is applied as its source. To mix something with it and find the results unpleasant … well, $hit happens.
Treadmill or no treadmill, Scientology or no Scientology, it is the looking that matters.
Take out looking and you’ll have zombies and fanatics.
.
Vinaire: ” Treadmill or no treadmill, … ”
… and you were at Flag? a Wordclearer?
Auditor? Ever audited?
Sad
I’ve had fantastic wins on treadmill… 🙂
.
Dennis, being a tech terminal at Flag does not mean that you pawn your ability to look.
If you consider yourself a product of Scientology, then Scientology has some serious issues.
.
This is an example of fanatic think that there is nothing wrong with Scientology scriptures.. They are perfect that there is no need to change anything. All failures of Scientology are due to people who cannot apply this data properly.
This is the same refrain that one hears from fanatics in Judaism, Christianity and Islam that their scriptures are divine and perfect. Such fanatics ultimately resort to violence to assert their rightness. there is ample evidence of this.
.
And all the failures of psychiatry is the failure of people to apply that technology properly. Same goes for communism, nazism, etc.
I doubt any of us have seen any ‘scripture’ applied in its truest sense or form. They are all being looked at thru various filters.
Every group has their fanatics and bad eggs. It does not necessarily follow that the basic doctrines of the group are flawed. Can they be improved? Very likely so.
I have friends from many faiths, cultures and upbringing as most of you do. It’s great carrying on a discussion where viewpoints are heard and acknowledged rather than have ‘know best’ attitudes enter the conversation.
You are (illogically) leaving out the fact that those other systems have little record of having been successful for any period of time or in any significant way. And at the same time you yourself have attested to the high workability of Scientology (personally, especially) to the degree that you called it “the best we have.” In spite of that, you only occasionally post a comment on the side of Scn and instead the vast majority of your posts on Scn, though they’re not usually illogical are criticisms. That makes me doubt that you are considering Scn without some basic bias / false datum / black pr/ or MUs. You are just too intelligent and rational for me to think otherwise.
The most workable system we have (per stats) is the Scientific Approach.
“And all the failures of psychiatry is the failure of people to apply that technology properly. Same goes for communism, nazism, etc.”
Geir, my post above was directed at the above comment of yours.
Ah, but you see – it was simply pointing to the fallacy that you cannot claim that a system is really working because we have not yet seen someone apply it correctly (which has been the case several times here). That we cannot find a workable application would tend to point to a system’s failure, not its potential success.
As for my bias; On this thread I have concluded (since waay back up there). On other topics, I have different stands – like another 1000+ comment blog post Significant Change.
That most critics find me as a defender of anything Scientology and Valkov and you find me as critically biased makes me sleep very well at night. The balance is reached.
An attitude that derides another of know-best is itself a know-best attitude.
.
It could also be a simple observation – no need to make it complex when one just has to look.
“And all the failures of psychiatry is the failure of people to apply that technology properly. Same goes for communism, nazism, etc.”
Hahaha. Who says they were not applied properly? Especially psychiatry. It gets exactly the results it is designed to get., at least in the USA. Maybe it is different up there in the Nossk country. There can be a lot of variation from culture to culture.
And what about nazism and communism? There have been several examples of splendid application of those philosophies to a ‘done’.
But seriously, you are mixing apples and oranges. Sarcasm loses it’s edge when a fallacy can be too easily spotted.
The fallacy here being, that nazism and communism did not really have an exactly laid out technology to follow.
That was the whole point.
Because your counter-arguments could just as well be applied to Scientology.
As for communism – I would argue that it is a social technology that can be applied.
“Ah, but you see – it was simply pointing to the fallacy that you cannot claim that a system is really working because we have not yet seen someone apply it correctly (which has been the case several times here). That we cannot find a workable application would tend to point to a system’s failure, not its potential success.”
The obviously fallacious claim you described above is not what is being claimed. First of all, who is saying “we have not yet seen someone apply it correctly”? In fact, the claim is this – we HAVE seen tech applied correctly (and I can’t imagine that you aren’t aware of the fact that there is and has been such a thing as correct application and that more and more out-tech has occurred over time) so therefore why keep pointing to the incorrect applications (which fail) and rarely concede that there do exist correct applications (which are successful). Actually, why point to the mis-applications at all – as you yourself said, they prove nothing.
“That most critics find me as a defender of anything Scientology and Valkov and you find me as critically biased makes me sleep very well at night. The balance is reached”
Yes, you keep saying that, but I don’t see it – at least not on this thread. Most obviously, you never seem to miss an opportunity to badger Valkov (often in undeserving ways, IMO) about his pro-LRH/Scn posts and yet overlook the illogical outpoints and misguided viewpoints in Alanzo’s and Vinaire’s many anti-Scn posts. I’m sure if I can see them you can too, unless you aren’t really paying close attention to those like you are with Valkov’s. And just in general, you let very out-pointy posts go by all the time, so why so quick on the trigger with pro-Scn posts?
But let me say, before you do, that I need to look at this kind of thing in myself too and am attempting to do so. The difference between you and me, though, is that your power to influence is much greater, as I’ve said before.
I am not against LRH. Or pro LRH. I am against bias and illogic such as Valkov’s when he claims to be balanced but evidence tells otherwise.
As for the claim you mention; Take a new look at the LRH Admin Tech thread.
1. “As for the claim you mention; Take a new look at the LRH Admin Tech thread.”
I understand what you’re saying there, but I think it was clear I wasn’t referring to the admin tech – I specified “the tech” – so you haven’t actually responded to my comment or to the claim in question (except in the erroneous way I noted).
2. “I am not against LRH. Or pro LRH. I am against bias and illogic such as Valkov’s when he claims to be balanced but evidence tells otherwise.”
Here again, that wasn’t the point – it was that you tend to treat bias and illogic differently depending on whether it is pro- or anti- Scn or LRH. That goes for ad hom and sarcasm as well. You point out sarcasm in Valkov’s posts but not so with Vinaire. His recent reply to me on my comment (“Good post, Dennis! I really like your sane contributions.) was dripping with sarcasm: “… now Dennis, you pat my back… show me ARC…. and admire me…because Scientology is so theta…” (And btw, Dennis’ post that I was referring to had both pro and con comments. I’ve noticed he does a better job of being unbiased than I have so far, which is one reason I said “Good post.”) As for illogic, what about Vinaire’s post today defending the use of generalities (after just having been accused [by me] of making a critical generality [about me])?
I will ensure to blast Vinaire’s snideness as well.
But, I hope you remember that not long ago, I gave him a three days vacation from posting here – something I haven’t yet done with Valkov, or you or any of the pro-gang. I have also energetically blasted Alanzo for his generalities before. So, if I could be accused to be biased, it must be against Scientology critics.
p.s. Is this comment from Vinaire to Dennis not ad hom and a generalization (illogic) ? :
“If you consider yourself a product of Scientology, then Scientology has some serious issues.”
Yes – it is quite a blatant AdHom Sorry – missed it (there is soo many posts to approve here…)
Vinaire; Chill.
“So, if I could be accused to be biased, it must be against Scientology critics.”
Yes, you are. But I wonder why…?
Nevertheless, your response that of a big person. Thanks, big guy. 🙂
I didn’t say I was biased against critics of Scientology – only that I could be accused to be… because I have not throughly blasted the avid defenders like Valkov and yourself.
“I didn’t say I was biased against critics of Scientology – only that I could be accused to be… because I have not thoroughly blasted the avid defenders like Valkov and yourself.”
You’ve had mercy on me but not on Valkov. I can’t imagine it being much worse.
And I did catch that qualification you point out here but I thought the comment showed you saw something to the idea. So then was it just a Q & A to shut me up? 😉 I guess you had no direct response to my comment – at least you never expressed one whatsoever, based on the above
It could easily be worse – like giving Valkov a yellow card, vacation or red card 🙂 His sarcasm and AdHoms may have deserved it. But hey, I love him, and it’s X-Mas!
Didn’t have much else to respond with now. I’m winding down to X-Mas Mode 🙂
Ha ha! This is embarrassing but I just noticed that I read “biased against critics of Scientology” as “biased toward critics of Scientology” – or I would have replied with something like “Say what??” 🙂 So my response to that comment should make more sense now.
Anyway, I should be as gracious as you usually are with me (usually :-D) and get more into the flow of Christmas. I wish you a wonderful one!
“The most workable system we have (per stats) is the Scientific Approach.”
To me this raises other questions.
Did LRH use a type of “scientific approach” in developing his auditing tech? He says he did.
If you decide he did not, then what?
If the “scientific approach” is so great, why has it not developed a comparable tech? Unless of course LRH did use a type of “scientific approach.”
With all the Universities all over the world using a scientific approach and doing ‘scientific research’ one might think they would have developed a workable auditing tech by now.
Most divine scriptures seem to have been written with automatic writing, with eyes of the messenger going up into his skull.
🙂
Vinnie – I was once thoroughly disabused of this blasphemous automatic writing divinity idea by a very sincere Christian. The Bible is ALWAYS complete and right even when there are translation errors made. The Bible is a MIRACULOUS work. No matter how many versions there are it is always 100% truth – no exceptions. 🙂
I think there is a lot to be understood about the subject of inspiration.
.
I really agree. It seems odd to me that we can be so continually inspired without putting a finger on the trigger. It seems to me to once again be the subject of certainty. And not the certainty of “being right” but the certainty of understanding the entire mechanics of a thing. Many things in our lives are like this. We breath without thinking, we walk without being able to describe every mechanic, and we can enjoy beautiful music without being aware of a mechanical reason why. Yup, there’s more to know here.
Good post, Dennis! I really like your sane contributions.
… now Dennis, you pat my back… show me ARC…. and admire me… because Scientology is so theta…
.
Vinaire,
I am really amazed that you can be so 1.1 and condescending at times.
One doesn’t just come out with statements like that without some nasty crap in behind it.
This is something YOU need to look at.
As the saying goes …
There is so much good in the worst of us,
And so much bad in the best of us,
That it hardly behooves any of us
To talk about the rest of us.
The hallmark of a Scientologst seems to be
(1) Evaluate what others are like
(2) Look down upon them
(3) Tell them how they should behave.
.
Marildi wrote:
Meanwhile, as regards the other thing in your comment above – I was surprised that you continued the claim that “The Bridge to Total Freedom” is an example of LRH “instilling totalitarian goals and many socially coercive brainwashing techniques into Scientology.” The references you gave as evidence of this were actually shown to be evidence to the contrary. I would have expected you to either try to refute that in some way or just concede and go on to your next point. See what I mean? Over to you again, Al.
Remind me again.
How did the evidence I gave actually show to be evidence to the contrary?
I think Marildi goes into too much details and loses the view of the forest for individual trees.
There seem to be some kind of imbalance here.
.
I think Vinaire goes into unknowable too much, and since there is only one unknowable there really isn’t anything to say. There seems to be some kind of imbalance here! 🙂 (sorry Vin, couldn’t resist!)
But in fairness Maria, we really don’t know how many unknowables there aren’t.
Vinaire, it’s not me going into details – I’m responding to the details presented to me as criticisms.
Now in return for your generality evaluation, I’ll tell you what I think about you. You do not see the trees for the forest – which you are looking through with a filter called bias against anything that might be a point in favor of Scientology. You should LOOK at that.
It’s a matter of purpose. My purpose is neither to attack or defend Scientology. My purpose is to criticize Scientology to come up with a more workable grass roots movement.
That is more productive in my view. 🙂
.
“Unknowable” is an adjective, which is at times used as an abstract noun. Those who attribute “one” or “many” to it don’t get it. They are imbalanced in some way. 🙂
.
It is interesting for me to see how the accusation of “generality” is used to make another wrong and oneself right. All axioms are general. All basic principles are general. These are onservations made at a general level. But this accusationof “generality” is used to shut another person up because LRH did so.
From looking at Marildi’s arguments over last several months, it is my observation that she is very sensitive to criticism of Scientology. Her defense gets into tortuous logic which makes me wonder what her purpose is. She seems to take the criticism of Scientology very personally. The same goes for Valkov. Dennis does not use tortuous logic. He is in denial.
It may be interesting to look into why some people take the crticism of Scientology so extremely personally, and show such intolerance.
.
Vinaire, here you and I part ways.
It seems to me that it comes down to this: each one of us has a “truth” function. It is at the bottom of all attempts to discern truth. Without this function, there can be no discernment. It is the very assumption of all scientific reasoning, that there can be a truth and that it can be recognized. It is what keeps someone gnawing at the bone until all perplexity is gone.
I have come to realize that there is a very real distinction between the process of thinking and the results of thinking. The process can be skewed and the result can be skewed. But the nagging sensation that something still isn’t quite right remains, tantalizing and beckoning and refusing to be ignored.
I think we all work with our WHAT results, hoping for greater insight – to this end we employ stereotypes, generalities, principles, so-called core truths, these are all WHAT. But their very existence can and does restrict, impair and skew the process and inevitably, the results. Even the most “truthful” scientific and divine principles can and do skew the process, especially if they lock out all other perceptions or realities by appearing to have solved them all.
Sure, the devil is in the detail. But even more surely, so is the truth.
I have learned one thing anyway, to become impatient with another’s process is to attempt deny them their process. And I have come to see that it can be very productive to examine devilish detail even when it violates my own sense of process and result.
Vinaire, your post above about the accusation of “generality” shows you missed the point LRH was making as to how generalities but can be (not that they always are) (1) fallacious (and I’m sure there’s a specific non-Scn name for this type of fallacy) and (2) how they affect people. (BTW, it’s that type of MU that makes people critical of Scn.) And then you go on to state additional, critical generalities about me, Valkov and Dennis – and in the same breath criticize OUR “intolerance.” Ironic there, don’t you think?
You also say, in another post just above, that your purpose is “to criticize Scientology to come up with a more workable grass roots movement.” I agree that would be more productive. So let’s stop hammering on (and denying) perceived outpoints in what is obviously altered Scn and concentrate on critiquing Scn itself – per the materials (if you feel the urge to do that kind of thing).
Well I think we don’t know how many Unknowables there aren’t. I believe there could be an infinite number of non-existent unknowables. Then there are the knowables that are not., as well as the ones that are.
Oh it’s all so complicated, lemme go get a beer…….
Vinnie has apparently learned that if he sounds professorial enough, he can just let the Adhoms roll silkily off his tongue without penalty…..
I think the key may be that there is no trace of sarcasm. He sounds like a professor of Psychiatry discussing the details of cases during Grand Rounds at the hospital.
“Now here we have some clear-cut cases of ‘scientology-mania’, a very intractable disorder characterized by some or all of the following……”
So, learn at least this: Drop the sarcasm.
Alanzo, this just seems like intentional Q & A. Am I seeing a pattern here?
But if you sincerely have forgotten, all you have to do is review my comments on it – which, to be honest, you should have been able to figure out for yourself. Valkov commented similarly on the same PL, so you can review his comment too.
Maybe you just don’t have a good reply? That would indicate a less that sincere desire to get at the truth. 😦
Let me acknowledge where this technique of Looking comes from. It comes from Buddha directly. Check out Vipassana meditation.
.
Yet another Scientology tragedy:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/civil/judge-dismisses-wrongful-death-lawsuit-against-scientology/1207338
Scientologists can not handle serious mental illness with Scientology, yet they think they can simply because Hubbard told them they could, and Scientologists refuse to look at the results right in front of their faces.
There is what can be proven in a court of law, and then there is one’s experience as a Scientologist, on staff, off staff and years as a public scientologist.
Your understanding of the anti-psych environment that L Ron Hubbard created should be enough to tell you that any time a person with serious mental illness is in a family made up of Scientologists who are controlled by L Ron Hubbard teachings via the Church, that person is at more risk than a similar person who is in another environment with no Scientologists following L Ron Hubbard in it.
Question for the followers of L Ron Hubbard here: Should the man who committed suicide have continued to take his psych drugs?
Al: ” … should be enough to tell you that any time a person with serious mental illness is in a family made up of Scientologists who are controlled by L Ron Hubbard teachings via the Church, that person is at more risk than a similar person who is in another environment with no Scientologists following L Ron Hubbard in it. ”
That’s one big leap there.
And part of you statement ‘ … Scientologists who are controlled by L Ron Hubbard teachings …”
You make it look like all scientologists lose all self determinism and surrender themselves like lambs to a slaughter.
While some may have given up their integrity, and while you may believe in your LRH control fallacy, I don’t see that any here who still practice some of the philosophy are ‘being controlled’.
Quite the opposite, it is much more like the early years where discussion and contemplation of life & the future were encouraged.
It is blogs and contributors like this that give me hope for some of the original aspirations and visions that LRH and other great thinkers envisioned.
Wouldn’t it be much better to contemplate, postulate and help create a better world for all rather than regurgitating the same old generalities.
It is obvious that you had both wins & loses … why not use those wins & accomplishments in your life as the impetus toward some of those early goals. It’s a heck of a lot better than continually restimulating oneself and sitting in blame/shame/regret.
+1
And btw, the first couple of LRH guidlines for handling people with mental illness or distress are:
* Never get angry or upset with a person in this type of condition
* Seek medical attention for any abnormality or cause
Whether or not these 2 basics are followed is something entirely different.
Thanks for your advise, Dennis.
Should the man who committed suicide have continued to take his psych drugs?
That would be up to the medical practitioner – with some drugs one needs to be weaned off them.
The medical field is for people trained in that.
The Scientology field is for individuals train in that.
Both can work along side one another.
Some Doctors are Scientologists.
Al, in the first place, there is no evidence presented in the newspaper report, that he had stopped taking his medication. And there was apparently no evidence presented at the trial, either, to that effect.
Much less that anyone had “hid” his medicine or prevented him from taking it. Here’s what the newspaper report says:
“It (the lawsuit) alleged Thomas Brennan hid his son’s antidepression medicine, Lexapro, after conferring with his church counselor, Denise Gentile, who is the sister of Scientology’s leader, David Miscavige.
U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday dismissed the action earlier this month, citing a lack of evidence that Brennan took away his son’s medicine.”
Personally, I would have liked nothing better than to have had the allegations proven, with all the attendant disastrous publicity and other consequences for the CoS.
But I find your tarring of all “Scientologists” with that same brush to be despicable.
Dennis pointed out the lack of logic in your post already, I don’t need to go into that; what I would like to state is that after 10+ years of being a “critic” I believe you are very well aware of the illogical leaps you make, and continue to make them anyway to further your agenda.
You used the article as a jumping off point to spread your generalized negative propaganda about anyone and everyone you dub as being a “Scientologist”. That would seem to include a number of people who post on this blog, who you pretend to be friendly and agreeable towards.
I’m saving a pitchfork for you, too. 🙂
Happy Winter Solstice everybody.
It’s the reason for the season.
Al, and Happy Winter Solstice to you too! I do mean that.
I don’t care what those damn Scientologists say about you, you need hugs.
If I had any arms I would hug you. But it’s the thought that counts.
Then, after hugging you for your great season’s greeting, I would throw you in the hamburger machine for the lack of associative logic of your previous post. But that after all is your trademark and I am starting to realize you have a big heart.
“…But that after all is your trademark…”
= Ad Hom. Watch it.
The jury is duly instructed to disregard that comment by Valkov, and it is to be stricken from the court’s record.
+1 I love the shortest day of the year.
Happy season of reason Al!
“Objection Your Honor. Prosecution has not demonstrated any relevant connection between the young man’s death, Scientology, or any action by his father!
The linked-to story reports the verdict, but does not present any of the evidence. The judge was there, and ruled there was no evidence presented to support the charges.
However.
We have not lynched anybody lately, so I propose we all get our torches and lots of rope and march on Clearwater today!
Even if the those people are not guilty in this case, there is no doubt they are guilty of something somewhere sometime and therefore hanging them will be OK, those scientology scum need to know it’s not OK for them to do that kind of sh*t
And anyway, it will make us feel good to take some decisive action and we can have hugs all around afterwards!”
. . . and remember the pitch-forks!
Right, the pitchforks. We need those so we can stick them into those Scientologists we’re cooking, to see when they’re done. I like mine medium-rare. With a pint of Guinness.
Nothing tastes as good as some cleared cannibal!
Well, busted a gut on that one Valkov – hilarious!
Thanks must go to Chris, who reminded me about the pitchforks!
Undercooking a Scientologist is a health risk as they can be infected with salmonella, a type of entities that cooks can avoid if only they handle cooking Scientologists safely. The Food and Drug Administration ordered that all DC-7s carrying Scientology entities bear the following warning:
“To prevent illness from aroused and grumpy entities: Keep Scientologists refrigerated, cook until insides are firm, and cook Scientologists and any other foods containing entities thoroughly.”
“You just need to cook your Scientologists thoroughly – no sunny-side up, no over-easy,” advised FDA Commissioner Jane Henney. “This is a case when it’s better to be safe than sorry.”
Good warning label, Chris.
See? You too can be ‘evil’ !
HA!
Geir, how about in celebration of another over l,000 comments on a single thread you change your icon to a real photo of you? I know you were having fun with the batshit bad-ass side when you switched to this photoshoped guy, but I would love to see the real you looking back at me when I’m about to challenge one of your posts. 😀
(Serious request from one of your most prolific posters. 🙂 )
Could be 🙂 – but first; X-MAS!
The most workable system we have (per stats) is the Scientific and mathematical approach that incorporates looking.
..
Looking per KHTK is the key to inspiration.
.
I think that the purposes to defend or attack Scientology are both quite useless and unproductive.
Let’s get productive here.
.
Logic for logic sake reduces to aberration.
There has to be some fruitful purpose, other than the egoistic satisfaction of being right.
.
“There has to be some fruitful purpose, other than the egoistic satisfaction of being right.”
The question is not “is it right?” The question is, “does it satisfy?” and “how much does it satisfy?”
Satisfy what? .
True! brother Alanzo. 🙂
Satisfy the purpose, Elementary, sister Maria.
.
And now for the million dollar question Vinnie: And the purpose being satisfied is what?
As-isness and the thrill of it.
.
There’s nothing wrong with being right.
True! brother Alanzo. (Sorry for putting this response in an inconsistent order earlier)
🙂
Marildi –
When I look over many of your posts, I find a running theme in many of them where you are delivering an underlying principle to be considered by the person to whom you are writing. Let me see if I understand the principle you have been conveying in many of your posts.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
You believe that a person can sometimes come to a conclusion about Scientology, or L Ron Hubbard, and after coming to that conclusion, can begin to block out alternatives to that conclusion. Once the person begins blocking out alternative conclusions, you believe they can become stuck and fixed. You want to present information to the person which allows these stuck conclusions to be questioned, so that the person can continue to learn and grow.
If I have understood you correctly, then I think that’s a very valuable principle. I completely agree with it.
I have the same one.
Me too Alanzo!
And its a beautiful thing when stuck ideas become unstuck! Worlds tremble and shift and new insights avalanche into view when this happens!
“You want to present information to the person which allows these stuck conclusions to be questioned, so that the person can continue to learn and grow… I have the same one.”
Alanzo, you’ve just confirmed my confidence in you – which was starting to wane a bit – but no more!
And I would say we’re half way there, you and I. All we have to do now is to actually question our own stuck conclusions – ha ha! the hard part. But I have no doubt that we’ll do it.
Hey guy, you’ve increased my Christmas spirit along with yours. Have a great Holiday weekend. 🙂
And so we come down all the long ages
The ancient records blinding our eyes
Sighing beneath the weight of weary world
The soul’s endless plight
Yet across the great divide of time and space
New dawns beckon and call beyond the chasms
of forgetfulness
And we are renewed
May the love that lights the heart of man
Light yours with the fire and joy of spirit
Now and ever more.
Thank you to all of you.
Merry Christmas & Yuletide Joy
Look! …up at the top…it’s another 1,000+ comments on a single thread… It’s a typo…it’s hallucination………………..it’s Super Geir!
Congratulations and Merry Christmas 🙂
Merry Christmas to all my friends here, and a very happy New Year to come.
We shall be spending our holidays visiting Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. I am not sure if I’ll have the opportunity to drop in on this blog during these holidays, but I am sure to be back in the New Year. Hope Geir will have some new, provocative and exciting posts by that time.
I am taking the book ALAN TURING THE ENIGMA by Andrew Hodges on this trip. The flight is long so this will be a pleasant diversion. There are so many wonderful minds out there to study.
See you soon!
.
Good luck in South East Asia, V!
Don’t let the Communists gitcha!
Eat something exotic and come back and tell us about it!
Maria,
“It seems to me that it comes down to this: each one of us has a “truth” function. It is at the bottom of all attempts to discern truth. Without this function, there can be no discernment…”
I doubt even that truth function. To me the hallmark of science is doubt!
.
I am simply wondering about the purpose behind all this logical nit-picking. Where is it all going?
.
Indeed, it is TRUE that the hallmark of science is doubt. Do you doubt that? I do.
Anything that can be regressed infinitely is unknowable.
.
Indeed it is TRUE.
Marildi,
“Now in return for your generality evaluation, I’ll tell you what I think about you. You do not see the trees for the forest – which you are looking through with a filter called bias against anything that might be a point in favor of Scientology. You should LOOK at that.”
“Vinaire, your post above about the accusation of “generality” shows you missed the point LRH was making as to how generalities but can be (not that they always are) (1) fallacious (and I’m sure there’s a specific non-Scn name for this type of fallacy) and (2) how they affect people. (BTW, it’s that type of MU that makes people critical of Scn.)”
Whenever, I see this accusation of generality, which itself is a generality, it looses all its meaning. I think that the accusation of generality is very typical of Scientologists. It doesn’t make any sensible point. It simply avoids the actual point.
I just don’t see the sense of going into excruciating logical gymnastics to defend certain ideas of scientology. What for? Is this helping the society, or anybody, in anyway? What is the purpose underlying all this mental gymnastics? Care to clarify?
.
I don’t know what the purpose is Vinaire, but I do notice that you continue to post. So would you care to clarify why you respond?
Me, I’m having fun.
My purpose has always been to simplify knowledge for it to be more broadly applicaple. I think this was one of LRH’s purposse too, and he did a great job of it.
But that purpose does not stop with LRH. I want to see that purpose continue with KHTK. Anybody may help with that purpose. All are welcome. This blog helps me forward that purpose. The game is looking non-judgmentally without any resistance. I see Rafael and Chris do that more and more and that is very encouraging to me.
.
“Whenever, I see this accusation of generality, which itself is a generality, it looses all its meaning.”
No Vin, a “generality” (the way it is used in Scn) is not itself a generality since it is in reference to a specific criticism (the one being called a generality). What it means is that the person making it has taken one instance of something and essentially stated that it occurs generally – which sometimes is true but often is not. It’s used by SPs to introvert and by others more or less unthinkingly and not realizing that it has a bad effect on the person it’s referring to.
And can you make it less of a generality 😉 where you speak of the logical gymnastics of Scientologists in defending Scn? (Note, this is a different kind of generality which may or not be illogical, depending on what it’s based on.)
Btw, I’m replying to your comment because I got a sincere flow from you this time. 🙂
Oh! Gawwwwwwwwwd!
.
Chris,
“Is there no such thing as suppression, but there is such a thing as attachment?”
There is suppression. There is attachment. There is the body. There is earth. There is the universe…
.
Vin, and there is love total and complite, after the MEST has vanished… the MEST.. which is the cause of all diferences…
My Dear, Work on that “The game is looking non-judgmentally without any resistance.” Let the judgment roll! Let the sprackles fly. If not, if suppressed how are we to learn? From what?
The company just left, I thought I open up communication. Vin, my friend you can call me any name any way you like that will not diminish the deep affinity I have for you. Above the clouds the stars are, there always… forever and that is a long time….Happy New Year everybody! I am blessed, deeply blessed to know to have such as you in this universe which makes this universe as is… Trill to know you all!!!!!
What would the world be like if scientology won out?
Hubbard’s face in an ubiquitous poster with the classical “Big Brother is watching you” slogan.
And we all clapping at it.
Creepy!