Vinaire’s summary on Scientology

This is a post from Vinaire, one of the frequent posters here, that I decided deserved its own blog post for discussion:

Here is my summary assessment of Scientology.

(1) Scientology consists of much ground breaking work by Hubbard.

(2) Scientology introduce a whole new plateau to addressing the problems of the mind.

(3) The work on this breakthrough is, however, far from complete.

(4) The success from application of Scientology is far from consistent.

(5) Any lack of success gets blamed on the practitioners of Scientology.

(6) Unmanageable difficulties seem to exist in the application of Scientology.

(7) Correction lists have become a part of “standard Scientology.”

(8) A closer look at Scientology shows a lack of application of the principle of poka-yoke .

(9) Looking is the key to successes in Scientology auditing.

(10) Scientology does not seem to put emphasis on Looking.

(11) Scientology takes up Looking on OT TR0 and Obnosis, but it fails to treat Looking systematically and highlight its importance in auditing.

(12) Principles of Looking, when applied, seem to provide poka-yoke to Scientology processes.

(13) These principles of Looking are now being developed under the heading of KHTK

(14) KHTK is a work in progress. All are welcome to improve upon this work.

Merry XMas and a Happy New Year!

572 thoughts on “Vinaire’s summary on Scientology

  1. Vinaire wrote:

    (1) Scientology consists of much ground breaking work by Hubbard.

    Examples, please.

    (2) Scientology introduce a whole new plateau to addressing the problems of the mind.

    Examples, please.

      1. I’ll get to those.

        Vinaire’s first 2 “axioms” seemed very much like assumptions to me.

        And assumptions just beg to be examined, n’est–ce pas?

    1. Hello from Cambodia. I was surprised to find that Geir made this entry of mine into a blog post to be discussed.

      I am happy to have this opportunity to systematically address what I have been saying for years. I am glad that Alanzo asked these questions.

      (1) The primary credit that goes to LRH is breaking down the broad “looking” into different ways of looking at the basics of life. I am talking about the whole gamut of processes from Dianetics to Scientology. Each process has the potential of freeing the mind from some or the other fixation (that binds one) quite rapidly actually. That potential has been realized but not consistently because of reasons that I plan to take up on this thread.

      (2) Looking was taught by Buddha 2600 years ago as the key to enlightenment. Buddha did outline some processes which helped look through the seeming permanency of reality (which made it to be very fixed and dreadful in people’s minds). These processes may be found in the book WHAT BUDDHA TAUGHT by Walpola Rahula. LRH took the whole idea of profitably directing looking to a whole new plateau by creating all the various processes.

      I feel that to fully understand LRH’s accomplishment, one needs to look at his processes as “directions in which to look to see if something is there.”

      However, I am not so much impressed by auditing techniques as by the processes of Dianetics and Scientology. There is only one auditing technique, and that is looking by the preclear on his own determinism. Any other technique which violates this is not a good technique.

      E-meter seem to have been introduced to make the subject of Scientology look scientific. In my view it is an added inapplicable additive that has become a distraction to looking in many ways. More on this later.

      .

      1. I would add:

        Scientology is a recognition, clarification and evaluation of many elements that result in fixed conditions and the resolution of fixed conditions organized in terms of receptiveness.

        The core breakthrough appears to be the recognition that the world of phenomena is created and the only active principle is create-create-create. All of the rest of it is working with recognizable and acceptable creations that can serve to rehabilitate the willingness (deliberate intent) to create.

        How it looks to me is that Scientology auditing is a series of re-orientation and rehabilitation processes that address the important and recognizable creative elements of fixed and unfixed conditions. They address what the individual is creating, knowingly and unknowingly. The entire lower bridge drills the ability to fix and unfix conditions, shifting from unknowing and automatic creation to deliberate and knowing creation. This appears as a reaching and withdrawing and yet it is still only creating. And an element of this is “looking.” Looking (creating) becomes doing (relationship) and doing becomes looking. A perceived lack of congruence between the two results in “failure.”

        The purpose of a stated end phenomena of a process, and the reads from the e-meter work to ensure that the practitioner (on either side of the auditing twosome) do not shift purpose during a process, thus changing mid-process the focus of a particular process and making it impossible to complete or realize a particular drill or process.

        As far as I can tell, the auditing processes of Scientology do not have the same purpose as Buddhism. Buddhism is concerned with cessation of creation, letting go of every”thing,” the ground of being underlying creation.

        Scientology starts with the assumption that the impulse to create is core to the being. The being is a creator of things, and is a created thing when manifesting. For any relationship to exist, there must be a creation. Ergo: work with the creative process, for it is all a creative process and there is no”thing” else.

        Well, those are my thoughts for now.

        1. “I would add: Scientology is a recognition, clarification and evaluation of many elements that result in fixed conditions and the resolution of fixed conditions organized in terms of receptiveness.”

          Maria, your first sentence (quoted above) reads like an LRH Axiom! And your whole post is a philosophic work of art, what can I say. 🙂

          The paragraph below was especially appreciated since it’s been a topic of recent discussion:

          “The purpose of a stated end phenomena of a process, and the reads from the e-meter work to ensure that the practitioner (on either side of the auditing twosome) do not shift purpose during a process, thus changing mid-process the focus of a particular process and making it impossible to complete or realize a particular drill or process.”

        2. p.s. Vinaire. Thanks for stating your point of view. I find it extremely beneficial to explore even if in the end I do not agree and I have found that considering another’s point of view really helps to unfix ideas and open the door to ideas I haven’t thought of considering. Sometimes it results in entirely new vistas for me. So when I argue with you, please keep in mind that I am fully prepared to change my mind should a compelling point of view or datum come into view. I welcome that and I live for that.

          1. I am now looking non-judgmentally as much as I can. This requires keeping self out of the picture. Whether I get agreement or not is irrelevant. Whether I win an argument or not is also irrelevant.

            .

            1. that’s an interesting subject all by itself – what about trying to remove all one’s own principles?

          2. Geir: “that’s an interesting subject all by itself – what about trying to remove all one’s own principles?”

            I shall go for that after I am able to follow all my principles. Otherwise it would be out of sequence.

            .

            1. I am not so sure – since following all one’s principles is equivalent of being slave to one’s principles. It’s like leaving the jail break till the moment one has fully submitted to being a convict.

          3. The way out is the way through. Be non-judgmental and non-resistive. Take it as it comes.

            That is what I understand from being in present time.

            .

          4. “It’s like leaving the jail break till the moment one has fully submitted to being a convict.”

            Hey maybe that’s it! Like Chris likes to say – it’s “non-intuitive.”

        3. “Scientology is a recognition, clarification and evaluation of many elements that result in fixed conditions and the resolution of fixed conditions organized in terms of receptiveness.”

          (1) To me it is non-judgmental and non-resistive looking that simplifies and ultimately as-ises what one is looking at.

          (2) Clarification, thus, occurs by itself. Any attempts to clarify during looking only brings in dub-in and complexity.

          (3) Evaluation is putting different elements in proper perspective to each other. Again this occurs by itself during looking. Any attempts to evaluate during looking only adds dub-in and complexity.

          .

          1. “Scientology is a recognition, clarification and evaluation of many elements that result in fixed conditions and the resolution of fixed conditions organized in terms of receptiveness.”

            No Vinaire, I am not talking about during auditing or processing. I am talking about the subject itself, the philosophical works. This statement refers to theScientology equivalent of the section on your blog labeled: philosophy. You have summarized a great deal of information to do with looking in that section and it IS an evaluation. Nothing wrong with that!

          2. To me every moment of my life is becoming auditing or processing. What I write is a simple statement of what I see. Of course, it changes, but I simply let it happen.

            .

        4. Maria: “The core breakthrough appears to be the recognition that the world of phenomena is created and the only active principle is create-create-create. All of the rest of it is working with recognizable and acceptable creations that can serve to rehabilitate the willingness (deliberate intent) to create.”

          None of the results of “looking” can be a greater breakthrough than the process of “looking” itself. Accepting the result of another’s looking is lower than the ability to look for oneself.

          Buddha was the first one to teach “looking” and not the results of looking. He did impart the knowledge of his looking, but he always warned his disciples not to accept anything he says on its face value. LRH, on the other hand, emphasized being the “source” of all the knowledge in Scientology.

          LRH’s contribution, as I said before, is coming up with all the different ways that looking could be directed profitably.

          .

          1. That’s false data, Vinaire. LRH did not say he was the source of all Scn knowledge, in fact he gave great credit to other sources. What he said is that he is the source of Scn tech.

      2. Dear Vinay, to me looking was taught by Krishna some 5100 years ago as the key to enlightenment. The song of God ( the Bhagavad Gita ) has been highly praised also by Albert Einstein, J. Robert Oppenheimer, Carl Jung and much more scientists. ( see wikipedia )

          1. The Bhagavad Gita is the wisest most spiritual text on Earth.

            There is no greater spiritual wisdom in any other text anywhere.

            Except for maybe if you take Plato as a whole.

      3. Thanks for writing in from Cambodia, V!

        I feel that to pursue this with you right now would be unfair of me. But when you get back to the states (IF you get back to the states and do not end up in some kind of North Vietnamese prison camp with water up to your neck), let me know and I’ll start in on you.

        Until then, have fun!

        MAO!

        MAO!!

        1. We visited Buddha Caves yesterday in Laos after a boat ride on Mekong river of about 2 hours from Luang Prabang.

          Fascinating!

          .

          1. I was told that these caves have been known since 8th century. People go and place Buddha’s statues there. Here are some details and pictures:

            http://blog.malaysia-asia.my/2009/08/pak-ou-buddha-caves-at-luang-prabang.html

            I have to read up more before I can tell you when Buddhism actually hit here. Most temples at Angkor, Cambodia were from 10th to 13th century. The most interesting feature for me was that Buddhism seem to be heavily mixed with Hinduism. There were statues of the Great Naga protecting Buddha the way it protected Krishna in Hindu mythology. There were Hindu gods and Hindu themes running along with scenes from Buddhas life. Obviously, Buddhism was looked upon as a part of Hinduism which had been practiced here from much more ancient times.

            The kind of Buddhism here is Hinayana (small vehicle), which claims to be more directly from Buddha.

            .

            1. I have eaten myself into a stupor over the holidays and all I can think about to ask Vinay about his exotic vacation to Southeast Asia is “how’s the chow?”

          2. Personally, I don’t much care for the local cuisine. I have been eating boiled peanuts on the road. But in the hotel we have very good western breakfast.

            .

    2. Looking once again at what I meant by ground breaking work by Hubbard, it is the technique of “directing one’s looking” in millions of different ways. Where Hubbard fell short was the understanding of “looking” itself.

      So, where Hubbard shines is all these processes of Dianetics and Scientology. Where Hubbard fails is in his hurry to get results. He pushes “looking” through repetitive processing, computing as an auditor, through listing etc. That is hit and miss because it bypasses natural unburdening of the mind. It may provide some awesome results, but it does not clear a person thoroughly, and leaves much to be desired.

      The primary criticism that I have of Hubbard is being a pusher of “looking,” and by doing so, opening the door to dub-in.

      The primary criticism that I have of Scientologists is that they are very prone to dub-in. They tend to rush into evaluating others.

      .

      1. Here we have one claim and criticism after another but with no research or any basis at all for any of them except figure-figure based on all kinds of MU’s. But I’m sure you will have others saying this is your total right, those who have little no training either.

        1. Marildi –

          How trained are you in Buddhism?

          Do you believe that Scientology can be validly criticized from a Buddhist perspective?

          Or can Scientology only be criticized from a Scientology perspective by someone thoroughly trained – as in a Class 12 – in Scientology? Why does it take a Class 12 to be able to criticize Scientology?

          Under what conditions, exactly, do you believe that a person can validly criticize Scientology?

          1. Al, I haven’t studied Buddhism (but I would like to and may do so). And, yes, of course – anyone can criticize anything. All I’ve been saying is that it makes no sense for someone to criticize a specific piece of tech or principle they actually know little or nothing about – which is apparent in the criticism itself.

            As regards the Class 12 remark, isn’t that sorta kinda putting words in my mouth? Uh uh uh – not nice, Al. 🙂

          2. All I’ve been saying is that it makes no sense for someone to criticize a specific piece of tech or principle they actually know little or nothing about – which is apparent in the criticism itself.

            And yet you have not shown that Vinaire knows little or nothing about it. All you’ve shown is that you and Vinaire disagree.

            So if you are not saying a person needs to be a Class 12 in order to validly criticize Scientology, then exactly what classed auditor do they need to be?

            In other comments you detailed your own low-level of training in Scientology and said that a person didn’t have to have much training at all to be able to see that Vinaire was not trained enough to make the criticisms he made.

            So in one place you say they need to be well-trained – more than Vinaire, presumably – and then in another you say that you yourself are not that highly trained but that you can spot that Vinaire is not trained enough to make the statements he is making. And then now you say that “anyone can criticize anything” but you never address my question:

            Exactly how trained does a person need to be to validly criticize Scientology – in your opinion?

            Here’s what I think: I think that you simply disagree with Vinaire and you can not adequately prove why you think Vinaire’s criticisms are wrong, so you avoid Vinaire’s statements and adopt an appeal to authority service fac and use it to try to personally discredit Vinaire, as Scientologists are taught to do in Scientology by LRH.

            That’s what I think.

            Otherwise, you should be able to show why Vinaire’s statements are wrong without resorting to service facs and realize that “truth” in Scientology is highly malleable – mercurial, in fact.

            There is no such thing as “standard tech” in Scientology, Miraldi. Scientology is filled with so many contradictions that no person could possibly, without equivocation, identify it.

          3. “Putting words in mouth = Straw Man fallacy.”

            Thank you – exactly right. Sometimes the outpoint is so obvious from common sense that I forget to even consider which logical fallacy it is.

          4. Alanzo: “And yet you have not shown that Vinaire knows little or nothing about it… Exactly how trained does a person need to be to validly criticize Scientology – in your opinion?”

            You haven’t duplicated my posts. You’re mixing apples and oranges again :-(. (Couldja try harder on this, Al?) I’ll try to simplify it:

            1. On the one hand, Vinaire has made comments on specific tech points which even someone who hadn’t done a lot of training could spot are obviously in error.

            2. On the other hand, he has stated criticisms and know-best regarding general principles and the theory underlying auditing (i.e not just on specific tech points as in #1 above). The ability to do this validly would require that he (or anyone doing such) had actually done a thorough study and had duplicated those principles and underlying theory – so that he indeed knows what he’s criticizing! The fact of the matter, however, is that he has clearly demonstrated (as per #1 above) he has not even done minimal tech training – or if he has, he obviously has some very basic MU’s..

          5. “Marildi – http://www.carolineletkeman.org/ was created by a Class 9 NOTs auditor. So, of course, her criticisms are valid, right?”

            Al, I see so much illogical nonsense being spewed by you guys that you are forcing me to learn the logical fallacies just to keep things simple!

            The above implication you make is a version of Appeal to Authority as follows:

            “The strength of this argument depends upon two factors.

            1. The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.

            2. A consensus exists among legitimate experts on the matter under discussion.”
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Fallacious_appeals_to_authority

            Just to draw the picture further, there is no such consensus, as in #2.

          6. Al, I see so much illogical nonsense being spewed by you guys that you are forcing me to learn the logical fallacies just to keep things simple!

            Perfect.

            Love it, love it, love it.

            A very intelligent and workable response to this environment.

  2. The overall problem I see in Vinaire’s summary here and many other comments he has made is that they show clearly he is not trained and has some very basic MU’s about Scientology tech. As a specific, he believes that emphasis is not put on looking – although that is basic to the anatomy of auditing and is stated so explicitly by LRH. Also, what he calls “looking” (and HIS discovery) is nothing more than TR 0 – being there and confronting and doing nothing else.

    Geir, if ever you were to criticize condescension and arrogance I don’t know why you haven’t done so with many of the comments in this and other posts about Scientology and LRH. And do you not see the MU’s?

    1. Marildi – I have on my blog only ever banned one person (a lady who no longer attempts to post here). And only once have I told someone to take a three day vacation for being condescending. That person on vacation was Vinaire. You missed that?

      I thought his summary was well worth a discussion. Me posting it does not indicate I agree with what he writes.

      1. No, Geir, of course I didn’t miss the 3-day vacation you gave Vinaire. But it was for condescending comments to you at the time and to others in some of his previous comments. I didn’t get that it was at all related to his condescending and arrogant attitude about Scientology and LRH or towards posters who are pro- Scn and LRH. He is much more blatantly and frequently so with those and I don’t recall much of any objection from you. You essentially forbid him to post anything more about Unknowable but none of the illogical things he says about Scn gets any comment. Is this my bias or yours? One or both of us has to be looking through a filter.

        1. I believed you have missed some of my comments. But Vinaire did mellow a bit after his vacation. And even though he is still condescending – he is not quite there to get yellow carded. Valkov has been more blatantly condescending than Vinaire, though.

          1. Wow did EVERYONE read about Touring? I just read a Wikipedia entry on him yesterday and when I read of his contributions and the injustice given him I was asking WHERE IS THE MOVIE OF THIS GREAT MAN?

    2. I have no idea where Marildi is coming from.

      (1) From the beginning I have maintained that LOOKING, as outlined in KHTK, was taught by Buddha. To call it Vinaire’s discovery is just a conditioning on commentator’s part about “source,” that seems to be coming from Scientology. Buddha never considered himself to be any kind of source. He simply called himself the teacher. “Source” seems to be a Hubbard thing forced down on adherents as part of Scientology conditioning.

      (2) Looking underlies TR0. Looking also underlies all auditing. Those who cannot see this have some basic MUs. Looking is not the same as TR0 from the very fact that one looks in an auditing session, and does not sit and simply do TR0.

      (3) Saying Vinaire is not trained is neither here nor there. One should provide specifics. Vinaire has gotten wonderful results through his career in Scientology as a Word Clearer and Admin Cramming Officer.

      (4) Auditing procedures cut across self-determined looking in many ways. Repetitive auditing, the way it is done in Scientology, is just one example.

      .

      1. You continue to spout the hot air that “training is neither here nor there” when it is only common sense that if you want to talk as if you were an expert on auditing you should have some background in it. You refuse to admit that you don’t, but it is very obvious from your comments about tech points.

        The comment about Repetitive auditing “cutting across self-determined looking” is a perfect example of your not understanding tech. .

        And can you be specific – exactly how does looking underlie TR 0?

        1. Even a fool can speak the truth, Marildi.

          So if Vinaire says something that is specifically not the truth, then you can point that out.

          But if you ignore his specific comments and complain generally that he is not “trained”, then in my opinion that is simply an ad hominem attempt to avoid what Vinaire has said, distract everybody off of it, and to discredit Vinaire personally.

          If Vinaire says something that is wrong, take up that specific wrongness. It is actually an opportunity to disseminate the truth about Scientology for you to us all.

          That you would not take that opportunity to disseminate correct Scientology is an outpoint, in my opinion.

          1. Alanzo, most of what Vinaire has said are broad generalities which I have responded to as such. Where he does deign to state something less general, I have questioned it. Did I miss any of those? (I mean, could you be SPECIFIC? ;-))

        2. p.s. Maybe I shouldn’t said you were touting YOUR “discovery” – it should have been YOUR “work in progress” as you put it in the OP. The point is the same – you have the audacity to claim a superior achievement to LRH’s. Where’s the research and stats on that?

    3. Marildi –

      The emphasis on “looking” in Scientology is placed there ONLY from the perspective of the auditing question, in session, under very controlled and narrowly defined conditions.

      The problem with this is that the auditing question contains assumptions about what to look at and even how to interpret what you find.

      Those assumptions and that interpretation must be from a Scientology perspective, and this limits what you are able to look at, to see, and to conclude.

      Scientology’s narrow emphasis on looking, therefore, only creates people who are more and more Scientologists. It does not create people who can look at whatever they want, see whatever they see, and conclude independently.

      This is why Scientology, ultimately, is a trap.

      1. Alanzo, do you realize that TR’s are also meant to be applied in life – including TR 0? 😉

      2. The way Scientology is designed, I would say that “looking” is rather forced in a narrow direction. There is nothing wrong with it as long as the pc is allowed to determine whether something is there or not.

        The weakness of Scientology approach is that it leads to dub-in, overrun, and correction lists in most cases because, often, the pc is forced to find something even when he can’t see anything.

        .

        1. “If you closely look at Marildi, you are an expert at it.”

          If you tell me what that remark is referring to I could probably tell you the fallacy.
          .

          (But that’s the first smile I”ve had from you in ages. :-))

  3. Some generalizations in his points. I have read his blog before and have liked it. I am going to check out the links.

    Alanzo- The “groundbreaking” work is very little. But, give Hubbard a little credit- in the early fifties he never claimed to invent anything. Only later, did that come into play.

    The repetitive process, four flows, the Auditor’s code are Hubbard’s innovation.

    1. And I believe there are many more groundbreaking concepts; The whole organization laid out as a process flow, as-isness and its many ramifications, the use of an e-meter, the non-evaluative/non-invalidating therapist, the codifying of life into simple to understand axioms and factors and more.

      1. Wow, I need you on my side more often! 😉

        Seriously, comments like this once in a while indicate truth, or at least a much better balance of it Thank you!

      2. Yes- I was just naming a few. All those and many more. Conditions is one and I also believe the concept of valences is an evolution of Wilhelm Reich and his conception of “character armor”

      3. I think you’ll find that one of the reasons Henry Ford is considered a genius is because he was one of the first to lay out an organization as a process flow.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_line

        As-isness as a mental phenomenon is extremely suspect for very simple reasons: the incident does not disappear at all – it is still retained in memory where it serves to form the basis of the self. Also, if you look into hypnotherapy, you will find many tricks for what to do with an incident to make it go away for the “patient” or “client”. As-isness is clearly one of Hubbard’s tricks for that common problem faced by all hypnotherapists.

        The use of Emeter… I will not comment on that because as I have said before, I still can not explain it myself, nor can I accept Hubbard’s explanations for it. It may have been a groundbreaking concept, but it still can’t produce an OT, as defined by Hubbard. So from a results perspective, it is not “groundbreaking”, in my opinion.

        The non-evaluative/non-invalidative therapist has long been apart of hypnotherapy as inval and eval will break the hypnotic (therapeutic) trance state.

        The codifying of life into simple and easy to understand axioms and factors has been done since Aristotle and Patanjali’s Yoga Sutra, just to name a few. Many of Hubbard’s axioms and factors, as noted with the axioms on “as-isness” above, are false.

        I will say that Hubbard was very good at distilling down hard to access eastern religious concepts for a western audience, though. And he did apply technical writing formats to religious and spiritual studies – that, in my opinion was “groundbreaking”.

        1. I am certainly willing to entertain more specific examples of Hubbard’s groundbreaking breakthroughs in the field of the mind.

          Please keep providing them.

        2. Henry Ford did not conceive the whole organization as a process flow – only the production line.

          As-isness goes deeper than you tackle here – all the way down to QM.

          That an e-meter doesn’t produce an OT… hehe, an e-meter never will of course. That’s not what I meant by Hubbards groundbreaking in this area. Nothing to do with OT.

          “The non-evaluative/non-invalidative therapist has long been apart of hypnotherapy as inval and eval will break the hypnotic (therapeutic) trance state.”

          DOX please. But generalizing it as Hubbard did is highly valuable.

    2. As I understand “repetitive processing” was suggested by Alan Walters.

      E-meter was invented and suggested by Volney Mathison. See Wikipedia.

      .

      1. Interesting point in the WP article:

        The E-meter has undergone many changes since it was invented by Volney Mathison, an early collaborator with Hubbard. The Mathison Electropsychometer (as it was then called) was adopted for use in Dianetics and Scientology by Hubbard in the early 1950s before being temporarily dropped in 1954 during a dispute with Mathison.

        It was the Mathison E-Meter, and Mathison was determined to keep it that way. So in late 1954 the use of the E-meter was discontinued by Hubbard. Wrote Hubbard: “Yesterday, we used an instrument called an E-Meter to register whether or not the process was still getting results so that the auditor would know how long to continue it. While the E-Meter is an interesting investigation instrument and has played its part in research, it is not today used by the auditor… As we long ago suspected, the intervention of a mechanical gadget between the auditor and the preclear had a tendency to depersonalize the session…”

        In 1958 when Scientologists Don Breeding and Joe Wallis developed a modified, smaller battery-operated version, which they presented to Hubbard, he again used it. This was christened the Hubbard electrometer. Hubbard patented it on December 6, 1966, as a “Device for Measuring and Indicating Changes in the Resistance of a Human Body” (U.S. Patent 3,290,589). The patent is now expired and in the public domain. The Church of Scientology continues to make, sell, and teach its use in auditing.

        The WP article does not refute that it was Hubbard who was the genius in scheduling the devise for use in handling mental issues.

        1. ” As we long ago suspected, the intervention of a mechanical gadged between the auditor and the preclear had a tendency to depersonalize the session… ”

          Coming from 1954, the era of the actual OT research and discovery period, i could not said it better. 🙂

          1. Rafael, I found that same quote in Wikipedia, directly followed by this:

            “In 1958 when Scientologists Don Breeding and Joe Wallis developed a modified, smaller battery-operated version, which they presented to Hubbard, he again used it.”

            So obviously LRH at that point saw it differently. Do you yourself have any doubt that its usefulness is far greater than its drawbacks?

          2. Dear marildi, god is not that stupid, to achieve spiritual advance it is not needed any gadget, not earlier not in the future. maybe in the mind and body handlings it is very useful but not in religion that has to do with spiritual release.

          3. Rafael, I have been looking at it this way: As the mind gets handled and becomes less and less burdened and warped by aberration, the being himself, as a spirit, will come forth more and more. And in addition to auditing training is a key part of actually being able to live a spiritual life in the physical universe, since knowledge and knowhow about existence is needed to succeed at that. Such knowledge includes principles and tech of ethics, tech for interpersonal relations, and general tech for operating successfully at a spiritual level.

            How would you say that “spiritual release” differs from the above?

          4. Dear marildi, i have carefully read your comment and can say that in fact i have certainity that many scientology techniques and processes do assist in improving the condition in a person. my objetion is in the training part of the bridge in wich i see invented and false knowlege and know how used as control mechanisms for the managment.

          5. Got it, Rafael. However, if you recall, we have discussed this before and Maria commented to the effect that, beginning with the Axioms, the training materials are a study of the agreements and Game of the physical universe and of thetans playing in it – and that, those materials are fully enlightening as such. I myself then further commented that LRH also stated that to get out of the physical universe you have to go through it.

            This is the reason I believe that knowledge gained in training is of the highest value in playing this Game as well as ultimately being released from it – in other words, in the end such enlightenment would not be a trap. BUT, as LRH also said, you have to follow the Road to Truth all the way or all manner of difficulty will beset you. That very thing may in fact be what you have observed and what you are objecting to.

          6. Dear marildi, i do not buy the ” lrh is perfect ” consideration nor ALL he did wrote was. And please explain what do you mean with ” to get out of the physical universe you have to go through it “

          7. I have always maintained that E-meter is an additive. It harms more by creating a dependency in looking. One should be able to look without any aid.

            Looking is not something that one does only in an auditing session. Looking needs to be practiced in every single moment of life.

            .

            1. Crutches are additives and hinders a runner on a 100 meter dash. Still it helps a person in the process of recovery to his old running champion self.

          8. I never depended entirely on the e-meter when word clearing and cramming. And I got the most wonderful results.

            Crutches are fine but only up to a point. When you are healed, you must discard the crutches.

            .

          9. Dear Rafael, my understanding of what LRH meant when he said the way out of the physical universe is through it, is that going “through” means gaining full knowledge of how it works, including all its traps, and then you would be free of it or free from being the effect of it – i.e. you would be “out” of it. And that’s why training and an understanding of the Axioms on up leads to the way out.

          10. well marildi, this ” the way out of the physical universe is through it ” has ambiguity in it. this same line could be used by any scientology reg to sell you eventual exteriorization from the phisical universe as promoted by lrh in the spacation lectures following the pdc lectures. ( false promotion to get money )

          11. Rafael, in a previous comment to me you mentioned “the lrh mis-understandings about life and what is Religion” If you can do so, please say briefly what you specifically meant by that or give an example.

          12. Dear marildi, Religion has to do with CORRECT CONDUCT not with exteriorization of any thing. An example, getting out of your garage on your car is not a religious act, getting out of your car in the beach sand is not a religious act, getting out of your clothes in that beach is not a religious act and getting out of your body in that beach is not …. do you understand ?

  4. I agree with Marildi that Vinaire does seem to miss out on the very basics of auditing. In fact his solution would appear to be a great example of how people end up squirreling, in the classic LRH criticism.
    However I’d say that his items 1 through 7 are pretty much right on – although I don’t see the problem with correction lists.

    1. Thanks, Roland. As for 7 and 8, there again I see the ignorance of actual Scientology tech showing through. Vinaire says:

      7) Correction lists have become a part of “standard Scientology.”

      (8) A closer look at Scientology shows a lack of application of the principle of poka-yoke.

      Well of course Correction lists are part of “standard Scientology” – they are in fact part of its poka-yoke! Vinaire seems to be thrown by the use of the word “correction” and gets stuck in on that in a Simple Simon way. As I see it, Correction lists were developed because LRH knew very well there can be differences among pc’s and these lists catch and handle the differences for one thing – as well as various kinds of possible human error by auditors and other tech terminals. Plus, he created the posts of Examiner, C/S, Qual Consultant and Snr C/S to make a checks and balances system that would further catch the errors of any single one of those individuals.

      Yes, I suppose he could have made a much more complicated system where the type of errors provided for in the Correction lists would be caught right away as the auditing went along, but this would amount to “inspection before the fact” and make for much wasted time and effort (even though Vinaire could then consider that poke-yoke was part of “Standard tech”). LRH was more far-sighted than that and went for streamlining as much he possibly could. Here again, you would have to be at least somewhat familiar with the tech to even be able to get a glimpse of how this principle relates to Correction lists. It is pretty arrogant for someone to make sweeping pronouncements about the tech when he has no auditor training and obviously knows little about it.

      Last but not least, probably the most ingenious piece of poke-yoke was LRHs development of the e-meter – a tool based on the likelihood of human error involved with unassisted obnosis of the pc’s indicators. The meter goes well beyond human ability to perceive what is going on with the pc. Now, that’s poke-yoke!

      1. Poka-yoke is about designing something to be error proof, designing something that cannot be used incorrectly, and not about correcting errors after the fact.

        1. Okay, that’s basically what I got too, but I didn’t get that the fail-safe features had to all be in place ahead of time. If that’s the case, I stand corrected.

          However, I wonder if it would be possible to do that with such an activity as auditing. It’s not the same kind of thing as those not dealing so intimately with minds and beings. LRH did try to make it as scientific as possible but always stated that it was also an art and couldn’t be otherwise.

          1. I am sure there could exist auditing procedures that ere less prone to errors and hence less in need of correction lists. And there are (assists, group processing,…) – except for the more advanced procedures – Hubbard designed those to be used with correction lists.

          2. Assists, group processing, self analysis processes, etc. I’m sure are less prone to error, but they are also not as all-encompassing or as powerful – and require higher training. Making auditing less prone to error is something, if it can be done, I don’t have any disagreement with (I no longer believe that improvement isn’t possible, thanks largely to you, as you probably know).

            But making such improvements would take a good grasp of the tech itself first and not just the glib statement Vinaire made – that “Principles of Looking, when applied, seem to provide poka-yoke to Scientology processes “principles of Looking provide poka-yoke to processes.” How would he know? Even aside from the fact that he has a screwy understanding of the tech, I don’t believe he has done any sort of systematic research on his KHTK providing poka yoke to processes. This is the kind of outrageous comment that I wonder why we even forward.

            1. Or it could be that a totally different angle than the one LRH took would be required to make actual improvement.

            1. Indeed – that is what this blog is much about – exploration of different angles; Oneness, Infinity, Result vs. Process, Unknowable, Agreements, Quantum Mechanics,…

          3. Okay, I see what you were saying. These are general priniciples, though, and that’s a good bit away from a researched, precise and workable tech. I still think the best bet is to use what we already know works and improve on that.

            1. I think all venues should be explored.

              I also see KHTK as a novel approach well worth exploring further.

        2. I find it hard to conceive of anything invented as being ‘error-proof’. Hell, there are any number of products, systems, etc on the market that go thru an evolution of improvement.

          Even Vinaire was looking at something undercutting ‘looking’ in one of his recent posts … poka-yoke??

          1. “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”

            Geir, this quote of Einstein (on your new blog post) is the exact concept I got from my auditor training as to what LRH was guided by, and it was as close to poka-yoke as he could get and still follow that principle. This was basically what I tried to describe above.

          2. Okay – I read a bit on poka yoke

            Poka-yoke (ポカヨケ?) [poka yo-ke] is a Japanese term that means “fail-safing” or “mistake-proofing”. A poka-yoke is any mechanism in a lean manufacturing process that helps an equipment operator avoid (yokeru) mistakes (poka). Its purpose is to eliminate product defects by preventing, correcting, or drawing attention to human errors as they occur.[1] The concept was formalised, and the term adopted, by Shigeo Shingo as part of the Toyota Production System.[2][3] It was originally described as baka-yoke, but as this means “fool-proofing” (or “idiot-proofing”) the name was changed to the milder poka-yoke.

            Poka-yoke can be implemented at any step of a manufacturing process where something can go wrong or an error can be made.[4] For example, a jig that holds pieces for processing might be modified to only allow pieces to be held in the correct orientation,[5] or a digital counter might track the number of spot welds on each piece to ensure that the worker executes the correct number of welds.[6]

            Shigeo Shingo recognized three types of poka-yoke for detecting and preventing errors in a mass production system:[2][4]

            The contact method identifies product defects by testing the product’s shape, size, color, or other physical attributes.
            The fixed-value (or constant number) method alerts the operator if a certain number of movements are not made.
            The motion-step (or sequence) method determines whether the prescribed steps of the process have been followed.

            How about ‘Quickie’ Grades … this was spotted as not giving the PC the full end result. It would seem very difficult to poka-yoke a philosophy of the mind vs. a mechanical item. We are dealing with Human Emotion & Reaction here – a very different animal.

            I think the poka-yoking LRH did was to continue research (he mentioned having ‘rear-view mirrors), and evolve the areas as far as he could see at the time.

            It’s a very broad field … take the Laughing Process out of Creation of Human Ability. Pretty tough to poka-yoke that although it is one helluva process that produces some of the most astounding TA for those who need it. Frankly, almost everyone would have case gain doing it although for those who *really* need it, it can be a life-changer.

            1. The way to envision whether better poka-yoke could be implemented in Scientology is to see if there could have been less of it first. Because if it is possible to have less, then there should be possible to have more. And clearly it is possible to have less poka-yoke in Scientology; Just let anyone off the street run any process or Bridge step whatsoever. So, a certain poka-yoke was implemented by safeguarding against the PC being run above his reality level. Thus more could be implemented. This is an area of improvement for Scientology.

          3. Okay Geir,

            Maybe I could get a better idea of what you’re looking at if you could give me an example of where poka-yoke could have been used, and you suggestion on what poka-yoke you might have implemented.

            I seem to be missing something as Vinaire seems to think poka-yoke was not used and LRH was quite the failure because of this.

            I can understand poka-yoke when it comes to a finite example like the Wiki jig example, and I see the example you gave where there is an exact Bridge so public (assuming that all earlier grades were in) would run at their reality/level.

            Even when I look at a repair/correction lists – various items like out-list, wrong item, running something other than, a wrongly understood command, out-int, etc.; come up sometimes out of the blue.

            They are still a valid item for that pc at that time, but it seems to me that these lists are the poka-yoke when trying to anticipate every reaction possible when dealing with the mind in the scientology arena.

            It is similar to a lower level pc popping out some upper level material as part of his cog – he may have a win, but that win will really have a kick once he looks back on it after completing upper levels. It is his reality at that time and the auditor carries on with the current level.

            It’s just not as finite as a jig and running a program that ONLY allows 8 welds.

            1. poka-yoke is of course easier when dealing with limited variance in the input of the process. But better poka-yoke in Scientology could have been finding a way to avoid Out-list in the first place, or how to handle the OT part of the Bridge with less dependence on correction lists (like treating the whole entities phenomena as something the Pre OT is fully responsible for).

    2. Correction lists imply faults in sessions that needs to be corrected. Institutionalizing Correction Lists in Standard Tech amounts to accepting certain session faults as “standard.”

      This is the key area where poka-yoke can be extremely rewarding.

      .

      1. They need to desperately change the correction lists. The language is antiquated. Its boring and rote.

        A few class 8’s in a room could do better. Its been 50 years. Things change don’t they?

        The concept is great– but God- they need to change those damn lists into a better version.

    3. Squirreling is a very anti-scientific term invented by Mr. Hubbard. It is also very demeaning for Scientologists, as it is intended to keep them in line.

      I am glad that I have graduated from that demeaning status. I am proud to call myself a scientist and a Buddhist, and not a scientologist.

      .

      1. I’m sure scientists have their own term for someone who alters the methodology of science too and they would be just as opposed to it.

        And in case you missed Roland’s point, he said:

        “Vinaire does seem to miss out on the very basics of auditing. In fact his solution would appear to be a great example of how people end up squirreling, in the classic LRH criticism.”

        In other words, per LRH squirreling “only comes about from noncomprehension.”

  5. I agree with point 3 above. Hubbard himself begged others to build a better bridge. 3A could read: Nobody has answered to the call thus far.

    On point 4, I can only say the results have been consistent with me. Everything promised to me with the auditing has been delivered and so much more.

    On point 5, I have never blamed anyone for lack of success. There are unsuccessful people in every arena. Some people do not make it through school. Some people do not make it in show business. Some people have failing business. Not every sperm makes it to the egg. Why shouldn’t we see failure in Scientology?

    On point 6, I have only seen manageable people as difficulties. Again, we see that in every area of life.

    On point 7, I can only say I am grateful to have the solution of correction lists at all.

    I don’t get point 8.

    On point 10, this is a blatant false report. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6293751/List-of-Perceptics

    Point 11 is the same kind of false report. All I have been done in every auditing session is followed directions to look at something.

    That makes the point that follow invalid.

    I’ve viewed this game from every angle from hostile “wog”, to student, P.C., staff from Missions up to the Flag Command Bureau. I’ve worked with public for decades.

    The only problem with Scientology is QandA. When people stop using it or knowing it and go into figure figure. That usually happens right after they are stopped in some way from continuing.

    If I did have any power to change the structure of the tech, I would have put the anti Q and A drills right on the HQS course. And I would have made the L’s available at street level and INSISTED these be part of the standard bridge at affordable rates.

    Of course, I was in Scientology when Hubbard was on the lines, Orgs were booming, and people were happy and it was available to everyone.

    There is a lot of CAN”T HAVE run people with the Scientology. Lot’s of people of into agreement with it. Most people never get themselves handled before they start up with the criticizm. Finish fixing yourself and them come back for another view. If the view you were viewing from was one of total know you wouldn’t be here Q and Aing with one another to begin with.

    The problem i see if class 4 auditors with 4 to 6 weeks of training complaining about processes should be run. People with no training at all complaining about how HGC’s are run. People who never held a job in their life or created any successful business or had any employee complaining about how the Orgs are run. People who never went clear or completed a grade taking about how it brainwashing. OT’s that never had their L’s or clears that never had their L’s stunned at social iintercourse.

    Once people get stopped they tend to stop others.

    Keep moving. That has been my motto. And I am grateful for it all.

    1. There are Universities that host many students. Some graduate some do not. There are weight loss plans where some have success, some do not. There are competitions where some people end as finalists, and some do not. There are companies where some employees rise up, some do not. It is accepted in every other arena of social intercourse that life is what the individual makes of it. It is only in the Scientology arena if someone is not making the best of a situation it is blamed on someone else or something else.

      Nobody has built a better bridge because we have noticed there are many people that will come along and make a royal tragedy out of it just like they did with the bridge that was not so good, the Scientology one.

      I myself have stumbled upon fantastic discoveries right before my eyes with simple methods, that I have not pointed out to other people. On a mass scale it will come to be dismissed as “unworkable” as there are many who will not make it work. Any enlightenment hitherto that has survived was carried forth and preserved by secret societies and allotted to chosen few. Look at what has happened to people in the past who gave too much for people to digest on a moments notice. Hubbard was generous and over estimated people. That was his biggest error. But if not for that error, I would not be me now. So I am grateful even for that.

      Scientology is simply what you have made of it. The only thing that is true for everyone in this game is that they find out that they are, and then find out who they really are. And if they find discomfort in the latter they shift the blame to L. Ron Hubbard.

    2. Oracle, reading your posts pretty well brought down the TA raised by some other posts. Thanks for your input 🙂

      1. I worked fervently for years to sooth, recover, reason, help, encourage those that did not seem to be winning. I had a sort of “survivors guilt”. After MANY years of time wasted and no case gain on the other end, (people actually charged up at truth) I realized those screaming about the losses and disillusionment were actually intending to make me feel survivors guilt.

        Now I use my time getting up the bridge without apology. Winning without apology. And I invest my time and intention into winning situations. When you feel guilty admitting your success to someone, you are talking to the wrong person. If it was all wrong for others or unworkable for others, that’s on them. It’s not my item the game is rigged to cause people losses through error. It might not be a cakewalk but either is a good marriage. Either is raising children. Either is holding together a career. Either is paying off a mortgage. I have done all of the before mentioned successfully. The common denominator of all losers is incorrect estimation of force. I’ve always been good at math and good at overcoming challenges. I will not apologize to anyone for any part of Scientology.

        Well, gotta run now. I’m off to do L12! I just finished L11 and I am on CLOUD 9!

          1. I asked you once before, to tell me what is possible. You take out a piece of paper and just begin with a simple item. 1. It is possible to get a glass of water. And you make that list grow. Maybe over weeks or months. But you will push through curtains of vision. I don’t mean to suggest you surrender in any way shape or form. I just mean to have you think of what is possible, not impossible, and see how that goes for moment. Have fun.
            XXOO Warm Regards. lv T.O.

        1. Oracle – I felt your CLOUD 9! I really did. And your whole attitude is refreshing. Wow. Thank you!

          Good taste in music too. 🙂

          1. Hey Thanks! I went through a time where I was willing to experience doubt. Sure, take the opposite view, nothing to loose. I’ve been tripping. So um, I have these 12 year old twins that know nothing of Scientology or me and Scientology. I did get my husband into Scientology in the Independent movement and he went up to clear and three L’s without ever having to experience the culture. I saw him have the same wins. But when you take two twelve year old kids, that have been NO SCHOOLED, and get them on the bridge and they too come back and report the same fucking wins, sorry, I tried to invalidate this thing it just has not been possible. I was willing to experience the idea I was tripping and brainwashed but come on, three people off the streets with no indoctrination having the same blow outs??? The game is on!!!!! My twelve year olds are going clear. How the fuck am I supposed to pretend this stuff does not work? On casual suggestion with no relation to the culture I have or am on the way to clearing three people that never read a book and report the same gains? These people have not even read the Dianetics book and they are going Clear! They are originating all the gains without any prompting. So, if I am tripping they are too? I did my own research. And now, with two kids coming up with bridge gains? I have come to this conclusion. You asked me to doubt? I did. But hey, it backfired and this is it. This put the fire under my ass to do it all right now. Thank you.

          2. Oracle, this is yet another post where you “do my heart good”! Even more so!

            Great philosophy you have – Hey you! Get out of my Cloud! 🙂

          3. Oracle, warmest wishes for the New Year to you too! XXOO

            And I hope you post more often this next year. 🙂

    3. Evaluating Scientology only on the basis of what it has accomplished for self is a very incomplete and selfish evaluation.

      .

      1. Evaluating Scientology on the basis of what it has factually accomplished in this world is a more correct point of view IMO. And when doing so, one would have to look at the actual results, the stats if you wish. And then it is pertinent to quote LRH from HCO POLICY LETTER OF 6 NOVEMBER 1966 “ADMIN KNOW-HOW, STATISTIC INTERPRETATIVE, STATISTIC ANALYSIS”:

        The one big godawful mistake an executive can make in reading and managing by graph is being reasonable about graphs. This is called JUSTIFYING A STATISTIC. This is the single biggest error in graph interpretation by executives and the one thing that will clobber an org. One sees a graph down and says “Oh well, of course, that’s . . . . . . . . .” and at that moment you’ve had it.

        Which means that counter-arguments to failing impacts such as “David Miscavige…”, or “RTC, CST,…”, or “Golden Age of Whatever…” just don’t cut it.

        1. So if someone came along and took the scriptures of Buddhism and altered them utterly, then you would consider the results they got as the stats of Buddhism?

          1. I would conclude that Buddhism did not guard against that, did not create momentum enough to ward it off, did not muster enough creativity and integrity force among its followers to stop that from happening. Yes, I agree with LRH here.

          2. What I get from the above is that you are still only looking at the stats of so-called “admin tech.” Even the point about creativity and integrity can just as convincingly be construed as primarily a product of squirrely management and out-tech.

            1. I am looking at Scientology as a whole. The Whole of LRH’s legacy. All of it. And how it has impacted the World at large. And there has been many positive impacts. The advertised impacts however have at least been a hundred times more massive.

          3. Not just to be argumentative, but I do not agree that you are looking at “Scientology” or at LRH’s legacy – it wasn’t Scientology that got “handed down” I will admit that LRH was out-created by some stupid and ill-intentioned others, but I would also say that he was perhaps quite out-numbered – and a favored target for the very reason that the tech of freeing individuals was seen to be valid and workable.

          4. But as already said – those stats are NOT the stats of Scientology, only the greatly altered version of it

            1. So the stats of a down-stat person is not the Real stats of that person, only the stats of the resistance he has encountered? I bet that’s what LRH would have called justifications.

          5. With that analogy I would say that if someone took over the functions of another person’s post in his understandable absence and the stats then crashed due to other-intentioned performance, then I’m sure you could say that the crashed stats were his Real stats – but you would have to be looking at the ultimate definition of responsibility that no human has achieved.

            1. I understand your attempt to justify Scientology’s lack of global impact. But I am not buying it. If Scientology had better poka-yoke and workability along the lines of its advertisement, it couldn’t help have massive positive global impact.

          6. Well again, when you talk about “advertisement” this is the subject of management.
            But when you say “it couldn’t help have massive positive global impact” I think we are basically in agreement – at least about what really matters – the tech itself. Admin tech is of no more importance to Scientology than as an assist to the practice of tech.

            I just object to losing sight of the true significance of Scn by focusing on its management so far and whether it was really LRH admin tech or the mis-use of it that determined what evolved in the organization is of extremely secondary importance.

            1. As I said – I am taking a step back and looking at the whole. As for the advertisement, I am referring to LRH’s own claims throughout his writings.

              And a point to the poka-yoke; It can quite easily be done with the existing material. Just ensure one first train everyone that comes in contact with Scientology about integrity, personal observation and choice and the issue “How to study Scientology”. Make that a required Integrity Course. Then trash the KSW #1 and its siblings.

          7. Nothing wrong with looking at the whole, Geir. What I have a problem with (and you are by far not the worst on this) is the emphasis and “advertisement” of what amounts to Scientology not having been protected against abuse but more explicitly how badly it was indeed abused, instead of the focus being on the whole point of Scn – the tech – which even many critics admit is a marvel of breakthroughs. To me, the correct evaluation of importances would be to advertise the real potential of the tech to have “massive positive global impact” (love how you phrased that).

            But I agree that there’s definitely a need for a poka-yoke type of thing and at this point I’m convinced that it’s in the area of sorting out the actual tech and especially the admin.

            (By the way, I think I’ve improved on my bias – at least the one of not wanting to offend YOU :-). But as you can tell I am getting better at putting that aside :-D)

  6. Declaration of interests: I’m an atheist and someone who works to highlight abuses and exploitation perpetrated by the likes of the church of scientology (aka corporate scientology).

    I’m not anti scientology; my take is if you think it helps you and in doing so it doesn’t harm anyone else or you’re not actually being exploited (tough call sometimes) then it’s cool.

    The biggest problem for scientology right now is the church of scientology. Do away with that abomination and don’t attempt to create another and most of the problems go away with it.

    I know many say it’s David Miscavige and in many ways it is but David Miscavige is a product of the church of scientology and the position he’s in; there’s a real danger that anyone taking over the position will end up being as possessed by it as David Miscavige.

    I know people say there should be checks and balances but that just changes the nature of the internal politics it doesn’t remove them.

    We could argue L Ron Hubbards’ motives for creating the church of scientology. That is however moot. The church of scientology is what it is now. It became what it is because it got out of control. I believe Hubbard and Miscavige are in part victims of it.

    The church of scientology’s only function is to expand at least financially. To do this it sucks resources using ever more inventive means which usually come down to buy our stuff (books, courses etc) to either save the world or improve yourself or just give us the money so we can save the world.

    The church of scientology needs a leader. That leader is like a pope. For the leader there are no consequences because the organisation protects them at all costs. They are also adored no matter what they do. Their every whim is catered to.

    It’s small wonder Miscavige, who never had a proper basis in life anyway, has become so corrupt; in many ways he’s still a little boy but one who can now dish out the abuse rather than take it.

    Although no fan of the catholic church at least most popes are chosen after a long life of piousness. Even then I have my doubts.

    I’m an atheist but my issue isn’t with religions it’s with churches and the baggage of dogma they carry around. If spirituality were a personal thing and people didn’t form churches the world would be a better place.

    People can study the works of L Ron Hubbard or the various authors of the bible or koran or countless other philosophies without having churches that tell them what to do and think. People can make up their own philosophies and share them now like never before. Churches are just tools to manipulate people and we have too many of those anyway.

    1. Dean, you’ve obviously looked into and thought a lot about all this. And I for one appreciated your comments.

      One thing I would challenge in your post is the last sentence: “Churches are just tools to manipulate people and we have too many of those anyway.”

      It seems to me that some type of joining of forces in an organized group is bound to be needed and wanted by individuals in order for them to succeed and survive. I guess the question would be: How would that be brought about without all the normally attendant evils (according to your observations)? Do you (or anyone) have any thoughts about this?

      Marty Rathbun commented not too long ago in a reply to a poster that this problem was something he was continuously looking at and writing about. But he didn’t go into it any further than that in the reply.

      1. He will never be able to solve that problem using Scientology.

        This is one of the points that Vinaire, and Geir, are continually making: In order to really improve something, sometimes it is vital to take a completely different viewpoint on it. First, you discard all “sacred” concepts and throw them out. Then you look at the whole thing from a completely different set of ideas, and re-evaluate from there.

        Marty Rathbun, and many other scientologists, believe that Scientology will solve the problems of Scientology.

        That has almost never turned out to be true.

  7. I also agree that Vinaire’s general posts, aside from pushing his own agenda, are indicative of one who has little Scientology training, some distinct MUs, squirrelly application, a reluctance/refusal to state what he actually trained on or was audited on.

    To come up with such general statements & speaking as though they are all from an ‘informed source’ are akin to reading a gossip mag on The Moonies and then professing to be an expert.

    If he wasn’t ‘looking’ during whatever auditing & training he had, no wonder he had troubles.

    His statements are general and voiced as though he is the only one who ‘knows’.

    I don’t intend to feed his puffed ego.

  8. I’m ALSO going to jump on the Vinaire eval pile!

    Here goes…

    “I think he’s a kind, competent human being trying to make his world better. I think he has trained deeply in the methods of a religion called ‘Scientology’ and would probably qualify as an expert on the subject.”

    “I think he is really trying to create sane, realistic, spiritual practices that live up to their stated outputs. I hope he will align predicted results in a measurable way that is workable with real science and empty of logical fallacies and are not just a rehash of Hubbard’s stuff.””

    There. Take that punk.

    The only thing I see that is lacking in his list above is that the list ignores that Scientology contains in Standard Tech the most addictive mind-control techniques ever released on the planet. The depth of the conversion experience and commitment installed by Scientology is staggering and IMHO the first of a new breed of control that is replicating itself in some of its offshoots.

    Only when one learns how to obviate how social control techniques work on one individually can one be free to help others learn how to do the same thing. For it is only then that the implanting effect of religious conversion be negated to the point where the ideas of any religion become optional to its user and not mandatory.

    THAT IMHO is the positive legacy of LRH. He punked people DEEP. And learning how he did it so you can be free is the best path to enlightenment I know of. And honestly, I think we owe him a lot for showing us that glaring security flaw within the human mind.

    I suggest this addition:

    (15) Scientology claims to remove the conditioning of spiritual enslavement but actually is the cause of the condition it claims to cure.

    I’ve been called an “OSA Spy” an “Honorary Scientologist” and a guy stuck in “Service Facs”

    Anything new? I mean, now that you are done with Vin and all …

    1. Ugh… must … edit …. moar … (CAPS ARE EDITS.)

      “Only when one learns how to OBSERVE and obviate the social control techniques CURRENTLY WORKING on oneSELF can THAT PERSON be free to help others learn how to do the same thing. For it is only then that the implanting effect of religious conversion CAN be negated to the point where the ideas of any religion become optional to its user and not UNCONSCIOUSLY ADOPTED THROUGH THE TECHNIQUES OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE .”

      Okay. The key point sucks less.

      I really suggest cult surfing. It’s a blast. Really. Show up to a group. Be kind. Be honest. And state your point of view.

      And wear a helmet.

    2. Sorry, Kg, but this is a case of The Untrained evaluating The Untrained. Or at best – “a little learnin’ is a dangerous thing.” I know you’ve read a lot of Scn – hence the “Honorary Scientologist” title – but your lack of auditor training is and has been apparent too. (I like you anyway, though. :-))

      1. I like you too Marildi, 🙂

        And I’m convinced that if I trained in Scientology (Circa 1980) up to OT VIII and Class 12 that I would be saying the same things about Vinaire and myself that you are.

        Because the memes of Scientology would have it no other way.

        1. I really mean this. I would be a lock-step LRH fan had I joined in my youth.

          And for me the question is “Why?”

          HOW did I believe in such ridiculous things in my youth and cling to them so strongly as an adult? And why does it happen to others in such a permanent way?

          1. Me too KG. I think it has something to do with the original goals and purposes of this universe. In my estimation there was desire for solidity, for things to hold still, for permanency. So we build bit by bit and rig it so we can turn our attention from it and then at a later point go back to the same address and find it still there. There is a quality to permanence which we find so very desirable and I think this is built into each of us to desire such a permanent and stable reality.

      2. Marildi –

        Have you ever read the story “The Emperor Has No Clothes”?

        The little child in that story was just a little child. What did he know? And yet he was the only one to observe that the Emperor had no clothes on.

        Sometimes, the fact that a person has not done some course in Scientology – or traveled the whole Bridge to Total Freedom – has been used to keep people from expressing their views on Scientology, or to discredit their observations. In fact, whole careers in Scientology lasting decades on staff and in the Sea Org, and being at the top of the organization, have been discredited and ignored because “they were not trained.”

        Well, you are just applying a trick of rhetoric here, a logical fallacy called an Ad Homenim attack. Sometimes, people who have never stepped one foot inside a Scientology organization, never done a course, never even read a book on it, can immediately spot things that people who have been inside all their lives never see. Just like the child in the story who said out loud “The emperor is naked!”

        So drop it, Miraldi. It ain’t ever gonna work outside of the Church of Scientology, and on some blogs filled with Independent Scientologists. I realize that a person’s lack of gold cert status may be frustrating for you, but I believe that you are just going to have to take each idea as it comes, and evaluate each on its own merits.

        That way you can avoid being like the people in the crowd who were all overwhelmed by the Emperor’s Tailor, and be more like the little child who wasn’t.

        1. Alanzo, I don’t see that your analogies fit. But here’s one of my own. Would you want surgery done on you by someone who has no training or cert? Or would you even be interested in medical opinion and advice from that someone with no medical training?

          1. Alanzo, I don’t see that your analogies fit. But here’s one of my own. Would you want surgery done on you by someone who has no training or cert? Or would you even be interested in medical opinion and advice from that someone with no medical training?

            Miraldi –

            Normally, I would not stick up for Vinaire. But he’s in Cambodia right know dealing with the Maoists, trying to stay out of their re-conditioning camps. So I’m pitching in for him.

            First, Vinaire’s not auditing me. Nor is he auditing you, or anyone else here. He’s writing a post on a blog.

            Second, my “analogy” goes like this:

            The emperor and his tailor had everyone but the little child so overwhelmed, they could not even see that the Emperor had no clothes.

            If Vinaire was a cramming officer, and a word clearer, then he was a tech terminal, in Qual. He was trained. I am sure you understand that Qual terminals have to be well trained, right?

            Vinaire was also on the Apollo with Hubbard.

            Vinaire has a very long and deep history in Scientology and he has contributed quite a bit to the group. He also has thought a lot about it and studied it from many different angles, including the angles from which Hubbard originally claimed he was developing the subject.

            Vinaire obviously wants to leave out all that and let his ideas speak for themselves.

            In other words, he doesn’t need you to become overwhelmed by all of his certs and experience in Scientology, like the people who came out to see the Emperor and his new clothes.

            I’m sure he would rather you just be like the child and look for yourself without all that overwhelm.

            Now do you get my “analogy”?

          2. “If Vinaire was a cramming officer, and a word clearer, then he was a tech terminal, in Qual. He was trained. I am sure you understand that Qual terminals have to be well trained, right?”

            Alanzo, I believe you have missing or false data there or are making an assumption. Cramming officers are trained in cramming tech, which includes word clearing tech but not auditing tech. Vinaire was commenting as if he were an authority on auditing tech – and demonstrating clearly in those comments that he isn’t.

            “First, Vinaire’s not auditing me.”

            Right. And getting back to my analogy – I take it then that you wouldn’t let an untrained “surgeon” operate on you, either. That was a rhetorical question in any case and you inferred the obvious answer – but you haven’t answered the rest of what I asked: Would you be interested in medical opinion or medical advice from someone with no medical training – in fact, someone who gave away in his remarks a lack of understanding of the very basics in medicine, which even many laymen know?

            That was my whole point.

          3. Right. And getting back to my analogy – I take it then that you wouldn’t let an untrained “surgeon” operate on you, either. That was a rhetorical question in any case and you inferred the obvious answer – but you haven’t answered the rest of what I asked: Would you be interested in medical opinion or medical advice from someone with no medical training – in fact, someone who gave away in his remarks a lack of understanding of the very basics in medicine, which even many laymen know?
            That was my whole point.

            I’m afraid that I don’t equate medicine with Scientology, or even find it in the same realm.

            Scientology is a system of beliefs. And anyone who can appear superior to you, or have altitude to you, can be a good auditor for you. Scientology works fundamentally because you believe it works, and for no other reason.

            So Vinaire is just as qualified to me as you, or Maria, Marty Rathbun, or David Miscavige. The materials are all available, and if you believe hard enough, you can be “Clear” and “OT”. That is how it works.

            But no, I would not let a person with no medical training operate on me like that one “doctor” who injected glue and asphalt into women’s butts as “cosmetic surgery”.

            Now. Would I let Vinaire inject glue and asphalt into me to make my ass look bigger?

            Maybe.

          4. Alanzo, that you would actually say Scn works “because you believe it works and for no other reason”… and that “if you believe hard enough you can be Clear and OT”… and everybody is just as qualified as everybody else… Oh man, it pretty much tells me where you are coming from and what I am dealing with in trying to have a rational discussion with you.

            It may all go back to MU’s or a crashing MU or false data or some unknowing computation or even some ulterior motive – I don’t know. But there is definitely some sort of barrier to our being able to have a true discussion, IMHO.

          5. We just disagree, Marildi.

            That’s all.

            Your experience tells you one thing, and my experience tells me something else on this subject.

            And sorry, but if you have done Grade 2, then your conclusion that we are unable to have a true discussion because of this is more proof that Scientology does not work.

          6. Marildi:
            At the bottom of it all, I believe Alanzo still has a point, even from the stand point of Scientology:

            LRH:
            “Considerations take rank above the mechanics of MEST.”

            Alanzo:
            “Scientology works fundamentally because you believe it works and for no other reason”

            That is the problem I´m wrestling with (and maybe all of us)
            Seems to me that sometimes, instead of as-ising reality, we not-is it and still make it seem all perfect in our own universe, confusing as-is with not-is, and sooner or later something comes in cracking and crashing….

            I can change considerations in my own universe, and it seems to prove that it is an ability which can even change the mechanics of MEST, but we as Scientologists must not forget it is a gradient scale which goes in that direction and SEEMS to reach all the way there, it´s just a model, a method of thinking about the structure of universes and it is as true as it works and no truer, when we lose sight of it, and start living as if it were an absolute truth, we get blinded by it. If we use it as a model, and only as a model, which can be perfected and changed at any moment, maybe we can get somewhere.

            Many of us i´m sure, have experienced “OT phenomena” I haven´t done any OT level and I have desired things to happen and then; “wow”…they happen…..but it also happens to people which go to witch doctors

            Inside the semingly infinite complexities of the material universe it is very difficult to prove the workability and repeatability of this principle, it gets lost in probability functions, and that is what everybody seems to be doing here, trying to turn probability into certainty, and certainty, both towards one side, or the other, reachs a dead end.

            I left the CoS because I didn´t wanted to be pounded with the fixed idea that Scientology works, and I dislike equally the fixed idea that Scientology does not work, so I will follow Ron´s advice of the early years and use whatever works for me, in the way it works, and I rather have reality come crashing down on me (even with big fear of it) to let me know when I messed up than have someone else “who knows best” enforcing his “knowledge” on me.

            “Considerations take rank over the mechanics of MEST” Is an absolute statement, which in the best case, would work only for an absolute being in his native state, in his own universe.

            Maybe that one goes too, in reverse, for Alanzo´s statement.(Sorry my friend, but that is how I see it at this moment). 🙂

          7. “Your experience tells you one thing, and my experience tells me something else on this subject.”

            Alanzo, I do not think that it was your experience that told you the kinds of things you said above and elsewhere. My best guess would be that you made up your mind about Scn at some point and you now have tremendous Sunk Cost in that conviction. You will probably say the same about me but I do not make such off-the-wall statements as you. And you are brighter than that.

          8. Rafael my friend, you have the kindness of heart and the keenness of mind that you could make anybody right – and rightfully so! But I’m going to remind you of the first post I can recall of yours and have liked and respected you ever since – “frame of reference.” 😉

          9. Thanks for continuing to talk to me, Marildi.

            I was afraid that I might have hurt your feelings about your religion. But you asked me and I felt I had to answer truthfully.

            I’m not saying that I have no stuck conclusions anywhere on Scientology. But 25 years of being both inside and outside of Scientology, has taught me what it has taught me. If I should hang out here more with practicing, present time Scientologists, maybe my experiences will shift a little.

            But in all that time, I have never seen a “Clear” or an “OT”, as described by Hubbard. And that consistent experience has far-reaching consequences for my evaluation of Scientology, and for many of the conclusions I hold about it.

            I don’t think that my reasoning above is irrational.

            Do you?

          10. p.s. Rafael, I should be clear that I really thought well of your comments and in fact my own thoughts are almost the same. The only real difference would be with one aspect of what you said here:

            “If we use it [Scientology] as a model, and only as a model, which can be perfected and changed at any moment, maybe we can get somewhere.”

            It’s the “changed at any moment” part that I would leave out since I believe that might quickly make for a total loss of what is there in the tech that does work. Not that individuals shouldn’t be allowed do as they wish with it, but I’m convinced that in addition to that individual freedom the scientific-research approach of improvement should be emphasized.

            And contrary to assumptions that are probably made about me by some people, I am not fixed on the conviction that Scientology, even in its most standard form, is the be-all-and-end-all. I just think that it should be recognized for the fabulous results it is capable of and that its survival, therefore, should be promoted by those who know that – rather than doing the opposite, even inadvertently. I’m not pointing the finger at you – I don’t get from your many posts that you are doing that at all. You just express a broader perspective. 🙂

          11. Hi Marildi:
            It’s the “changed at any moment” part that I would leave out since I believe that might quickly make for a total loss of what is there in the tech that does work

            I guess then we practically agree all the way, because I only meant it with regard to keeping our eyes open to improvement.
            And I wasn´t pointing my finger on you either, basically I´m fighting with myself, and as allways, end up punching my own nose quite a bit hard sometimes!:-)
            Thanks for listening!

          12. Alanzo, good insight on your part – I was indeed considering not getting into any more exchanges with you. But any reasonable (regular English definition) comment like the one above will always make me feel like “continuing to talk” to you. 🙂 I want to point out, however, that you did not “hurt my feelings” and that had nothing to do with anything.

            Okay, I get that you were let down and disillusioned by LRH’s not following through on the promises as regards Clear and OT. Understood. Is this then the major thing behind your feelings about Scn?

          13. Rafael, I happen to like “listening” to you – thanks for communicating! You are good at it. And I of course loved your clarification on what you meant ;-).

            Ha ha! You made me laugh, as usual – “punching my own nose quite a bit hard sometimes!” 😀

    3. Thank you, katageek, for your assessment. Scientology has both positive and negative influence. In my case, it helped me organize all my eastern exposure to knowledge. I gained a lot from Scientology because I always looked at it from the eastern viewpoint of “looking” and “Brahma” (for Static). I think this viewpoint saved me from worshipping LRH as the “source.” That is one of the key elements of Scientology conditioning.

      So, I am lucky to have been applying Logic 8 from the beginning. Alanzo is very correct in spotting Logic 8 as the salvation from this conditioning.

      .

  9. Dear Vinay, the principles of looking are well covered in the objective processes co-audit materials but you are right in that these materials are not being sistematically highlighted on his importance in auditing or even worse, during his practical aplication are being very heavily evaluated and invalidated by the snr c/s to follow command intention as regards to the number of hours needed to ” give a pass ” to the pc. I wil add that the tone 40 processes auditing style is being incorrectly extended to the rest of the non-tone 40 objective processes with this evaluative and invalidative c/sing.

      1. Hi Marildi, i feel the light is downing finally here. Yes abuse and errors exist in the practical use of scientology, and it is a sistemic problem in my view, a situation that is not only a ” lrh had not the intention to create this” but a character forming situation coming directly from the lrh mis-understandings about life and what is Religion. Lets correct these lrh false philosophical assumptions and we will enjoy the good parts of scientology tech.

        1. This is a very fair comment, Rafael. Where you grant with honesty that these things were not LRH’s intention is appreciated! 🙂

          As to LRH’s “mis-understandings about life and Religion” – that could be a constructive topic of discussion. It might be more on topic on Geir’s other current blog post: “Thought Experiment series: Evaluation of Scientology.”

        1. Vin, rather than a generality give a specific instance of my committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

    1. Rafael, the principles of looking may be covered in Scientology, but if they were being practiced then Scientology will be 500% more efficient.

      .

      1. Vinay ,i agree, so the unsolved recurrent problem of bad application ( remember ksw # 1 on this ) needs to be corrected with new tech coming from outside the church scriptures. I vote for goverment supervision of this psichotherapy as any busines in this activity. This as part of the goverment obligation to protect human rights on his citizens.

        1. “This as part of the goverment obligation to protect human rights on his citizens.”

          As if the government has such a stellar track record!

          Rafael, there are plenty of laws on the books without handing yet another freedom (its called RELIGIOUS FREEDOM) over to the government. And frankly, if you hand it over to the government or officials, etc. you are not going to get much of an improvement. Have you not noticed how many government actions are found to be illegal, questionable, and so on? You know, like Watergate? Vietnam? Nicaragua? Enron? It goes on and on. Not to mention old folks homes discovered to be abusive WHILE under so-called government supervision. Oh yeah, let’s give the government the job of sorting through all religious works and practices to determine which religious practices are acceptable practices and which ones will result in human rights violations.

          1. Maria, great reply. And a good example of your ability to see the bigger picture and the relevant facts of the matter.

            The suggestion to have government suspervise Scientology left me dumbfounded and speechless. I didn’t know where to begin!

          2. Dear Maria, the goverment is administrated mostly by socially sane persons like you and me, that eventually land a good solution to any problem ( especially in a democratic goverment ) may be not so fast but the world is improving every day, do you see ?. scientology needs the same antibiotic.

        2. Rafael, there is definitely a need for oversight on the practice of Scientology, so that any abuses are prevented.

          Beyond that, the procedures of Scientology must be examined scientifically and the weak spots identified, which have opened the doors to current abuses.

          The point (1) of KSW #1 is just an assumption. Scientology is far from being a correct technology that can be safely applied. Please see my recent response to Maria.

          .

          1. Vinay, scientology promotes widely his scientifically based tech, well let apply the scientific method on it once and again and this will not hurt but improve it. The overseeing of the government will happen eventually as a natural thing in any abused society, this is written in the very nature of the human condition .

      2. This is Circular Reasoning (very much like the True Scotsman fallacy):

        If it were True Scientology then it would be 500% better than what it is and since it isn’t 500% better then it’s not True Scientology.

        Or:
        Since it isn’t 500% better than it is then it isn’t True Scientology because if it were True Scientology it would be 500% better.

  10. I would like Vinaire to please elaborate on why his (7) Corrections Lists do not comprise (8) Utilizing poke-yoke. Also, correction lists for me provide a self determined way for the auditor to think with the theory of Scientology and provide an escape hatch when he paints himself into a corner which seems sensible when dealing with something so convoluted as the mind.
    I agree with his (9) regarding looking but disagree with his (10) that Scientology does not develop looking. Looking is how I audit and how I have always been asked to overcome an obfuscation is by looking.
    I am not sure why applying KHTK (12) to Scientology processes would fool-proof them better than they are. Maybe he could say some more on this.
    (13) & (14) Are promo for KHTK and veer off the OP.

  11. I’ve just received a dispatch from Vinaire.

    After spending a disturbing night in a hotel room by himself, it seems Vinaire has received orders to travel deep into the jungle on a small southeast Asian riverboat to meet with a man named Colonel Kurtz. Apparently this man has gone totally native and is in dire need of KHTK looking processes.

    He sends the blog his best and asks you to please wish him luck.

  12. Hello once again from Cambodia. I haven’t been able to follow this thread closely, but I want to let Alanzo know that I negotiated my way out of trouble.

    Since life is so precious, I shall write only when I have something sensible to write. So my frequency of writing on Geir’s blog may come way down (I am expecting some wisecracks here). Of course, I have decided to just be. I don’t have any desire to be better than anybody. I just want to follow a straight course of scientific investigation.

    I shall try to pick up serious and meaningful posts to respond to. If I miss out on responding to an important post, please remind me of it. Thank you. For now I shall pick up Chris Thompson’s post to respond to, which seeks clarification to (7) in the OP.

    (a) From an engineering point of view, the Correction Lists amounts to workarounds to some more fundamental problems in the design of the auditing process. This is not to say that the auditing approach as it is now, does not work. It does work with workarounds. The point is, “Can the auditing approach be redesigned to work without Correction Lists?”

    (b) A question that arises in my mind, “Why is overrun so common that it is checked often as a cause for many difficulties in auditing?” Why should overrun be so common in the first place, or why should it be there at all?

    (c) I believe that this situation with overrun presents an excellent opportunity to apply the principle of poka-yoke. Once this poka-yoke is in place, overruns will be prevented. With that, it is likely that many difficulties in auditing will simply go away.

    (d) The basic inconsistency seems to be between “looking” and “overrun.” If looking is being practiced in auditing then there should be no overruns occurring.

    (e) I do not think that the mind is so convoluted that we should stop looking for simpler solutions than those available currently in Scientology.

    (f) Overrun seems to occur whenever the preclear is insisted upon to find something, which he cannot see, and then he fails to find it. Can this be prevented from happening? From my observations, it has been impossible to prevent it through simple training on auditor TRs and E-meter. Otherwise overruns would have been eliminated by now.

    (g) Of course, what I am pointing out won’t be real to a person who does not see overrun as a problem because we have correction lists and a procedure to handle overrun. But look at the time that is devoted to using Correction lists and handling overruns.

    (h) Any person who doesn’t see a problem, would not be looking for a solution either. To me that is the real problem.

    (i) Let’s ask ourselves, “What would be the ideal auditing approach?”

    .

    1. I can only speak for myself Vinaire, but when I had auditing in 1976-80, I think I had two correction lists during the entire time. From 1986 to the last time I had auditing in 2008, I spent more time on correction lists than I did on actual auditing.

      The differences were:

      a) In my early auditing, the Mission was a safe place and I loved going there. I hated waiting for sessions in the later period, swarmed with reges and recruiters.
      b) In my early auditing there was no being sent to the MAA for handling on anything I said, I felt completely free to talk to my auditor and was confident that nothing would leave that session. Not so in my later auditing.
      c) In my early auditing, I had perhaps two or three correction lists the entire time, and that included full objectives and expanded grades. In my later auditing I spent over 100 hours on correction lists alone – and it was just grueling to get through them. I later learned that the definition of F/N had been altered.
      d) In my early auditing, I had no sense of pressure about the hours I spent on processes – later it was so expensive that I was actually anxious to get through an action as efficiently as possible so my hours would not run out before I got something done.
      e) My early auditors were very “there” with me – they liked me, they loved my wins and I felt totally in communication with them. My later auditors were stiff and accusatory. I was very uncomfortable with them most of the time, carefully gaging what I said and how I said it.

      So it isn’t just the auditing processes, it is things like what I personally experienced listed above and that includes the atmosphere and behavior of staffs in the organizations delivering the auditing. Makes a big big big difference.

      1. Wow again Maria. Well stated. My experience is similar to yours and is why I credit my resurgence of gains in auditing during the past 5 years as opposed to my previous experience within the COS. I have been much more “in session” without the heavy oppression of the Church. Wow. I had not looked at this exactly until now. I had been seeing the difference and chalked it up to superior programming by Aida and Dave Thomas, but the way you wrote this just gave me the most wonderful blowdown regarding my residual suppressed and high TA on being in the Church. Wow. It’s like wow. This together with your other post on “What is Theta” (I named it) — wow. (Still blowing down over your other post) I am just lingering . . .

      2. . . . and also in addition to your very excellent post, from the Auditor’s point of view, the auditors came to be under very heavy duress to NEVER miss a withhold under penalty of COMPLETE RETRAIN. This came into being before I left the Sea Org and I believe was invisible to the public except for the adversarial relationship it created between the auditor and PC… Tended to make the PC look like a “lying escapist criminal” to the auditor. Just saying that this deterioration which you so aptly described was a two-way street. It was no fun for the auditors either. I make the assumption that this did not improve during my absence from the Church over the past 20 years.

        1. This shows that the basis of good auditing is self-determined looking. The job of the C/S seems to determine the most relevant processes for the preclear (how preclear’s looking should be directed). The job of the auditor is to direct preclear’s attention in those areas.

          And the job of the pc is to look as directed but with full determinism to decide if something is there, and if yes, then what. The preclear may also discover on his own determinism that nothing is there.

          The preclear should not be pressured to find something when he sees nothing. That is where dub-in, overrun and correction lists come in.

          .

          1. Yes Vinaire, you’ve put this very well.
            1. I think it is a good idea, form, process, flow, poko-yoke, whatever to have a team of an auditor and C/S to join with a PC to help direct the PC’s looking at least one program at a time. The mind wanders. The less it wanders and stays on task, the more efficient the looking.
            2. In the hands of a professional and good-hearted auditor, one gets into and out-of a correction list both rarely and very quickly.

          2. Dear chris, the poka joke for fool-proofing for scientology and for any philosophical sistem is to develop a sense of decency, a strong one, TWTH if you wish but that can not be prostituted by the managment of the ” church ” with her optimal solution formula.

          3. Chris: “I keep forgetting to ask if you have an example of poko-yoke fool-proofing that you want to suggest? This question is fair game for anyone.”

            Yes, If you don’t see anything than be honest about it, and stick to it. Please don’t get pushed into dubbing in just to get an F/N.

            .

            1. Cool. So what form would you put this into to create the poko yoke? What would the practitioner see and conform to in order to enjoy this fool proofing?

          4. Vinaire: “If you don’t see anything than be honest about it, and stick to it. Please don’t get pushed into dubbing in just to get an F/N.”

            You keep mentioning this as if it were a problem that occurs commonly in auditing, but I have not seen that it is and it would be out-tech in any case. So this is not an example of poka-yoking actual tech.

            But is it something that happened much to you personally?

          5. Poka-yoke would be training the preclear on maintaining integrity on looking. This would also require taking preclear’s word to be priority over the obsessive need for getting an F/N.

            Life should take precedence over a mechanical device. I can see this changing the character of Scientology auditing completely. Wins per hour will increase greatly.

            .

          6. This is an example of incorrect and incomplete understanding of the use of the e-meter and the tech related to F/N’s.

            Also: “Wins per hour will increase greatly.”

            How do you know? Have you researched this? Or is it just hot air?

          7. Vinaire, you said: “Poka-yoke would be training the preclear on maintaining integrity on looking.”

            With this statement you imply / assert that the preclear’s failure to look in a proper way is the reason for auditing errors.

            You also imply / assert that the preclear does not have integrity. And that this flaw in the preclear has to be addressed before the preclear can address his own mind.

            This is evaluative to an extreme degree.

            This is not poka yoke. This is outright evaluation and invalidation of the preclear, every bit as evaluative and invalidative as ignoring the preclear’s communication in favor of the e-meter.

            It would be much preferable to train an auditor to communicate with the preclear and ask the preclear what is going on and getting the preclear’s answer while the process is going on. It is ridiculous to think that the preclear, who may be in the middle of a heavily charged grief incident is going to have attention on maintaining integrity while looking. For Gawd’s sakes Vinaire, they CRY!!!! They writhe!! They laugh uncontrollably at times. They have a hard enough time looking at incidents that really happened without adding this or that to them. Their time tracks can be a most confused jumble. Have you ever audited a Dianetic narrative or chains of incidents related to a car accident or loss of a loved one? Its not all clean and beautifully organized – its a balled up snarl of agony.

          8. Maria, great response to Vinaire’s idea about “training the preclear on maintaining integrity on looking.” Sometimes I see some comment as being clearly misguided but I just don’t know how to zero in on exactly what it is, or on how to debunk it.

            You also said, “It would be much preferable to train an auditor to communicate with the preclear and ask the preclear what is going on and getting the preclear’s answer while the process is going on.”

            Would you agree that auditors (assuming they’re being trained per the materials) are in fact trained to do just that?

          9. You misunderstand me, Maria, because you are not looking at all that I said. Here I shall repeat it again:

            (1) Poka-yoke would be training the preclear on maintaining integrity on looking. This would also require taking preclear’s word to be priority over the obsessive need for getting an F/N.

            (2) The preclear should not be pressured to find something when he sees nothing. That is where dub-in, overrun and correction lists come in.

            (3) And the job of the pc is to look as directed but with full determinism to decide if something is there, and if yes, then recognize what is there.

            (4) The preclear may also discover on his own determinism that nothing is there.

            An auditing session is a teamwork between the auditor and the pc. Both have to be trained to play their respective roles. In an auditing session, the preclear is in a very vulnerable position. He fully trusts the auditor to guide him correctly. His reality can easily be overridden by the auditor and that is where all the danger lies.

            The key danger in an auditing session is overriding the self-determinism of the preclear. This is where the difference between “freeing the pc” and “conditioning the pc” enters. The pc doesn’t know if he is being “freed” or “conditioned” in an auditing session because he fully trusts the auditor. The pc is in a very vulnerable position. The pc may be conditioned to feel wonderful about Scientology and LRH and also about his progress. When auditing techniques subtly overcome pc’s self-determinism, either intentionally or unintentionally, then those techniques need to be closely examined.

            Dianetic’s original techniques used to heavily push the pc through the resistance from the bank [read EVOLUTION OF A SCIENCE about the original discovery of the engram]. This is how te whole subject started. The mantra became “help the pc overcome his bank,” “auditor plus pc is greater than the bank.” But it never got clearly defined in Scientology where the self ends and the bank begins.

            Now let’s take the scenario that a particular process decided by the C/S is started on the pc. The pc guesses at a few things in response to the auditing questions. He is not quite sure. The repetitive process continues. The pc sees nothing coming up in his mind. He tells that to the auditor. The auditor looks at the e-meter. The e-meter, obviously, is not F/Ning as the pc is uncomfortable. The auditor “convinces” the pc that he should continue with the process, because “the way out is the way through.” The pc agrees. AND THIS IS THE EXACT POINT WHERE THE SESSION VEERS OFF. Is it the pc’s bank which is resisting the session, or is the process being applied is incorrect, which is unable to elicit proper response from the bank? From what I have observed, this is a pretty common confusion in Scientology. This confusion often leads to conditioning instead of the freeing of pc’s mind.

            It is in this context that I am proposing that the pc needs to be trained on LOOKING. He should be trained on recognizing whether there is a response elicited by the process in the bank or not. Reliance on the e-meter is pathetically inadequate.

            I hope I am more clear this time. I hate going over the same thing again and again.

            .

  13. Another point that I want to take up here is related to (13) and (14) of the OP. The question that arises in my mind is, “Should a scientist be criticized as ‘look he is peddling his theory again’ if he talks about it?”

    (a1) I find KHTK principles to be scientifically sound. Is there something wrong if I try to bring it to people’s attention?

    (a2) KHTK principles were originated by Buddha. These principles are all out there and available in Buddha’s writings, more so now than before because of Internet.

    (a3) I have not copyrighted KHTK. The data is freely available to others to be researched further in the scientific tradition.

    (a4) So, why do some Scientologists feel uncomfortable about this data? Why do they seem to frown on it as if I have some ulterior motive? What ulterior motive can I have?

    (a5) If Geir doesn’t want me to talk about it on his blog then let him tell me and I shall go away. I just do not understand why some people on this blog are feeling uneasy about KHTK.

    (a6) I do not mind criticism of the papers written on KHTK. But I do not see that criticism either. All I seem to get is ad hominems, such as, “Vinaire is not trained in Scientology.” What about Logic 8 as Alanzo has pointed out? Buddhism, and therefore, KHTK, presents itself as an excellent datum for comparison to Scientology auditing approach per Logic 8.

    Please explain the animosity.

    .

    1. ““Should a scientist be criticized as ‘look he is peddling his theory again’ if he talks about it?””

      No, but there is a limit to how much of a sales podium I will allow on my blog.

      1. Well, Geir, you sure have given the crack sales team of Alanzo and Vinaire a huge boost if that’s the case! :>

        I think that the Scientologists who are ad homming Vinaire are not applying their own Logic 8 to Scientology.

        Here’s something for them to consider: what, exactly is the datum of comparable magnitude that these scientologists are applying in Scientology that makes them believe that Vinaire is personally unworthy to make the statements he is making?

        What *exactly* is the rule that tells them he is unworthy to “promote” these ideas and have them “forwarded” on Geir’s blog?

        Is the rule or standard they are applying really applicable and can it really be compared?

        Dennis? Marildi?

        Is your Logic 8 in on this one?

        1. Alonzo: ” what, exactly is the datum of comparable magnitude that these scientologists are applying in Scientology that makes them believe that Vinaire is personally unworthy to make the statements he is making? ”

          I don’t think anyone said Vinaire was ‘unworthy’ – that is your word and you base your question on that.

          Vinaire has every right to his own take on things. He does have a tendency to generalize and have that know best attitude if someone has a differing viewpoint. That is not a discussion – it is a make wrong and an inability to look and contemplate another’s viewpoint. It is not about what he is saying; it is the attitude that comes with it. Plus it would help to know what auditing/training he ACTUALLY had – it would help in making sense of where he is coming from.

          As for the sales podium comment by Geir – take a count of Vinaire’s posts. Now take a count of the number of posts with the sales pitch in there.

          It fine & dandy to state an OPINION and say it is and say it is one’s OPINION, but when statements are put forth as fact when his studies are a ‘work in progress’ and at the same time making less of another’s viewpoint; that is not a discussion. It is preaching to a choir who has heard the same tune for many moons.

          Personally I love to hear about discoveries in other philosophies or the cognitions of others’.

          Just don’t force them on me or attempt to make less of me because I think something different – it ain’t gonna happen.

          I am not tied to anything I ‘know’ at this instant – I can change at the drop of a hat if I choose. As I said, I love hearing realizations of others and if it sparks something in my universe, all the better.

          Just don’t ram it down my throat – I had enough of that crap dealing with some cult-y fanatics I ran into 🙂

          1. Vinaire wrote:

            Ego is the biggest barrier to progress.

            This is an interesting assumption.

            Is ego really the biggest barrier to progress?

            In my recent Buddhist studies, I have been taught to take barriers and turn them into progress. For instance, the Dalai Lama, in “How to Practice” says that he meditates every day on how grateful he is for the Chinese to have invaded his country and systematically to have destroyed the culture of Tibet.

            He says that he uses their actions (their “barriers to progress”) that they present as a springboard for his own enlightenment. He says that if it wasn’t for the Chinese doing what they did, he would not have had half the gains he has had spiritually this lifetime.

            Buddhists teach that because karma exists, and because the world is so impermanent, that you can take your barriers and turn them into progress with the right views. Therefore nothing is inherently the biggest barrier to anything.

            So I question your assumption that “ego is the biggest barrier to progress”.

          2. To me, self is akin to the Analytical mind, and ego is akin to the Reactive mind. One is very protective of the ego, and takes offense easily when one thinks that one’s ego is being targeted.

            Scientology seems to become a part of the ego of a Scientologist. So, when somebody says something disagreeable about Scientology, a scientologist feels oneself to be targeted and responds somewhat antagonistically.

            Here ego prevents one from looking at what is really there. So, the presence of ego in a person tells me that the Reactive mind is still there. It can still be there after OT VIII. There was plenty of it in LRH. It is there as long as there is attachment to the physical universe.

            That is why I called ego to be the biggest barrier. Of course, this barrier may be turned into progress as Dalai Lama suggests.

            .

    2. Vinaire: There has to be some fruitful purpose, other than the egoistic satisfaction of being right.
      Maria: The question is not “is it right?” The question is, “does it satisfy?” and “how much does it satisfy?” Satisfy what?
      Vinaire: Satisfy the purpose, Elementary, sister Maria.
      Maria: And now for the million dollar question Vinnie: And the purpose being satisfied is what?
      Vinaire: As-isness and the thrill of it.

      Let’s review this with an eye as to how it could generate animosity:

      1. There has to be some fruitful purpose…
      – and there wasn’t?
      – fruitful to whom?
      2. …other than the egoistic satisfaction of being right…
      – states that the discussion has been egoistic
      – infers that egoistic is a diminished state
      – implies that being right is a “dimished” purpose of ego
      – why? because there has to be a “fruitful” purpose
      3. Elementary, sister Maria
      – rephrased: don’t be stupid Maria – its obvious
      – and no, this answer is not obvious to anyone but you
      – and this is quite a dismissal
      4. As-isness and the thrill of it.
      – so the others on this blog are pursuing egoistic satisfaction,
      but not you, you have integrity and pursue only as-isness?

      The only possible response to this is for Geir to close his blog down and instruct everyone to go and do KHTK looking drills and stop engaging in these petty, ego-ridden communications.

      1. Maria said: “Let’s review this with an eye as to how it could generate animosity”

        Correct indication of by-passed charge!

        1. p.s. I hope it was clear that I meant that it was the correct item for ME.
          .

          p.p.s. Maria, this particular post of yours can be used as a model to analyze a comment by breaking it down into all its inferences and insinuations. Thank you!

        1. Vinaire, I was answering your own post: “Please explain the animosity.”

          I answered this in a very detailed way, as honestly and as clearly as I possibly could and your response is: “There is lot here that is being misjudged and misconstrued.”

          Do I get a thank for you for taking the time to do this? No. I get a dismissal and further evaluation of my ability to read and comprehend what is written. How about recognizing what I said, even saying something like: wow, I didn’t realize how it came across.

          Really Vinaire, if you do not want an honest and sincere answer or you are going to ignore the answer and not even give me the courtesy to respond in any way that clears things up, then DO NOT ASK as you did.

          1. Al, this is the Appeal to Sympath fallacy. Better hit the books on fallacies cuz I”m way ahead of you already. 😀

            Besides, if Vinaire can dish it out on vacation he can take it too.

      2. Wow! WTF…

        An example of Reach and withdraw from Factors is as follows:

        (1) Reach out occurs when one sets up a purpose.

        (2) Withdraw takes place when that purpose is fulfilled.

        That is all I meant. If you want to dub-in other stuff that is up to you. It is impossible for me to predict such dub-ins.

        .

        1. “If you want to dub-in other stuff that is up to you. It is impossible for me to predict such dub-ins.”

          I am not dubbing anything in. And to say so is exactly how you are causing animosity. Judging from other people’s responses on this thread, I am definitely not alone in having this so-called “dub-in.” So how then can it be dub-in?

          1. I have sorta given up on Vin when it comes to netiquette. But you get why I sent him on the three day vacation? No, not the long vacation in the far east, only the tiny vacation some weeks ago.

          2. Geir, for me the issue of etiquette is by far a distant second to the difficulty in having a real comm cycle with him.

          3. Oh! I thought “netiquette” was a typo. At a glance, it seems like a pretty big subject too. I’ll read up on it. Thanks.

  14. We see here the interesting phenomenon that the subject of Scientology is being abused, and yet many people are going along with it. They are convinced that this abuse is justified.

    Why is that? Can a subject be poka-yoked against abuse? I think so.

    I have a strange feeling that Buddhism may be used to poka-yoke Scientology.

    .

  15. We may spend a lot of time praising Scientology for all the “consistencies” present in it. That is all fine, but it is only going to maintain the status quo.

    It is spotting of inconsistencies in Scientology, without justifying them, that has some chance of taking Scientology to a higher level of workability.

    .

  16. When I contemplate ove the ideal scene for the auditing process, the following comes to my mind:

    (1) In an auditing session, looking should be practiced in its purity. The preclear should simply recognize what is there. When nothing is there then the preclear should also recognize that. The preclear must not assume that there is something, which he is not able to see.

    (2) Skilled direction should be provided to the preclear with regards to looking. The process should bring up the relevant material for the preclear to look at. If the material is supposed to be there per some theory, but it is not coming up, then that process may no longer be the right one to bring up more stuff.

    (3) This is where the multitude of Scientology processes come in. Processes of each grade may be run in groups to let the mind unburden itself as naturally as possible. A process should be switched to the next in that group when nothing is coming up. No arbitrary F/N requirements should be imposed. The preclear would know when a process, or a group of processes have accomplished their purpose. When that happens, F/N would accompany it naturally.

    (4) As mind unburdens itself, processes, which did not bite previously, may now start to bite. For this reason, each group of processes (grades) may be repeated several times. Note that the requirements above may exhaust each single process quite quickly.

    (5) Relief comes from looking and recognizing what is there in the bank. It is not necessary that the preclear must talk in detail what he is looking at. Therefore, the preclear must not be insisted upon to talk about his case. But he may originate as he wishes.

    Well, this is all I have right now. If more comes I shall let you all know.

    .

    1. Vinnie – this only applies to Dianetic auditing. And the truth is that until an individual puts his attention on some”thing” in the mind, it is not present. These are exercises in as-ising.

      This analysis does not apply to the other forms of auditing which are extensions of creative processing, exercising the processes of visualization / mental image creation and other forms of perception.

    2. These points apply to anything the preclear is asked to look for, such as, “Do you have an ARC break?” So these points are not limited to Dianetics.

      .

    3. It is interesting that there haven’t been any responses or suggestions for the ideal scene of auditing, which lies at the core of Scientology.

      I would like to see people thinking for themselves here.

      .

      1. The ideal scene of auditing, as it was developed, was for the Scientologist to become more of a Scientologist.

        The ideal scene of becoming enlightened is very different from that.

        Scientology only pretends to have the ideal scene of becoming enlightened. It holds that out to people who have that same purpose, and sells itself to them with the pitch, “Do Scientology! Become more enlightened!”.

        But Scientology itself, its procedures, its training, and the social context in which its ideas are presented, was not developed to make people become more enlightened.

        It was developed to make people more into Scientologists.

        That is all.

        You can not become more enlightened by being any kind of “ist”. An “ist” is a fixed and finite system of identity and thinking. It is a box. You can not become enlightened from inside a box.

        1. That type of conditioning does exist, and the reason for that is the confusion between “self” (as in self-determinism) and the bank. Self can be suppressed and the bank (as in ego) can easily be beefed up with Scientology auditing.

          .

        2. This is a good point that you bring up, Alanzo.

          Is the product of Scientology to become more oneself, or to become a Scientologist, who brainlessly defends anything to do with Scientology and LRH, and does not want to change a thing about Scientology?

          .

          1. Begging The Question (Assuming The Answer)

            Adhom

            Argument by Rhetorical Question:
            (asking a question in a way that leads to a particular answer)

          2. Vinaire asked:

            Is the product of Scientology to become more oneself, or to become a Scientologist, who brainlessly defends anything to do with Scientology and LRH, and does not want to change a thing about Scientology?

            The proof of the pudding is in the tasting.

            If this trait is in the majority of Scientologists, and the common denominator between all these Scientologists is studying and wanting to apply Scientology exactly – just as Hubbard taught them, then it is certainly not unreasonable to conclude that Scientology produces that product in Scientologists.

            Especially when we know that you are made to read Hubbard’s teachings on “instant attack” and which teach this exact behavior as the first issue on every major course throughout your lifetime as a Scientologist.

        3. Since I have time on my hand, waiting for a flight to Singapore, I shall indulge myself in writing some more on Geir’s blog.

          Is enlightenment one’s goal in Scientology? I don’t think so. Total freedom does not necessarily lead one to enlightenment. It may simply remove one’s inhibitions toward controlling others for the advancement of one’s own goals.

          Enlightenment is an animal of an entirely different color. Scientology, by claiming that it is the only workable system to follow, prevents people from looking at other things. It makes them quite closed minded. This is the kind of mindset that also corrupted Judaism, Christianity and Islam, and other religions. This kind of close mindedness is what gives a black eye to religions as a whole.

          In my INDIA PROGRAM that I wrote to LRH about in 1973, I specifically mentioned not to promote Scientology as a religion in India. Instead I made a case for using the Study Tech to spearhead the scientology effort in India because it opens up minds. LRH approved that program.

          However, that program never got implemented. Scientology was promoted as a religion in India and became an utter failure.

          The only Scientology mission which had some chance of survival was the one I started in Patiala in 1980 from grass roots. That mission survived and grew until it was taken over by SMI in 1985 and subverted.

          So much for enlightenment through Scientology.

          .

      2. Some people here have finally come around to talking about doing a fresh review of Scientology. What do they think I have been trying to do?

        One needs to do more than just talk. Here is an opportunity to start a fresh review of Scientology by start answering this question about the ideal scene of auditing.

        .

        1. Question: “What do they think I have been trying to do?”

          Answer: Alter from the basics on up.

          (Better clear the word “review.”)

        2. “Marildi, your icon suits you quite well.”

          If you would just comment less often it wouldn’t fit so well.

    4. The whole purpose of Creative Processing is to approximate through visualization experiences that one may have gone through, but which are not accessible to the preclear. It also helps overcome ridges in one’s mind created through social and other type of conditioning.

      We are taught that creation is good but destruction is bad. This conditioning generates quite an imbalance, which can be straightened out through Creative Processing.

      .

  17. A critic of Scientology is often accused by die hard Scientologists for being wrong because the critic is not a “Class XII, OT VIII” (meaning not trained in Scientology). This is an effort to brush off all criticism of Scientology with a broad stroke, especially when the criticism is becoming hard to counter. This is a corollary to (5) in the OP.

    The proper response from a Scientologist should be to take each point of criticism and counter it rationally.

    .

      1. And don’t forget to mention Straw Man, like Vinaire just demonstrated.

        He apparently did not grasp that the real criticism was an objection to Factual Error, not ad hom or reverse appeal to authority. Did you?

  18. It is true that I am not conditioned by Scientology training. I do not think that Scientology is perfect. Many of my ideas may go counter to practices in Scientology.

    Therefore, proper evaluation of Scientology does not require extensive training in various auditing techniques. It does require training in the application of auditing basics of which I have plenty. Deep knowledge of Scientology basics and Data Series is sufficient. I have thousands of hours of experience with word clearing and debugging. I also have hundreds of hours of experience providing Idenics sessions, which uses Scientology axioms along with looking. I have deep understanding of Scientology axioms, logics, pre-logics and factors… enough to critique them.

    I have gotten wonderful results throughout, when applying my understanding of Scientology, which might differ from other understandings of Scientology.

    I believe I have enough knowledge to criticize Scientology. It you have doubts then bring them up.

    .

    1. My whole tenure of 12 years in Sea Org was on Flag, with 3 years on Apllo (1972 – 75). There I did blinkless TRs and passed them. I did the first Data Series Evaluators Course under Mary Sue Hubbard. I got many acknowledgements from LRH on the ideas that I presented in my Daily Reports. One of my daily report was issued by LRH as an Aides Order titled INDIA PROGRAM. I did the Professional TRs Course. Professional Word Clearers Course, OEC Volumes, Cramming Officer’s Checksheet. This is an account of some of my training. There was special Flag training. I was on many pilot programs. One of them was Running Program, which never saw the light of the day. The other was the New Vitality RD.

      I operated as Programs Chief from Apollo taking care of all South East US Orgs, I went through pretty tough and interesting times on Apollo and Fort Harrison. No need for any details of those experiences for they are irrelevant. My primary interest is in getting a grass roots movement going which general public can use freely to help each other.

      .

      1. Vinay, you say ” My primary interest is in getting a grass roots movement going which general public can use freely to help each other.”. Count me in, but i will not get the southern Theravada pack with it.

      2. So Marildi?

        Dennis?

        You’ve now gotten Vinaire to lay out his quals for being worthy of criticizing Scientology.

        What are your quals?

        1. Come on, Alanzo, the complaint was not that he was criticizing “Scn” – it was specifically in regard to his comments about “tech” which show clearly that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. And he has NOT laid out any quals that show he has tech training. In the courses he mentioned there is no training in auditing tech, except the RPF training, which I’ve already commented on as being a rote drilling of the processes with virtually no study of the theory underlying them.

          In any case, the actual point wasn’t primarily to do with his training – even someone with relatively little training could spot some of the gross errors in his understanding. The secondary point, however, is his arrogance in making all sorts of pompous statements about where and how LRH missed the boat, implying how much more he himself knows – in spite of the fact that he has no actual tech training or any other background basis for being qualified to do so.

          Since you ask, my own training includes Word Clearer, the NED course, Levels 0, 1 and 2 and Solo Auditor, which has the tech of listing and nulling as learned on Level III. And I can tell you I’ve M7’d so many foreign language students on the materials of Level IV and other tech courses that I’m fairly familiar with those too. (Vinaire’s word clearing on the other hand was for admin courses, same with cramming.) I never claimed to be a highly trained auditor but, as I say, it doesn’t take that to be able to spot a gross misrepresentation of basics.

          1. Rafael, I am so happy too! She was one of the biggest – if not the biggest – OLs among both staff and public Scientologists. And up until now she has publicly said nothing against the CoS. Let’s see what happens next!

          2. Rafael, here’s how I see it. There no doubt is and has been inadvertent alteration of policy resulting in abuse of staff and public, and there no doubt is and has been deliberate alteration with the intended purpose to abuse staff and public.

            My idea of what is needed is a whole sort-out of policy in order to align it to its own basic purpose: “proper expansion.” (HCO PL Expansion, Theory of Policy) And note particularly that it is “proper” expansion.

          3. Dear marildi, you say ” My idea of what is needed is a whole sort-out of policy in order to align it to its own basic purpose: “proper expansion.” (HCO PL Expansion, Theory of Policy) “. If you think that this sort out of policy includes to cancel ksw # 1 in order to correct the false lrh assumptions and errors then it is the set up time for scientology. and scientology will grow fast and steady.

  19. Also, to add to Vinaire’s quals, he is a nuclear engineer by trade, having received his education at M.I.T.

    In addition to being an excellent writer, he is also very well read, and practiced in many spiritual disciplines, especially eastern ones, having grown up in India.

    So, Marildi and Dennis, you might as well lay out your non-Scientology quals so we can compare them to Vinaire’s, as well.

    And then, after we have compared everybody’s quals, this will tell us if what they say is true.

    1. Alanzo, you really surprise me sometimes with your “logic.” The above is an obvious logical fallacy.

      “An appeal to authority may be inappropriate in a couple of ways…

      2. The “authority” cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area.”

      http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

      1. Alanzo, you really surprise me sometimes with your “logic.” The above is an obvious logical fallacy. “An appeal to authority may be inappropriate in a couple of ways…2. The “authority” cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area.”
        http://www.fallacyfiles.org/authorit.html

        So I guess then that even a fool can speak the truth and the little child – because he was not overwhelmed by the Emperor and his tailor – could see that the emperor had no clothes.

        Appeals to authority suck, don’t they?

        I hate it when people do that.

    2. Alanzo, the objection to your argument regarding “The Emperor’s New Clothes” has nothing to do with authority or lack of it – it is simply a False Analogy.

      “Several factors affect the strength of the argument from analogy:

      The relevance of the known similarities to the similarity inferred in the conclusion….”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy
      .
      In the Emperor story, EVERYBODY saw that the emperor was naked. This was the blatant DISsimilarity.

    3. So you, Al, by analogy, having grown up in the USA, must be practiced in many of the spiritual disciplines indigenous to this country? Just by virtue of having grown up here?

      Then I, by virtue of having grown up in 2 different countries, am probably practiced in twice as many spiritual disciplines as you, right?

      Is this ‘logic’ or is this just a pissing contest in which you are trying to overwhelm Marildi and Dennis with Vin’s imagined “authoritativeness” for some reason best known(or maybe not known) to yourself?

      Makes me wonder, did you ever do your Grades, while you were in Scientology?

      1. Valkov –

        My comment about Vinaire’s quals was FILLED with logical fallacies.

        On purpose.

        I used them to make my point to Marildi and ZOOM! over your heads!

        Like an airplane!

        ZOOM!

        1. Ho ho ho. That’s easy to say NOW but I don’t buy it. It didn’t come off that way at all.

          1. Marildi –

            My line “And then, after we have compared everybody’s quals, this will tell us if what they say is true.” was a trap for you.

            You did not notice, did you?

            I still don’t think you’ve fully gotten it. But you will, and soon. You are extremely intelligent and very perceptive. You will rapidly progress.

            Just remember to apply the logical fallacies you are learning to statements other than just SPs and critics like me and Vinaire that you meet on the Internet. Apply logical fallacies to the statements of Marty and Mike and other Scientologists, too. And of course to the statements of Church members and David Miscavige. And finally, apply logical fallacies to your own statements and conclusions, as well.

            You will be glad you did.

          2. Oh, and when you are really ready to apply logical fallacies, crack open an LRH lecture, policy letter, or HCOB.

            Then you will really be in for a rocket ride!

          3. 1. “My line “And then, after we have compared everybody’s quals, this will tell us if what they say is true.” was a trap for you. You did not notice, did you? I still don’t think you’ve fully gotten it.”

            Changing the Subject by Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, or False Emphasis

            Appeal to Ridicule (mocking the other person’s claim)

            2. “You are extremely intelligent and very perceptive. You will rapidly progress.”

            Appeal to Flattery

            3. “Just remember to apply the logical fallacies you are learning… You will be glad you did.”

            Assertion (a veiled appeal to authority in that it makes the assumption that the person making the assertion is an expert or has a position of unassailable formal authority)

            3. “Oh, and when you are really ready to apply logical fallacies, crack open an LRH lecture, policy letter, or HCOB. Then you will really be in for a rocket ride!”

            Style over Substance

            1. Wow Marildi; I am impressed. I elect you to be the Logic Officer on my blog.

              Thank you for picking apart the illogics here.

          4. Thank you! That ack made it more than worth my while. 🙂 🙂 🙂
            .

            Problem is, there so much to pick apart! 😦

            1. I know. If you take a casual glance at most any Scientology related forum or blog you will find the discussions rife with logical fallacies.

          5. Yes, I’ve seen it. And a related thing about Scientology is the huge amount of attention it has received for so many years, not just on blogs but otherwise on the internet, numerous books written on it, etc. The dedication for and against Scn is phenomenal. And that subject right there would keep the blogs in business for days and days, LOL. 😀

          6. To be the Logic Officer I would need deputies!

            How about we assign someone to each person who consistently uses logical fallacies in their comments. And assign a rover to the odd ones here and there. Or – instead of assigning them we could ask for volunteers for the job.

            Hey Valkov, how about you volunteer to take on Alanzo? And in turn, Alanzo, you of course can point out any logical fallacies in Valkov’s comments.

            Yeah, maybe that’s it – a twinning system!

            (Of course, we’ll need two people for Vinnie :-D.)

          7. Vinaire: “Marildi will always be a logic officer, whether she has that title or not. Logic is in her beingness.”

            Thanks, Vin (I think). 🙂

            1. That is your opinion. I would tend to disagree that “Logic appears at the level of THINKING”.

          8. Vinaire: “Logic appears at the level of THINKING in Know to Mystery Scale. Effort, Emotion, and Look are higher.”

            Definition of “thinkingness: down the scale at the level below effort. It comes in as figure-figure-figure-figure-figure.” Tech Dict

            There’s no definition for the verb “think” in the Tech Dict, but consider this definition of the noun – “thought: the perception of the present and the comparison of it to the perceptions and conclusions of the past in order to direct action in the immediate or distant future.”

            You can extrapolate a verb definition for “think” from each of the above two definitions and compare those to the definition of “logic: a gradient scale of association of facts of greater or lesser similarity made to resolve some problem of the past, present or future. Logic is the combination of factors into an answer.”

            And then consider the two definitions of “think” and how they would align (or not) with the mental activities involved with “look” and with “logic”?

            The above is how I’ve worked it out, for what it’s worth.

  20. Greetings from Hanoi, Vietnam. I believe the following response to Maria is important enough to be repeated for everyone else. I don’t care if some people think of me as untrained or condescending. I go by the investigative procedure, which is covered in the Data Series.

    You misunderstand me, Maria, because you are not looking at all that I said. Here I shall repeat it again:

    (1) Poka-yoke would be training the preclear on maintaining integrity on looking. This would also require taking preclear’s word to be priority over the obsessive need for getting an F/N.

    (2) The preclear should not be pressured to find something when he sees nothing. That is where dub-in, overrun and correction lists come in.

    (3) And the job of the pc is to look as directed but with full determinism to decide if something is there, and if yes, then recognize what is there.

    (4) The preclear may also discover on his own determinism that nothing is there.

    An auditing session is a teamwork between the auditor and the pc. Both have to be trained to play their respective roles. In an auditing session, the preclear is in a very vulnerable position. He fully trusts the auditor to guide him correctly. His reality can easily be overridden by the auditor and that is where all the danger lies.

    The key danger in an auditing session is overriding the self-determinism of the preclear. This is where the difference between “freeing the pc” and “conditioning the pc” enters. The pc doesn’t know if he is being “freed” or “conditioned” in an auditing session because he fully trusts the auditor. The pc is in a very vulnerable position. The pc may be conditioned to feel wonderful about Scientology and LRH and also about his progress. When auditing techniques subtly overcome pc’s self-determinism, either intentionally or unintentionally, then those techniques need to be closely examined.

    Dianetic’s original techniques used to heavily push the pc through the resistance from the bank [read EVOLUTION OF A SCIENCE about the original discovery of the engram]. This is how te whole subject started. The mantra became “help the pc overcome his bank,” “auditor plus pc is greater than the bank.” But it never got clearly defined in Scientology where the self ends and the bank begins.

    Now let’s take the scenario that a particular process decided by the C/S is started on the pc. The pc guesses at a few things in response to the auditing questions. He is not quite sure. The repetitive process continues. The pc sees nothing coming up in his mind. He tells that to the auditor. The auditor looks at the e-meter. The e-meter, obviously, is not F/Ning as the pc is uncomfortable. The auditor “convinces” the pc that he should continue with the process, because “the way out is the way through.” The pc agrees. AND THIS IS THE EXACT POINT WHERE THE SESSION VEERS OFF. Is it the pc’s bank which is resisting the session, or is the process being applied is incorrect, which is unable to elicit proper response from the bank? From what I have observed, this is a pretty common confusion in Scientology. This confusion often leads to conditioning instead of the freeing of pc’s mind.

    It is in this context that I am proposing that the pc needs to be trained on LOOKING. He should be trained on recognizing whether there is a response elicited by the process in the bank or not. Reliance on the e-meter is pathetically inadequate.

    I hope I am more clear this time. I hate going over the same thing again and again.

    .

    1. And I hate going over the same thing again and again, just like you do but I am not going to stop doing it because you feel you have some kind of altitude here. The auditor in your scenario is committing GROSS AUDITING ERRORS. The primary error being that the pc you are describing is NOT IN SESSION. And the secondary being that the auditor is NOT ACCEPTING the pc’s answer of nothing there. And the third is relying on the meter and IGNORING pc indicators. That is one lousy auditor you have just described.

      1. That is “No True Scotsman” fallacy. I have seen this being used so often here by some people that it is becoming ubiquitous. Please look it up on Wikipedia.

        .

        1. “[The No True Scotsman] fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable. http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

          What is the “existing belief” that is being assumed to be true – AND is being used to dismiss any counter-example (as per the above)?

          1. Here is a very common example of the No True Scotsman fallacy as used by Scientologists:

            Fact: In 60 years of application, Dianetics and Scientology have never produced a “Clear” or an “OT”, as described by L Ron Hubbard.

            Response by Scientologist: That’s because no true Scientology was applied!

            See? There are many variations on this. A lot of them are used by Scientologists whenever factually bad results of Scientology are presented. The Scientologists will almost invariably say “That’s not true Scientology!” as a means of looking away from the facts so they don’t have to consider them.

            Just as Vinaire said, it is EXTREMELY common thinking among Scientologists.

            Start watching for it. You’ll see.

          2. Indeed Alanzo, but that is not what is being discussed right now. Whether or not people became magicians, clear or OT is not the point in this discussion – this one is about poke yoking auditing to reduce the number of correction lists. Vinaire described exceptionally bad auditing per easily identified requirements for decent auditing to occur at all as why correction lists were needed. My point is that it is not difficult to have auditing without these kinds of errors – we routinely did at the Mission I was at in the late 70s. That’s not an imaginary event, its a real event. Its like saying the carwash detergent destroyed the finish of the paint and when you check into it you find out it was turpentine. Well of course it ruined the paint. You don’t then try to poke yoke the turpentine. You throw it out and don’t use it on the car!

            It may simply be that Vinaire was in the S.O. and I wasn’t and maybe the auditing was the shits in the S.O. all along – I don’t really know. I do know that the greatest number of very angry and disenchanted exes I have encountered are ex-SO and I also know that I don’t think much of the SO mentality I have encountered when I was public online. Not an environment and attitude that is conducive to auditing at all IMO.

        2. And that’s bloody nonsense that this is a Scotsman fallacy. You give me a series of events taking place in auditing that are clearly not in keeping with the ABSOLUTE basic requirements of auditing, and you want the auditing to be error free? It is very much possible to have good, reasonably error free auditing delivered – with the auditor basics in, we rarely had preclears in any kind of trouble at our Mission in the late 70s. The real question is, why is it so difficult now? It was once a reality – why not these days?

          IMO you are not seeking to poke yoka auditing at all. You are seeking to completely redefine it and develop another system of processes entirely – nothing wrong with that – but do not confuse the two things. I understand that the effort is to develop something that doesn’t require even the use of an auditor’s code, and doesn’t require much or little training. That’s all good, but I am not so sure that you can team up two people on any kind of process and have them do well in the presence of the level of gross auditing errors you have described in your examples above. Just look at this thread as an example – its hard to keep discussions going sometimes without feeling the need to pull out a correction list! LOL.

          Here’s how I see it: Scientology auditing is what it is. KHTK processes are what they are. They are each their own processes and should not be confused.

          IMO, if you want to improve Scientology auditing, then at least have the auditor be trained well enough to not commit ABSOLUTELY gross errors such as forcing preclears. (For the record I personally have never been forced by an auditor even in my worst session and we are talking about well over 500 hours of auditing.)

          1. I should add that I have had the original auditing from DMSMH – lots of it and my auditor made TONS of errors – he had never done a comm course and he was dreadful at keeping a comm cycle. When things got really messed up we just waited until it keyed out again. 7 – 10 days and we’d be back at it. It was slow, messy, often confused but hey – I kept coming back for more – after all, it was fascinating and I got to clean up a whole lot of confused and difficult times in my life! Its really not particularly tragic to have errors when you are not paying hundreds of dollars an hour. But it’s a REAL piss-off when you are paying primo dollar for the “best” auditing in the world and your auditor can’t read an F/N, has lousy TRs, is accusative, and you wonder how many reges are waiting in the waiting area for you. Take out the high prices and the threat of ethics and I think you’d see the TA come way down and preclears do a hell of lot better. As a matter of fact, I’d advocate co-auditing on the cheap as ideal and in that scenario, there had better be correction lists! LOL.

          2. Me neither, with the exception of some suppressive C/S’ing which had no root in trying to help me. I agree. It is pretty easy for me to get good auditing from a well-meaning person using just the tech which is available. Very satisfactory in my opinion.

            A point which hasn’t been addressed is the intention of the preclear. These would have to align with the goals of the session to obtain a pleasing result.

          3. Chris – you’re right about the preclear’s intention and participation being a factor – and this seems especially true when someone has been talked into having auditing or is there just to please another person. That’s a no-go. I saw that on some marriage counseling in later years and it was a bust! I’ve seen this go on in later years and it is counter-productive – this is also where sec-checking a la interrogatory fits in – something that can’t be called auditing at all. They always say, I’m not auditing you and boy is that the truth!

          4. So, Maria, whenever there are no appropriate results from Scientology it is “No True Scientology.” This is what I get from you, Marldi and Dennis.

            Here I am trying to bring about a fresh review of Scientology. People like you just give lip service to that and just dance around. How about really looking at the ideal scene of auditing? I didn’t get much of a response to that question.

            .

          5. Fallacy of using fallacies incorrectly to force one’s hobby horse down other people’s throats.

            SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT PERFECT. Scientology can be improved upon.

            .

      2. Maria –

        If a sec check question continues to read on the meter, despite the pc saying there is nothing there, what is the auditor supposed to do per standard tech?

        1. Geir has already answered, so I’ll just add this:

          Funny you should bring up sec checks. Frigging sec checks were canceled in the 70s and frankly no one missed the damned things. And wouldn’t you know – they are the number one source of hostility and upset. Big surprise. Who wants to be in session when the MAA is standing there with a hanging noose and who the hell knows who is going to read the session data. As far as I am concerned, they are a TOTAL violation of in-session and they are the epitome of gross auditing errors. I went out of session during one for eligibility (in the 80s) and you know, I never really warmed back up to getting any auditing by any auditor within the C of S after that. I bet you could toss sec checks completely out the window and everyone would heave a sigh of relief. Ah but you’ve helped me to pinpoint something else I never noticed til just now – the crash the Mission I was at was date-coincident with the return of the sec check procedures and all the enforced bullshit of the SO.

          My point anyway is that what Vinnie is trying to do is a different breed of cat entirely. And that is probably what is needed most anyhow. I think you know my view on whether the CofS can recover. I don’t think so. And I do think that there is much that can be done to improve the environment called auditing and most of that is to do with efforts to enforce things on people. I personally don’t consider any effort to enforce things on a person to be auditing.

          As far as checking reads go with buttons, I never experienced any forcing on that either in regular auditing – it was kind of fun really to zero in on something that was dancing away at the edge of my memory (like trying to remember someone’s name and it just keeps slipping away) and I never found it accusative. Not so with the later sec checks. It was accusative. I had a definite sense that the auditor was my adversary and I was definitely gone out of session with that.

          1. Maria you say ” Funny you should bring up sec checks. Frigging sec checks were canceled in the 70s and frankly no one missed the damned things. ” Not in the sea org Latam nor in the class five orgs in Latam, i can attest to that, here there are no forgiveness of sins.

          2. Rafael, I meant to say that sec-checks were not in use in the 70s – they were brought back some time at the end of the 70s or early 80s. Too bad they were brought back.

        2. Come to think of it, I think I know why this thread is being so weird. The confusion comes down to the idea that somehow the existing body of materials of Scientology is going to be poke yoked. I just don`t think that`s possible. It has to come from a clean, fresh review of it and for me, at least, on the auditing side of things this means that what I have come to realize is important must be raised in importance to a completely new level – for example the auditor code clauses on invalidation and evaluation have to take much higher precedence than most other factors. I have noticed that these two elements being given due attention in even routine conversation makes all the difference in the world – there`s no process at all going on other than just communication. Take out the inval and eval and general communication becomes a way of as-ising problems and situations. Try it sometime if you can find someone to do it with you. Its fascinating.

          1. “It has to come from a clean, fresh review of it…”

            Ditto from me, Maria. And I think that when that clean, fresh review of the whole existing body of materials, both tech and admin, has been done and put into practice, the results will speak for themselves. And hardly anybody’s mind is going to be changed until then.

          2. Well said, Maria …

            And well said on the posts above.

            Like you, I never experienced these gross auditing errors years ago. Correction lists were seldom used … frankly, I can’t remember any run on me until the ’80s and that’s 10-15 years after I started. Maybe there were but they sure weren’t handling some of the gross errors as outlined by Vinnie.

            Again I agree that this subject is itself and should be looked at as such. It can be compared to other practices but they are not the same.

            To mix practices and practice Scientology with changes or alterations is fine.

            Just don’t call it Scientology and rail against it because it ‘doesn’t work’.

            On the other hand, kudos to anyone searching & discovering new realities.

          3. +1 Dennis. Like you say – go ahead and compare, mix, change and alter – just don’t call it Scientology. And search for new realities, absolutely.

            Just wanted to cast my vote with you guys. 🙂

          4. This thread is weird because of the insistence from Scientologists that there is nothing wrong with Scientology tech, only most people cannot apply it, and if Scientology gets corrupted it is the fault of the people. See the OP.

            Now this is really weird because Scientology is in the business of improving people. It is claiming itself to be the effect of those it is supposed to be affecting for the better.

            Weird indeed!

            What fallacy is this, Marildi?

            .

          5. Marildi: “And I think that when that clean, fresh review of the whole existing body of materials, both tech and admin, has been done and put into practice, the results will speak for themselves. And hardly anybody’s mind is going to be changed until then.”

            Now what fallacy is this? Keep putting it on the future track? Shall we call it “posponitis” or just “hoping for better but doing nothing about it.”

            .

          6. “This thread is weird because of the insistence from Scientologists that…What fallacy is this, Marildi?”

            Hey Vin, why don’t you get some practice yourself? Spot your own fallacies too – like Straw Man in the above ( just for starters).

          7. Maria you are right, you say ” The confusion comes down to the idea that somehow the existing body of materials of Scientology is going to be poke yoked. I just don`t think that`s possible. “. The reform of scientology will never come from the CoS or from the indies, ksw # 1 stated this very clear. If the scientology practice ever reverts his harming trend it will be done from the outside of these groups wich see value on the subject but do not take all the scientology materials pack as good.

        3. Maria is good at appealing to emotions. We all know how such an appeal can override logic. Politicians do that all the time.

          Let’s get down to some Data Series application here and look at the ideal scene of auditing. I have a question about that on this thread, to which hardly anybody responded.

          Now that’s an outpoint.

          .

          1. I say never mind auditing and all this haranguing around about whether its good, bad, indifferent, useful, false, yaddy yaddy yaddy.

            As I see it, all development in this area (which auditing is a part of) arises from a perceived need or desire to accomplish some end(s) through the use of mental, emotional, spiritual or physical methods or practices. The practices and methods such as auditing or KHTK looking processes are a means to accomplish ends, whatever those may be.

            I do not think it is possible to define the ideal scene of auditing (or any practice or method for that matter) without an examination of the end that is perceived as needed or desired. Without that there is no method of determining what is or is not successful. I suggest forgetting all about LRH or KHTK and examining these things first. It may be that there are ideas already summarized about these in these philosophies and then again, maybe not.

            It is why I asked people to describe WHAT HAPPENED during auditing that was found to be so valuable. Never mind why, or even the means, just determine what is being sought that is found to be so valuable. And in that will be, hopefully, at least some of the answer as to what these practices must satisfy and what people find to be “successful.“

            And it cannot be just what the organizer or author of a particular practice or method or philosophy considers to be valuable or needful or desirable.

            This is why I say never mind critiquing auditing – start with a fresh view. Look at it from why people take up such practices in the first place. Then auditing can be looked at from that perspective and perhaps some fruitful observations can be made.

          2. Here is my list sifted from over a lifetime:

            Love. In my early years I was sure I was missing out somehow as I was very disconnected and very dispassionate – i.e. no sense of connectedness and little or no compassion for others.

            In my early years I would find myself beset with weird and irrational emotional storms and responses – out of control reactions that seemed to happen to me and which I could not get a handle on. They would last anywhere from a few hours to many months at a time. I wanted to be able to manage these better.

            Wanted to be confident, composed and of value to others.

            Wanted ways to increase my intelligence, problem solving and learning.

            Wanted ways to improve my personal circumstances, i.e. wherewithal, possessions.

            Wanted to get rid of recurring negative thoughts, nightmares, worrying, and other mental garbage or baggage floating around all the time taking up my attention.

            Wanted to be healthy and disease free.

            Wanted to know God. Not intellectually, but really.

            Wanted a long-term, compatible, loving and passionate relationship with a man, and to be the best mother I could be.

            Wanted to experience transcendence. When I learned about ascended masters I wanted to be an ascended master.

            Wanted to help others to accomplish the above things if I could.

          3. Vinaire: “Let’s get down to some Data Series application here and look at the ideal scene of auditing. I have a question about that on this thread, to which hardly anybody responded. Now that’s an outpoint.”

            “DATA SERIES: The tool to discover causes. The administrative policy described in these policy letters is applied to find what is logical by ferreting out what is illogical, using this to reveal the greatest outness, which when remedied which will resolve the SCENE.” (HCO PL 31 Jul 1983R)
            .

            The reason no one responded might have had something to do with the fact that the actual tech of auditing isn’t a “scene.” You want to apply administrative policy to auditing technology (i.e. not to just a scene of auditing), and this is applying apples to oranges. You know very little about the oranges in this case and apparently very little about the apples.

          4. Chris, i mean that an excess or abuse of the material resources just because they are at hand is harmning for the spiritual well being as any drug or bad habit is ( consciense level can not go upper in the escale ), this is main teaching from the ascended masters. And i agree on this.

  21. The problem is not that Vinaire is untrained in Tech as Marildi’s increasingly strident accusations may make one believe. The problem is that Marildi is not a trained Data Series evaluator.

    When one is a trained evaluator, one digs into whatever data is needed to come up with proper evaluation. Right now all Scientology data is available to me even up to Class XII level.

    .

    1. The stridency increases as the animosity you create increases.

      You may have studied the Data Series but I think your problem is that you have not studied logic and it obviously doesn’t come naturally to you – any more than does humility.

      Your self-study on the internet proves nothing as you show yourself to have very basic MU’s. In fact I recall on another thread a while back that you didn’t even know the indicators of MU’s – and you are supposedly trained as a word clearer. No wonder you were removed from that post.

        1. Which part is AdHom? I have repeatedly pointed to the specific illogic in his comments as well as the arrogance (and why it qualifies as that) and the MUs.

          I’m not saying that the outpoints are because of who he is but are outpoints in and of themselves.

          1. He holds up having been a word clearer like it’s part of his credentials for the claims he makes.

            Can I ask you this, however, is there some reason you aren’t pointing out the Logical Fallicies that Vinaire and others commit?

            1. I do – except when others are already busy pointing them out. Yours crossed a line right there, so I point it out. Simple. No stress. Just watch it.

          2. Marildi, I think you sometimes fall into the fallacy of believing there is a there, there, when there is actually no there, there, only some computations. Any computation can be a stable datum for a person. No ‘reason’ need be involved. Thus some statements are incomprehensible and not logical. And therefore there is no point in arguing with those kind of statements, is my philosophy. But that’s me, I am a lazy thinker.

            Carry on. 🙂

          3. “And therefore there is no point in arguing with those kind of statements”

            Thanks for the advice, Valkov. I am slowly coming to the same conclusion but I do suffer from the Fallacy of Persistence to a Fault (named just for me). 🙂

        1. Rafael, each time I have challenged Vinaire on his logic, even naming the specific logical fallacy committed, he just ignores it – almost certainly because he has no defense for himself. At times, his response is to accuse me of the same thing, but as a generality – and in a comment elsewhere, directed at someone else. He is apparently unwilling to confront me directly. At times, when he has made this sort of accusation, I’ve replied and asked him to tell me the specifics – but he ignores that too. And it’s pretty obvious he has no specifics to give.

          Actually, he ignores other replies of mine too – like when I politely ask him a question or for an explanation for some outlandish thing he said. There again, he quite likely doesn’t have a good answer to give, so he bald facedly ignores it. But no matter what his reason is for not doing the simple courtesy of completing a comm cycle, it is rude and contemptuous to do so, especially when done repeatedly.

          The inability or unwillingness to actually enter into a real exchange of communication is, to my way of thinking, probably the biggest hindrance in a discussion because it limits the potential to be productive. I’ve even tried just ignoring Vinaire’s posts altogether because he has shown himself to not be a dependable “terminal” for real communication, but often I end up trying to at least correct some of the insidious false data and limit the spread of it as best I can.

          1. Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People):

            (using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience’s sentiments instead of their minds.)

          2. Marildi wrote:

            Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People):
            (using emotionally loaded words to sway the audience’s sentiments instead of their minds.)

            But that’s my specialty!

          3. Emotions are used to manipulate people around logical hurdles toward bringing certain state of mind. LRH did that very efficiently by providing wins and using emotions regarding those wins to manipulate the thinking of scientologists. KSW #1 tops this effort.

            Scientologists do this to each other in an effort to gang together against some critic, as it is being done against me on this thread. Marildi is very susceptible to such a manipulation.

            Maria has a gift of appealing to emotions of scientologists. I am not saying that this is bad, but it can be used to obfuscate looking, especially, when the person making emotional appeal is unable to look himself or herself.

            .

          4. Dear marildi, your willingness to enter into a exchange of communication is obvious but you q & a a lot and frecuently give no-response responses, you are being hipercritical and very pro-management and partial even in the most gross errors found, should i continue ?

          5. Vinaire said: Maria has a gift of appealing to emotions of scientologists. I am not saying that this is bad, but it can be used to obfuscate looking, especially, when the person making emotional appeal is unable to look himself or herself.

            I am going to reword this: All of us have a gift of appealing to the emotions of others, resulting in both positive and negative responses. Emotion is a part of the equation, like it or not. Being expressive, experiencing emotion has nothing to do with an ability to look or not look, reason or not reason. It can greatly aid in opening up areas of investigation, can enhance looking in different ways and can certainly jar fixed ideas, especially where logic simply does not serve. WE see this with inspiration, we see this with intuition, we see this in aha! moments. You said it rather well yourself – as-isness AND THE THRILL OF IT. The thrill is emotion and has little to do with logic.

            You may not care for the approach, and you may think that it is not worth anything and in fact counter-productive. But you are not here alone. You are in the company of many very capable thinkers, and people who have invested a great deal of their lives into looking, studying, learning, experiencing, trying things out and who may or may not share your conclusions.

          6. Rafael, you have listed several criticisms of me as generalities. In the criticisms I made of Vinaire I had already given all the specifics and I’d appreciate it if you did the same.

            What you said about “very pro-management,” for example, has to be a misduplication.

          7. “Marildi, would you say the same about Maria?”

            No, I wouldn’t. The difference is that Maria does not use emotion as her ONLY response – or for the purpose of swaying. She always responds directly to the poster’s comments and very rationally so.

            You, on the other hand, have consistently not responded at all or, at the most, in the way that you are doing right now – pointing out something irrelevant.

            In other words, your comment is Ad Hom.

          8. Dear marildi, there is not any mis-duplication, i read and undertand conceptually not what word by word is written, other than that i have a life and few minutes to use in my beloved blogs like this, may be Vinay is having the same situation.

  22. “Scientology is perfect” has become such a hobby horse for some scientologists that they would twist all logic to forward that viewpoint and make others wrong with whom they disagree.

    That reminds me of the garden-variety fanatics who exist in every religion. They are always so enturbulated that it is impossible to have a rational discourse with them.

    .

    1. Vinaire, I think the reason for this is rooted in a desire to create a structure of life that holds perfectly still. In this can be found reasons for other types of enturbulation such as our car breaking down, other various maintenance activities, aging of our bodies, anything which drifts away from our ideal form. Maybe “enturbulation of theta” amounts to an inordinate sense of inconsistency.

      1. Good point! It boils down to confusion and stable datum.

        The stable datum keeps the confusion away. One cannot just take away the erroneous stable datum without first replacing it with a more appropriate stable datum.

        The effort should not be to take away anybody’s stable datum, such as, God, or the rightness of LRH. The effort should always be to introduce a new stable datum of wider applicability.

        .

    2. The zealot has for his own reasons, formed judgements regarding what is inconsistent. After this he has taken steps to bring his perceived inconsistencies back into line to conform with what is logical in that frame of reference. He sweeps up the tailings of his efforts and a sense of satisfaction (floating needle) pronounces his newest layer of form “consistent.” He has now attained a level of rightness which is pleasing and for that frame of reference, he is not wrong. But now comes an external influence with a different logic template which exploits possible or definite inconsistencies in the previous syllogism and bam — enturbulated theta.

      1. LOL. You’ve just described what EVERY person I have ever met does. I cannot think of anyone that doesn`t do this. I suppose if you put them on a meter as they work their way through various learning and other experiences you would see the floating needles.

        I would take this description one step further and consider the elements of the definition of fanatical: motivated or characterized by an extreme, uncritical enthusiasm or zeal, as in religion or politics. Synonyms: enthusiastic, zealous, frenzied, rabid. See intolerant, radical.

        Uncritical: 1. not inclined or able to judge, especially by the application of comparative standards: an uncritical reader. 2. undiscriminating; not applying or not guided by the standards of analysis: an uncritical estimate; their uncritical acceptance of traditional values.

        Rabid: 1. irrationally extreme in opinion or practice: a rabid isolationist 2. furious or raging; violently intense: a rabid hunger.

        Intolerant: not tolerating or respecting beliefs, opinions, usages, manners, etc., different from one’s own, as in political or religious matters; bigoted.

        Frenzy 1.extreme mental agitation; wild excitement or derangement. 2. a fit or spell of violent mental excitement; a paroxysm characteristic of or resulting from a mania.

        Mania: excessive excitement or enthusiasm.

        1. Exactly! You got it. Mechanics of the mind operating the same no matter who we are. What I am trying to convey is only that the zealot is operating closer to the bone with less layers of social considerations — less leeway between his conviction considerations and his social situations.

          “Good manners” are an example of social considerations that we slather like grease over our the top of our heavier mental constructs.

      2. The enturbulated theta, in other words, is simply a confusion erupting from some stable datum getting invalidated. This could be any datum accepted by the individual which is helping restrain that individual’s confusion. Thus, “the earth is flat” can be a stable datum for some. It doesn’t have to be correct from a broader viewpoint. It simply has to be a relevant piece to restrain the confusion of that individual.

        A zealot is really counting on that piece to remain in place, because even the slightest rejection is capable of sending that person into a massive confusion. So, the zealot is really trying hard to establish that piece solidly in place.

        That piece can be a frame of reference, such as that provided by Scientology. There may not be anything wrong with that frame of reference, but the zealot is on such a thin ice that he cannot converse about that frame of reference in a rational fashion. The tolerance is low because the understanding of that frame of reference is low.

        .

    3. At a surface level of considerations that we might call “preferences” occurs the friction of everyday life such as “you made my coffee is too strong.” At deeper layers of considerations, the enturbulation seems more painful to deal with because our forms are more shaken.

      Tolerable levels of and repeated cycles of enturbulation and dis-enturbulation might be called training. Combined together with “reasons” or theory, these cycles might be called education. If the enturbulation reaches deeper levels, the person might have the sensation that his form has been irretrievably damaged and consider he must succumb. People usually fight this.

  23. Poka-yoke comes from a fresh viewpoint, and that is that is being supplied here by Buddhism through the acronym KHTK.

    People can talk about fresh review of Scientology till cows come home. Nothing is going to happen. Just watch.

    .

  24. I predict that Scientology is going to remain as it is. It is impossible to make any improvement to it, because that would mean that it is not Scientology anymore.

    .

    1. I will now start incorporating in KHTK the best elements of Scientology, once I get back from vacation.

      I plan to retire in six months or so. Then I shall really start working on KHTK in earnest.

      🙂

    2. Let’s look at the best element of Scientology:

      (1) There are innumerable processes in Scientology. Each process directs the attention to a certain area of the bank.

      (2) If the process is right, the bank will immediately present something in response to the process question. No search is needed.

      (3) If there is nothing immediately presented by the bank, but there is a vague feeling about something there, then the pc can keep looking at that area, until something appears. Again, no search is needed.

      (4) The best element here is the prevention of searching through the bank for answers. That search is something that can drive one crazy.

      (5) The recognition of what is there may be supported by E-meter (“that, that”). But this is not a must. One can do this without any support from the e-meter.

      (6) If nothing comes up in response to the process, simply move to another process. There are plenty of processes. These processes may be organized into sets by similarity of some kind.

      (7) The processes may be repeated after some parts of the bank has been as-ised.

      .

      1. 1) agreed
        2) agreed – these would be reading questions
        3) agreed
        4) I have no idea what you are talking about here
        5) agreed
        6) yes – no interest, non-reading or processes for which there are no responses should not be run
        7) I guess they could be repeated, provided that they are of interest, are reading, produce response, but then again if the EP has already been accomplished this would certainly open the door to overrun

        I am baffled as to what you mean when you say – no search is needed. Please explain what exactly comprises this search you are referring to.

  25. My theory is that if one removed all logical fallacies aimed at attacking or defending ideas, self or others, a discussion would reach optimum value. Note here that I do not exclude logical fallacies not aimed at attacking or defending ideas, self or others – which would leave wild abandon string of thoughts, whimsical creations, etc.

    1. Yes sir. And some big brains have here proven your point for this thread has been drifting in a blooming poppy-field of service facsimiles — Both talking to and talking from.

    2. My theory is that if one removed all logical fallacies aimed at attacking or defending ideas, self or others, a discussion would reach optimum value. Note here that I do not exclude logical fallacies not aimed at attacking or defending ideas, self or others – which would leave wild abandon string of thoughts, whimsical creations, etc.

      The template for such discussions exist in the dialogues of Plato.

      In fact, message boards, blog discussions and chat list topics all can be compared to the ideal of the Platonic dialogues. There was one thread in particular on the Scn Forum in which I intentionally ran it like a Platonic dialogue with you, G.

      We ended up agreeing.

      I quickly abandoned that tactic because the ARC was too high and, being an SP, I became terrified that I would be destroyed.

  26. I find the reliance on logic alone to be flawed. I think Charles Tart summed it up very well:

    “We are indoctrinated to believe that intellect is what makes humans great, and emotions are primitive leftovers from our jungle ancestors that interfere with our marvelous logical minds. It is possible to train people to base decisions on the appropriate mixture of emotional, intellectual and body-instinctive intelligence. Compassion and empathy are emotions, and I agree with the Buddhists that these emotions are highly evolved, not primitive. With enough training in self-observation, we can develop a new kind of intelligence to bear on the world. Everyday life is quite an interesting place if you pay attention to it.”

    The way I see it, unless I live in complete solitude, I am going to find myself interacting with others, and must learn to interact in beneficial ways with others, even when they completely disagree with me, even when tempers are running hot, even in the face of invalidation and evaluation. The question of manipulation inevitably rears its ugly head. I fail to see how any communication can be seen as anything but manipulation, no matter how supposedly logical, emotional or whatever. I have my preferences, I have my concerns, I have my own take on things. I have a right to those. So do others. To me, trying to shame people by asserting that they belong to this group or that group or this or that stereotype (and therefore should be dismissed) is just another layer of manipulation and I can see that as ugly or I can see it as just the inevitable consequence of interaction with others.

    Also, it seems clear to me that the only point at which I can safely assume that another`s conclusions will wholly match my on is on consensus reality — i.e. measured physical reality. At the same time, strict adherence to consensus reality closes the door on opportunity to find new approaches, to extend my mind maps, if you will. Logic and its very constrained environs is simply a tool I can use. The same is true of auditing, education and various philosophies.

    To my way of thinking, Scientology is a fruitful means of examining and changing and evolving my own mind map. But it is NOT the be all, end all and is not the only means of doing that. I don`t expect it to be perfect, and I really don`t see how it can be perfect, for perfection is always in the eye of the beholder. Judging from my many communications with others on various blogs and forums, beholders do have different ideas about just what perfect is. What hostility I ever had as regards Scientology comes my antipathy to efforts make it difficult or to prevent me from employing it as I see fit, and trying to stop me from employing whatever means are at my disposal to extend my mind map, with an eye to surpassing myself on a continuous expansion as I continue my works in progress.

    I come away from these discussions with much food for thought from very different people with very different ways of seeing, thinking and responding make their posts.

    As I write this, I find myself wondering what new manipulation I will be accused of and what stereotype I now fit into. I can save some time here – may I suggest the following possibilities: woman – emotional, warm and fuzzy and prone to illogical thinking. Or how about zealot – devoid of any capability of entertaining another`s point of view. Ego-ridden – concerned with the plight of one`s self and the selves of others. Manipulative – twisting people`s minds with emotional content and spurious thinking. On it goes.

    1. Maria quoted:

      “We are indoctrinated to believe that intellect is what makes humans great, and emotions are primitive leftovers from our jungle ancestors that interfere with our marvelous logical minds. It is possible to train people to base decisions on the appropriate mixture of emotional, intellectual and body-instinctive intelligence. Compassion and empathy are emotions, and I agree with the Buddhists that these emotions are highly evolved, not primitive. With enough training in self-observation, we can develop a new kind of intelligence to bear on the world. Everyday life is quite an interesting place if you pay attention to it.”

      This is a great quote.

      To my way of thinking, Scientology is a fruitful means of examining and changing and evolving my own mind map. But it is NOT the be all, end all and is not the only means of doing that. I don`t expect it to be perfect, and I really don`t see how it can be perfect, for perfection is always in the eye of the beholder. Judging from my many communications with others on various blogs and forums, beholders do have different ideas about just what perfect is.

      No one I am aware of has ever criticized Scientology by saying it is not perfect. That is never the argument against it. The argument is almost always that there are parts of Scientology that are downright destructive, and it is the specific destructiveness in Scientology which is the argument.

      Instead of recognizing the specific destructiveness being pointed out, the typical response from Scientologists is “Scientology is not perfect”.

      This response keeps the Scientologist from seeing the specific destructiveness in Scientology that is being exposed.

      “Scientology is not perfect” is a straw man argument to end all straw men.

      No one ever said Scientology was perfect, or even that it was supposed to be.

      The argument is almost always that parts of Scientology are destructive.

      1. I’d like to point out that this is the same phenomena I encountered while in the CoS when I saw an outpoint with LRH himself. The response was always “nobody’s perfect”. When I then challenged that response with “OK, so what exactly do you see as imperfect in LRH”, I almost never got an answer.

        1. Yes, this seems very believable. I once was on-stage for my birthday “party” which was a sort of 15 minute “roast” of the birthday person by our staff at CST – I was telling my story of walking into a mission for the first time and described the big picture of LRH with hand on his face/chin and said “I didn’t like it much” and there was this uncomfortable hush settled over about 90 staff. I laughed and said,”. . . but I got over it” and people began breathing again. Funny to think of that uncomfortable moment after all these years.

          1. In any ideological group (Church of Scientology, Catholic Church, Communist Party, Republican National Committee) the ideology must always be true – even when it’s not.

            Eric Blair created some pretty good copy on this.

      2. I was speaking of AUDITING in particular in response to the idea that it could be made perfect by poke yoking it – no mistakes ever, satisfying everyone`s dreams for it, this is a goal that I think is unattainable. Maybe if you could take those pesky, imperfect people out of the equation maybe you could attain to perfection, flawless execution, perfect results for everyone every time, no fails ever.

        Or you could simply remove all of the advertising of gains or results from AUDITING and tell people that they will get out of it what they get out of it and that is going to be different for each individual. And some may find enlightenment. And some may just feel a little better.

        That`s the Buddhists do. There`s no promise of enlightenment. It comes or it doesn`t and that is that. In fact, there`s no promise of anything other than the hope that something might get better or there might be some transcendence, etc. I personally know several people who `tried` meditation or other practices and dropped it because it simply wasn`t satisfying what they were trying to do. I don`t see anything wrong with that.

        1. I think that auditing/meditation/looking techniques can be improved by simply implementing the following understanding:

          (1) The mind should be allowed to unburden itself in a natural fashion. No unburdening shall ever be enforced out of sequence.

          (2) If nothing appears in the mind in response to a question then accept it, and move to another question. Maybe the original question’s turn will come later.

          This improvement has to do with the technique and not with “those pesky, imperfect people,” who get blamed in Scientology all the time. Maybe the above two points will help improve Buddhist meditation too.

          .

          1. I gotta say Vinaire, you either have not had any grade chart auditing, or, you had some terrible auditing by an auditor with gross auditing errors.

            Where in the auditor’s hat does it say to force auditing out of sequence? Where does it say to take up unreading items?

            You create these scenarios which frankly have nothing to do with Scientology auditing.

            Like I said, you have either been exposed to out-tech, or you’re just creating this for your own agenda.

            1. Yes Dennis, I have pondered this as well. It is my opinion that Vin has been on the receiving end of monumentally suppressive out-tech. He asserts that auditing is applied in ways that I have never experienced except briefly when I was suppressively C/S’s by my commanding officer via my normal C/S (his wife) shortly before he was removed from post and driven to the RPF at Int by Norman Starkey. Then Vin thinks this all through very carefully and comes up with solutions to auditing which from my viewpoint seem like standard tech. His ideas for me are very good, however, from my point of view they are already incorporated in standard tech.

              My experience of standard tech is as gentle as Vinay Argawala and as piercing as I think he hopes it could be. I do not detect a false purpose in Vinnie at all but I believe him that his experience of auditing is as bad as he says. If there is a Vulcan mind-meld, I would want to share one with him so we could merge and know what each other knows so we both could go “Ah!”

      3. The only comment I’ve seen that states “Scientology is not perfect” is the one above by Vinaire! His exact words verbatim. So yours is the actual Straw Man Fallacy here – I don’t recall anyone saying Scientology is perfect, let alone all or even a majority of comments by the pro-Scn. So you have committed yet another fallacy by generalizing it.

        What has been said is that Scn tech has been shown to be workable and extremenly beneficial for many people. And the fact that “the tech” hasn’t been so for others is debatable since gross alterations have been made for some years, as per the comments of both Maria and Dennis – the only two here who actually have enough training and experience to have any degree of qualified expertise to make such assesments.

        1. Well, on the other side of the auditing table, I out experience you all 🙂 But I can testify that I have been very satisfied with all my auditing. And as an auditor, my PCs have all been raving. As a course supervisor, my students were doing fab and was loud about it.

          1. My experience is very much like yours – very satisfied with auditing and as an auditor and, rather than sup, word clearer. And being word cleared too, i.e. both directions in auditing and word clearing (a largely underrated area of tech – it rivals auditing!). I would also add to the list of satisfactions, my training and self study of the materials – these, along with my experience on staff (believe it or not) have probably been the most beneficial of all!

            1. My own staff experience was one of those “wouldn’t take a million dollars for the experience and wouldn’t take a million dollars to do it again” things. It was quite similar to military service where a person serves willingly but upon getting the reality check of war reconsiders their blind dedication to purposes which have been kept unknown them.

          2. p.s. Geir, I just wanted to say that I thought this comment of yours was really, really cool :-).

            On top of that, it sort of represents the icing on the cake as regards you being one of the best possible “exhibits” in the court of public opinion about Scientology. I think the Defense should present you as Exhibit A. 🙂

        2. The only comment I’ve seen that states “Scientology is not perfect” is the one above by Vinaire! His exact words verbatim. So yours is the actual Straw Man Fallacy here – I don’t recall anyone saying Scientology is perfect, let alone all or even a majority of comments by the pro-Scn. So you have committed yet another fallacy by generalizing it.

          Did you read the quote I cited from Maria?

          To my way of thinking, Scientology is a fruitful means of examining and changing and evolving my own mind map. But it is NOT the be all, end all and is not the only means of doing that. I don`t expect it to be perfect, and I really don`t see how it can be perfect, for perfection is always in the eye of the beholder. Judging from my many communications with others on various blogs and forums, beholders do have different ideas about just what perfect is.

          And then did you read my response to her?

          I don’t think you did.

          I think you were too busy cutting and pasting the titles for various logical fallacies to paste into comments from people who do not share your present point of view.

          Please re-read my post, Marildi.

          And then cut and paste this phrase: SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT PERFECT into google, or better yet, into the search feature on Marty’s blog and see how many hits you get.

          Then go back to wikipedia for more lists of logical fallacies to paste into your response to my comment.

          But don’t communicate to anyone except people you agree with. Don’t test your ideas wioth others who may widen your viewpoint.

          Just cut and paste logical fallacies everywhere you have see a disagreement.

          1. Al: “Don’t test your ideas with others who may widen your viewpoint.”

            Actually I’ve been testing my ideas with you and you haven’t shaken them a bit so far – since I’m never going to be convinced by mere rhetoric and illogic.

            Al: “Just cut and paste logical fallacies everywhere you have see a disagreement.”

            Yes, call me crazy but I do disagree with logical fallacies. And as for your idea about cutting and pasting SCIENTOLOGY IS NOT PERFECT, here’s the logical fallacy in that one:

            Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy

            (The name comes from a joke about a Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_sharpshooter_fallacy
            .

            Good one, eh? 😀

            1. In Texas this may be fallacious, but in Arizona this is not wrong. The stats speak for themselves as Arizona has the best sharpshooters in the land!

          2. Geir: LOL

            I know! Hope it isn’t too subtle for Alanzo. (I just cracked myself up again :-D.)

        3. Marildi,

          Exactly what I was going to say:

          Vinaire is creating this ‘scientology is perfect’ scenario and attempts to put the blame on others for this goofy concept when he himself created it.

          Slam in his ethics … er … Logic, Marildi 🙂

          Popcorn popping …

          1. Dennis, I’m so glad you are back! Reinforcements!

            Seriously, I love your gimme-a-break approach that’s backed knowing what you’re talking about. Yay! 🙂

          2. Well thanks Marildi,

            It does bug me that many have had some grievous experiences with what they thought was Scientology. After looking over Alonzo’s & Vinaire’s history and their *general* opinion that Scientology sucks is sad to me.

            Alonzo’s account particularly got me thinking on how, after what appeared to be some great wins and a compassion for his fellows, this so unraveled for him.

            I feel for these guys and the thousands like them.

            To say Scientology is ‘all bad’ or ‘perfect’ are both fallacies and sit on either end of the scale where fanaticism is in full bloom.

            My hope is that through this blog and others we can make a dent, move others’ to greater aspirations and improve the existing scene … like re-kindling a failed purpose.

            I know I have one/many and could at times shed a thousand tears, but, looking at what happened and trying to make some sense of it all will help straighten out that time track.

            It is a steady evolution and as-ising that is taking place for me.

            I hope it is the same for others.

          3. Dennis: “My hope is that through this blog and others we can make a dent, move others to greater aspirations and improve the existing scene … like re-kindling a failed purpose.”

            Please say more about what you mean by “moving others to greater aspirations.” Sounds appealing. But on the other part – I too have been hoping to “make a dent” and improve the scene.

            You also mentioned “re-kindling a failed purpose” and that was just what I had in mind in a recent comment to Alanzo where I said that maybe he had a failed purpose, because he does seem to genuinely care – much like the typical “profile” of Scientologists, actually ;-). They seem to be of a certain breed, most of them (along with many differences too, among “the breed”). Maybe that’s why there remains a sort of kinship and we “congregate” in spite of our differences.

            It so happens that at this very moment I’m a bit discouraged as I don’t see anybody’s mind being changed much and they would probably say the same about me. Nevertheless, I actually have had changes of viewpoint along the way in the various threads, and I’ve stated so at different times. For example, you said:

            “To say Scientology is ‘all bad’ or ‘perfect’ are both fallacies and sit on either end of the scale where fanaticism is in full bloom.”

            There was a time when if asked I’m sure I would have said it’s perfect, but I have been disabused of that for awhile now – and this is a good example of a change that I take a win on. I’m really glad you too are as-ising and experiencing a steady evolution. More power to you and all of us. 🙂

          4. Marilidi: “Please say more about what you mean by “moving others to greater aspirations.” Sounds appealing. But on the other part – I too have been hoping to “make a dent” and improve the scene. ”

            A couple things …

            1) Helping others to move out of fixed or stuck conditions.

            It bothered me to see others with attention inwards. A problem, a marital situation, something really wrong, or some sort of fixation inwards that the person was just living with. My personal mission was to free up an individuals attention so that he/she could look outwards for a change and, as LRH put it, avail himself of the fruits of observation)and experience). I would want them to aspire or look towards new or greater goals with clear eyes and a re-newed energy towards the future.

            2) Helping others to move off of fixed or stuck viewpoints/opinions.

            It seems to me that one needs fluidity in his viewpoint and the ability to entertain others viewpoints. Fanaticism or being right does not allow for one to experience others viewpoints or whole parts of life itself. One has made a decision that a little datum/consideration is completely true and hangs on to it for dear life.

            The concept that ‘scientology is perfect’ is a good example of this as is ‘scientology is all bad’. By creating and considering or agreeing that it is so, one immediately creates blinders and bars himself from the fruits of observation.

            A couple of basics LRH had for breaking one out of these fixidities (aside from auditing) were the Obnosis Drill and the Learning Drill. I was fascinated at the answers from students while going thru these drills. Assumptions on what was there (obnosis), or what words and concepts were in front of their face (learning drill) were astonishing at times. The simplicity of these drills and their far-reaching effects eluded most who did them.

            Looking at this now, I realize that they had each created their own world and that’s what they saw. It also made me realize how difficult it would be to put together a subject like scientology so that each person could eventually grasp the concepts regardless of what they were currently ‘looking at’.

            I think LRH realized this when he started undercutting the bridge in various areas. If a simple obnosis or learning drill was above most students heads, what of more complex subject areas? Yikes. Thankfully, we paired up auditors & students at similar levels – it’s like putting 2 barracudas together – they look at each other, they’re in love – they make gains. 🙂

            Like you, I have expanded in this area and do take a much broader view of things in general. Evaluating my own views & concepts is quite a bit of fun although sometime I wonder what I actually DO know. 🙂 Yes, there are some things I am quite certain of – I have no urge or need to defend. This is similar to saying my name is Dennis – hey, it just IS Dennis at this time. This is different from having to make another believe, asserting one’s viewpoint, efforting to explain some viewpoint, or having to have another agree with my viewpoint.

            Being able to change or move out of a fixed condition/viewpoint is quite freeing – like throwing off the chains of yesteryear and attention goes outward. You could probably relate this to having a cognition. Prior to a cog on a certain area, I would be ‘fixed’ in a certain mode of operating or a specific way of ‘handling’ a situation. I believed these to be right. In most cases I didn’t even realize I was operating thru these barriers – they were just ‘me’ – no idea at all.

            Then came the cog and I could ‘see’ … well, at least til the end of the next session 🙂

          5. Well, I was a bit wordy there … I tend to rattle on sometimes 🙂

            I guess one of my main goals is to have others put their attention outwards as opposed to having it fixed inwards.

            I want others to have the ability to look forward to attaining their own goals whatever they may be.

            To put a smile on a face or re-kindle that failed purpose – that’s the name of the game for me. 🙂

          6. I just realized that this is why I like the tech area so much – be it supervising, word clearing or auditing; the pleasure I derived from seeing another with a big grin or that wow! look on their face exceeds most, if not all, other experiences in life for me.

          7. Vinnie: ” So, Dennis, someday you’ll be able to see that one can practice looking while on the treadmill. 🙂 ”

            Hmm … I don’t remember saying you couldn’t. I remember OT 2 & a treadmill …

            Is this another one of those creations of yours, Vinnie ? … c’mon tell the truth 🙂

          8. Dennis, thanks much for all your thoughts. I get now what you mean about moving others to aspiration. I too have always had a purpose in helping others. Most people do, especially those who are attracted to Scientology, including the ones who no longer are in any sense. And you are so right; the tech is a very effective and amazingly fast way to help. No offer of promotion could lure me off the word clearer post for the longest time – it was just too gratifying. This is why I contend that anyone who has had a certain amount of experience with tech has a certainty about it that is pretty unshakeable. It’s like you described – my name is Dennis and it just IS. Certainty.

            Sometimes I think others consider my certainty about Scn as a sure sign that I must be biased. And I can understand why – bias would seem to manifest the exact same way. So if that’s true, then no wonder it’s hard to see one’s own biases – i.e. is it a matter of “I very well know my own friggin’ name!” or is it being fixed and, as you put it, “having to make another believe, asserting one’s viewpoint, efforting to explain some viewpoint, or having to have another agree with my viewpoint.” Your description there, besides being about bias, could also be describing a manifestation of both certainty and the desire to help! I will be continuing to look at this. Better keep the popcorn popping. 😀

            And, as usual, you got a chuckle out of me with this one: “Thankfully, we paired up auditors & students at similar levels – it’s like putting 2 barracudas together – they look at each other, they’re in love – they make gains.” Funny and a gem of truth at the same time – a matching of realities = ARC. Thanks for yours. 🙂

          9. Vinnie: ” Only doubt can bring about further progress. “Certainty” kills any further progress possible. ”

            Thanks for the eval/inval 🙂

            Yes, I can see it now: Pc has cog and immediately goes into Doubt on that cog … /facepalm

            It’s a gradient scale Vin.

            I sure the hell would rather be aiming and moving towards greater Knowingness than UNknowable.

            1. Vinaire is right in this. And so was LRH – because when the PC gets a cog, that’s when there is no more to gain In That Area.

          10. Geir: ” Vinaire is right in this. And so was LRH – because when the PC gets a cog, that’s when there is no more to gain In That Area. ”

            While I agree with you there, I also look at greater knowingness in that area thru other processes or flows.

            As an example, years ago there were Single Flows, then Triples, the most were Quaded up with Flow 0 …. although the initial cogs were not invalidated, the additional flows enhanced or expanded the initial cog or knowingness.

            Hence, my opinion is that it is an ever increasing gradient of knowingness.

            1. “While I agree with you there, I also look at greater knowingness in that area thru other processes or flows.”

              But not in that exact area – only in similar areas – as in along other flows.

          11. This is a good example of somebody complaining of inval/eval while doing it himself because of misunderstanding.

            Instead of complaining about eval/inval one should directly tackle an argument. That would be more productive.

            .

          12. I would also add that training and understanding the ‘tech’ behind those processes will also add to or enhance those cogs.

            This may be why LRH recommended training for OTs … for that matter everyone.

            I remember that being just a ‘professional pc’ was discouraged – I don’t think it was money motivated (although it likely is now), I think it made a more well-rounded OT who could actuallu apply the dat rather than just ‘glowing it right’.

            I remember many pro-pc/pre-OTs hanging around the Lemon Tree at Flag … they loved the attention due to their ‘status’, but were they effective in life?

            As for those seeking attention because of status or level … well, let’s just say I walk the other direction 🙂

          13. Chris: “…and thus there is the true believer. No more explanations required but I had thought differently and thought we had a game.”

            Okay, I’ll bite :-). No seriously, I’m interested in what you mean by that.

          14. Dennis: “While I agree with you there, I also look at greater knowingness in that area thru other processes or flows.”

            Geir: “But not in that exact area – only in similar areas – as in along other flows.”

            My way of thinking goes back to a comment Dennis made not long ago – that he would run the same process quite differently today than he originally did – deeper and with more awareness. This would apply to key-out processes (rather than erasures) and is the reason the Grades certs are “provisional.”

            The same idea has been my reality and experience as regards study and word clearing too – for myself personally and for others.

            Vinaire said, “Only doubt can bring about further progress. Certainty kills any further progress possible.

            As I say, I think there are different levels of certainty related to different depths of awareness as a pc or understanding as a student – I mean a student of anything actually – even of life. Maybe this relates to the fractal nature of things…or different frames of reference…viewpoints…

    2. Maria, this is an incredibly constructive post! I think that the group of us should come to an agreement about how we are going to “interact in beneficial ways,” as you said. Maybe we should work out certain basic rules that have to do with logic and courtesy and use of the comm cycle. Now, that would be groundbreaking! Especially for a blog that discusses Scientology.

      Violation of the rules could result in warnings and yellow cards but the burden shouldn’t all be put on Geir to adjudicate. Everyone would need to take responsibility for this and to point out violations – but do so with the primary intention of assisting the person to follow the rules in order to have a beneficial discussion.

      1. Thanks Marildi – I try to be constructive as I write — seems more useful to me.

        Now that would be one hell of a thought experiment – put together a set of rules and then see how it plays out on the blog!

      2. The first task would be to define “beneficial discussion”.

        If we were all members of the same ideological organization, this would be easy. It would be whatever the ideology dictated. But we’re not.

        So then the question becomes “Should the definition be decided by a majority vote?”

        If so, then what about the unique viewpoint, which no one else has considered, and which would give everyone a whole new plateau to stand on and to view from?

        Then should a “beneficial discussion” be just a chaotic, suppressive, free for all?

        Sounds good to me!

        Anarchy has a place. And it’s place is in what defines a “beneficial discussion”.

        I vote for anarchy.

        1. Are you sure that our values and ideologies are so different, one from another?

          I think that may be a variation of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy going on here.

          I think you have to project that my ideology is different from yours simply because I point out good things about scientology that you refuse to accept. Therefore, you say, ‘his ideology must be different from mine”.

          You have to claim this, because some of your antipathies towards scientology, like Vinnie’s, has no logical basis. Thus you seek to find a basis for how you feel, but are looking in the wrong places.

          1. Valkov, I don’t think your ideology is all that different from Alanzo’s at all. He has taken on different role and it is in the playing out of the role that there appears to be quite a difference. Both of you dislike enforcement of any kind — both of you dislike dishonesty — both of you consider abuse deplorable — both of you would dearly love to get down to the nitty gritty what’s the truth here? You just go about it differently and so you clash and it sometimes it seems like the clash of the titans. I used to crack up sometimes at the metaphors of the feral white russion versus the unruly armadillo with the viking warrior swooping in from time to time to lop off some heads!

    3. I am adding to my comment above, “How to Think Like Leonardo Da Vinci” to extend the concept that there is a great deal more to actualization than analytical processes. He is unquestionably one of the great geniuses of humanity and this video summarizes how he thought. Clearly, logical thinking is only one of the parameters involved.

      1. Hail to Maria, Queen of Snow!
        .

        (To snow [someone]: to defeat soundly. Al, you must be experiencing a blizzard! :-D)

        1. Oh no – its really not directed at Alanzo at all! I was simply delighted with the breadth of approach to problem solving and innovation used by Leonardo da Vinci – he’s always been one of my faves!

          1. Yes, I knew that. Like I said on my other comment, I’m just razzing Al.

            Good video. It reminded me of something I heard in a lecture recently. The lecturer mentioned that not everybody would grasp his ideas in a logical way – some would “just sort of get it.” And for some reason those simple, everyday words got across so well how some people’s minds work.

      2. It all sums up to non-judgmental and non-resistive looking.

        http://www.scnforum.org/index.php?t=msg&S=f712269bf11bfaebdda260902a03c13c&th=183&goto=6048#msg_6048

        .Thinking is to associate data to come up with conclusions according to certain rules. None of the conclusions would be valid until they can be spotted by direct looking. Thinking is simply a system that tells you where to look to find what one is looking for.

        Thinking is lightning fast when all the relevant data is there to be associated. But when data is missing or corrupted in some way, then thinking is put on hold until the correct data is located.

        Thinking goes into a loop, when one is unwittingly suppressing the needed data and does not want to look at it. One then goes into speculating and goes over the partially available data over and over again because a lack of resolution is uncomfortable. This is called “figure-figure” and the reason for figure-figure is unwillingness to look at what is there.

        Recognition of this unwillingness may help one come out of this level.

        ULTIMATE IN THINKINGNESS IS TOTAL UNWILLINGNESS TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THERE.

        To make an effort is to give direction to motion. The motion is already there. One is simply directing it. Effort comes when moving things have mass, because mass has inertia.

        There is no thinking involved in effort. It is just “muscles”. Athletes are good at effort. Any physical skill ultimately leads to this experience of smooth effort without thinking. It is actually quite pleasurable. A perfect body is a joy to have. It is effort perfectly synchronized.

        What is all this? What is the true meaning of effort?

        The key consideration underlying effort is, “One has to feel to know.” There must be mass. There must be pressure. If mass and pressure is missing one is lost. Thus, one is constrained. There is nothing wronf with effort except getting stuck in it. That would be craving for mass.

        Recognition of this craving may help one get unstuck at this level.

        ULTIMATE IN EFFORTINGNESS IS TOTAL ATTACHMENT TO MASS.

        Emotions are like gas pumped into an engine to get the effort going. There is no thinking involved. Emotion is simply that condition of desire that defines one.

        One has intense emotions when one is in love, when one is consumed with jealousy, or when one is angry and frustrated. Going to operas is a great way to see emotions in play.

        The key consideration underlying emotion is, “One has to turn on the juice to know.” There must be energy. There must be desire.

        There is nothing wrong with emotions except getting stuck with them and craving for them all the time. Sometimes one has to let go of this craving.

        Recognition of being stuck with a craving for emotion may help one get unstuck at this level.

        ULTIMATE IN EMOTINGNESS IS ATTACHMENT TO ENERGY.

        Looking is done across space. If there is no space no looking is possible. Space is put there to have a game.

        Space makes it possible to have identities, to have goals, to have contestants, to have entertainment, and everything else that follows. In fact, space makes it possible to have a universe.

        The key consideration underlying looking seems to be, “One has to look to know.” One cannot know as an inherent condition. There must be space. There must be distances to cover. There must be games and entertainment.

        There is nothing wrong with having space, and with having games that follow, except getting stuck in it.

        ULTIMATE IN LOOKINGNESS IS ATTACHMENT TO SPACE AND IDENTITY.

        .

    4. Logic is just a gradient of relative knowing. Higher levels of knowing are efforting, emoting and looking per the Know to Mystery scale. In logic itself there is a gradient of differentiation, association and identification. LRH talks about it in Scn 8-8008, which is one of my favorite books. Similarly, there is a whole gradient of emotions, which is known as the Tone Scale. There is little capacity to know at the lower end of the Tone scale, and much greater capacity at the upper end.

      .

  27. Yes! I almost added – instead of a “thought” experiment let’s do a real-life experiment. But you are so right, we should work it all out together first.

    1. Sorry, the above was meant in reply to Maria’s comment:

      “Now that would be one hell of a thought experiment – put together a set of rules and then see how it plays out on the blog!:

  28. Here is a new to me re-statement of the “perennial cosmology” by Charles Berner. It relates how the ‘power of choice’ is involved to creation and manifestation from native state. Also goes into whether we are ‘one or many’.

      1. I have come to the conclusion that “soul” and “body” are part of the same system called “individual”. This system called “individual” is impermanent like anything else.

        .

  29. Finally back home… It is early Thursday morning… 12 hour time change! I am sitting in front of the computer with my hot cup of green tea, and a p’nut butter – jelly sandwich. I am ready to roll.

    Looks like this thread has run its course. The following conclusions are obvious:

    (1) It is impossible to poka-yoke Scientology and make improvements to it… because that would mean introducing changes, and the resulting subject would no longer be Scientology.

    (2) But it is possible to create a new subject, which incorporates the key breakthroughs of Scientology in a simple and effective manner.

    In my opinion, the core element of this subject would be LOOKING, which is the highest method of knowing per the Know to Mystery Scale, and which is also consistent with the ancient Vedic teachings as preached by Buddha.

    This new subject may be seeded with the work already done under KHTK. “KHTK” stands for “Knowing How to Know”. This is also the meaning of the word “Scientology.” This, in a way, seems to provide the continuity of purpose. However, the name may be changed from KHTK to something else.

    The key intention underlying this subject would be the seeking of enlightenment through “elimination of inconsistencies.” This would be a gradient and continuous process that would lead to continually increased harmony to possible enlightenment.

    I know that there are many potential contributors (in terms of writing papers) to this new subject, here on Geir’s blog. I am quite sure that Rafael and Chris Thompson will contribute to it with their ideas and writings. I also know that Valkov, if he decides, would be a wonderful contributor because he is the most read of LRH. I look forward to Geir and Maria contributing to it too. There is a lot of talent here. They would be able to determine what to carry forward to KHTK from Scientology, and what should be left behind.

    But it is not just Scientology ideas that needs to brought forward into KHTK. It should basically be a simplification of all knowledge and techniques that spur one’s progress toward enlightenment.

    I would be the editor, if nobody has objection. I would be the final arbiter of what goes into KHTK.

    Let’s talk about this project.

    1. Welcome home, Vinaire.

      I hope you learned a lot on your trip.

      First of all, I question the assumption that LOOKING as you are trying to develop it, as anything at all to do with OT TR0, or TR 0, or any TR at all.

      As I understand what you are saying, LOOKING has to do with MINDFULNESS.

      And MINDFULNESS has nothing to do with the TRs.

      If you study the TRs, you will never get to MINDFULNESS.

      1. Thank you, Alanzo. I am very happy to be home. I shall soon be putting some picture up on my blog. My son has already put some pictures on my Facebook page.

        http://www.facebook.com/vagarwala

        Maybe, LOOKING has nothing to do with TR0, But I treated it as such when in Scientology. The same goes with STATIC. I treated it as BRAHMA. And I had wonderful wins.

        So, in KHTK, “TR0” is brought forward as looking (mindfulness), and “static” is brought forward as unknowable (brahma, nirvana), whether they are equivalent or not.

        KHTK defines LOOKING and UNKNOWABLE quite precisely, whether there is agreement with Scientology or not.

        Happy New Year!

        .

        1. Vinaire: ” Maybe, LOOKING has nothing to do with TR0, But I treated it as such when in Scientology. The same goes with STATIC. I treated it as BRAHMA. And I had wonderful wins.

          So, in KHTK, “TR0″ is brought forward as looking (mindfulness), and “static” is brought forward as unknowable (brahma, nirvana), whether they are equivalent or not. ”

          Say wha … ????

          Have you ever just simply sat down and done TR0 ? Like the *real* thing?

          Man, what were you thinking???

          This is like removing a testicle with a crescent wrench … painful and a total mix of practices. YEE-OWCH!! 🙂

          1. Yes I agree. I had discovered what we here are calling “mindfulness” as a teenager a few years before discovering Scientology. I found OTTR0 and TR0 to reinforce mindfulness and possibly, like all Scientology in general, in a more pro-active way.

  30. I wrote about the best elements of Scientology here. Let’s go over them again.

    https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/vinaires-summary-on-scientology/#comment-13579

    (1) There are innumerable processes in Scientology. Each process directs the attention to a certain area of the bank.

    Hubbard provides the background of each process. Understanding of that background may greatly help a solo KHTK practitioner when he runs that process. A summary of such background explanation should accompany the process brought forward to KHTK.

    (2) If the process is right, the bank will immediately present something in response to the process question. No search is needed.

    No search is needed because the response would appear right away. One does not have to think about that response. No overt application of logic is needed. In Scientology terms, this would be question with BIG read and a blowdown.

    (3) If there is nothing immediately presented by the bank, but there is a vague feeling about something there, then the pc can keep looking at that area, until something appears. Again, no search is needed.

    Here, in Scientology terms, there would be clearly identifiable read way above any background noise (long to medium fall). The person should simply keep on looking at that area like observing a scene, or experiencing a feeling. Thinking has no part here. No logic is needed. As this continues, many “falls” and “blowdowns” will follow.

    (4) The best element here is the prevention of searching through the bank for answers. That search is something that can drive one crazy.

    By searching, I mean, figuring in response to the auditing question what should be there. This is a no, no. But it happens very often in Scientology auditing, especially under repetitive questioning when the auditor has supposedly missed F/N. This is what creates dub-ins, overruns, bogging of the case, etc. This is more common in Scientology than most Scientologists are willing to admit.

    Maybe, in Scientology, a preclear is not supposed to “search around” in the bank, but he is not fully grooved into that. It happens when the pc feels “obligated” to find something because “the needle is not floating.”

    In KHTK, the person is grooved in on NOT SEARCHING AROUND in the bank for answers. If there is no answer coming up in response to a processing question then he should simply stick to that.

    (5) The recognition of what is there may be supported by E-meter (“that, that”). But this is not a must. One can do this without any support from the e-meter.

    In KHTK, it is considered better not to create a dependency on some external device, such as, an e-meter.

    (6) If nothing comes up in response to the process, simply move to another process. There are plenty of processes. These processes may be organized into sets by similarity of some kind.

    In KHTK, one is not burdened by the need to F/N a question. There is a trust between the guide and the student. They both work together because they are working toward the same purpose. If the student is satisfied that there is nothing more coming up then that is acceptable to the guide,

    In KHTK, the bank is allowed to unburden itself naturally. A single process may not be able to bring a blowdown all by itself. But a set of processes may. This has to be tested. The key idea is that the bank should be allowed to unburden itself naturally. Unburdening should not be forced in any process.

    (7) The processes may be repeated after some parts of the bank has been as-ised.

    This is actually part of (6) above.

    I hope this answers Maria’s questions.

    .

    1. Vinaire: ” (1) There are innumerable processes in Scientology. Each process directs the attention to a certain area of the bank.”

      Not necessarily.

      There are processes that put attention outside of the bank or have a pc create a bank 🙂

      How about a locational?

      How about the process ‘ Think a thought’ ?

      How about the process ‘ Start laughing’ ‘Keep on laughing’ ?

      How about spotting spots?

      How about a Touch Assist ?

      How about ‘ Let’s find something in which you could be interested’ ?

      How about ‘Look at that wall’ , ‘Walk over to that wall’ ?

      How about ‘Point out a difference between that person’s body and yours’ ?

      How about ‘Locate some objects’ ?

      Vinaire: “(4) The best element here is the prevention of searching through the bank for answers. That search is something that can drive one crazy.

      By searching, I mean, figuring in response to the auditing question what should be there.”

      ‘What should be there’? What process is this?

      Do you have a reference on ‘figuring in response to the auditing question what should be there’ ?

      What you describe is not auditing.

      Vinaire: ” Maybe, in Scientology, a preclear is not supposed to “search around” in the bank, but he is not fully grooved into that.”

      Maybe?

      A PC is always hatted prior to auditing. If he has not been, this would be an error on programming.

      Vinaire: ” Unburdening should not be forced in any process. ”

      Ditto with auditing.

      1. How about a locational?

        A locational is putting the stable datum of the physical universe there and pulling a person out of his mental fog. A locational is extricating the person out of the confusion between the bank and the physical universe, or the confusion between the present time and the past (bank).

        How about the process ‘ Think a thought’ ?

        Again, the process helps one differentiate a thought in present time from the confusion of past thoughts (bank).

        How about the process ‘ Start laughing’ ‘Keep on laughing’ ?

        Again, the process forces a person into differentiating a present time activity from the confusion of past activities (bank).

        I hope you get it. If there is no bank you don’t need processing. All processing has to do with the bank in some way.

        .

        1. Vinaire:

          Take a look at the statement you made:

          ” Each process directs the attention to a certain area of the bank.”

          This is a generality and false.

          None of those processes (and I can give you more) ‘direct attention to a certain area of the bank’

          The process ‘Think a thought’ [i] could [/i] although it has a great effect in that it puts the pc at Cause in creation of …

          It is what you do quite often with your opinion.

          You say it as though it is a fact when it really is simply your opinion. And the statements you give as above are just plain false.

          Then you base a long dissertation off a false premise.

          I hope you get it.

      2. I shall modify point (1) as follows:

        (1) There are innumerable processes in Scientology. Each process directs the attention to a certain area of the bank to bring understanding of it. Some methods of Scientology simply act to “reset” the attention by directing it away from the confusion in the bank, so that actual processing may then be carried out.

        .

      3. By searching, I mean, figuring in response to the auditing question what should be there.”

        ‘What should be there’? What process is this?

        There is no such process. But this happens commonly under repetitive questioning when no more responses are coming from the bank, but the questioning continues.

        .

        1. Do you have a reference on ‘figuring in response to the auditing question what should be there’ ?
          What you describe is not auditing.

          Whether it is auditing or not is beside the point. This error does occur frequently and commonly in the auditing environment. The evidence is in the dissatisfaction with Scientology out there. If auditing were working as it is supposed to, there won’t be this dissatisfaction.

          .

          1. Vinnie: ” Whether it is auditing or not is beside the point.”

            C’mon, don’t scurry away from this.

            You made some very specific statements under the guise of what goes on in auditing and I’m calling you on it.

            What I am attempting is to have you ‘LOOK’ at differences, similarities & indentities.

            Vinnie: “The evidence is in the dissatisfaction with Scientology out there.”

            What about those who are satisfied with auditing – and yes, I mean ACTUAL auditing, not some off-shoot squirrelly crap?

            I can totally understand dissatisfaction with those who have received something they ‘thought’ was auditing when it wasn’t. Hell, if I’m paying for auditing and get some off beat stuff, I’d be pissed too.

        2. Vinnie: ” But this happens commonly under repetitive questioning when no more responses are coming from the bank, but the questioning continues.”

          Maybe it did for YOU, but it didn’t for me.

          I wish you could take a run thru the Grades with a REAL auditor, in a REAL session, using a REAL comm formula and Model Session.

          It appears that you have had something different, or, none at all. This would make it difficult to discern the difference between real auditing and some of the squirrelly stuff you wrote above.

          1. Please don’t be so condescending. It has nothing to do with you or me or with what is written in HCOBs. I am talking about a situation that exists.

            Please familiarize yourself with Data Series.

            .

          2. FYI, I did the Data Series Course.

            1) I understand it is situation that can & has occured.

            2) I understand also that it is out-programming to not hat a pc

            3) I also understand that you generalize & make it appear like this is common practice therefore it is something wrong with the tech itself. It is not.

            4) I also know that when I was getting massive amounts of auditing, I and others were all hatted as PCs. We just were not put in session to run nilly-willy around our case.

            If you think this is Scientology, you are sadly mistake.

            As I said, you have been mis-handled.

            It is unfortunate, but it can be handled.

          3. The bottom line from Data Series point of view is if there is a situation or not! And if it needs to be addressed.

            You seem to be very defensive about something.

            .

      4. Vinaire: ” Maybe, in Scientology, a preclear is not supposed to “search around” in the bank, but he is not fully grooved into that.”
        Maybe?
        A PC is always hatted prior to auditing. If he has not been, this would be an error on programming.
        Vinaire: ” Unburdening should not be forced in any process. ”
        Ditto with auditing.

        The evidence does not show that a PC is always hatted prior to auditing. The fact is that the errors I am talking about exist, and they are blamed on bad auditing.

        My question is, why is bad auditing is there in the first place? Why does it take so long to make a good auditor? Why a person has to be dumped into the sea to make a good auditor out of him? Why is this force necessary?

        Hubbard criticized the psychiatric professions for taking so long to make a psychiatrist. Scientology promised a much easier and effective way. I do not think that dream is being realized.

        .

        1. Vinnie:

          You said the pc is not grooved in.

          I standard programming, a pc IS grooved in.

          Your statement ” The evidence does not show that a PC is always hatted prior to auditing” is a generality making it appear that you have evidence that this is commonplace.

          You play with words to make it appear as a major truth.

          Were you ever hatted as a PC? Did you read the PC Hat?

          1. Why not just look and see if the unhattedness of pc’s exist as a situation?

            Apply Data Series.

            Per my observation such a situation does exist, otherwise overruns would not be such commonplace that they are checked even in standard correction lists.

            .

          2. You wanted application of the Data Series – I gave you one point with regards to your generality – dropped time.

            You now say that’s Q & A.

            I asked you when?

            You did not answer.

            From my own experience there was NOT any problem as you generalize years ago – I am talking the ’70s and early to mid ’80s – and that was in Missions, Orgs, St Hills & Advanced Orgs. We all started the same way – standard new PC orientation.

            There may be very specific instances now in PT where a PC does not get hatted – I do not know.

            There may be situations that you personally experienced – I do not know as you have not said what auditing you have had nor what happened.

            As I said Dropped Time is just one of the outpoints using the Data Series.

            There was NO situation years ago.

            There may be now as per reports from various individuals.

            So, something changed – the tech and programming seemed to be fine years ago.

            I have no idea at all what time period you are talking about.

            1. My own PC hatting took so long that it irked me as I was excited to get on with the processing. This was in 1977. It included word clearing and lots of examples so that I would demonstrate to my auditor that I knew what to do and could do it.

          3. Same here Chris,

            Standard actions were Reading & understanding the PC Hat, Health Form, PC Assessment Form (White form), then a complete CS 1 which encompassed all manner of demos, axioms, clearing words, concepts, how to run, etc. Like you, I found it very lengthy and was more interested in getting on with the processing but looking back, I’m glad I had those basics in.

            Additionally, before a level was started, the word list for that level was cleared, and each process wording was cleared backwards.

            There was also standard Bridge programming. If you were a drug case, you also got the Scientology DRD (Recall taking …). After the preliminary steps, one was on to the co-audited Dianetic DRD and once complete on that we would take up general PSEAs and once those were complete, one attested to Dianetic Case Completion. Then, at that time, it was on to the Grades.

            I think on the whole, PCs then were very well indoctrinated on what to expect. What happens now … I haven’t clue.

  31. I find Axiom 25 of Scientology to be very enlightening:

    AXIOM 25: Affinity is a scale of attitudes which falls away from the coexistence of static,
    through the interpositions of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close
    proximity but mystery.

    By the practice of isness (beingness) and not–isness (refusal to be) individuation
    progresses from the knowingness of complete identification down through the
    introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through
    lookingness, emotingness, effortingness, thinkingness, symbolizingness, eatingness,
    sexingness, and so through to not–knowingness (mystery). Until the point of mystery
    is reached, some communication is possible, but even at mystery an attempt to
    communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual
    falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete affinity down to the
    conviction that all is a complete mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know
    to Mystery Scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the emotion section
    of this scale.

    I would use “unknowable” for the “coexistence of static” because there is nothing existing in terms of matter, energy, space and time where static is concerned. There is nothing to identify. It simply cannot be spoken about. Whether it can be known or not cannot be stated with any amount of certainty..

    In fact, I would say that any manifestation (matter, energy, space and time) would be a departure from “unknowable.” This departure would be a falling away of affinity. Thus, complete affinity cannot be defined. Only the relative falling away of affinity may be defined.

    And this provides the route back toward the “unknowable” or the “undefinable.” It is the spotting of falling away of affinities. It is the spotting of inconsistencies.

    Since, both Scientology and KHTK has to do with Knowing How to Know, this axiom provides a key to that. This is something I shall now be exploring further.

    .

    1. I like to agree with your use of static as unknowable. And really, the Scn definition of static is the summation of neti neti in a sentence. And my definition is even more succinct: no MEST.

      I have been consideration the wave-function with reference to these as well. Have you gotten anywhere along this line of thought? Is the wave function a “mathematical statement” of the static? or is the wave function that last layer of something before there is nothing?

      It makes me laugh to understand that when I know, it will not be such as I would have predicted. It will be a wonderful revelation when the veil is lifted. I do tend to think that the wave function as a field of infinite possibilities is the Native State. This is where my intuition points. And maybe then, together we will know that the infinite field of possibilities was all there ever was.

      Anyway, it is fun to think and talk about. This past year has been a very good one for me and I have been feeling very well.

      1. You definitely have made great progress during 2011, and you deserve an acknowledgement for that.

        I have put the wave-function aside while I am studying Alan Turing. That is giving me some new ways of looking at the mind, which is fascinating. I shall be writing about it soon.

        About ‘unknowable’ all I can say is that unknowable may only be speculated upon. That’s its key property. The more consistent is that speculation in explaining the rest of the universe, the more satisfying it is.

        .

        1. Thank you Vinaire. It has been quite a ride! At basic levels of beingness, language fails. The reason for this is that the more basic levels are high on the Tone Scale. At the highest levels, we will have stopped speculating and begin knowing for that is the nature of high-toned beingness. At the highest Tone levels I predict that we will interact very efficiently with the finer qualities of physics. It is a star-high goal but it exists right in our own living rooms if we have “eyes” to see it. I think we should continue on, shall we?

  32. Here is a better visualization of Axiom 25:

    AXIOM 25: AFFINITY IS A SCALE OF ATTITUDES WHICH FALLS AWAY FROM THE COEXISTENCE OF STATIC, THROUGH THE INTERPOSITIONS OF DISTANCE AND ENERGY, TO CREATE IDENTITY, DOWN TO CLOSE PROXIMITY BUT MYSTERY.

    By the practice of isness (beingness) and not-isness (refusal to be) individuation progresses from the knowingness of complete identification down through the introduction of more and more distance and less and less duplication, through lookingness, emotingness, effortingness, thinkingness, symbolizingness, eatingness, sexingness, and so through to not-knowingness (mystery). Until the point of mystery is reached, some communication is possible, but even at mystery an attempt to communicate continues. Here we have, in the case of an individual, a gradual falling away from the belief that one can assume a complete affinity down to the conviction that all is a complete mystery. Any individual is somewhere on this Know to Mystery Scale. The original Chart of Human Evaluation was the emotion section of this scale.

    According to this axiom the ultimate in affinity is unknowable because there is nothing to be identified. Identity is achieved through the introduction of distance and energy. Thus, only the falling away from this state can be identified.

    Removal of all inconsistencies shall lead to the achievement of the ultimate in affinity. This is the basic approach in KHTK. One simply looks and recognizes inconsistencies as they appear in the mind. Any consideration is an inconsistency that needs to be recognized.

    Let’s take a process from KHTK 16 such as,

    “Look around in your mind and spot something that is trying to grab your attention.”

    Now, something trying to grab your attention would be a departure from ultimate affinity per Axiom 25. Therefore, it would be an inconsistency. It may at first appear as something vague in the mind. It would have an aspect of mystery that was never expected to be solved. So you accept that non-judgmentally; and by doing that you actually duplicate the mystery (the consideration that you cannot know it).

    Suddenly there is a glimmer of hope that you can discover that which had been at the edge of awareness all this time. This is characteristic of sexingness of putting something there on the future track. The moment you recognize this you would move to the next level (it all happens very, very fast).

    The various considerations that may now come up may be as follows:

    Eatingness: How can I take advantage of this?
    Symbolizingness: I need this to survive.
    Thinkingness: Let me figure out what it is
    Effortingness: Let me get closer to it by feeling it
    Emotingness: Let me enjoy the ecstasy of approaching it
    Lookingness: Let me look at the distance between it and me

    Then, boom, the distance would vanish, and you would know in your beingness what it is.

    The above is just a crude approximation. But if one simply accepts non-judgmentally whatever comes up, and does not resist it, the mystery will proceed to know and closer to ultimate affinity quite rapidly.

    This is my take so far. Please check it out and let let me know what happens. Be totally relaxed as in Exercise 9A-3

    Have fun!

    .

  33. https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/vinaires-summary-on-scientology/comment-page-1/#comment-13913

    Vinnie: ” So, Dennis, someday you’ll be able to see that one can practice looking while on the treadmill. ” Hmm … I don’t remember saying you couldn’t. I remember OT 2 & a treadmill … Is this another one of those creations of yours, Vinnie ? … c’mon tell the truth

    Yes, doing OTII on treadmill was a lot of fun. The idea of treadmill came from LRH’s Running Program, on which I had great wins. The basic idea there is that generation of physical energy helps one overcome the high potential energy engrams/implants in the bank. Use of Looking instead of e-meter made it possible to do the OT II processes on the treadmill. I actually blew some stuff.

    Doing OT II on treadmill is obviously a conjecture that should be tested per THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD & HUMANITIES. It should not be dismissed outright because of some bias.

    .

    1. This has merit. I have observed that the objective processes were a joke for me, and something which I never needed. It was my theory that this was because of the rigorous physical life that I have always lived doing hard physical work that I must needs be in present time and aware that I was creating the effects happening in my sphere of influence. This never has been in question for me. There was no a-ha moment for me on the objectives, but only the obnosis and consequent prediction of what the process was aiming for and so I co-operated.

      1. The purpose of objectives is to “reset the attention units.” Objectives help recover the attention units lost in the confusion that bank spawns, back into present time. Objectives do not lead to as-isness of parts of bank as other processes do.

        .

    2. I can understand have gotten wins.

      But really, ‘Looking’ has nothing to do with OT ll other than reading the materials 🙂

      What you were doing was NOT OT ll.

      Call it whatever you want, but it was not Scientology.

      Yes, there’s a whole lotta conjecture going on 🙂

      1. You seem to have a misunderstood either on “looking” or on “OT II”.

        Did you use the e-meter on OT II? Did you follow the reads of the e-meter?

        .

          1. An e-meter is useful as an aide to looking. It should not be used as a substitute to Looking.

            Dennis says, ” ‘Looking’ has nothing to do with OT ll other than reading the materials.” That statement doesn’t make sense to me unless Dennis is substituting the e-meter for looking.

            .

          1. You never did answer my question on a previous post … what auditing have you had?

            Then I know where you’re coming from.

            Personally, I don’t go around talking about the OT levels … some may wish to and that is totally ok by me.

      2. Of course, what I did is nowhere written in Scientology scriptures. But I did use the principles formulated by LRH in coming up with the procedure that I followed. I thought for myself and got results more simply.

        Of course, it is conjecture to further improve upon the written OT II procedure.

        http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/the-scientific-method-humanities/ applies.

        Now it may be blasphemous for you to think if anybody could ever improve upon the OT II procedure. But that kind of thinking is religious and not scientific.

        .

        1. Vinnie: ” Now it may be blasphemous for you to think if anybody could ever improve upon the OT II procedure. But that kind of thinking is religious and not scientific.”

          As I said, do what you like. I see nothing blasphemous at all in trying to improve ANY level … just don’t call it scientology.

          1. I am pointing out improvements possible in current Scientology procedure. I am not calling them Scientology.

            It is interesting to observe your extremely conservative mindset.

            .

          2. Ad Hom?

            Hell, when I look at some of the 1.1 comments, know-best, false analogies, etc that Vinnie puts out … pleeeze.

            1. It still is AdHom. It could serve as an excellent example beside the definition of that fallacy.

  34. We find many deep thoughts in Scientology Axioms, but I have my doubts if LRH understood them all.

    We assume that a person who wrote something understood it. But is this really true of a person who resorted to automatic writing? Per this reference:

    ‘He wrote tremendously fast by hand,’ said Dincalci. ‘It was like automatic writing you get in the occult. He’d have a glazed look, as if he was kinda gone, his eyes would roll up and the corners of his mouth would turn down and he’d start this frenzied writing. I’ve never seen anyone write so fast.’

    For example, Axiom 25 points to the an ultimate state which is beyond identity, which I call unknowable. Axiom 1 refers to the same as “static”. Yet LRH refers to static at other places as if it is a beingness (has an identity). Now some staunch scientologists may justify this; but have a look at it without justification.

    This is the same situation that makes me wonder if Muhammad fully understood Quran that was dictated to him by God’s messenger. Or, if Crowley understood his Book of Law that he wrote under trance.

    .

    1. Interesting point. From my own experience, in moments of relief as in cognition or epiphany, things have looked supremely clear to me, yet at a point later when I am re-immersed into the travails of mind, it can be hard to remember the previous clarity.

  35. After looking over Vinnie’s various responses, I have come to the conclusion that Vinnie really has never actually done scientology.

    Yes, he was here & there, but I’m talking *actually* duplicating and doing a drill, procedure … anything just as it says.

    Be it TRs, Wordclearing … what have you; there may have been bits & pieces of duplication, but on the whole – nada.

    I also see lack of basic understanding in how one audits and his grasp of materials, yet, he feels he knows best.

    I can guarantee that he would be starting over on training in any Academy I ran.

    As I have said before, each chooses his own path and I validate Vinnie for his zeal in looking for answers.

    But, when I look at some of the goofiness that he says he applied or is contained in Scientology, I wonder what he actually did accomplish.

    I don’t profess to be any expert – if I don’t know something I say so. I don’t BS others into thinking I’m above it all, or know best, or found a ‘simpler’ or ‘better’ way, or had auditing when I really didn’t.

    This is all smoke & mirrors.

    And a missed opportunity.

      1. C’mon Geir,

        You’ve had much training – more than me.

        Nothing wrong with looking and pointing out outpoints.

        Yes, it may pop someone’s bubble, but better that duplication occurs than running around in a life based on fallacy.

        Hell, we do that every day … might as well make it a bit better.

        1. It may perhaps be nothing wrong in blasting a person one way or the other, but it can never serve as a countering of someone’s argument.

          1. That I agree with 🙂

            I’m just surprised that the Ad Hom card is not pulled out more often.

            I love discussions, but when I see 1.1 comments or fallacies/generalities put forth as ‘truth’ as a means to make less of others; that’s where I draw the line.

            Hopefully it gets corrected, or I walk the other way. I am simply not interested in generalities or opinions stated as fact with a know-best attitude.

            1. I correct people now and then, not at all consistently as there is too much traffic to be everyone’s babysitter. Consider yourself lucky to get the attention 🙂

          2. Geir, Dennis stated that you have had more training than he but aside from the fact that you’ve said otherwise, most of the time you apparently don’t see the gross errors and ridiculousness in comments about tech – or at least I don’t recall that you’ve responded to them as such other than very occasionally.

            Dennis also said, “I’m just surprised that the Ad Hom card is not pulled out more often” and I have said the same kind of thing to you. Your response to both of us was the same, that there’s “too much traffic.” Sorry, but for what it’s worth, my perception is that you are pretty one-sided. Perhaps you feel the urge and are “moved” to respond to certain comments more than others? It just seems a little unfair, especially since you are the Opinion Leader here. And I personally don’t feel “lucky” to get this kind of attention.

            You may interpret my comment here as a reflection of my bias but that in itself might be a reflection of yours ;-). Something for us both to continue considering.

            1. You pick out the two times I have corrected AdHoms from “your side” – that of yourself as well as that of Dennis (you may have pointed out another I may have corrected in Valkov, can’t remember). But you don’t see that I have corrected Alanzo? Or Vinaire? Seriously? Unfair? I have been a hundred times tougher on either one of them.

          3. Sorry, what I meant by “the same kind of thing” was not just your pointing out ad hom specifically but the outpoints in general that you point out. I haven’t gone through and added them all up, but that’s my strong impression and I expressed it as such (i.e. “my perception”). I will add that I think since I last protested this one-sidedness you have become less so and it is appreciated.

            1. Dear Marildi, I will chalk this opinion of yours up as bias. I am sure Alanzo will have a much, much stronger case against me from the other side than you have. The same goes for Vinaire or the only person I have ever asked to leave my blog. She was very critical, remember?

      1. 🙂

        I calls ’em as I sees ’em.

        I don’t bash Vinaire’s efforts to find his own route but he seem to think he’s some sort of Messiah to be evaling everyone else here.

        Fine to have a viewpoint, but sheesh.

    1. Dennis, I see little in your post that is even debatable as being Ad Hom. Everything you said was directed at Vinaire’s actual comments, essentially no different from pointing out the specific logical fallacy or the specific data series outpoints, just not named as such.

      You also said, “Hopefully it gets corrected, or I walk the other way. I am simply not interested in generalities or opinions stated as fact with a know-best attitude.”

      I too have felt at times like a fish out of water and maybe I should “walk the other way” as you say, because the generalities and opinions continue and even get agreement from others! Or, almost as bad – they are simply condoned by silence. Nevertheless, I don’t think I’m the only one, posters and lurkers alike, who appreciates your responses to glaring outpoints and your knowledgeable clarifications. Plus, I am pretty sure that you have even opened the eyes a bit of those you are criticizing, even if doesn’t get admitted or doesn’t immediately get any apparent change of attitude.

      1. I think one side could paint the other side here in pretty much the same light. From my perspective the inability to see the other side’s point of view is striking. As is the tolerance of logical fallacy from one’s own while fully condemning that same from the other’s.

        1. And from my perspective, your “tolerance of logical fallacy” of the critics is far greater than that of others – and all the while their logical fallacies, assumptions and errors of fact are the most blatant, flagrant and numerous. Yes, amazing difference in perspective!

          I have sometimes even wondered if what you are doing comes from an instinct to stick up for the underdog – because, for the reasons stated above, the critics are clearly the underdogs in the discussion if looked at objectively (dare I say).

          1. And yet the critic has a much harder time on my blog than you have. I kindly urge you to reevaluate your perspecive on this, cause the numers are siding with me my dear.

          2. There may be higher numbers of instances of your giving the critics a hard time but look at the volume of their out-pointy posts! Not just the number of posts, but the individual comments within. It doesn’t make sense, for example, to criticize 1 out of 20 out-pointy comments of critics, while with the pro-group point out 1 in 3.

            I don’t say these figures are the correct ones, but this is the general idea of how it started to seem to me at a certain point. Now that I’m more aware of it I may see it differently and in any case I’ll do my best to be fair minded about it.

            1. And they could point to your posts as out-pointy nontheless.

              It is a matter of viewpoint that.

              And still, the only ones I have expelled (one) and given a vacation (one) and completely blasted (one) are all critics. Reajust your statistics on this one.

          3. In both cases of what happened to “critics” it wasn’t with regard to their criticism of LRH or Scn, it was basically for their netiquette and badgering of you. So this is a Red Herring. And again it doesn’t take into account the ratios of out-pointy comments.

            Yes, others could – and have – pointed to my posts as out-pointy, but if you or anyone can show me in a non-general way how their responses were valid, I will be very glad to take a look at it. I don’t say there aren’t any, but I honestly can’t remember a reply that wasn’t itself out-pointy. And again I say, consider the ratios. Those are the statistics I’m looking at.

      2. With your enthusiasm for spotting logical fallacies, you must surely see that Dennis going after the Man (Vinaire) and not the Ball (his arguments) consitutes the most blatant of AdHoms. Perhaps the most obvious I have seen in a while.

        1. What you say here about Dennis’ post going after the man is a Generality, same as when you stated it above (that it was ad hom) – unless you meant the whole post (which I would have to challenge). Please be specific.

          1. This whole post is clearly an AdHom if I ever saw one:

            After looking over Vinnie’s various responses, I have come to the conclusion that Vinnie really has never actually done scientology.

            Yes, he was here & there, but I’m talking *actually* duplicating and doing a drill, procedure … anything just as it says.

            Be it TRs, Wordclearing … what have you; there may have been bits & pieces of duplication, but on the whole – nada.

            I also see lack of basic understanding in how one audits and his grasp of materials, yet, he feels he knows best.

            I can guarantee that he would be starting over on training in any Academy I ran.

            As I have said before, each chooses his own path and I validate Vinnie for his zeal in looking for answers.

            But, when I look at some of the goofiness that he says he applied or is contained in Scientology, I wonder what he actually did accomplish.

            I don’t profess to be any expert – if I don’t know something I say so. I don’t BS others into thinking I’m above it all, or know best, or found a ‘simpler’ or ‘better’ way, or had auditing when I really didn’t.

            This is all smoke & mirrors.

            And a missed opportunity.

            It counters none of Vin’s points. It only tries to discredit him.

            Marildi; Is this NOT AdHom?

          2. “…Vinnie really has never actually done scientology…Be it TRs, Wordclearing … what have you; there may have been bits & pieces of duplication, but on the whole – nada.”

            Dennis’ post in general, including the above, was actually a sum-up of earlier comments he made that listed out all the specifics. He has consistently pointed out Vinaire’s alter-is of very basic Scientology datums and tech, and the majority of his remarks in the above post are based on that. He is referring to Vinaire’s comments, NOT the Man, and their content was NOT Scientology and therefore he has laid out a good basis for doubting whether Vinaire was “*actually* duplicating and doing a drill, procedure… anything just as it says.”

            As for other remarks not in the above category, they fit into this one: “yet, he feels he knows best.” Vinaire goes all into what was wrong with “Hubbard’s ideas” and what he missed and what he should have included – which IS as Dennis said, BS when you consider that he has clearly displayed that he does not even comprehend basics. His concluding remark about “all smoke and mirrors” was based on all the invalid assertions when compared to actual Scientology.

            It may be that Dennis and I have protested as strongly as we have because we have enough training to know how far off some comments are.

            1. Then attack the comments and Not The Man.

              If you don’t see Dennis’ post as a logical fallacy, then I must conclude that you are biased (i.e. having blinders on) in favor of those with whom you agree. It serves to prove Al right here earlier. Especially now that Dennis has concurred. Al took a correction fantastically well here. Would you please reconsider?

            2. It seems illogical to say that someone who dedicated 12 years of their life to the Sea Organization, STAYED for two trips to the RPF, and continues to study Scientology by the tome “has not done Scientology.” From where I sit, Vinaire is not a dilettante by any stretch of the imagination. He has real life experience in Scientology as well as real certifiable statistics in the real world.

              Maybe the problem that you have with Vinaire lies elsewhere — other than whether or not he has done Scientology?

          3. Dennis agreed with this comment: “Going after a subject is all fine. Going after content of posts are all fine. Going after the man is not ok. No matter what the other first did to you.”

            And I concur as well!

            “Would you please reconsider?”

            I very much appreciate the kind way you put that.

          4. “Maybe the problem that you have with Vinaire lies elsewhere — other than whether or not he has done Scientology?”

            Chris, the exact comment Dennis made and I quoted was, “Vinnie really has never actually
            done Scientology” and I understood that to mean – whatever he did wasn’t actual Scientology but something else. My agreement with that comment was (and is) based on Vinaire’s ideas about what tech is and his alleged experiences with it – regardless of how many tomes he has read or anything else.

            No, the “problem I have with Vinaire” doesn’t “lie elsewhere.” I have stated the above numerous times, so I have to tell you it rather mystifies me that you would be asking me my problem. I know you are well-intentioned – but seriously.

            1. Again, tug down your kilt because your No True Scotsman is showing. If you want to play with logic in order to reinforce your pro-Scientology arguments then understand that they are being perceived that way and so degrade not him, but your comments.

              That Vinaire was a loyal and dedicated Sea Org member and has decades of familiarity with Scientology indisputable. His experience is his own. To argue at him about this is fruitless and fallacious. If you want to argue, then argue. If you want to be logical, then you’ve got to reset your perception and look at the reason for the challenge to look critically at Scientology. You will not move forward by addressing only one side of this equation.

            2. oh, and first flattering and then poisoning the well by calling me “well intentioned, but seriously” has been noted. (this is the game.)

          5. Chris: ” It seems illogical to say that someone who dedicated 12 years of their life to the Sea Organization, STAYED for two trips to the RPF, and continues to study Scientology by the tome “has not done Scientology.””

            One has to audit to learn to audit. If I deliver coffee in a company of Engineers, I’m no Engineer.

            A person who majorly held admin posts would not have the training, therefore his ability to assimilate data in that area is curtailed.

          6. Just to add, I admire anyone who stuck it out for many years on staff, in the SO, or as a public – we all had some great times and some pretty crappy ones.

            I have an idea of what is being fed the current public & staff, and it is not pretty. Most of the newer staff have a very different view of Scientology than when most of us were in. Would I call it Scientology? No. Attention has been shifted to money rather than producing auditors & audited PCs.

            Most newer staff have not had much auditing at all. I went thru many staff & S.O. PC folders covering many years. When LRH was C/Sing, staff were moving up the Bridge and research was happening. Later when LRH was off that line, staff S.O. auditing did continue for a few years but there was a shift where auditing virtually stopped.

            In the folders I was going thru, the odd touch assist was evident and the odd Grade EP process run if a student needed a PC – I’m not talking about the whole Grade – just the last process & havingness. The purpose was a student completion rather than staff enhancement. Later, the only time I saw staff actually getting Bridge action was if they went St Hill size & the Universe Corp showed up. That too was short-lived.

            Being that posts were so specialized, most staff could do a couple things well and not much else. Currently staff see what they see when they get in – that is Scientology to them. Most are young, have no life experience, likely never held a job and go with the flow. The contagion of aberration marches on, and the ability to spot out-points is almost non-existent.

            It’s a messy situation.

          7. Chris, no one said that Vinaire doesn’t have “degrees of familiarity with Scientology” and no one is “arguing with him about his own experience.” That is Straw Man on your part. Please review my comments, including my reply to Geir today on the Thought Experiment thread, in which I tried yet again to clarify what I’ve been saying.

            Your statement that “No True Scotsman is showing” is unclear to me. Don’t just throw that out there and not state what it refers to and specifically how it is a No True Scotsman. So far I don’t think anyone has done more than state that type of generality about my own arguments being logical fallacies. Now’s your chance to do more than that and I am totally willing to take a look at it.

            As for, “oh, and first flattering and then poisoning the well by calling me ‘well intentioned, but seriously’ has been noted. (this is the game.).” Firstly, my “flattering” was an attempt to validate the rightness in your comment. Secondly, I don’t know how “but seriously” came across but it was in reference to your question about whether my “problem with Vinaire lie elsewhere” and the meaning I intended was “c’mon, get serious.”

        2. Yes, Geir – I did point out, and this is after much discussion on blatant outpoints on some of Vinaire’s posts, that there is an underlying tone to his posts, and obvious misunderstoods & misapplications.

          Rather than him realizing that what he has experienced is out-tech, or in the case of his Wordclearing/TR0 – misapplication; there is a continual push on these fallacies and then basing arguments upon these.

          There have been numerous attempts to correct these points without ‘going after the man’, but refused, or, he attempts to invalidate others for bringing up these points.

          Even within this thread, there are a number of invalidative or 1.1 comments he puts forth about others, yet if we bring these up, in his eyes ‘we’re’ the ones not getting it.

          It has to swing both ways – if he dishes out the inval (and by no means do I condone this), he has to be willing to be called out on it himself.

          He does a good job being the anti-scientologist, but really, can’t we simply have a discussion without the innuendo and 1.1 comments?

          We don’t go after his KHTK (and I would not even think of invalidating another practice), nor should he be belittling any other philosophy or practice. Discuss – yes. But invalidate and constantly push the know-best attitude doesn’t work.

          1. Just to add – here are a few comments/originations made on this thread and I’m not even 1/2 way thru:

            Spot the outpoints …

            1) However, I am not so much impressed by auditing techniques as by the processes of Dianetics and Scientology

            2) E-meter seem to have been introduced to make the subject of Scientology look scientific.

            3) Buddha was the first one to teach “looking” and not the results of looking. He did impart the knowledge of his looking, but he always warned his disciples not to accept anything he says on its face value. LRH, on the other hand, emphasized being the “source” of all the knowledge in Scientology.

            4) LRH’s contribution, as I said before, is coming up with all the different ways that looking could be directed profitably.

            5) Where Hubbard fell short was the understanding of “looking” itself.

            6) Where Hubbard fails is in his hurry to get results. He pushes “looking” through repetitive processing, computing as an auditor, through listing etc. That is hit and miss because it bypasses natural unburdening of the mind. It may provide some awesome results, but it does not clear a person thoroughly, and leaves much to be desired.

            7) The primary criticism that I have of Hubbard is being a pusher of “looking,” and by doing so, opening the door to dub-in.

            8) The primary criticism that I have of Scientologists is that they are very prone to dub-in. They tend to rush into evaluating others.

            9) Evaluating Scientology only on the basis of what it has accomplished for self is a very incomplete and selfish evaluation.

            10) The weakness of Scientology approach is that it leads to dub-in, overrun, and correction lists in most cases because, often, the pc is forced to find something even when he can’t see anything.

            11) I gained a lot from Scientology because I always looked at it from the eastern viewpoint of “looking” and “Brahma” (for Static). I think this viewpoint saved me from worshipping LRH as the “source.” That is one of the key elements of Scientology conditioning.

            12) If you closely look at Marildi, you are an expert at it 🙂

            13) Rafael, the principles of looking may be covered in Scientology, but if they were being practiced then Scientology will be 500% more efficient.

            14) Looking underlies TR0. Looking also underlies all auditing. Those who cannot see this have some basic MUs. Looking is not the same as TR0 from the very fact that one looks in an auditing session, and does not sit and simply do TR0.

            15) Maria, great reply. And a good example of your ability to see the bigger picture and the relevant facts of the matter.

            16) Marildi, I think you should publish your version of pure LRH Scientology.

            17) I shall try to pick up serious and meaningful posts to respond to.

            18) Why is overrun so common that it is checked often as a cause for many difficulties in auditing?” Why should overrun be so common in the first place, or why should it be there at all?

            19) Of course, what I am pointing out won’t be real to a person who does not see overrun as a problem because we have correction lists and a procedure to handle overrun.

            20) Scientology seems to become a part of the ego of a Scientologist. So, when somebody says something disagreeable about Scientology, a scientologist feels oneself to be targeted and responds somewhat antagonistically.

            Here ego prevents one from looking at what is really there. So, the presence of ego in a person tells me that the Reactive mind is still there. It can still be there after OT VIII. There was plenty of it in LRH. It is there as long as there is attachment to the physical universe.

            21) Marildi, your icon suits you quite well

            1. And none of these even comes closte to your AdHom.

              You should counter the comments you see in need of countering, that’s all. Take the correction and leave it at that.

          2. Going after a subject is all fine. Going after content of posts are all fine. Going after the man is not ok. No matter what the other first did to you.

          3. Geir: ” Going after a subject is all fine. Going after content of posts are all fine. Going after the man is not ok. No matter what the other first did to you.”

            I agree 🙂

            1. Good & thanks. Settled. Let’s move on 🙂

              Dennis; I really do appreciate your contributions here.

          4. Dennis, I do understand your comments.

            Take a look at it from Vinaire’s point of view. He is an utterly untrained wog. A foreigner studying outside his native language who has never experienced true Scientology. Yet sitting there all alone in his bypassed charge you want to hold his feet to the fire for not realizing that he been experiencing out-tech.

            You on the other hand are tech trained and are bashing him. Who should bear the greater responsibility for knowing what is going on? And if it is you, and you are correctly evaluating the situation, then put your auditor’s hat back on.

            Or it might be something else. Regardless, each of us in turn has been taking a swing at Vinaire for his perceived social offenses. Maybe he just thinks this is the way people are supposed to talk to one another. Anyway, emerging battered from that maelstrom known at the FLB, I think I can understand his unsympathetic attitude now that there is no one with the right to blast him for having an opinion not steeped in hobby-horse policy and PR Bullshit.

            He will now write to me and tell me he doesn’t have a problem and I should not make personal comments in his direction. Sigh. But then that’s his right to do and I’m okay with that because I am learning.

          5. Dennis, I found something that I think applies to your post:

            Ad Hominem is not fallacious if the attack goes to the credibility of the argument. For instance, the argument may depend on its presenter’s claim that he’s an expert. (That is, the Ad Hominem is undermining an Argument From Authority.) Trial judges allow this category of attacks.

          6. p.s. Dennis, I was referring to the original comment of yours that was seen as Ad Hom. According to the quote I just posted it is not a fallacious Ad Hom for the reason given, and that was my concept and reasoning for not having a problem with what you posted. Everyone can decide for themselves about it.

            Here’s the link for the source of that quote: http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw

            1. Marildi; You have now managed to completely onesidedly point out logical fallacies in posts with those who generally hold a viewpoint contrary to yours and at the same time never point out such fallacy with people with whom you tend to agree and at the same time ferociously defend any inkling of logical fallacies in these people’s comments. And refusing to even attempt to find a logical fallacy in the vast library of LRH’s tech even though you claim to have the desire to improve upon it and despite the fact that the Internet is strewn with claims of logical fallacies in his writings.

              This is an excellent example of bias.

              And you are not awarded the title of Logic Officer.

              From what I have seen so far, there would be two candidates for that post; Maria and Chris.

          7. I admit it Geir, I haven’t been able to spot logical fallacies other than in the critics’ comments. But what I don’t get is why you or somebody else hasn’t done so either. That is to say, point out some fallacies of non-critics that are actually applicable to their comments. I would honestly be interested.

            Also, why doesn’t somebody point out some of LRH’s logical fallacies if they’re so easy to find in the vast LRH library. How about challenging everybody on that too, including the ones who would be eager to find them?

            1. Both of these have been don in plenty – me toward your comments repeatedly on the ARC thread. Alanzo repeatedly regarding many elements of LRH tech. Me toward LRH Admin Tech (which LRH says is INCLUDED in ALL of Scientology – and I did challenge you to spot ANY logical fallacy in ANY of LRH’s writings). But, you simply ignore Alanzo’s points or points out logical fallacies in his comments that doesn’t resolve the logical fallacies he points out in LRH’s writings. Same goes for Vinaire or Chris’ summary of the Anti-Social personality, or, or, or. You disregard, dismiss, defend & justify. Repeatedly.

              Sorry to be harsh to you here. But you have a blind spot. It is time to take off the blinders. Time to face your bias. I love you like a sister and if I am to live on the same blog as you here, I need to shake your world to WAKE YOU UP.

          8. I’ve never said that nothing I have ever posted had any outpoints, by any means. I was talking about comments of mine in the current discussion here as regards logical fallacies. In this discussion is when I started pointing out not just outpoints but specific logical fallacies that were valid whereas those pointed out by critics were not. Unless I am mistaken no one has falsified that idea of mine.

            For example, can you give a specific instance where Alanzo pointed out a logical fallacy that really was one? And as for ignoring the ones he has pointed out – not true either. I have answered every single one, other than repeating my answer more than 3 (maybe even 4) times to one that he kept bringing up and I finally gave up repeating myself on. You may not have been able to keep track of all this and all the other posts too.

            Also, I saw no valid logical fallacy that Chris or Vinaire found in the Anti-Social personality – either specified as such or not. Again, can you give a specific example of one since you feel there were some? I keep requesting specifics on things from people but none have been given – I will happily admit a valid one if for no other reason than it might cool you off a bit.

            Love you too Geir, but believe it or not I could have written a very similar post to yours above, to you. Maybe even, “I need to shake your world to WAKE YOU UP,” as regards your own bias as I see it. Please try to imagine something – I feel just as strongly about your biased filters as you do about mine. Compare your last comment here to my take of it above as an example of why I feel that way in many of our exchanges.

            I know that this comment will probably be seen by you and/or some oithers as utter blind bias and audacity in the extreme. I honestly don’t know what to do except shut up. It has become tedious and frustrating for both of us.

            1. “Love you too Geir, but believe it or not I could have written a very similar post to yours above, to you. Maybe even, “I need to shake your world to WAKE YOU UP,” as regards your own bias as I see it. Please try to imagine something – I feel just as strongly about your biased filters as you do about mine. Compare your last comment here to my take of it above as an example of why I feel that way in many of our exchanges. ”

              The difference being that many others have pointed out your bias. And also that I have repeatedly been pointing out what I see as errors on BOTH SIDES – in your posts, Alanzo’s posts, Vinaire’s posts, Valkov’s posts and several others. You on the other hand have pointed out errors ONLY to one side. This IS bias. The very definition of it.

              I will let Chris, Alanzo and others pitch in to point out the specifics where they themselves have posted such.

              I have no time for another of those debates with you like the one on the ARC triangle.

          9. Gee, I’ve never seen my name tossed around on a blog so much 🙂

            Here is my take on all of this:

            It is well known that there have been NUMEROUS posts along the lines of ‘LRH missed the boat here’ or LRH really didn’t understand such & such’ or ‘Scientology didn’t really handle blah blah’ or … well, you get the drift. These were usually followed by something like ‘This is covered in KHTK blah blah …’

            Now, if we take all those little digs at LRH, and believe me I am not discussing whether LRH data is correct or not, or even effective, BUT, if we substitute Vinaire & KTHK in each of those postings, I would think it would start to wear thin … very thin. I don’t care what is substituted in there, it would still wear thin.

            I am not in this to slag another’s philosophy. I am glad that there are more & more looking & seeking answers to life’s mysteries. If they find an answer that improves their life – all the better.

            On the other hand, my regard for one who continually degrades the beliefs of others or who continually operates in a know-best frame of mind with little knowledge of the area and belittle another’s practice, sits very low on the scale for me. Rather than discuss, it turns into inval & eval. I’ll take it to a degree and I’ll attempt to set the record straight with any knowledge I have but the posters credibility is about zero with me if they persist.

            Does it make me even want to look in to this alternate philosophy – No. If anything, I head the other direction. I don’t want to be like that. I don’t agree nor do I take some superior attitude to make me bigger & others smaller. There’s a little reference LRH gave regarding importance … about the charwoman – might have been out of You can be Right, or Manners … regardless, this type of I know; you don’t attitude is displayed by