An Open Letter to hard core Scientology critics

Geir Isene

Put a ban on Scientology? Outlaw it altogether? Burn the books?

What if everything you didn’t approve of was banned?
Would you be proud of a world like that?

What if a ban was put on what you believed in?
Would that be equally right?

342 thoughts on “An Open Letter to hard core Scientology critics”

  1. Ban on Scientology does not mean ban on knowledge that made Scientology work. That knowledge may appear under another name in much more improved form.

    .

    Reply

  2. Nope.

    Example: I have blogged very little but have been censored to some degree on every opinion blog to which I have written, except this one. This has taught me about censorship and the value of a lack thereof.

    Not liking what another thinks is a personal problem and needs no rules to govern it. For those wanting rules, possibly prohibitions on making prohibitions if that makes any sense.

    Reply

  3. A ban on Scientology will never erase the real knowledge gotten from the research and discovery of the subject. The society will naturally take the good of it and forget the harmful part of it.

    Reply

    1. Without an organization that maintains and protects the quality of the knwoledge, and erases the contributions that is not working, the whole knowledge will turn into some unworkable mass within short time. History has told that before, and the continually work for everybody to keep the knowledge clean is neccessary.

      Reply

          1. He is. Can’t promise I will be able to catch up on all the comments while away. If there is anything in particular you guys want me to comment or address, then please answer this comment right here.

            Reply

    1. Hi Al,

      Thanks for the tip about her blog. I didn’t know she had one and I think it’s a good gradient to direct some people to.

      I read the comment you made there, on the future of Scn – well said. 🙂

      Reply

      1. Here’s why I support Debbie Cook:

        My purpose as a hard core critic of Scientology has always been: to provide the information necessary for people to make informed decisions about to their own involvement in Scientology.

        Debbie Cook said that she would like to see Churches of Scientology made with glass walls – completely open and with nothing to hide.

        This is a much more elegant expression of my own purpose.

        This is definitely a vision that I can support. I believe that, if created and earnestly maintained, this vision would solve almost all the problems that I can see with Scientology.

        I believe that this is the future of Scientology. It’s the one that I have always been working for.

        Debbie Cook’s wording is very inspiring to me.

        Reply

  5. Nothing should be banned.

    Illegal activity should be stopped and prosecuted. If the illegal activity is done in the name of religion and then stopped, that is not a ban on the religion, that is simply applying the law of the land — something the Church of Scientology has been able to successfully evade for decades.

    If the tendency toward harmful activities is inevitably brought about by a combination of Hubbard’s policies, then those policies need to be altered or removed altogether.

    The removal or alteration of policy is not allowed within Scientology and is considered squirrel.

    Therefore, the alteration of the component parts of the Scientology religion that would allow it to be a kind, loving and transparent religion, ultimately turn Scientology into something else that we can no longer call Scientology.

    The good ideas and helpful components should remain and be part of whatever anyone sees fit.

    The words, “Independent Scientologist”, create an oxymoron. There is no such thing as in Independent Scientologist and there never, ever will be. To be an Independent Scientologist is to be something other than a Scientologist.

    Reply

      1. Let me amplify – I agree that nothing should be banned. But neither should anything be enforced.

        I can call myself an Independent Scientologist if I wish, to make a distinction between my own practice and beliefs, and those of the Church as it exists today.

        Those lteral-minded thinkers who claim otherwise are too doctrinaire for me. Like those who claim to know what is the “true” form the Christian, or Muslim, or Buddhist church, temple, or practice must take.

        I believe such are relatively unable to evaluate relative importances and priorities of living.

        Reply

        2. You can call yourself an Independent Scientologist if you wish. That doesn’t make you one by definition or as defined by Scientology scriptures. That’s the only point I was trying to make.

          Reply

          1. Scientology philosophy is senior to Scientology “scripture”, however you define that. If you define them as identical, then Goals and Purposes are senior to Policies, which are nothing more than guidelines to be used to “think with” in evaluating and handling situations that arise.

            The above is actually per LRH “scripture”,if you like that word. The fact that the current Church has inverted that is a problem that exists because of the Church’s failure to see to the training and processing of, first, staff, and then public. The Church is largely being run by people who are below Inhibit on the CDEI scale

            Reply

            1. Unfortunately, no matter how lofty the ideals, goals and purposes are, what is always senior is what ACTUALLY happens in the physical universe.

              There’s a whole lot of nice sounding words and a happy little creed in Scientology, that do not get followed and were never followed even before Miscavige.

              It’s just window dressing.

            2. I guess in your view the Ten commandments, the precepts from Way to Happiness and similar creeds/code would also be ‘window dressing’. After all, they aren’t followed by everyone either.

              Personally, I’d hate to see a world or society with no agreed upon gauge of sane or humane conduct.

              Frankly, the way I see it, these qualities or characteristics are Native to each of us. Even then, it doesn’t mean everyone plays by the same rules.

            3. Sindy, do you not try to follow the Creed to the best of your ability?

              Did not many of your fellow Scientologists try to follow it?

              Do you not try to adhere to it now, in your present life?

              And, what does, and what has, actually happened in the MEST universe?

              Were Releases made? Did people go Clear? Did people learn to audit others, for their benefit?

              In my day, many did, thousands.

              All those things happened because considerations are senior to mechanics of the MEST universe.

              If it is not intended, it doesn’t happen.

              You sound like a down-in-the dumps embittered cynic!

              You have a failed purpose, I dare say. Possibly incidents of failed help. Well, nobody’s perfect.

              Anyway, anytime you helped another be a little freer, a little less oppressed, a little happier, a little more successful, a little brighter, create a slightly safer environment for someone, you helped.

              I think you often try to do those kinds of things.

              The only person who hasn’t tasted the bitter taste of failure is a person who has not tried to achieve anything. It can be a bitter pill. The fact that you taste it shows your high sense of personal responsibility.

              You need to recover your faith in yourself.

              “Life is in you today, and you make your tomorrow”.

              Not to mention, “Never permit your affinity to be alloyed”.

            4. The first things that a person encounters in Scientology are the tools for evaluating others. Most scientologists seem to use these tools to put others down. See the example above.

              This is an observation over a long period of time.

              .

        3. Right.

          I don’t believe anything should be banned except that which is illegal and that is just common sense and the law.

          The law is the only thing that should be enforced.

          Valkov, you say, “Let me amplify – I agree that nothing should be banned. But neither should anything be enforced.”

          Should the law be enforced?

          Reply

          1. Sindy, the dynamic of Church vs. State has been actively in play, in the Western world, for over 2,000 years. The Christian churches have fought for “ecclesiastical freedom” (the right to be self-determined) all that time. Go back to Rome, and Christians being fed to lions in the stadiums of those times

            Secular authority can be just as oppressive as religious authority. At times, the Catholic Church in Europe represented sanctuary from a King’s thugs bent on enforcing the King’s “law”.

            We are outraged by David Miscavige’s use of confessional materials to publicly ‘dead agent’ (discredit) people. Well, the tradition of “priest-penitent privilege” is part of that tradition of religious activity being exempt from secular “law”. Take that away, and you destroy the confidentiality that exists between a psychologist and his client, or that of a lawyer and his client. You make it possible for a State to become a pervasive totalitarian force a la Orwell’s “1984”, in which no-one has any protection against self-incrimination.

            “The law” is not necessarily just. How about Nazi law? Or Soviet “law” under Stalin? Bashar Assad’s “law” says he can have his army level cities in Syria, killing innocent civilians, to quash opposition to his regime. And it’s completely “legal”.

            I’m not claiming to have all the answers, but these are issues that seriously impact our lives.

            Reply

            1. Thanks for your answer Valkov but I don’t feel that you answered my question. Should the Church of Scientology be required to follow the law?

              Certainly separation of church and state does not absolve a cult from liability for physical and mental torture, human trafficking, fraud, false entrapment and horrific harassment (Paulette Cooper) and the many, many other reported atrocities that I trust you know about so, what are you defending here?

              I am not talking about the legal systems of the world being able to take away the right of a religion to protect its parishioners confessions.

              By the way (and I ask you to please do not go off track and only concentrate on this statement), I do not believe the Church of Scientology to be a religious body. I see it as a business and a mind control cult.

            2. Sindy,

              I personally think any church should have to follow the basic civil laws of this country, the USA, and many other countries.

              I have signed every petition that has come along, calling for investigations into The CoS and it’s leadership. There are a couple of new ones on change.org right now.

              I hedge my answer when someone refers to “the law” as a vague generality. This is because of my cosmopolitan background which makes me very aware of how different laws can be in different societies. Here’s an example:

              http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/22/christian-pastor-sentenced-to-death-in-iran-for-abandoning-islam/

              Should this man “follow the law”? His would-be executioners are “only following the law”, right? (“Nuremburg Defense”, to my way of thinking, but OK in their culture apparently.)

              Personally, I think it is an atrocity. That’s why I live here, not there.

              Personally, I think that’s the “barbarism” that LRH referred to.
              The Church of Scientology at it’s highest levels is also the “barbarism” LRH referred to.

              Do I think it’s OK? NO. Do I think the CoS should be subject to the same laws of decent behavior the rest of us follow? Absolutely.

              This includes following the same basic mores we follow. But it has been said, we cannot legislate morality. Not because laws cannot be passed, but because it fundamentally doesn’t work to just pass laws. The USA, for example, has laws upon laws upon laws against just about everything under the sun.

              To some extent, we survive and thrive, when we do, inspite of all the laws we have on the books. When it comes to the things that really matter, it takes taking action. Massive action, to get the legal authorities to act.

              Complaints brought, petitions signed,whatever. Action.

              But to answer your question, I will assume you mean what I feel you must mean, when you say “The CoS should follow the law”, and I will say yes.

              But I am acutely aware that the laws are a real tangle especially when religion is introduced into the mix.

              Since the CoS is recognized as a church by the laws of the country, that’s where we have to start. It makes it harder to prosecute some things. The Headleys are working on it, Debbie Cook is working on it, I hear there are other cases in the works.

              The publicity, the public exposure is what is needed. Massive public exposure is what will eventually bring the CoS down and make it amenable to reform, if it survives at all. If it does survive, it will have a long way to go before it earns back any trust in society. Big time Liability formula to be done there! Lots of actual service to society.

              I do not see the CoS as a business. A business sells products and/or services and delivers them and delivers.

              The CoS barely delivers anything anymore, so I rate it as a scam operation, not a business.

              It seems to me to be similar to the myriad online “business opportunity” scams, or the mail-order opportunity scams of a few years ago. Or the multilevel marketing rah rah meetings business opportunity scams.

              Scams are very common, and hard to fight, and that’s largely what the CoS has become in my eyes.

              If the victims of the more egregious actions of the leadership of the CoS came forward and filed complaints, that would be good.

              The law acts on complaints, or on actually witnessed illegal acts. For example, police do not prevent crimes, they will watch as someone throws a brick through your car window in order to steal your laptop inside, but until the brick is thrown, they have no cause to act. They will watch until the crime is actually committed before their eyes, then they will act.

              I feel Scientologists ought to be held to decent standards of behavior, however that may be done.

              But if you rely on “the law” to do it, don’t hold your breath. It will happen by social action and exposure of their crimes first.

              I entirely agree with this, “Certainly separation of church and state does not absolve a cult from liability for physical and mental torture, human trafficking, fraud, false entrapment and horrific harassment (Paulette Cooper) and the many, many other reported atrocities….”

              What is needed are 1. Witnesses 2. Proof, 3. Complaints filed. Of course this requires lawyers paid etc.,,unless there is overwhelming proof the law can use to get arrest warrants.

              I feel frustrated, too. We just have to persist. Don’t wait for something to happen, though. Move on with your life and keep an eye open for a way you can contribute to the motion of bringing the CoS to justice and back under the law, or at least drive it’s present form out of existence.

              I contributed to Debbie Cook’s defense fund, myself.

    4. True.
      And I think a man who made up a policy like the Fair Game can’t be named a sane person. And of course there is no such thing as Independent Scientologist. That is simply off-policy:) Squirrel.
      Hubbard did not care about his religion becoming a totalitarian sect. He wrote policies even about how to clean windows with newspapers but he did not take time to write policy about such an important matter? Come on!:)
      His own policies are at the core of Scientology coming to this state.
      He even foreseen this in the PDC Lectures.

      Reply

      1. I don’t agree with this view at all, that there is no such thing as “Independent Scientologist”. In fact I believe LRH intended ALL Scientologists to be independent. That is the whole point of increasing a person’s ability and self-determinism. It is an absurdity to talk about that,, and at the same time insist that a person not think and blindly follow policy. That is the current Church’s line, not the LRH philosophical line.

        HCO PL 23 Oct 63, Refund Policy, OEC Vol 3:
        “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and
        the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All
        he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That
        was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff
        as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s
        the whole story of the GPM’s. So why not have live orgs?”

        This has been debated on various blogs and forums, for example:

        CW wrote:

        Valkov: I disagree 100% with this.

        This is in fact the existing CoS party line, not the LRH philosophical line. Why forward it? (Well, this is a rhetorical question – I
        know why you do.)

        If it’s not up to me, who is it up to? It is exactyly up to me and no-one else, to say whether I am a Scientologist or not.

        You are presenting logical fallacies of reification and appeal to (non-existent) authority. I or anyone, can take a philosophy and develop
        an understanding of it, for myself and by myself.

        I don’t have to, and neither do you, accept and be bound by another’s understanding of it. Oh, you can if you
        need/want to – some people need/want to follow priests/gurus/authorities instead of thinking for themselves. Some people need the structure
        of dogmatic belief. That’s actually OK. That’s what institutionalized religions are for. See quote below.

        But I can study a philosophy and call myself a Scientologist or a Buddhist or a Zoroastrian without referenceto any other outside authority,
        but based simply on my understanding of the teachings themselves.

        I am a Scientologist or not, based on my perception of and agreement with the philosophy, nothing else. I could start my own “church”
        or “religion” and it could be very different from the CoS in letter and in spirit, just as there are many different churches and groups, but
        all “Christian”, based on the same basic teachings. That’s the difference between a “philosophy” and a “religion”.

        CW wrote:

        This is your interpretation in which you are dubbingin and adding arbitrary significances. He clearly says ‘policy’, not ‘other policy’
        or ‘wog policy’ or anything else.

        Here is a discussion from another blog that has already said it, and better than I could:

        Old Auditor wrote:
        “I remember an LRH comment in some early HCOPL that Third Dynamic Tech was “material to think with” rather than an exact procedure like
        auditing commands, etc.

        It struck me as quite appropriate at the time because I was already beginning to notice how rote following of policy caused upsets with
        public and diminished the credibility of church management.

        Brings to mind the Admin Scale. At the top are Goals, Purposes and then follows Policy. Goals and Purposes are senior to Policy. Somehow
        the Admin Scale has flipped and Policy has become senior to Goals and Purposes within the Church and sometimes within ones own thinking.
        A new day dawns when one really gets it that Goals and Purposes are senior and that Policy is the SUGGESTED route to achieve said
        Goals/Purposes. If the Policy doesn’t work, find out why. If necessary, toss it out and formulate one that does.”

        Jim Logan // January 29, 2010 at 6:13 pm | Reply

        Old Auditor,
        That PL is 11 May 70, Third Dynamic Tech:
        “In its present state of development, like early auditing material, Third Dynamic Tech is used to think with, and only the
        bright mind will achieve its full potential in action. L. Ron Hubbard, FOUNDER”

        Old Cuff, WH, and FT,
        I found the one I was thinking of. FT, it was in the time period of the Time Track of Theta and Milestone series, it’s from the Hubbard
        College Lectures of Mar 52, #27. Here’s the part I was thinking of:

        “…because whenever a religion- you see, a religion is different than a religious philosophy,
        very different – a religion is that thing which is given as a package to a people about which they are not supposed to reason, and under
        thought and duress is used to control that
        people onerously. And you find many of these religions are completely bare of aesthetics. And then when they come up to higher
        levels of action, they actually get up toward theta for a while, and then they will slide back into a MEST religion wholly. They very
        seldom rise up. That is why an individual is almost never a mystic and a religious person at the same time. We need differentiation in
        those categories in order to understand that anything used as a control mechanism is the MEST universe.”

        So we’re back to this:

        HCO PL 23 Oct 63, Refund Policy, OEC Vol 3:
        “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and
        the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All
        he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That
        was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff
        as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s
        the whole story of the GPM’s. So why not have live orgs?”

        The original intention of Scientology was and still is, to make a person more able to observe, think, and decide for himself. Ie, more, not less, Independent, less a Sheep.

        Reply

        1. “LRH intended ALL Scientologists to be independent.”

          Look, he wrote the policies for the Church to keep Scientologists together. The OT materials can’t exist without the Church. He wrote the SO orders which are secret for the public. The SO is responsible for upper level materials. The SO is the Church on the highest level. He did not speak about two or three independent Churches. He did not made a Plan B in case of the Church becoming suppressive, it is even the sign of madness to think that the Church or Church members are suppressive. See Ethics book. Although it is strange as we could see former Church members declared, probably even by Hubbard.

          So I do not get this independency. What you talk about is the 1st (and not even 7th) dynamic philosophy of Scientology which is replaced on the “upper” dynamics by the third dynamic Scientology admin tech which subordinates the whole Scientology 1st dynamic tech to the Scientology Factories: Orgs, Sea Orgs, etc…

          The proof to the failure of Scientology are the public who support the current regime. Even criticism is forbidden. Scientology admin tech is George Orwell’s 1984 and written by the same man, who put together the 1st dynamic tech.

          Utterly 1.1 to the core.

          Reply

          1. gOd, I understand what you are saying about how the Scientology orgs actually ARE in present time. And I understand that they USE LRH quotes to JUSTIFY how they are.

            It is my opinion that they are in fact NOT operating in accordance with LRH’s wishes. They are operating AGAINST LRH’s wishes.

            For example, LRH clearly states that a thetan is basically SENIOR to Policy, and that the Ideal Scene is to have “live orgs”, not bureaucracies robotically following Policy.

            A “live org” being an organization of independent, self-determined, thinking, obnosing, responsive and in Two-way Communication beings working together to accomplish purposes they agree upon and trust each other to be following.

            One of the fallacies involved in the way the Church has been operating is that Self-determinism cannot be enforced, but it can be allowed.

            But it is not being allowed and that is exactly how the Church is failing LRH. The whole purpose of Scientology is to increase, among other qualities, Self-determinism.

            Maybe those who don’t think so, really do need to go back and review the Basics.

            Reply

      2. gODd: “And of course there is no such thing as Independent Scientologist. That is simply off-policy:) Squirrel. ”

        You laugh at policy on one hand & side with it when it serves your purpose.

        There’s a difference between squirrel & splinter.

        gODd: “His own policies are at the core of Scientology coming to this state.”

        Maybe the ‘church’ and how they were applied.

        Scientology? uhh … no.

        Policy has to do with the organization, not the philosophy.

        Reply

        1. Hi Dennis,

          I’m always so glad when the cavalry arrives – or should I say the Mounties (Mounty?) the Force? 🙂

          Hey, I saw your comment on Marty’s blog the other day – where you and your wife “outed” yourselves. Well done!

          Reply

          1. Hi Marildi,

            Well, we have been out and have been on the Indy 500 list for quite sometime.

            I have posted on Marty’s site number of times under a couple of names since near the beginning but not for the last few months.

            I thought the Debbie Cook post deserved recognition … after all I do like rebels, conscientious objectors and those who buck group agreement or the ‘system’ 🙂

            Reply

            1. Gotcha. Well then, I agree – perfect time to re-take your vows as a rebel, conscientious objector and buck-the-system-kind-of-guy. 😀

        2. There were much dispute about what is Scientology. IMO you can’t say that policy is not Scientology although many times it seems 180° reverse. Do you think Scientology is managed, admined by some other system which is not compatible with it? Admin and policy is 3rd dynamic Scientology philosophy. And source material. You should comply.

          Squirrel and splinter is not different Scientology wise. Ethics Book says about this:

          Using the trademark unauthorized. I guess you will not authorized by the Church to use the trademarks. Also you can’t use the materials unauthorized.

          Also, you can’t deny anyone who is in good standing with the Church like DM or can’t criticize without a proper ethics action. I guess committee of evidence.

          Continuing to be part of a divergent group.

          Etc.

          Although Hubbard at most references does not says Church but only Scientology, there are the admin tech, which states the use of Scientology as an organization. And that is the actual Church, otherwise he would not say about splinter or divergent groups I guess.

          I do not laugh on policy, I just smiled and not on the policy but on the Catch-22 of the situation and of the Catch-22 nature of Scientology as well:D

          Hubbard said things and said very different or just the opposite of those things he told before. On many occasions.

          If there would be a searchable database on about what Hubbard said, you would be surprised. Just type in “definition of Clear” for example.

          “There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one’s safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle. (p. 56, ch. 5)”

          Reply

          1. Those who are unable to sort for importance and seniority probably ought to either follow policy as best they can, or find a different role or even a different game, one they are more suited for.

            Reply

            1. Valkov, just to be practical, how do you propose that the CoS managment will ” sort ” the importance of lrh policy, issuing board policy letters, scientology policy directives, ????

            4. The management Policies are all compiled in volumes. What does management need to issue?

  6. If you have been visiting WWP, you will see that there are indeed those who advocate a ban on the subject itself. They would perhaps happily join the thought police as long as the police is working for what they believe in.

    Reply

    1. Agreed.

      I understand their viewpoint. Because Hubbard intentionally took the technology of brainwashing as used Mao and North Korea and Stalin and others, and embedded it into Scientology. For that reason I can see why people would say it should be banned.

      But I believe in the freedom of speech, of thought, and of religion. And so, for me, it is much more workable to allow Scientology to exist, and then to hold it up to others as what NOT to do. It can be very instructive in that way, and serve a good purpose – while allowing everyone to be free to choose their own path.

      This I see as the Golden Mean with regard to Scientology.

      Plus, if Scientology wasn’t around any more, I could no longer be a hard core critic of the Penthouse/Hustler/XXX kind. I would much rather this than than being a soft core Playboy/Maxim/Cinemax After Hours kind of critic.

      Thank you.

      Alanzo

      Reply

      1. All the control mechanisms Hubbard built into the organizational aspects of Scientology need to be viewed in the light of the original Goals and Purposes of Scientology, as laid out in LRH lectures and written materials from the early and mid-1950s.

        Goals and Purposes are senior to Policy (control mechanisms).

        Reply

          1. I think Hubbard says in KSW to follow 100% what he told. So he told sane things earlier, so you should follow the sane things as well. This can be a solution. The problem is that he told insane things later. For a long time I disregarded Fair Game policy, but it existed. Only a madman can write things like that. “Probably” that was not his only mad idea.

            Reply

            1. Hubbard also cancelled Fair Game in 1968, not very long after creating it.

            2. Valkov: So, what if he cancelled Fair Game? Just think about it. He must be a madman to put that into force in the first place. That is just a policy. But behind that policy is a frame of mind. And that matters…

            3. I suggest you study the history and the context of it. Perhaps it is as you say, he was in a “crazy” frame of mind when he came up with it. OK. So, what was “driving him crazy”? What was he reacting to? What would you have done instead, in response to whatever factors he was responding to?

              My point is, policies don’t just arise out of a vacuum. Policies arise and are developed in response to perceived problems, and are attempts to solve the problems.

              So what problem was Hubbard attempting to solve with such a policy? And how would you solve it instead?

              I would venture to say: No-one is sane 100% of the time. No-one is insane 100% of the time.

          2. It would be KSW to follow this:

            HCO PL 23 Oct 63, Refund Policy, OEC Vol 3:
            “The more thetan you have present, the less policy you need and
            the better things run. Only a thetan can handle a post or a pc. All
            he needs is the know-how of minds as contained in Scientology. That was all he ever lacked. So, given that, sheer policy is poor stuff as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be. That’s the whole story of the GPM’s. So why not have live orgs?”

            Wouldn’t it?

            Reply

          3. According to me, it’s perfectly OK to understand KSW in a way that makes sense, in light of the overall basic purpose of Scientology and of processing.

            Reply

      2. Alonzo: ” Because Hubbard intentionally took the technology of brainwashing as used Mao and North Korea and Stalin and others, and embedded it into Scientology. ”

        Same old spin …

        Surely there are more efficient ways to accomplish such a goal rather than researching for countless hours, recording thousands of hours of lectures, let alone all the written literature, course layouts, etc, etc.

        Do you actually believe what you write? 🙂

        Reply

        1. Well, if the Hubbard’s goal was, let’s say, an army of partly rehabilitated beings, that he could use to make his intentions happen, then I’m afraid what Alanzo says makes a perfect sense.

          Reply

            3. Rafael Sánchez Núñez says : 2012-02-22 at 00:27

              Dennis, a very real one if you see the current facts.

              I see the current facts quite well.

              We have all seen a lot over the years – good and bad.

              As for the tech, for me it was great. As for policy, and as a tech terminal, I used what was workable for me, my post and that’s about it. I used what was workable – routing forms, comm system, admin series, Service PL, Manners PL, and a few other jewels.

              As for some of the BS tech/ethics/policy used to stop I saw being used on others; I wasn’t interested, nor did I consider it what LRH wanted. I never subjected my students or fellow staff members to it.

              Those who fall into either of the extremes (the church can do no wrong or it is all bad) are equally nuts in my book.

              One’s ability to differentiate is key as is one’s intention when applying this stuff.

              It can be used to help or harm

            4. Dennis, it is good on your part to have been one of those few who do not followed the bad policy/tech/admin but this led you off CoS lines, you are in better condition now but how many are still drinking koolaid ?

        2. Al believes life is best portrayed as a series of graphic novels. Think of the possibilities for such that Scientology offers!

          Reply

            1. There is a lot of truth to what you say there. Marty posted this in comments recently. It is one I have always liked:

              THE GOAL OF SCIENTOLOGY:
              The end object of Scientology is not the making into nothing of all of existence or the freeing of the individual of any and all traps everywhere. The goal of Scientology is making the individual capable of living a better life in his own estimation and with his fellows and the playing of a better game.

              – L Ron Hubbard
              29 May 1956, Causation and Knowledge

    2. Agree Geir,

      These are part of the same group who enforce scriptures of the ‘Good Book’ held high in one hand, and holding a rifle in the other.

      They are all thought police – just a change of uniform.

      Reply

  7. I can’t really say I am in any of the categories of open letters, but there isn’t one for those who have moved on.

    I offer a video that explains the new group I find myself to be in: Planetary Citizen, Citizen of the Universe.

    The video is 35 minutes long and for me, speaks to all the questions on all the open letters:

    Reply

  8. Yes, let’s join forces!

    But first, a fun little quote I found:

    “Are you a God?” they asked the Buddha.
    “No,” he replied.
    “Are you an angel, then?”
    “No.”
    “A saint?”
    “No”
    “Then what are you?”
    Replied the Buddha, “I am awake.”

    Reply

    2. Here’s a trick question:

      When one is Awake, to what extent is One actually “part” of any “group”?

      Reply

        1. Then the difference is, that when Awake, one knows he is. But when one is Asleep, one does not know he is?

          Reply

            1. My question is rhetorical. Asked and answered. “Awareness of awareness” (or awareness of unawareness. Or unawareness of unawareness. Etc.)

            2. OK, then, Buddha will answer.

              Don’t focus on self. That will lead you astray!
              Focus on inconsistencies.

              .

  9. “Crises as Drivers

    Crises are generally seen as undesirable; they imply danger and potential misfortune. There are good reasons for this. A crisis is a sign that the old ways are no longer working, and something new is being called for. In such times there can be very real danger; if appropriate responses are not made rapidly, then the old order may begin to collapse.

    This is all too possible with humanity today. If we do not address the deeper spiritual issues underlying the many problems we face, it is very likely that civilization will fall apart.

    On the other hand, any crisis, big or small, personal or planetary, also presents an opportunity — something the ancient Chinese seemed well aware of. Their word for crisis, wei-chi, is written as a combination of two characters, one meaning “danger,” the other “opportunity.” The opportunity may not always be easy to see, but it is always there. It is the chance to remedy what is wrong and move on to a new way of being.

    In this respect crises are a challenge — the challenge to recognize what is no longer working and seize the opportunity to learn, make changes, and progress. As such, crises can play a crucial role in evolution.

    The Opportunity

    This is the real opportunity nestling within our global crisis: the opportunity to develop a new mode of consciousness — a new way of seeing, and a new way of thinking. This could be the new evolutionary adaptation waiting to emerge. Not, as we have seen, a biological adaptation — there is no time for that, and even if we could genetically re-engineer ourselves, it would not hit at the heart of the problem. What the crisis is driving us towards is inner change — a transformation into truly wise human beings, no longer fettered by self-centeredness.

    It is driving us towards a new perception of ourselves; a new sense of purpose; a new way of being. We are being forced to awaken from our dream.”

    http://www.peterrussell.com/WUIT/Challenge.php

    Reply

    1. Good quote, Maria. It’s a correct viewpoint, IMO – yours and mine and it seems many others. Thanks for posting this!

      Reply

  11. I understand you and it seems we do not agree. No problem.

    I see this way: The problem with this: “LRH clearly states that a thetan is basically SENIOR to Policy” is that LRH than creates a system which just can’t be operated else than overwhelming the thetan. And making policy senior to the thetan. You can’t by-pass this system of policy. The pigs are enforcing policy.

    suggested reading:
    Orwell: Animal Farm

    Scientology was set up as a samsara within samsara. It is dualistic and that is the trap itself.

    Processing and philosophy:
    mostly white, good. Makes you follow policy/admin.

    Policy/Admin:
    mostly black, bad, dictatoric. Rips off your gains and sanity.

    This above is yin-yang.
    This keeps Scientology in motion (for a while).

    Reply

    1. I don’t see where we disagree. Just follow the processing and philosophy. Be senior to policy by viewing and judging policy by the light of the philosophy and you will be fine.

      Because as soon as you start to blindly follow Policy, you lose the light of the Philosophy.

      Today,the Church organizations have mostly lost the light of the philosophy.

      That’s how I see it.

      Reply

      1. Valkov, can you tell us the practical ways to bring the light of scientology philosopy back to the current dedicated scientologist ( and independents too ). IN THE REAL LIFE VALKOV.

        Reply

        1. Perhaps a start would be to have both types of Scientologists apply the precepts in The Way to Happiness, not only to their own interactions with others and in their lives, but when adjudicating how best to interpret the works of Scientology on a general basis. It really shouldn’t be all that difficult to do or at least to try to do.

          Reply

        2. I have no method worked out to deal with the dedicated. I can only mention guidelines which I believe in because I worked in psychiatry for many years.

          In fact, I agree with Geir that when trying to handle a dedicated in person, it will take very good auditors working on the correct gradient for each person.

          Scientology Zero – they need a safe environment. The best way, although it may seem to take too long, is to create a safe environment out here

          It is best to assume they need Locationals to get oriented because of their Confusion. There is no way to FORCE a psychotic to get well. FORCE only makes a psychotic worse. If force must be used against a psychotic, it is only when it is the lesser of two evils.

          Otherwise, they must be approached with a high tone and good roads, with the message that it is better out here than it is in there.

          Many prisoners are afraid to get out of jail, this is a fact. Same with a church. They feel “Better the devil I know, than the devil I don’t know.”

          I guess I don’t believe there is any “magic bullet”, and “one-shot clear(of the CoS).

          If you have any contacts inside, the best thing to do is communicate with honesty to them in such a way as to offer hope.

          Remember the 2 rules for happy living and have a VERY good comm cycle.

          Also, make sure you have your Act One in. Your intention will make the difference.

          Reply

            1. Here are a couple of my fantasies about reaching the “DEDICATED”. They require more money than I have to spend.

              1. Full-sized billboards placed near orgs, so they can be seen by people coming and going from the orgs, with messages such as this:

              GET YOUR STANDARD BRIDGE IN THE FREEZONE

              COSTS LESS, FASTER AND MORE STANDARD, NO REGING FOR EXTRA DONATIONS.

              CALL 1-800-xxx-xxxx OR VISIT

              www. LRH STANDARD AUDITING .COM

              2. Remember the USA Today ads the CoS ran back in the 1990s? They were killer! Full 2 page interior spreads running for several weeks! Something like those giving the truth about the current state of the CoS and it’s Management, and then alternative – Freezone and Independents outside the CoS.

      2. I see your point and that is the sane view. But people are different. The Sea Org does not made of OTs. And even OTs support DM.
        And when you have an organization how can you avoid to follow policy? Each and every person has his own view of matters. Besides there are plenty references that Ron wants you to follow policy. KSW is the most known amongst these.
        What you say is logical and fine but in practice it can’t work.
        LRH wrote the policies for you to follow.

        Reply

        1. That means the follwoing

          (A) If you follow policy then you are not thinking for yourself.

          (B) OTs are following policy.

          (C) OTs are not able to think for themselves.

          (D) Therefore, OTs are unable to see DM as a suppressive person.

          What does this tell you about Scientology? Does Scientology work?

          .

          Reply

          1. LOL Simply amazing how you knit all that together.

            Thanks for the chuckles Vin 🙂

            Reply

            1. That’s all! You have nothing more to say!

              You ought to be defending more with some logic.

              .

              .

          2. Your logic is faulty, Vin. an OT might follow policy after having thought about it and decided to follow it on a self-determined basis. Or, an OT might follow it blindly without thinking about it.

            The premises determine the conclusion, and your premises don’t include the 2 different possibilities, which would lead to 2 different conclusions.

            Reply

        2. Looks like Scientology can give you highs like drugs can.

          But Scientology does not necessarily make one rational.

          It takes a lot more than Scientology for a person to become rational.

          .

          Reply

  12. I was just over at possiblyhelpfuladvice.com and Old Auditor posted the following quotation:

    “Standard technology is contained in HCOBs. It actually isn’t contained in any of the books of Dianetics and Scientology. Did you ever realize that? Modern technology is not contained in any of the hardcover books, or any of the other books. It’s contained in HCOBs, Hubbard Communications Office Bulletins, and there they just run off one after the other. And one of these fine days I suppose we will roll up our sleeves and publish them all in consecutive order, all corrected so that nothing ever corrects anything in the bulletins and make it very, very easy. But we will have to put them probably in about seven or eight or ten different volumes, because there are quite a few of them. But that’s standard technology. They’re on white paper printed with red ink. If I haven’t signed it, it isn’t true. And that’s standard technology. — (SHSBC 434 The Classification Chart and Auditing 26 July 66)”

    That certainly could help to sort things out.

    Reply

    1. And then read that against this:

      “We have some time since passed the point of achieving uniformly workable technology.

      The only thing now is getting the technology applied.

      If you can’t get the technology applied then you can’t deliver what’s promised. It’s as simple as that. If you can get the technology applied, you *can* deliver what’s promised.

      The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is ‘no results.’ Trouble spots occur only where there are ‘no results.’ Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are ‘no results’ or ‘bad results.'”

      Reply

        1. Of course you do. You are neither a current dedicated Scientologist or an Independent. I wasn’t answering your question, I was answering Rafael’s question:

          “Valkov, can you tell us the practical ways to bring the light of scientology philosopy back to the current dedicated scientologist ( and independents too ). IN THE REAL LIFE VALKOV.”

          Its a good question. And the answer is suitable for that group of people. It has no meaning or value for others.

          Reply

      2. Maria, the problem I see is that after the Lisa Mc. pherson death in the scientology fort harrison hotel, there has been a change of enfasis on training and auditing worldwide coming from the int managment. The purpose of create huge amounts of auditor is risky because more similar cases can happen and scientology will be in a serious and real risk of been banned. So it is less riskful to ask money for any other thing or activity than to ask money for training and processing.

        Reply

        1. Yes, that certainly could be a factor. But I am not sure that the slide away from training auditors starts there, as I recall it started with a campaign called – Train for Gain – in the late 70s or early 80s. The idea being that one would do auditor training just to get personal case gain rather than learning how to audit so as to then audit people professionally or otherwise. As I recall this happened during the same time period that NOTs was released – late 70s — probably 1979. I think that it is more that the SO derives DIRECT income from delivering NOTs — they only get a small percentage of the income from training and auditing delivered at Missions and Class4 orgs. Gotta feed all those SO staff you know.

          Reply

          1. Maria, as you may know, I was Finance Inspector and can tell you that the S.O. staff is badly attended on first dynamic. Most of the real income goes to bank reserves ( local and international). The more income derived is from IAS, Ideal Org., various donations,etc.

            Reply

            1. I know. It is so messed up. But the original idea was that the management 10%s and the advanced org income was to support the SO orgs. It was not enough then and with them applying the idea of infinite expansion in terms of staff recruiting, it still is not enough and probably will never be enough.

            2. Maria, these are enlightening posts between you and Rafael especially regarding finance. In fact, by any business standard, Scientology always brought in plenty of money to be viable and to expand. As Finance Inspector, Rafael knows this. The SO Reserves, IAS, etc. are holding obscene amounts of money squirreled away by an criminal intellect unable to comprehend exchange. As counter-intuitive as it seems, Scientology’s ultimate failure to expand has been brought about by those in charge of financial planning who have been unwilling to expand.

              Most people, critic or not, comment about the ease with which people are gotten interested in Scientology. LRH even said this that Scientology naturally expanded and where it didn’t one could find someone (part of his SP tech) with the brakes on to prevent it from expanding. Who knew or could have guessed this would come from the top and continuously since when? The 60’s? The 70’s? The 80’s? . . . ? LRH’s “5.4X the stats” birthday game was never realistic, nor was it possible, nor was it necessary or a healthy growth factor. Thus, LRH’s present to Scientology was an annual loss of self-esteem for failing to give him his requested birthday present.

              Like a Third Reich or other somesuch crowing about a new millennium of enlightenment; could the seeds of ultimate failure have been planted since the earliest days by the computations of a brilliant and charming madman? Without a firm foundation of transparency and honesty, “The Aims of Scientology” though beautiful sentiment, ring hollow.

              “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.” (1st Corinthians Ch.13:1.)

            3. Chris, I rather doubt that LRH was a madman. But I do know for a fact that he messed up. BIG TIME. The SO was built over the top of a rapidly expanding and wholly successful Mission network. That network was destroyed in 1982 and there went the feeder organizations to the ever expanding monster called the SO. It was stupidity and arrogance, stemming from a complete misduplication of the real existing scene and that was because the Mission holders success camouflaged the fact that the orgs and Sea Org actually were completely INCOMPETENT on the new public line. And they continue to be incompetent. In fact they are complete blithering idiots. You have to be an idiot to be able to drive people away that successfully. They thought they knew what they were doing and thought that they were upstat and really all they were doing was riding the crest of the wave generated by the Mission holders. This was blindness to the nth degree, blindness. BLIND.

              If you ever had the misfortune to watch the introductory video that became required watching for someone being introduced to Scientology, (made by the DM crew) you would understand why there are so few new people getting on the bridge.

              To get someone past the IAS regges, the building reges and those stupid Div 6 courses and onto any kind of service that really delivers the goods is a monumental task, nearly impossible. Cripes, they are recruiting new people for billion dollar contracts before they have even done a REAL TRs course, never mind get any gains from any auditing.

            4. Good comments Maria,

              In the Mission I was in we had just qualed as a Class IV Org. Shortly after (likely 1974 or 75) the GO & SO came in.

              It was apparent that things became secretive, general communication subdued, staff rip-offs from the Org which hindered delivery, and the start of a long chain of goldenrod declares/lower condition assignments ensued.

              The result was students/pcs/staff running around with a hunted look, which hunts with productive staff being declared or put on the decks project force. A real mess it was. Most staff left within 1-2 years. When I routed off, the HGC was shut down, Div 6 was almost non-existent whereas before there was a constant stream of public routing from Div 6 onto Academy courses, the Qual terminal was which-hunted & declared and the HAS was a loon.

              I later moved to the Cont Org and the situation worsened.

              Heavy regging, fraudulent mortgage & credit card cycles, GBSing accounts, double FSM commisions … you name it.

              Despite writing reports nothing was done. I remember being hauled in by the DSA at the time & told to stop writing reports as both staff reges & public FSMs were bringing money in despite the fact there were rip-offs of elderly (senile), multimillion dollar mortgage fraud ripping off both staff & public, a $400,000 lawsuit, and numerous bankruptcies & financial crimes.

              Then, the IAS stepped in and took this to a whole new level …

              Most of the SO staff at the time had not a clue about Scientology and pushed a plethora of programs down onto the Org – later on most of these programs were just being churned out by Int without proper eval or realistic targets.

              The unsmiling robots turned what was once a friendly place to meet up with friends into a gauntlets of regges yelling for your plastic (credit cards), heavy ethics at the slightest ‘CI’ and one of the biggest stat pushes in history.

            6. Sheesh … sorry about the spelling mistakes

              witch-hunts 🙂

            7. No problem here. I got it.

              (Non-seq comment of mine:) Another difference between this blog and some others is that the writers here really care if they are communicating clearly and are self-correcting. Whereas in other places where the service facs are more firmly entrenched you see comments “correcting” the language and spelling of others as a make wrong.

            8. “In the Mission I was in we had just qualed as a Class IV Org. Shortly after (likely 1974 or 75) the GO & SO came in.”

              That was very much under LRH’s watch. I was on Apollo at that time and knew LRH was fully aware of this. In fact he was ordering it.

              .

            9. Vinaire wrote:

              “In the Mission I was in we had just qualed as a Class IV Org. Shortly after (likely 1974 or 75) the GO & SO came in.”

              That was very much under LRH’s watch. I was on Apollo at that time and knew LRH was fully aware of this. In fact he was ordering it.

              And here we have eyewitness testimony from someone who was actually there.

              Will this information change the minds of those who are energetically avoiding their own disillusionment?

              Probably not all of them. Some people have the courage to face the colossal catastrophe that the collapse of Scientology in their own lives represents to them. Others don’t.

              I can tell you that life opens up and continues to expand once you have come to terms with the collapse of Scientology in your life. Many new opportunities present themselves which were not available while Scientology occupied so much of your mental space.

              The proof is everywhere available now. Scientology does not do what it said it did. It was created for reasons completely different than you were told. And it was run for reasons completely different than you believed.

              Moving on from Scientology allows you to take in new information and to keep progressing on the same purpose line you had when you came into Scientology. People leave Scientology for the same reasons they got involved in the first place.

              Nothing is lost.

              And much more is gained.

            10. “. . . People leave Scientology for the same reasons they got involved in the first place. Nothing is lost. And much more is gained.”

              This was true for me and I estimate is the viewpoint-shift needed to get recent apostates feeling better about themselves and more hopeful toward their futures.

            11. Dennis, you said: In the Mission I was in we had just qualed as a Class IV Org. Shortly after (likely 1974 or 75) the GO & SO came in.

              What you describe happening when your Mission came under the Org networks is exactly what I am talking about. BLIND arrogance. A complete refusal to LOOK at the existing scene.

              I well remember the SO “missions” coming into our area. My God they were arrogant and STUPID. They hauled in one of our public Scientologists, a woman that was deeply respected and well known in the area and accused her of a “local power push” because she had the audacity to get together with a bunch of Scientologists and discuss VM type programs to do in the local area. The next time they called her she told them she was moving to Los Angeles to do her OT levels. She understood correctly that they could not SEE and would BLINDLY false report. What she didn’t know was that this was RAMPANT in the SO and GO networks. She was never again seen at the local org or Mission. And the people that knew her followed suit. She NEVER said one word against them. But her actions spoke louder than any words could ever have spoken.

              How do I know this? Because I spoke to the Missionaires who gave me this BULLSHIT story. I know for a fact that she never engaged in a power push or did anything that was antagonistic to the Mission, Org, SO or GO — I was at many of her get togethers which were held in the local Org chapel! She was all about doing the right thing, with real and high ARC, connecting up with the community in truly helpful ways and learning to be an auditor.
              What a crime! NOT!

              Now, how do you think this event was reported to upline management? Do you think the SO Missionaires reported that they STUPIDLY antagonized EVERYONE they encountered? No. No they didn’t. They FALSELY reported that she was engaged in a local power push and that was the data that uplines management got and acted on. STUPID. BLIND. ARROGANT.

              They did not even SEE her. And frankly I don’t think they could.

              They covered their asses. They were INCOMPETENT and they needed to SHIFT THE BLAME. So they found only data to report that served to cover their own asses. Why? Because they didn’t know they were INCOMPETENT. So upper management decisions were based on FALSE REPORTS. The entire NEW Div 6 line based on FALSE REPORTS.

              They could not SEE. PERIOD.

              The real report should have been something along the lines of: we fucked up big time. We antagonized every person we encountered. We dropped the tone level from cheerfulness to fear. And the public stayed away in droves.

              So I am not much for the multiple viewpoint system. It is FLAWED because BLIND, STUPID people COVER THEIR ASSES!!! And they are STUPID because they cover their asses. THIS MAKES PEOPLE STUPID.

            12. Now just in case anyone thinks I think this STUPIDITY is confined to the SO or GO, think again. I see it on forums both pro and anti Scientology.

              I see people who are very well intended, who have good ARC and who are not busy COVERING THEIR ASSES and being RIGHT and being ARROGANT come onto these forums and blogs who make sincere and reasoned comments get SLAMMED from here to kingdom come held in UTTER CONTEMPT by oh-so righteous critics who do not READ what they say but instead hammer them with insults and BULLSHIT claims and all kinds of provocative nonsense intended to UPSET them and HURT them and oh yes, TEACH THEM in the most ARROGANT AND STUPID fashion.

              And then when the person gets tripped up, having been provoked beyond all reason by the ABSOLUTE REFUSAL to read and comprehend what they have ACTUALLY said, then jeering fingers are pointed at them — see — you are just one of those skanky Scientologists.

              That is what I see. And I see it OFTEN.

              And then when this ARROGANCE is called to task I see COVER MY ASS, I am just trying to help you, poor blind little baby.

              My God. That is EXACTLY what happened in the SO and the GO. No duplication, no looking, no willingness to even SEE the other person and ACKNOWLEDGE that there actually might be something different than the story told to COVER MY ASS.

              You want to blame LRH for this nonsense — go ahead. But realize that when you do this you are just looking for another reason why. The why is NOT GOD or LRH or some fucked up teacher you had in your past. The WHY is a complete unwillingness to say with humility and TRUE remorse — I FUCKED UP. I slammed that persons head against the wall because I could not get a handle on my own freaking impulses to hurt and harm another so I could COVER MY FUCKING ASS.

              Geir had a post on this blog about responsibility. This is responsibility. Not SHIFTING THE BLAME. Actually looking at what one is doing and not making up another freaking STORY to make yourself look good. Sure. You might have to eat some shit along the way. But maybe you need to.

              You want a solution? Teach people to SEE. And that includes seeing their own SHIT.

            13. Oh, and one more thing.

              That’s why I had to move on. This cannot be solved from within a specific group. It has to be solved from the larger context of the society we live in and people taught to see and look and recognize when they are telling themselves stories and seeking to cover their asses.

              Consider the machinations of politics. What we are seeing is corporations, governments, groups, people in general who got used to being able to hide their shit confronted with the unlovely prospect of having their crap exposed. And the answer to it has been to attempt to suppress having their crap exposed — oh yeah, lets slam the wikileaks owner — he is a bad bad guy — we must stop him. We need to suppress the Internet — we can’t have this free for all of exposure.

              This mechanism of BLAMING and SHIFTING BLAME has got to go. People need to start being a little bit courageous. Yes, I did that — I did it because I lost my temper and I wanted to hurt that other person because that’s all I know how to do in this situation. Not – I did it because she is a BAD person who needs to be PUNISHED. BULLSHIT. You want to fix a bad person then FIX the bad person — don’t kill them or make them even worse or compound the BADNESS by repeating the BADNESS yourself.

              The cavalry has arrived. It has a name.

              That name is RESTORATIVE PRACTICE.

              “The fundamental premise of restorative practices is that people are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make positive changes when those in authority do things WITH them, rather than TO them or FOR them.“

              “When authorities do things with people, whether reactively—to deal with crisis, or proactively— in the normal course of school or business, the results are almost always better. This fundamental thesis was evident in a Harvard Business Review article about the concept of “fair process” in organizations (Kim and Mauborgne, 1997). The central idea of fair process is that “…individuals are most likely to trust and cooperate freely with systems—whether they themselves win or lose by those systems—when fair process is observed.”

              The three principles of fair process are:

              Engagement—involving individuals in decisions that affect them by listening to their views and genuinely taking their opinions into account
              Explanation—explaining the reasoning behind a decision to everyone who has been involved or who is affected by it
              Expectation clarity—making sure that everyone clearly understands a decision and what is expected of them in the future“

              And while the C of S has been busy covering its ass, this movement has found its way into the criminal justice system and is now making its way into the schools. Its practical, and its easy to teach and it does make a HUGE difference.

              http://www.iirp.edu/what-is-restorative-practices.php

            14. These “S.O. Missionaires” seem to have acted in a way that was worse than the wogs they often accuse of acting.

              They could not LOOK. They false reported. There goes the whole data series system of evaluation.

              Garbage In = Garbage out

              They were LRH’s missionaires.

              .

            15. “The WHY is a complete unwillingness to say with humility and TRUE remorse — I FUCKED UP.”

              One can’t claim to be source and then not be blamed for it. Scientology was applied to these missionaires who were then covering their asses per your why.

              Do you not see the inconsistency?

              That is how Scientology worked.

              .

            16. “You want a solution? Teach people to SEE. And that includes seeing their own SHIT.”

              Now you are getting somewhere. Scientology failed in getting people to see.

              Try KHTK.

              .

            17. I won`t disagree with you that LRH wrote those materials. Yep. He sure did. But I`ll be damned if I will blame him for what others do with it which includes lying to their seniors and DELIBERATELY covering up their screws ups and setting about to SHIFT THE BLAME. LRH also SHIFTED THE BLAME.

              Its really about responsibility. And inevitably it gets shifted over to the idea of blame. And shifting it.

              So by all means BLAME it all on LRH — hold it up and say if it was perfect then everybody and everything would just be perfect. Maybe in a perfect world.

              But like I said, I really don`t give a damned one way or another about Scientology itself. I am not looking for a solution within Scientology any more. It MUST come from without and it has to encompass what happened to LRH too. If it doesn`t then there`s not much point and its just more shooting gallery bullshit.

              Please, go and look at the materials on restorative practices. I think you will find that it is at least one piece of the jigsaw puzzle and if it can find its way into the society through the normal channels of family and school then I think we will start to see some real change, change that encompasses the screw ups of leaders and teachers and authorities and not just of the followers.

            18. What you are complaining about was managed by the system created and overseen by LRH in 1974-75. LRH does not get a clean ticket from me because I was there and saw wit h my own eyes his tantrums and how he behaved. Anybody can write wonderful stuff, but acting according to those guidelines is something different entirely. LRH did measure up to what he wrote.

              So, please don’t go about assuming stuff and not putting responsibility where it belongs. You would, otherwise, be false reporting just like those SO missionaires, you are blaming.

              .

            19. Vinaire: “ That was very much under LRH’s watch. I was on Apollo at that time and knew LRH was fully aware of this. In fact he was ordering it.

              Vinaire: “ One can’t claim to be source and then not be blamed for it. Scientology was applied to these missionaires who were then covering their asses per your why.

              Do you not see the inconsistency?

              That is how Scientology worked.

              The inconsistency I see is that you Vinaire were there on the Apollo watching LRH `order this“

              I guess I could ask:

              Why didn`t YOU stop him? After all we as public & staff were counting on YOU and the others uplines to direct this movement.

              What responsibility do YOU bear in all of this?

              It’s fine & dandy to shift blame, but as Maria said, I wouldn’t pin the actions of misguided GO & SO on someone who was 1000s of miles away … YOU were right there.

              And to generalize that ‘This is how Scientology worked’ is a pile of crappola.

              A philosophy doesn’t act; PEOPLE do.

            20. Scientlogy founder, Scientology itself, and the effects from Scientology are not so rational as they are made out to be.

              There is lot of hype from the euphoria that is generated from auditing, but I doubt if auditing generates much rationality.

              .

            21. The inconsistency I see is that you Vinaire were there on the Apollo watching LRH `order this“

              I guess I could ask:

              Why didn`t YOU stop him? After all we as public & staff were counting on YOU and the others uplines to direct this movement.

              I tried to stop him, but I got RPF’d.

              Unfortunately, I did not have much of a say.

              Dennis, you are being an armchair critic here. An armchair critic cannot display much rationality.

              Same goes for a conditioned Scientologist.

              .

            22. Late on the chain here, but I think this is relevant. A true old-timer named Kristina Royce just posted her story on Marty’s blog, and part of it is about some time she spent at AOLA back in the day. Here’s what she wrote:

              “The biggest outpoint to me was the lack of ARC in use amongst the staff. In fact, I even mentioned this to the then CO (Fred Hare) who told me that ARC is not used in the SO, because you would never get anything done.

              Well, I didn’t agree with that then and I never did go into agreement with that, but I saw other staff who did. I chalked this up to their being low on the Grade Chart and out of valence. I had already done all the way through the original OT levels prior to joining staff and thought it was just a matter of case regarding those low or nowhere on the Bridge. But that didn’t account for others who were farther along on the bridge.

              Anyway, I decided one day I would try being forceful with my juniors instead of using ARC, just as an experiment. What happened is they became less efficient and, of course, lower toned. I quickly got together with them and apologized for my behavior and, to my recollection, that is the last time I went (albeit causatively) out of valence while on staff. But this little experiment proved to me that out-ARC was not the way to go.”

              I think this confirms what Maria has been posting, as well as Chris’ observations.

              I would if this “no-ARC” attitude is some bizarre enforced and degraded lower harmonic dramatization of this:

              “Never need praise, approval, or sympathy”?

              Of course “No ARC” is very low on the CDEI scale, below “Inhibit”.

              Instead of operating from the top of the Tone Scale, it may be they have descended way down towards the bottom of it.

            23. I would if this “no-ARC” attitude is some bizarre enforced and degraded lower harmonic dramatization of this:

              “Never need praise, approval, or sympathy”?

              Should read “I WONDER if……”

              This would seem to have devolved down to Miscavige’s concept of the valence of “Cold chrome steel”.

            24. So, whose behavior got copied here in S.O.? Who condoned it at the top?

              If anyone thinks that LRH was unaware of it, then they need rationality check.

              .

            25. Dear friends, in the S.O. you are teached mainly to take the lrh valence, in every f.o. you read, every m.o., every eval. You try to do the correct thing just doing what lrh would do in this given situation. Any adjective given to a s.o. member has to be applied first to lrh. we, the ex s.o. members joined the s.o. with an open heart and received almost nothing in exchange, our best years of our life has been stolen by a criminal cult and even latter the rip off has continued plus the inval of those persons we supposedly were helping. That is why I am not a scientologist and will never let anyone I know to be one. lrh set this up and will continue so, till someone from the wog world stops it.

            26. It is better to seek knowledge and evaluate it on one’s own terms. It is ignorance to get hung up with some beingness, personality, or valence, such as that of LRH.

              One will get much more from seeking knowledge on one’s own terms, than to slavishly think like some “overwhelming” valence.

              .

            27. Ah Vinay, I see on another thread on this blog that you do indeed understand completely what I am talking about:

              “There is a red herring in trying to chase who is responsible. There will always be as many blaming LRH, as those defending him. That is the wrong way to go.”

              and

              “So, stop blaming and defending “LRH”. What inconsistencies do you see in what emanated from “LRH”?”

              Me, I am done with the practice of tracing all inconsistencies in Scientology to LRH, just as I am done with the practices of tracing all inconsistencies in life to some leader or teacher or authority figure. I truly do not believe that all inconsistencies will “disappear” by doing that.

              And I am done with the idea that one is going to “fix” the inner world of a “skin encapsulated ego” and have all “inconsistencies” in life disappear. That’s not going to happen either. Individuals do not live in separate little worlds that will somehow be made magically consistent with other little separate worlds by “fixing” each individual only. It doesn’t work because there is such a thing as responsibility, which is the skill of responding effectively, with intelligence, with best intent, with compassion, and with respect. Responsibility results from knowledge, understanding and PRACTICE and true awareness of both self and others. And that includes compassion and respect for those who dared to lead and innovate and get out on the bleeding edge where mistakes and inconsistencies are magnified a thousand fold for all to see under the glare of hindsight. They too are worthy and valuable. They take the risks of being wrong. And it is very hard to be wrong. Hence the blame, and the shift of blame.

            28. Maria, this is a really great comment. And the part about “those who dared to lead and innovate and get out on the bleeding edge where mistakes and inconsistencies are magnified a thousand fold for all to see under the glare of hindsight” is to me quite similar to something LRH said about responsibility. Maybe you will recall. Iit had to do with a comparison between those who are very active and get things done who are then held responsible for things that go wrong – as opposed to those who remain inactive in life, do very little, and thus get no criticism or blame.

            30. Knowledge, understanding, responsibility, etc. result from removing inconsistencies.

              How does one remove inconsistency?

              By looking and keep looking until everything falls into place.

              Blaming amounts to stop looking. One stops looking when one starts to put blame on someone or somewhere.

              .

    2. Now, that IS definitely a hidden data line.
      And what is he saying in HCO PL 16 Apr 65 THE “HIDDEN DATA LINE”
      “There is no “hidden data line”.”
      I though Book One is in effect. But here he says “Standard technology … isn’t contained in any of the books of Dianetics and Scientology.” This is talk through the hat.

      Reply

    3. Maria, you quote this tape: (SHSBC 434 The Classification Chart and Auditing 26 July 66) but after this tape, it was created the class 8 course to repair the mis-management and mis- auditing in saint hill and central orgs based on this data. The courses teaching standar tech use lrh conferences and a lot of practice as part of a standar tech specialist not only HCOBs.

      Reply

      1. I do not know much about that — I just grabbed the quote from possiblyhelpfuladvice.com as it looked like it could offer some insight.

        Reply

      2. Rafael, the purpose of studying material other than HCOBs is to get the full theory that underlies the tech so that the auditor isn’t just rotely applying the tech procedure and processes but also understands why and how it works. The tech itself is application, it is what is applied – and it is to be applied according to the HCOBs, not tapes or anything else. For example, NED auditing tech is actually a very different application of Dianetics theory than the tech of Book I. The theory of how the mind works may still be the same but the current application – the PT tech – is only what is found in HCOBs. I believe all this is made clear on auditor training.

        Reply

        1. marildi, in the study tapes lrh says very clear that just studing the written material is not enough as the tech of how it is done is shown by instructors, C/Ss and yes audio-visual material. that is why lrh created Golden era productions. Just try to run the objective processing only reading the material, it won´t work.

          Reply

          1. Rafael — most of those videos did not exist when I trained as an auditor. Most definitely no videos to do with objectives. It was ALL written material. We had no problems applying the objective processes.

            Reply

            1. That’s what I experienced too Maria.

              Objectives were a simple read it, drill it & do it.

              The other way was to pay for it – no films, tapes or what have you.

            2. Maria, I agree, if you have a good course sup and C/S the expensive multimedia is not needed as a material prerrequisite in the checksheet. But you still need the assistance provided as a line of correct tech aplication.

          2. Rafael you said:… as the tech of how it is done is shown by instructors, C/Ss …

            Course Supervisors do not instruct. The CS is confined by the ivory tower rule and does not show anyone anything either.

            The fact is that one could study the materials of the objectives with another person, and act in the capacity of CS and auditor on a turnaround basis, co-auditing all the way up to the Clearing Course, at which point one would solo audit.

            The ideal scene per the tech bulletins is to have a courseroom with a trained supervisor, qual and review and a CS. But thats a matter of manning up the posts. The technology itself is contained in the HCOBs and for each auditing level the materials are checksheeted.

            I realize that after I trained as an auditor a LOT of changes were introduced supposedly to make everything so much better, but the one change that cannot be made is that statement to the effect that the technology is what is written in the HCOBs, NOT in the books and lectures.

            The C of S has been adding and adding and adding extraneous materials to the point where arbitraries are introduced in the form of non-HCOBs being added even to the point of overriding and altering what was standard tech.

            You know, we had a lot of wins and gains without all the fancy gizmos and drills!

            Reply

            1. Maria, thanks for your stable data, I was trained and audited with GAT and do´t know something else. The HCOBs I used are those you call non-HCOBs in great part. The couse sup and C/S do evalute a lot……. what can I say.

  13. No-no, I’m not saying anything about only studying written material – not at all. I was only pointing out which TECH is to be applied – and that is the tech of HCOBs, not other material.

    Absolutely there is more to training than just studying the written material. And even on the written material, it’s not just the HCOBs that are to be studied – none of the material is to be disregarded (as per Tech Degrades). But the actual application is out of HCOBs.

    Reply

    1. marildi, but a lot of HCOBs are compilation from the RTRC unit authorized by RTC AND CST. Mr. Dan Koon probably can tell us how it is done but I understand that not only HCOB material is contained in the HCOBs.

      Reply

      2. This game is called “Yabut” by psychologists. It is intended to create feelings of frustration and helplessness.

        Reply

      1. So, how much of what he wrote, did LRH apply?

        If you think aberration came to be under LRH all by itself, then that is quite a condemnation of OT ability and the ability of Scientology to make people rational.

        What is the difference between dedicated Sea Org members and the wogs they despise? It is the same difference between the Crusaders and the Jihadis.

        Scientology my bring about euphoria, but its overall effect has never been an increase in rationality. Take a good long term look.

        .
        .

        Reply

        1. Vinay, yes, in one of my blogs I take this euphoria effect. I know what a floating T.A. feels like, just like a drug, and is very adictive, you are willing to do almost any thing to feel it again but how much rationality and decency is recovered from this experience ?. Some few get gains in this area but much more are just have adiccion.

          Reply

  15. The very first thing one has to differ when speaking about SCN, is this:
    1) The body of knowledge and the tech.
    2) The administrative frame (policy)

    95 % of all noise about SCN is about the administrative frame or its alter-is. Especially ethics and justice policy, Sea Org, FLAG orders, RPF.
    The frame was originally designed to protect orgs and the tech, but it has developed into a prison camp. The roots for this are created by LRH himself.
    If you look simply on the stupid LOA policy, you know that LRH mindset changed into a general mistrust, concerning staff public and SO anyway.
    The policy implicates a generalization that you are guilty of having MU´s or overts or being PTS if you want to have some days or weeks off.
    To hell with this BULLSHIT. Has nothing to do with total freedom.

    Reply

      2. Rafael, the LOA policy includes a checklist/routing form. Several questions are asked (in qual and ethics) about the items given above. You have to go trough all the lines in the ORG and get a final approval to “leave”. This action is done to make sure nobody plans to blow (secretly) !!! *loool

        Reply

          1. Also his point being that any leaving of any type anywhere at any time was colored as a blow. I experienced this simply trying to attend my mother’s funeral service.

            Reply

  16. All this attention on CoS and policy will go away if better tech is developed.

    It is the frustration over lack of results since LRH’s time that is spilling over here.

    Those defending LRH tech lack a better ideal scene.

    .

    Reply

  17. LRH would not have needed all those policies against critics, if he were producing good results uniformly. He created more enemies out there in his imagination then there actually were.

    In some ways LRH was not very rational. He was paranoid.

    .

    Reply

  18. Geir wrote:

    Put a ban on Scientology? Outlaw it altogether? Burn the books?

    What if everything you didn’t approve of was banned?
    Would you be proud of a world like that?

    What if a ban was put on what you believed in?
    Would that be equally right?

    Thank you for saying this, Geir.

    This is a very important set of questions for people to think about.

    I have never ever supported a ban on Scientology, and I believe that this solution is exactly what Scientology itself would do if it were running society.

    Criminal acts should be prosecuted and those found guilty should be sentenced by a a judge or jury of their peers in a court of law.

    But the ideas and philosophy of Scientology should never be banned. and neither should any other set of ideas.

    In the marketplace of ideas, Scientology has failed utterly. This is its own fate.

    That is more than enough.

    Reply

    1. Alanzo, the ideas and philosophy of hitler and national socialism should never be banned either, but their organizations enabling these ideas ( given his background ) should be particularly overseen.

      Reply

  19. KSW1 starts with the following premise:

    “One: Having the correct technology.
    …

    One above has been done.”

    That is a false assertion. Scientology technology lacks in many ways. Hubbard had misunderstanding of Buddhism and of Eastern philosophy in general. He associated “nirvana” with becoming MEST, and he associated the general Eastern approach with “self-abnegation.”

    KHTK is more in line with the eastern approach. Scientology pretends to be a successor of Buddhism, but it is not. Just now I got the following response from a college student in India, who was quite lost when we first started our conversation on Facebook:.

    Hello sir,
    sorry for replying that late sir. I’m not a regular fb user.
    I read all of ur articles they were both motivational and intresting.
    I feel much more relieved now. I’m doing yoga and KHTK practices and experiencing a new I inside me.
    Hope I’ll fulfill my aspiration of being a ‘technopreneur’.
    Want to own the research labs whose patents, prototypes will be launched as a product in the market by the labs themselves.
    I want to do all of this while living in India.
    This is my dream career.

    KHTK is proving to have a grassroots potential, because it is very easy to follow and it is quite effective when applied by oneself.

    .

    Reply

  20. The church defeats itself. As all suppressive groups or governments they will disappear from the scene earlier or later. No need to boost its meltdown Twiddle your thumbs and smile. 🙂

    Reply

    1. Agreed Spongebob,

      Robotism, new staff (who for the most part haven’t had a lick of auditing), old staff who have either given up and moved outside of the organization or are cowed due to implied or real threats …

      PR area control is the worst I have seen in 4-5 decades

      Criminal activity

      Lies & deceit

      Empty orgs with little or no VFPs

      A sad tale, but it was bound to happen

      Implosion is imminent

      Reply

        2. Vinaire: ” Looks like auditing is not a deterrent against suppression.”

          I didn’t say that, nor is it true for me.

          I have also seen many a ‘rational’ person go the effect of suppression (whatever ‘rational’ means). 🙂

          Reply

        3. Apparently, neither is KHTK. Oh, but perhaps this is also a case of “Do as I say, not as I do”.

          Reply

  21. It seems that there is something wrong with the whole concept of “self’ and “responsibility” the way it is being used in the discussion on this thread. People are spending too much time discussing “LRH” and “responsibility” without getting anywhere.

    Reply

    1. It is ever so, isn’t it Dennis? A lot of right things get said about responsibility, about moving on past the speed bumps we all drove over too fast. Then we fall back into “those dang speed bumps” and “who put those speed bumps in the road anyway” and “somebody ought to do something about those dang speed bumps.” I find myself falling into that trap, but it’s more of a habit than something I really think about.

      Several of us here argue minutia when in fact we mostly agree. The people who post on this blog all seem to have their faculties in pretty good working order and seem to be fairly happy and causative in their lives — lots of pan-determined people writing upon the opinions of others.

      Maybe this “open-letter” idea of Geir’s was an opportunity for everyone to blow off a little steam from leftover BPC or just think and write about the inconsistencies they feel exist between LRH, his Tech, the Church, and the whole third dynamic thingy.

      I keep checking on these threads and find little of interest. Another friend of mine disconnected from me at the behest of his SO handlers this week. I am trying to be interested in this fact but find myself unable to muster any particular interest in it. Oddly, I use “good roads and fair weather” to communicate with him and leave the door open without conditions so that he can get back in comm without embarrassment one day. Church of Scientology just seems so yesterday and irrelevant. I don’t even have a snappy way in mind to end off writing this comment.

      Reply

      1. Chris,

        Yes, ‘good roads, fair weather’ is also what I like. Too much to enjoy in this life to get embroiled in petty differences.

        As for differences – I love to hear the different viewpoints – I learn and experience what others have gone thru, where they are at, and their hopes & dreams for the future.

        Carping criticisms and insistence on shoving viewpoints down others throats … well, let’s just say I can do without it.

        We each have unique beingnesses and ways of looking and analyzing what has happened to us and the essence of life itself – fun stuff for me 🙂

        Reply

      1. Exactly hahaha 🙂

        I saw the thread going in the same direction so I reposted the comment 🙂

        Reply

    3. Thank you for quoting me. The full quote is:

      It seems that there is something wrong with the whole concept of “self’ and “responsibility” the way it is being used in the discussion on this thread. People are spending too much time discussing “LRH” and “responsibility” without getting anywhere.

      “Self” is essentially the core of a system. It is the condensed form of all the ideas that define a system. Therefore, blaming “self” is akin to blaming the system that sprang from that self.

      “Self’ is not cause. “Self” is the ultimate storage of ideas in a very condensed form. To resolve the question of “responsibility.” one needs to un-condense that “self” and look at the inconsistencies that are there.

      So, stop blaming and defending “LRH”. What inconsistencies do you see in what emanated from “LRH”?

      .

      Reply

        1. That’s arrogant indeed!

          That is one factor I dislike about Scientology and Scientologists.

          This may be termed as an inconsistency in me.

          .

          Reply

          1. Sheesh,

            Quit misinterpreting what I say.

            Chris said it & it goes for me too:

            * ” The ad hom regarding LRH is just an ad hom of your own and its inconsistency is not relieved by restating my comments back to me. For instance, LRH did not just talk big, he did big by anyone’s standard. That he has failed big is still a work in progress and the future iteration of that relative failure or success is yet to be determined.

            It is these particular moments of conversing with you that are pivotal in the understanding between you and I. I used to think that your granite-like carved in stone evaluations were somehow a cultural result of your upbringing but now I think you might have learned this technique from LRH. Once again, your brilliant intellect can be obfuscated by your delivery and unwillingness to be the effect of my communication.

            Inconsistencies are not the be-all and end-all of research. There are still left similarities as well as identities. ” *

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

            That is what I meant … I will not include your ad hom remarks about LRH or anyone else – it does not add to the conversation. As Chris mentioned, it actually obfuscates the real meaning.

            To continue to lead into a paragraph with a general praise of LRH and then follow with paragraphs of belittling, inval, etc. is your problem. The only reason one belittles is that they feel threatened or ‘smaller’ than their apparent ‘foe’.

            Man, he’s DEAD!

            As Chris mentioned: He did BIG by any standards. I could only hope to fill half his shoes with regards to his accomplishments in this small breath of time.

            His ideas will live on as will yours.

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

            ‘There is so much good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us,’ that it ill behooves any of us to talk about the rest of us.’

            Reply

            2. I feel neither the need to defend or attack.

              I see plus points and out points.

              I’m not in the habit of knocking any philosophy.

              There is a difference in saying something is bad/wrong/lacking/etc, and, recognizing it as DIFFERENT. It is simply a viewpoint.

              Rightness or wrongness does not enter into it – if it does then we are into the area of greater considerations and they stem from the person considering them. That is complexity and solidity – something I am attempting to lessen in my little universe 🙂

              In my book, they are part of the ‘white hats’.

              Attacking or making less of a white hat is unnecessary and thought-stopping.

              That an individual strives for greater awareness & knowledge for himself and his fellows is good enough for me.

            3. Not sure if this is to me or Dennis, but I don’t defend LRH because I don’t have to. Nothing is gained by defending him nor by bagging on him. It just doesn’t matter at all to me and I am 100% sure it doesn’t matter to LRH. His iteration is done. His legacy is to be variously re-iterated ad infinitum or at least ad nauseum.

              This is coming from a newer more consistent me according to me. Remember a year ago when I told you that at the heart of things I was an immortal unchanging thetan or somesuch? At that time your question to me was, “Are you sure?” Well I was quite sure at the time but that certainty did not save me from being wrong. I was so wrong, that II learned from that wrongness that the clairvoyant euphoric feeling of certainty cognition was not and is not evidence of anything in particular at all except that some type of mental leveling has occurred. That leveling may be due to the relief of some irritating inconsistency, but the usual impulse to jump to a conclusion about some overriding “truth” is a mistake. Thank you for politely challenging me at that time. I made some important improvements to myself since then and came to understand that the “epiphany” can be over-weighted in importance.

              I am curious if you think my comments to you now are inconsistent and if so in what way.

            5. You misunderstand me.

              Railing against LRH for compiling a number of workable summation from various philosophers such as Buddhism, Vedic Hymns, Freud, etc along with one’s own ideas or research and calling it Scientology (which LRH freely wrote about) is no different from you taking choice bits from other studies plus your own and calling it KHTK.

              I don’t see anyone here knocking your research and knowing the group here, I doubt if anyone would.

              Consistencies pr not, your studies and research are every bit as valuable as LRHs and other past philosophers.

              Take a win. 🙂

            6. Oops … last ine should read ‘Consistencies OR not, … ‘

            8. ” Knock you out’ ??

              Damn, you’re still kicking LOL 🙂

              Not at all.

              I’m sure if you & I sat down we would find we like each other greatly … I know I like you 🙂

            9. Attacking or defending a beingness is like attacking or defending a generality. because a beingness is associated with no many things. So, for the sake of scientific precision, one must point out precise inconsistencies that have emanated from that beingness, so one may learn from.it.

              The two most despicable concepts to emanate from LRH has been “squirrel” and “suppressive person.” Hubbard actually used these concepts to put others down and to secure his dominance.

              Any scientologist who can’t see the above needs a lot of work, in my opinion. .

            10. Vinaire: ” The two most *despicable concepts* to … ”

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

              Easy there … that denotes quite some charge there.

              Might be a good idea to have a look at that area on why it emotes such vociferous reactions …

              Just sayin’ …

            11. Why should I go easy?

              What do you have to say in favor of those concepts?

              To me the execution of those concepts have acted as betrayal after trust. These two concepts loudly announce the failure of Scientology in those instances where they are applied. These concepts have been misused by Hubbard himself. To me, they represent the worst of Hubbard and Scientology.

              .

          2. I can’t find anywhere on this thread where Dennis calls Vinay a squirrel. I’ve done a word search on the thread and still can’t find where Dennis does this.

            Reply

            2. What are you trying to accomplish here? Does it have to be on this thread?

              Did you ever hear Dennis’s treadmill comment? You disappoint me, Maria.

              .

            3. Actually Vin,

              Maria is correct … on this thread you did accuse me of calling you a squirrel.

              I did not.

              There is nothing wrong with Maria spotting an outpoint.

              I did however as you point out call your actions squirelly regarding TRs & Wordclearing – and they are exactly that.

              The treadmill incident was actually a post from I believe Bunkai quite some time ago on the Scn Forum board …

              I’m not sure if you did this yourself … but in my earlier post I was relating it to Bunkai’s (?) post as it was being called ‘doing OT2 and Scientology.

              If you want to try doing it, go for it.

              Not my cup o’ tea though.

            4. I am trying to follow this thread. I thought I must have missed something — some comment along the way that expressed that on this thread. I was going to say that I hadn’t seen you to be a squirrel, far as I can tell you do not say KHTK and Scientology are one and the same, not ever.

              I vaguely remember something about a treadmill from over a month ago, but I don’t remember it being your post.

              Why on earth would this disappoint you?

              There are THOUSANDS of comments on this blog — you don’t seriously think I make sure to remember them all do you? Hell, I don’t even try to. And even so, we see people change their minds all along the way — I know I have.

            5. I think we are veering off the subject. My point is that “squirrel” is a despicable concept when it is used to demean others, especially in a subject that is supposed to help others.

              Any disagreement with what I have just written would be an inconsistency to me, if not for somebody else.

              .

  22. People should be de-condensing and spotting inconsistencies in what emanated from “LRH” rather than criticizing the symbol “LRH” itself, which seems to be happening here.

    .

    Reply

        1. It seems that an electric charge spreads out into the surrounding electrical field as a fractal of itself.

          Thus, Scientology is like LRH spreading out as a fractal of himself.

          .

          Reply

    2. Possibly, but this is the thread for hard core critics. So have at it. This comment of yours belongs on the independent Scnst thread and conversely your comment about LRH being a big talker belongs here.

      Reply

  23. You know Vin, that post of yours on the “Open Letter to Independants” where you quoted “Amprinistics” is quite a good policy letter to demonstrate LRH’s state of mind and willingness to blather generalities and black pr toward his enemies and this was in 1965. I have long contended that LRH did his best work in the 50’s but was washed up by the time he released OT3. I now undercut this idea and say that probably by 1965 and preceding the advent of the SO, he was burnt out. If you compare the following policy letter to his attributes of the social and anti-social personality, it starts to stink.

    HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE
    Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead, Sussex
    HCO EXECUTIVE LETTER OF 27 SEPTEMBER 1965
    Gen Non-Remimeo.
    TO: ORG STAFFS
    FROM: RON
    SUBJECT: “AMPRINISTICS”
    Over the past 15 years we have seen a lot of groups splinter off from Scientology and beat the drum for some off beat use of the technology. We call them “squirrels” because they are so nutty. They come and they go. We’re still here and will continue to be.
    A vast body of technology such as Dianetics and Scientology can give birth to a thousand “new developments” and never notice it. There are close to a half a billion words of research data in the Archives at Saint Hill, enough to start a thousand fads, any part of it.
    The latest squirrels are a group headed by an ex-employee in England who was sacked for homosexuality and theft. Promptly joined by an American who was once deported for 2nd Dynamic reasons and who ran off from his wife and children to join the band, this group is having a rough time of it.
    Internal dissension is what tears these splinter groups apart. Formed by people whose overt acts against Scientology prevent case gain, they rapidly rip one another to pieces.
    “Ron Howes” was an early example. Joined by undesirables from the Wichita Dianetic Foundation in 1951 they had a brief flurry and then his companions so involved Howes that he was soon in jail and today is reported as a Catholic priest! The rest of the group dispersed, never to be heard from again.
    There was once an “E-Therapy” taken from the “Throg-Magog” example in Dianetics Evolution of a Science, released by a long gone fellow Kitselman. They had people mock up a god to tell them what to do, so avoided auditing and spun themselves in. This is the nearest thing we’ve had to “Amprinistics”.
    The keynote of such “developments” is how to avoid auditing and prevent revealing overts.
    Old Joe Winter was another example. And there are many, many more. All gone now, dead or in jail or vanished.
    The latest splinter is no exception. It is using Concept Therapy and Rising Scale Processing with “dichotomies” from 1951 Dianetics, fancied up and advertised as “senior Scientology”. Some day somebody will revive the engram running as done in 1950 as the “latest development”. These old processes have a history of being grabbed and altered.
    A Chiropractic group in 1953 really “went to town” with Concept Therapy. It is quite a good process. But limited. It would be about Grade 1 in modern Scientology, not used because it starts out fine but dead ends. You can find the right processes for it in old books and bulletins. It could make a low level Release if expertly run on a Mark V meter but never a Clear. And to self audit it would be fatal.
    We don’t object to Dianetics or Scientology being used. We prefer it to have its right name. But we like to have it in clean hands.
    There’s been too much betrayal in this universe already and for
    HCO Exec Ltr 27.9.65 – 2 –
    fellows whose records include homosexuality and theft to start up a fuss with 14 year old technology is a bit thick.
    They are quite violent on the subject of ethics as you ordinarily expect a criminal to be and are savage about organizations, having stolen money and lists from ours. They are being careful not to attack me publicly in the hopes people will think them noble and inspired. They’re inspired all right — by the “buck”. But we wish them no bad luck. We don’t have to. It’s punishment enough just to be themselves and live with what they are.
    It’s amusing how the group acts within itself. When Horner arrived in England he was supposed to be met with a big cheque so he could lecture all over the world. Of course he got no cheque.
    This particular auditor has run off to every splinter group that was ever formed and when they collapse, comes back head hanging, case unchanged and fortunes in rags and ruin. He’s been doing it for 15 years. A sort of Jonah! His case doesn’t change by the way because no HGC auditor has ever been able to get him into an auditing chair! His dream is total gain without processing. For that avoids all his withholds.
    Soon they’ll have one another’s throats cut or in jail and that will be that.
    For a splinter group to try to start up just as Scientology is restoring all past releases and has a large number going Clear at Saint Hill is a tough break for them. We will of course have to refuse them and anyone connected with them any of the materials for Classes and Grades V, VI, VII and VIII in order to prevent their use against people by suppressives. This effectively bars the way to their personal progress as policy on them states that regardless of amnesty or amends they may never again be trained. And the chances of such finding their own way are zero. A rather bad fate for the sake of a few quick “bucks” or pounds. For we could never trust them again with preclear’s cases.
    If you meet anyone going off to this group, list them with your Ethics Officer. They will never be given any upper level materials or training.
    We don’t really wish them any harm. We only hope they don’t hurt too many when they crash.
    Then I suppose we’ll have to pick up the pieces.
    We’ve been doing it for 15 years.
    “O Man thou art a foolish beast. The way thou runnest about after gew-gaws, no wonder it took so long for somebody to find the way.”
    DATA
    Amprinistics — Culled from 1951 Dianetics “dichotomies” pretends to be a Senior Scientology”. In actual fact it is a low level self-audit calculated to spin people in with end words. As a suppressive action it seeks to make a virtue out of not being audited thus barring the road. It was probably dreamed up by Horner, not Harry Thompson.
    Harry Thompson — At the bottom of the “Death Lessons” press scandal was Harry Thompson. He has several wives and many children and is sought by the police for abandonment. He has attacked HCO
    HCO Exec Ltr 27.9.65 – 3 –
    Secretaries. He pretended to the press to be an “American doctor”.
    He has no certificates or training. He is the subject of an Ethics Order as a Suppressive Person.
    Edgar Watson — Was an early subject of Ethics. When investigated for no case gain it turned out he had used a job at Saint Hill to embezzle money and used auditing to obtain subjects to satisfy homosexual appetites. He was quietly dismissed to save us the embarrassment of his being arrested for both crimes but was severely warned. He is a barber by profession, is poorly educated, has a permanent leg injury which does not heal. He is the subject of numerous preclear complaints about his squirrel auditing and the HCO Sec London traced all UK enturbulation to his group in
    1963. He owes us a large amount of money.
    Jack Horner — This ex-auditor has been a runaway to every splinter group ever formed. When they crash he comes back and begs forgiveness. He is heavily suppressive of pcs and has used any confidential data that came his way illegally. He has been the subject of a Comm Ev for abuse of materials and when saved by an amnesty promptly committed other offenses. He is violent on the subject of being audited and refused free processing in two HGCs.
    He has been psychotic on the subject of organizations and has done everything possible to tear them down. He has used auditing to turn pcs against orgs and in his connection with “Amprinistics” is merely furthering his own hate lines of auditing and organizations. In 1960 he was instrumental in ruining the life of Nibs Hubbard, with the help of Nina West by setting the boy against an organization and then getting him arrested in the Middle West. Smooth and glib, many people have been deluded into helping him. To him can be traced lies about how much private auditors should make, luring auditors from orgs and giving them loses when they don’t reap fortunes. He has deserted several women, leaving them with children and was the subject of deportation from England for violating a girl who was a ward of a court. He owes the organization money.
    Forecast — The group will grab any money in sight and skip after doing orgs as much damage as possible and in a few months will never be heard from again, following the course of all such groups.
    Treatment — They are each fair game, can be sued or harassed.
    Horner can be barred out of any Commonwealth Country or England as he was the subject of a deportation order from England and his file has come alive again in the Home Secretary’s Office. Harry Thompson’s wives and victims are always looking for him to have him arrested. Watson is a set-up for arrest as a homosexual. Any meeting held by them should be torn up. The names of any persons attending should be collected and they should be labelled SP as they have left Scientology. These people are SP because they are seeking to avoid auditing and retain their withholds. Once labelled, these persons will not then be covered by amnesty and will never be admitted to further training or processing. Persons messing themselves up with Amprinistic self audit and restim should be refused any assistance. If these persons move into your area act through any agency you can to have them deported or arrested on whatever grounds. England is currently too hot for them so they may tour about. Horner’s UK deportation order, Thompson’s police record and Watson’s homosexuality make them very vulnerable to deportation or arrest.
    They do not have our mailing lists but have contacted only people whose addresses appeared in last years Auditors. By holding meetings in the vicinity of each Scientology organization they hope to recruit applicants.
    HCO Exec Ltr 27.9.65 – 4 –
    Their influence is far less than they pretend. They seem big (like any SP) because they sent literature to our org officers in an effort to suppress them. Their public reach is very tiny. Don’t help it. Therefore this is our policy:
    (1) Do not mention the name Amprinistics in public or in our magazines or issues.
    (2) Harass these persons in any possible way.
    (3) Label publicly “ideas which preach no-auditing as simply Suppressive Actions to deny people case gains”.
    (4) Tear up any meeting held and get the names of those attending and issue SP orders on them and you’ll have lost a lot of rats.
    (5) Promote like mad and get the new Foundation Course and Grades of Release in so you’ll be on firm ground if they upset your area.
    They may bring temporary enturbulation to your area but beyond that have no other importance as such groups die easily and we make a habit of survival.
    L. RON HUBBARD
    LRH:ml.mek
    Copyright (c) 1965
    by L. Ron Hubbard
    ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

    Reply

        1. Vinaire says : 2012-02-28 at 12:04

          Specifics of Hubbard being nutty?

          He squirreled Buddhism and the Vedas for the sake of money.

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

          You have a misunderstood & incorrect data aside from the generalities .

          LRH extolled the virtues of the Vedic Hymns and also frequently mentioned NUMEROUS philosophers, writers & philosophies years ago in the books & lectures from the ’50s and 60’s.

          This was common knowledge back then for all of us. We knew that Scientology was a compiled conglomerate of past works.

          He did not called it Buddhism, or Psychology or the ‘new’ Vedic Hymns.

          Unfortunately, most, if not all, of these entries have long since been edited out of the newer editions of the books & tapes; and as you know, the same happened with mention of any of the Hubbard family or past contributors who were declared.

          Even the early HCOB’s showed the ‘author’ or who it was ‘assisted by’ . These were part of our packs and studies.

          Reply

            1. Who said anything about logic.

              I was simply adding additional data.

              Who knows, in years to come there may be individuals assessing your work and relating various ‘nutty’ stories about you.

              ‘Despicable’, they may say.

              In the long run, I say ‘Who cares’

              I admire anyone who is looking to the future to rid man of his ills and reduce the effects of his crosses & chains.

            2. Then you are talking in generalities instead of looking at specific inconsistencies.

              That is a waste of time.

              .

          1. Vin:

            I don’t really care what name you put on things … be it aberrations or inconsistencies – it is the concept.

            There is also a difference in spotting what one CONSIDERS an outpoint, and, the carping type of criticism I see quite often in your posts.

            Why do some feel the need to constantly diminish the size, stature or essence of another?

            Could it be that they consider the other ‘bigger’ than them?

            Frankly, I look at all of us as very similar. I actually don’t look at size or importance at all. Yes, we each have our areas we excel in, but, we also have our own crosses to bear. To consider others greater or lesser in my view actually diminishes space.

            You recently posted your definition of God stating it in ‘factual’ form.

            These and other concepts are YOUR own. Personally, I would not be re-defining anything, especially God or another person’s intimate beliefs.

            It is unnecessary.

            Reply

        3. Vinnie sez,in a recent post,

          vinaire says : 2012-02-27 at 13:38
          “I think we are veering off the subject. My point is that “squirrel” is a despicable concept when it is used to demean others, especially in a subject that is supposed to help others.

          Any disagreement with what I have just written would be an inconsistency to me, if not for somebody else.”

          Yet here he is a few posts later, expounding how Hubbard “squirreled” Buddhism etc.

          Oh that despicable Hubbard! Shame, shame!

          .

          Reply

        4. vinaire says : 2012-02-28 at 12:04
          Specifics of Hubbard being nutty?

          It’s wonderful how you pretend you completely misunderstood my post, allowing you to then take it off my topic and slip in your own party line ad hom on LRH, using a term (squirrel) you your self characterize as “despicable”.

          Well Vinnie, you are “squirreling” Buddhism as much as anyone I have ever seen.

          Reply

      2. Valkov, you need to go to the real source… The Vedas.

        Hinduism sprang from the Vedas. Buddhism sprang from the Vedas.

        What Hubbard is talking about as his own creation Scientology, is not much compared to what is there in the eastern philosophy. Hubbard is tooting his own horn, just because he communicated some of the eastern philosophy mixed with his own squirrely twists, which are coming home to roost now.

        Please don’t get hung up on Hubbard as the only source. Go for the knowledge and simply be aware of the inconsistencies.

        Reply

        1. And where exactly did the Vedas come from? Or better stated, who did the Vedas come from? How do you know that they didn’t get it from someone else or somewhere else? Can you confirm for me that the Vedas are the only transmission of this information? Or are they simply the only surviving written compilation that can be assigned a particular point on the time track that is earlier than everything else? How do you know whether or not the Vedas themselves are “squirrel” versions of earlier works lost in time?

          Don’t confuse written works that have survived the ravages of time with timeless truths that can and do appear anywhere. It is more than just a little possible that avatars spring full blown throughout time. Or out of time.

          By your statement every scientist, every thinker, every college graduate, every philosopher, every profession, every engineer, every inventor, every person who ever created or extrapolated or organized or analyzed anything at any time is a squirrel.

          And many, many, many of them gain wherewithal or money or goods to exchange one way or another, or some form of benefit.

          Your definition of squirrel is far too sweeping. And like I said in an earlier post, the tight definition of squirrel was just fine — but when it gets too sweeping, stepping away from the original definition, then we get all kinds of nonsense about human endeavor, thinking and invention.

          Note: you too are a squirrel by this definition. If what you are saying is true then there is no need to be studying KHTK for it is just a version of the Vedas, with ideas you clarified through your studies of Hubbard and Buddhism coupled with your own experience and further readings of various materials.

          Perhaps this is part of the upset on this subject and its effects.

          Reply

          1. Good comment Maria,

            Who knows where *any*of these come from, or, are we truly ‘re-gaining’ our own past wins & abilities.

            It all seems somewhat familiar.

            Even Vin mentions in one of his posts that he is taking ‘the best’ of Scientology and his own stuff and Buddhism, etc to ramp up studies in KHTK when he retires.

            To me it’s a steady evolution – who knows … this whole game may have been pre-determined. 😉

            Reply

          2. You are simply going off the track by getting hung up on “source.”

            Just look at knowledge and inconsistencies.

            .

            Reply

            1. The bottom line is, knowledge is an evolution. It is an effort by many people. Introducing self into it as “source,” which Hubbard did, and using that self-claimed “authority” to demean other people and groups as “squirrels” and “suppressives” goes beyond the pale.

              These concepts of “squirrels” and “suppressives” should be deep-sixed. They detract one from participating in the evolution of knowledge.

              ..

            2. Maybe we all are getting a little hung up on source – correct assignment or lack thereof.

              “Source” when looked at for its own sake becomes a complete can-of-worms.

            3. Vin says: You are simply going off the track by getting hung up on “source.” Just look at knowledge and inconsistencies.

              A suggestion — take your own advice and quit ragging on about squirrels and suppressives. You are very quick to point fingers at Hubbard and I am sure he would be very quick to point fingers at you. And the rest of us are having a whale of a good time thinking, reading, remarking, and so on. Its a discussion you know. We do not have to just look at knowledge and inconsistencies. We are allowed to say and do all kinds of things you know. We are even allowed to be wrong and foolish and change our minds and defend and attack and on and on. I know it drives you crazy, but you are on a public blog with public comments and discussion allowed.

            4. I am sorry to say this, but you are not getting it Maria.

              I am simply pointing out the inconsistency of the concepts of “squirrel” and “suppressive”. I don’t care if these concepts are associated with LRH or not.

              .

            5. Chris”Maybe we all are getting a little hung up on source – correct assignment or lack thereof.“Source” when looked at for its own sake becomes a complete can-of-worms.”

              That;s correct. Maria may say that she is having a lot of fun discussing source, and she doesn’t care about knowledge and inconsistencies, but, to me, that is pure waste of time if one cares for resolution. They are discussing “source” and they are having fun on ESMB too, and they are not getting anywhere.

              There is no resolution in following this route of “source” and “fun.”

              The route of resolution is focusing on knowledge and on inconsistencies.

              There is nothing absolute in terms of knowledge. There is no absolute right / wrong, and no absolute truth / untruth. It is all relative. The Theory of Relativity applies to the universe of considerations too. All you have are relative inconsistencies. And only when you focus on inconsistencies, that resolution becomes possible.

              This is KHTK.

              .

            6. —————————————————————————–

              That;s correct. Maria may say that she is having a lot of fun discussing source, and she doesn’t care about knowledge and inconsistencies, but, to me, that is pure waste of time if one cares for resolution. They are discussing “source” and they are having fun on ESMB too, and they are not getting anywhere.

              There is no resolution in following this route of “source” and “fun.”

              The route of resolution is focusing on knowledge and on inconsistencies.

              There is nothing absolute in terms of knowledge. There is no absolute right / wrong, and no absolute truth / untruth. It is all relative. The Theory of Relativity applies to the universe of considerations too. All you have are relative inconsistencies. And only when you focus on inconsistencies, that resolution becomes possible.

              ——————————————————————————-

              Oh so the criteria is that it has to be serious and one cannot enjoy a discussion — I don`t agree.

              Your characterization that I don`t care about knowledge and inconsistencies is both false and unwarranted.

              What is a waste of time for you may not be a waste of time for another.

              You have chosen your particular route of resolution. But it is only YOURS and insisting that others must follow YOUR route is pure arrogance.

              As to absolutes and relatives — again — YOUR opinion based on YOUR particular mindset and state of awareness AT THIS TIME. I do not agree with you. I never have. I think you have a partial answer but certainly not all of it. And I am free to disagree.

              All you have done here is express your OPINION. I do not agree with your opinion.

              And frankly, you are on the wrong thread for a resolution and IMO a blog is NOT the platform for that anyway.

              This thread is about hard core critics of scientology:

              ——————————————————————————-

              Put a ban on Scientology? Outlaw it altogether? Burn the books?

              What if everything you didn’t approve of was banned?
              Would you be proud of a world like that?

              What if a ban was put on what you believed in?
              Would that be equally right?

              ——————————————————————————-

              I neither need or want your approval of my methods or actions.
              And I do believe that you are using this blog as a platform to promote what you believe and dismiss what others do or believe.

          3. Right on Maria. By his own definition Vinnie is perhaps a “squirrel”, or feels he is, by borrowing the expression “knowing how to know” from Hubbard, and also incorporating some Self Analysis lists into KHTK.

            From the Tech Dictionary:

            SQUIRRELLING 1. it means altering Scn and offbeat practices. (HCOPL 14 Feb 65). 2. squirrelling is not really different processes – it is careless, incomplete, messed up auditing procedure. (HCOB 15 Jan 70 II)

            I seem to recall a lecture in which LRH talks about “squirrels” as being called that because he was referring to people who grabbed a few nuggets from Scientology they had little or no understanding of, and then trying to compete with Scientology itself by making great claims for their practice.

            Can anyone place this reference?

            Reply

        3. vinaire says : 2012-02-28 at 12:12
          Valkov, you need to go to the real source… The Vedas.

          Hinduism sprang from the Vedas. Buddhism sprang from the Vedas.

          What Hubbard is talking about as his own creation Scientology, is not much compared to what is there in the eastern philosophy. Hubbard is tooting his own horn, just because he communicated some of the eastern philosophy mixed with his own squirrely twists, which are coming home to roost now.

          Please don’t get hung up on Hubbard as the only source. Go for the knowledge and simply be aware of the inconsistencies.

          Vinnie, I must say I have never met anyone who dubbed in so many attributes to me, that I cannot detect in myself. I hope you are enjoying your imaginary conversations with your imaginary Valkov.

          As for the post above, I disagree that Hinduism sprang from the Vedas, and I disagree that Buddhism sprang from the Vedas, or that the Vedas are the “real source”.

          What would the Vedas be the ‘real source’ of, in your view?

          You post as though you have not read any of the discussions on Geir’s blog at all! You should visit there sometime,it’s a great blog.

          But only after you’ve learned to comm instead of preaching.

          Reply

  24. Oh Vinaire — I am not the least bit upset.

    And don`t give me that — I a simply forwarding my viewpoint — explanation. You deliberately rephrased what I said and how you rephrased was a false and unwarranted statement and you know it. I have no problem with you expressing your viewpoint but have a care when you are rephrasing MY VIEWPOINT to say something I DID NOT SAY.

    Reply

  25. The bottom line is that Hubbard made claims with Scientology, which he was unable to subtantiate. He borrowed data from Eastern philosophy and altered its very fundamentals. For example, he put “self” on pedestal, whereas, Buddha had discovered self to be transitory like anything else. This was derided by Hubbard in his book Scn 8-8008.

    On top of that Hubbard accused other experimenters using the derogatory terms of “squirrels” and “suppressives” to forward his own creation of Scientology over that of others.

    This is my perception, and none of the discussion above brings up any valid points that would make me modify my perception.

    ..

    Reply

    1. Hubbard made claims with Scientology, which YOU, Vinaire, were unable to substantiate.

      Does that reflect on Hubbard? On YOU? Both? Neither?

      Reply

  26. Maria says : 2012-02-28 at 15:50

    Tell me how you know that the written works of Buddha are pure and free from alteration after 3,000 years of transmission.

    You have decided what these things mean based on your own best efforts. And you have selected specific meanings out of a vast body of works that you consider to be truth. And that is your right to do so. And you will fail or you will not, and maybe someday you will complete your quest or not. The point is to try and give it your best effort. And really that is all one can do.

    Please tell me what the point is of re-writing Buddha`s works and incorporating the works of others, including your own. Perhaps you need to start over from square one and this time stay on a pure path, free from any taint.

    In my opinion and perception, this very attitude that there is a PURE and ONLY truth transmitted by a GOD or an ENLIGHTENED ONE or a Scientist is exactly the same attitude that took Hubbard down the path that has twisted into disaster and crises for the subject he authored and for its Church.

    Surely by now you have attained or not-attained at least Bodhi or Bodhisattva along the way as Buddha described, or perhaps the utlimate non-state of selflessness, the unknowable and can demonstrate and describe it.

    Myself, I would not ban the works of Scientology. Nor would I ban the works of KHTK. They are ideas. And one of these days, Vinay, you too will depart this self we all know and love and then it will be only ideas.

    Have a care not to make the mistakes that Hubbard did, now that you so clearly see them.

    Reply

    1. (1) I have never said that Buddha is pure, or Hubbard is impure, for nothing in knowledge is absolute. I have always pointed out inconsistencies.

      (2) A person must start from scratch and not take anything for granted. Real learning comes from spotting and resolving inconsistencies.

      (3) I do not dwell on consistencies.Consistencies are just there in the background.

      (4) I have not selected any meanings from vast body of works. I don’t decide what things mean.Whatever I know is subject to modification as inconsistencies get resolved.

      (5) I follow the scientific method. Please see THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD & HUMANITIES. I form educated conjectures and try to falsify them.

      (6) The only right I care for is the right to think for myself and to resolve inconsistencies as I come across them. This is natural. There is no effort.

      (7) I don’t understand what you mean by terms, such as, “pure,” and “free from taint.” Please see point (2) above. There is no focus on my part on truth or rightness. My focus is on inconsistencies.

      (8) As inconsistencies get resolved they merge into the background, whatever you may call that background to be.

      (9) The terms GOD or ENLIGHTENED ONE are not important to me. The scientific method is important to me. Resolution of inconsistencies is important. If that is what you are referring to by the term “attitude” then OK.

      (10) I don’t care about attaining any state. The self is there just like anything else is there. These things are there to be looked at, as and when inconsistencies arise.

      (11) The thought of banning the works of Scientology is the farthest thing in my mind. My focus is on spotting and resolving inconsistencies, whether they are in the physical universe or in the mental universe.

      (12) You don’t need to worry about me. I am doing fine and I love what I am doing. And, of course, I love you too.

      .

      Reply

      1. Whoops I put it in the wrong spot.

        I`ll put it here too:

        That is a truly fine summation! 🙂

        Reply

  28. Vin, we all love you, and we appreciate your humanity in the efforts you make to have others benefit from KHTK and other things you have found valuable and useful. One thing I would propose, in order to really make progress with this purpose, is to Look at the inconsistencies in the communication methods you are using to promote your ideas. It may be the wrong gradient or whatever.

    Reply

    1. Marildi, my purpose is to let my mind unwind naturally, the way it wants to unwind itself. The physical universe is also part of this mind. I don’t want to go too out of sequence.

      I am sorry that my present method of communication is out gradient for you. I hope it will be alright some day.

      .

      Reply

      1. LOL … take that you lesser being you 😉

        Man, busted a gut on this post.

        Hahahhahaaaaaaaaaaa……

        Reply

        1. Dennis, you are the best! I didn’t know whether to laugh or roll my eyes. It seems there is no approach that can get the point across. 😀

          Reply

          1. My first reaction was astonishment and then my jaw dropped.

            Then I burst out laughing … still am 🙂

            I’ve been waiting by my computer for your post – ahh, the look on your face must have been priceless!

            LOL

            Reply

            1. Wish you could have witnessed it – first a disbelieving look, then the head shaking, then the eyes roll, then another head shake with a laugh out loud, I’m laughing again picturing you busting up. :-

            2. 😀

              It’s all good lol

              It’s moments like these that keep me coming back … and the good conversations/discussions too.

              Love it!

            3. Right, it’s either a good discussion, a fun chat, or a good laugh. 😀

      2. Marildi was soft-pedaling when she so cogently wrote, “One thing I would propose, in order to really make progress with this purpose, is to Look at the inconsistencies in the communication methods you are using to promote your ideas. It may be the wrong gradient or whatever.”

        If you were having difficulties getting your car out of the grocery store parking lot without scraping the paint, you would go home and using KHTK take a look at your driving habits until the inconsistencies began to naturally float to the surface. You would get experience from this activity and probably modify your driving habits..

        Likewise, when you have perfectly good observations but get into scrapes when writing about them, it seems a natural progression that you will using KHTK to look for the inconsistencies in your comm cycles. Maybe you should look at what consistency in a comm cycle would be first. When that seems clear, then it will be a short trip to spotting the inconsistencies in your own comm cycles.

        Many approaches to modifying your approach to 2-way comm have been tried here. We are a big friendly group and by now you know you are loved and that your participation and contribution is valued and desired. I am going to stop carping at you now.

        Reply

        1. As far as I am concerned, Scientology’s ideas about communication do not work because of inconsistency within that subject.

          I mentioned earlier that Hubbard put “self” on pedestal, whereas, Buddha had discovered self to be transitory like anything else. This was derided by Hubbard in his book Scn 8-8008. This focus on “self” has produced the following effects:

          (1) It makes a person very evaluative of others. This is very evident in Scientology.

          (2) A scientologist starts thinking in terms of others being high-toned or low-toned.

          (3) He starts to use terms like “thetans” and “wogs.”

          (4) He starts to think himself as superior and better than others because he has knowledge of Scientology.

          (5) He starts to look down on those he doesn’t agree with and becomes very derisive of them.

          (6) He uses the terms “squirrel” and “suppressive.”

          (7) He thinks in terms of “exteriorization” instead of gradual expansion of awareness.

          The bottom line is that focus on self makes a person very evaluative of others, and that takes the attention away from knowledge. Real communication cannot occur as long as the focus is on “self.” In this sense, Scientologists are poor communicators.

          Thus, it is inconsistent for me to see advice about communication coming from a scientologist.

          Reply

          1. well, er, uh, sheesh… All I was saying was that if you grease the wheels they won’t squeak. The rest of your rant doesn’t speak to my post.

            I do think you’ve good points 1-7 above. But you’ve turned the word Scientologist into a negative epithet. Is this intentional?

            I am evaluating my own part in turning the mood of this thread grumpy, and making adjustments. Oh wait, this is the hard core critics thread. Carry on.

            Reply

            1. I see same kind of reaction from hard core scientologists here as from hard core critics on ESMB.

              They react. They cannot communicate.

              Scientology is the factor that is common in their background.

              Scientologists may “communicate” better among themselves, but from social point of view they are poor communicators for the reasons explained above.

              .

            2. “The rest of your rant doesn’t speak to my post.”

              That’s true, Chris. Neither you nor I were advising HOW to communicate, just saying that if the results weren’t optimal (and they obviously aren’t) then Vinaire should LOOK at that to determine what is INCONSISTENT about his communication.

              The replies to you and I both were Straw Man and Red Herring. And one other thing – Inconsistent. (that’s a new one – the Vinaire Inconsistency Fallacy ;-)).

            1. That may be true. I tried to study PDC tapes, but could never get beyond lecture #18 or so. I may look over them again for inconsistencies.

              .

  32. And this is the next:

    http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/my-introduction-to-america/#comment-1846

    In the entry of [11/27/02 1:36 PM], I describe my encounter with the ethics system of Scientology. The first two concepts that one encounters in this system are “overts” and “withholds.” These two concepts sum up to the personal feelings of guilt that hold a person back from fully participating in life. Please see Guilt.

    The feeling of guilt is the punishment that a person inflicts upon himself after being a party to some wrondoing. Here a person has unwittingly created an inconsistency, which totally goes against one’s natural tendency to minimize inconsistencies. So, this is very bothersome to the person

    A conflict comes about because one does not want to be punished, or thought badly of, by others. The person then holds himself back. That contributes greatly to lowering his potential. Thus, a great improvement can be brought about by relieving the feelings of guilt. But, this happens to be a very sensitive area to tread on.

    The simplest way to address the feelings of guilt is to have a person look at those feelings without resistance, and then to spot the underlying inconsistencies non-judgmentally. Fortunately, I was asked to do just that by the ethics officer in this case, which brought about a tremendous relief. No further action was needed.

    From todays perspective I have the following comments to make regarding this first experience with Scientology ethics.

    The actual relief came when I looked at that incident which occurred at age 12. Relaying the details of my transgression had nothing to do with that relief.

    Thus the practice of writing down one’s overts and withholds, or relaying such details to an auditor, or ethics officer, who then writes them down, is unnecessary. No details of one’s transgressions need be divulged to bring about spiritual relief.

    Unscrupulous priests and religious organizations, in the past, have misused such details, gotten from confessionals, to blackmail people or control their behavior in some way. The current Church of Scientology has been accused of doing that to suppress any criticisms of itself by its members and ex-members.

    But the truth is that details of one’s transgression need NOT be given out to relieve oneself from the pestering feelings of guilt. Simply look at your transgression non-judgmentally per KHTK principles. If you must share your thoughts while looking at these transgressions, you may do so in the presence of somebody you can trust. It does not have to be a priest, or an ethics officer, or an auditor. Please see KHTK 18: Helping Somebody in Need

    The idea that one must divulge the details of one’s transgressions to relieve the feelings of guilt is incorrect and unnecessary.

    .

    Reply

    1. Vin:

      Quote: ” I describe my encounter with the ethics system of Scientology. The first two concepts that one encounters in this system are “overts” and “withholds.” These two concepts sum up to the personal feelings of guilt that hold a person back from fully participating in life. Please see Guilt. ”

      That’s unfortunate that it was your 1st experience. It shouldn’t have been that way. Ethics is a personal matter.

      Justice on the other hand is where the group or judiciary steps in to curtail actions where an individual shows a lack of responsibility for himself and others and then goes on to claim he didn’t do it, he unwittingly caused it to happen, or he was not there. It is simply others stepping in where an individual needs a kick in the a$$ to move him to a more positive member of the group or society. These ‘rules’ can be different depending on the codes one agrees to.

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

      Quote” ” The feeling of guilt is the punishment that a person inflicts upon himself after being a party to some wrongdoing. Here a person has unwittingly created an inconsistency, which totally goes against one’s natural tendency to minimize inconsistencies. So, this is very bothersome to the person ”

      I suppose there may be a situation where one’s judgement was ‘out’ and something was unwittingly caused which harmed rather than helped.

      But, the vast majority of one’s actions are his own doing – to generalize it as ‘unwittingly created an inconsistency’ … well …

      ” I’m sorry Officer, I unwittingly murdered the bank teller after she told me I couldn’t unwittingly steal the money.”

      Officer: ” That’s ok sonny … I understand how, unbeknownst to you, your hand grabbed that knife & plunged it into the teller. Could you leave that hand with us … we have a few more questions.”

      Reply

      1. OMG, Dennis– you are really making for some Saturday morning laughs :D.

        And thrills too! IMO, your comments amount to contributing to the same motion you started contributing to back when you joined staff, probably before that ;).

        Interesting comments from all you guys! I’m supposed to be working on something I’m editing so I have to resist wanting to join the conversation, but I will peek in from time to time. Carry on!

        Reply

      2. A feeling of guilt is a personal matter and it falls in the domain of ethics. The point that was being made was that

        One does not need to write or verbalize in detail the overts and witholds one is looking at, in order to sort them out once and for all.”

        I was not talking about Justice.

        .

        Reply

  33. KEY CONCEPTS OF PDC LECTURE #1

    1. The natural laws are the outgrowth of the composite agreement of everyone in this universe.

    2. The physical universe is basically built out of “old decayed energy,” which acts like available building material. This is similar to having a library of agreed-upon “subroutines” with which to construct one’s “computer program” or “routine.”

    3. Thus, energy provided by the physical universe becomes an easy way to create as compared to creation by direct postulates. This is similar to how the higher languages, like FORTRAN and C++, provide an easy way to program a computer as compared to programming a computer directly with machine language.

    4. At the level of machine language one can create infinite variations in programming. The freedom to create such variations becomes more and more limited as one depends more and more on the pre-packaged “subroutines” of higher computer languages. Similarly, the more a person comes to depend on the physical universe’s energy, the less he is able to manipulate the physical universe for his purposes, and
    (a) His perception itself comes to be based on physical impact.
    (b) His reality comes to be determined more and more by the physical universe.
    (c) The group naturally selects out and pushes out those who do not agree with its physical perceptions.

    5. As the physical universe becomes increasingly the means of creation and perception, one’s own ability to create and perceive through postulates is suppressed.

    6. Agreement is preferred because it seems to help one get along better. But as one agrees more and more one becomes more an effect of that agreement and ceases to be cause.

    7. As one agrees more to be driven by the physical universe’s energy, it becomes increasingly difficult for one to investigate and understand the makeup of that energy.

    8. Complete agreement means one has become physical (mechanical) oneself. One is no longer alive. One owns nothing. One controls nothing. It takes another person to come along and do something to it.

    9. It will be interesting to find out who dumped this old decayed energy (the library of “subroutines”) in the first place that has tempted each one of us so much; but knowledge dives out of sight pretty fast in this physical universe.

    10. A body is a remarkable trap. Agreement to take care of the body bends you into an agreement with the physical universe.

    11. Such agreement reduces the person to a bunch of social responses (stimulus-response mechanisms that are built into the person by the society).

    12. These basic agreements can be stated and experienced.

    13. The phenomenon here is very gradual but similar to what happens under hypnosis.

    COMMENTS & CRITICISM

    1. One can see from the above points that physical universe enforces compliance by becoming part of the psyche. It seems that the physical universe may well be stored in the “self,” as defined in KHTK 5: MEMORY & RECALL.

    2. It is not a matter of agreeing with the physical universe. One happens to be part of a system of which the physical universe is also a part.

    3. Hubbard is looking for “who” dumped this old decayed energy. This is a wrong question. It assumes that there must be a “who.” “Who” most probably was created simultaneously with the physical universe.

    4. Hubbard is blaming body to be the trap that enforces compliance with the physical universe. I disagree. Why can’t “self” be that trap? Hubbard avoids that possibility because his whole philosophy puts self on a pedestal.

    5. The inconsistency here is that Hubbard borrowed data from Eastern philosophy and altered its very fundamentals. For example, he put “self” on pedestal, whereas, Buddha had discovered self to be transitory like anything else. This was derided by Hubbard in his book Scn 8-8008.

    Reply

    2. The more I look, the more I find that the basic-basic is SELF and not some engram. True freedom is achieved when the inconsistencies at the level of SELF are removed.

      But even after the inconsistencies at the level of SELF are removed, one has to keep resolving inconsistencies at earlier stages. The sequence of inconsistencies is as follows:

      Perception …… (Engram)
      Experience ….. (Unwanted feelings & emotions)
      Information ….. (Indoctrination)
      Hypothesis ……(Beliefs)
      Theory ………. .(Doctrines(
      Principles ……..(Fixed ideas)
      Axioms …………(Fixed viewpoints)
      Self ……………..(Fixed identity)

      The idea of SELF or thetan in Scientology leads to a sense of fixed identity.

      .

      Reply

      1. Trying to use your scale, there seems to be inconsistency around perception, experience, information. You could help this by defining your terms for the way you are using them.

        For instance, you’ve equated engram with perception. For me, an engram is an information overload. In other words, Time becomes a factor. Compress the time during perception and I wind up with a mental conglomerate that I could call an engram. So for you to get me to change my mind about what is for me already a clear concept such as engram, you will have to draw me in because at first glance, your initial equation doesn’t work for me.

        For you to redefine and to reorganize these scales, you’re going to have to write more and not in a cryptic fashion. If you write in the Vinaire’s Story fashion with a warm and descriptive feeling that draws me into and wanting to understand your story.

        Reply

        1. My personal experience with engram is described in Vinaire’s Story when I went through the birth engram. This story may be accessed on my blog here:

          My Introduction to America

          When the engram breaks apart it trickles down through all the other layers of inconsistencies in the above sequence.

          The point I am making is that an engram is formed first and foremost as un-assimilated perceptions.

          .

          Reply

          1. I don`t see an engram as a specific `thing` at all. I see it as an entangled complex — including associations, identifications and evaluations, emotions, neural and glandular systems, impulses, memories and perceptions that morph and gain predominance over time as the entanglement spreads and grows, producing pervasive, persistent and distorted apperceptions and perceptions — very recursive.

            The MODEL of engram, secondary and lock is useful to examine, disentangle and disengage these gordian knots, which are interwoven and enmeshed. It is one of many possible approaches to disentangling the tangled up mess. Removing all the so-called engrams makes a good dent in it, but to my way of thinking, that`s the beginning of a process that can be addressed with many different and useful approaches.

            From Wikipedia:

            Apperception: According to Johann Friedrich Herbart apperception is that process by which an aggregate or “mass” of presentations becomes systematized (apperceptions-system) by the accretion of new elements, either sense-given or product of the inner workings of the mind. He thus emphasizes in apperception the connection with the self as resulting from the sum of antecedent experience.

            In psychology, apperception is “the process by which new experience is assimilated to and transformed by the residuum of past experience of an individual to form a new whole.”[1] In short, it is to perceive new experience in relation to past experience. The term is found in the early psychologies of Herbert Spencer, Hermann Lotze, and Wilhelm Wundt. It originally means passing the threshold into consciousness, i.e., to perceive. But the percept is changed when reaching consciousness due to the contextual presence of the other stuff already there, thus it is not perceived but apperceived.

            Reply

            1. The first definition of engram that I came across in DMSMH was, “The engram is not a memory; it is a cellular trace of recordings impinged deeply into the very structure of the body itself.”

              The way I look at it, engram is formed at the entrance level, which is perception. It definitely have repurcussions at subsequent points in this sequence.

              Perception …..(Engram)
              Experience …..(Unwanted feelings & emotions)
              Information …..(Indoctrination)
              Hypothesis …..(Beliefs)
              Theory ……….(Doctrines)
              Principles …….(Fixed ideas)
              Axioms ……….(Fixed viewpoints)
              Self …………..(Fixed identity)

              A handling of an engram may also handle its repurcussions later in this sequence of “storage algorithm.” However, there remain many inconsistencies in later sequences above that do not come about because of engrams.

              This is how I see it.

              .

    3. Hey Vinnie — I was just over at the ScnForum.org and your write-up has been picked up and posted over there on a thread entitled Scientology and Salvation. The OP is from a college student who has been asking questions for his college studies on that forum.

      p.s. thanks for the concise summary – nicely done!

      Reply

      1. Thanks! I may post summaries of subsequent PDC lectures, but this is a time consuming process. I may do more of this after I retire from my engineering job.

        .

        Reply

    4. I disagree with the very first assertion of Hubbard in PDC lecture #1, namely,

      “1. The natural laws are the outgrowth of the composite agreement of everyone in this universe.”

      This not necessarily true. It seems to me that what is at the core of the physical universe, is also at the core of SELF.

      It is not later agreements among thetans that have grown into the natural laws. The natural laws are an outgrowth of what is at the core of both the physical universe and the selves.

      .

      Reply

      1. Vinay, this first assertion from Hubbard in PDC lecture # 1 comes from an exagerated extrapolation of the ARC triangle to give the impression that if you can create by agreement a social creation so in the same way you can create MEST ( remember the previous theta-mest theory ). This first false assertion was made by lrh after his failure in the Wichita, Kansas foundation and in a desesperate effort to recover his membership and economical resources with the most exagerated offerings up to that date. ( more power to sell than those offered to just a powerful clear in the dianetic fundation ) The membership was recovered but the offerings were not delivered as was in part the case with the state of clear of the foundation.

        Reply

        1. So Rafael,

          Are you saying Clear as a state is not possible or am I misunderstanding you?

          Reply

          1. Dennis, thanks for your attention. What I am saying is that offerings were not delivered as was in part the case with the state of clear of the foundation. The book one clear was latter developed as NED clear, Expanded Dianetics clear, clearing course clear so the offerings listed in the book one could be gotten more completly and by more persons. I have seen clears crying of happiness when this state is achieved but as well I have seen persons asking refunds related with badly handled clearing cycles, mainly for the failure to deliver the book one expectatives.

            Reply

            1. I believe that is false data, Vin. My understanding is that the R6 bank (which is the one blown on going Clear) is a “machine of considerable magnitude” – and that is the precise, absolute “entity” that is discharged and cleared away.

            3. Yes, really.

              Reactive bank: “a stimulus-response machine of considerable magnitude”.

              That’s in the Tech Dict and it references PHX p. 217, which would be an older edition. There was also an issue, probably an HCOB, where LRH said that the state of Clear was about as absolute as anything in the MEST universe can be. I could probably find the ref if you want.

            4. Whatever it is, it is arbitrarily defined. After this is cleared, there remains still more stuff to be cleared.

              .

            5. Calling it an arbitrary definition tells me that you are simply unwilling to duplicate a very precise description of a “manifestation” that is by definition as finite as a physical object. In fact, it tells me that you are determined to make LRH and Scn wrong and yourself right and that you still haven’t been able to free yourself from that compulsion, in spite of your claimss to the contrary.

              And then you make a statement that there “remains more to be cleared” – as if you alone have that uniquely wise insight and as if you didn’t know darn well that besides earlier research materials there are stacks of materials that talk about what “remains” after Clear. You really should practice what you preach and preach – about CONSISTENCY and LOOKING. Otherwise, you will remain your own worst advertisement for your ideas.

              Frankly, I get tired of your deliberate and/or stupidly ignorant spread of false data,

            6. Sorry, you are being inconsistent by providing no clear basis for your outburst other than your “faith.”

              The idea of Clear originally came from clearing the bugs from a computer. These bugs made the computer compute incorrectly. Clearing the bugs restored the computer back to its ideal scene.

              Then clearing the R6 Bank, according to your argument, should restore the mind to its ideal scene. I know I have been declared Clear twice officially. Does that mean my mind has been restored to its ideal scene. I was declared a suppressive person later for doing my own research into the subject of mind. That raises questions in my mind about the state of Clear.

              What functional ideal scene does Hubbard put forth for the mind? Does a Scientology Clear always achieve that ideal scene?

              .

            7. If a person is going for further processing after attaining the state of Clear, that seems to be an inconsistency.

              .

            8. Vinaire: ” If a person is going for further processing after attaining the state of Clear, that seems to be an inconsistency. . ”

              You might re-read the definition of Clear and demo a) What it is b) What it relates to c) How it relates to the dynamics

              This will help weed out perceived inconsistencies and hopefully give you a better knowledge of Scientology.

        2. Rafael, that is an interesting observation. We have a fractal here with respect to “who”, so that’s something not fully sorted in Hubbard;s theory. Hubbard assumes “self” as something inherent. It is like assuming “atom” as something inherent.

          Hubbard theory may work to some degree at macro level. But you can’t trust its extrapolations back to quantum levels.

          .

          Reply

          1. Vinay, you understand pretty fine what I mean. There is an unsolved confusion about where self starts and ends, the who seems to be the whole universe if you can have ARC with it or a sub-atomic particle for that matter. And this assumption of change of size is the ability required to reach spiritual redemption as stated in the spacation lectures. From this are born the 8 dinamics concept.

            Reply

            2. 8 dynamics may help align some concepts for a novice, but ultimately they just add to complexity.

              There is a broadening of viewpoint as one descends into inconsistencies that relate to greater abstractions. See

              KHTK 20: Successes from KHTK

              .

      2. I guess it depends on how you look at it.

        Quote: ” It is not later agreements among thetans that have grown into the natural laws. ”

        I don’t see where the original statement mentions ‘later’

        If one considers that the ‘selves’ got together and created the physical universe then that physical universe is not Cause.

        The physical universe can be imbued with ‘life’.

        One can also consider he is the Effect of the physical universe – to what degree is dependent on one’s own considerations and his attachment to that universe.

        If one is automatically:

        a) Keeps things from going away

        b) Holding things still

        c) Making things solid

        it would seem that if one became Cause again (thereby knocking out the automaticities) the physical universe would seem somewhat lighter, and, the effects on the individual would lessen, if not disappear in its entirety.

        Reply

        1. Cause and effect seem to be woven into the fabric of this universe. In my opinion there is no absolute cause or effect, as postulated in Theta-MEST theory.

          .

          Reply

    5. Vin:

      Quote: ” 3. Hubbard is looking for “who” dumped this old decayed energy. This is a wrong question. It assumes that there must be a “who.” “Who” most probably was created simultaneously with the physical universe. ”

      It is not a ‘wrong’ question. It is DIFFERENT from your own question. Just because someone poses a question or idea that is different from yours does not make it ‘wrong’.

      Asking ‘Who’ is a perfectly fine question to ask if one is looking for a ‘Cause’ point just as some believe God/Jesus/Buddha/Mohammed, etc ’caused certain phenomena or ideas to come into being.

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

      Quote: ” 4. Hubbard is blaming body to be the trap that enforces compliance with the physical universe. I disagree. Why can’t “self” be that trap? Hubbard avoids that possibility because his whole philosophy puts self on a pedestal. ”

      I would agree that ‘self’ is also a trap. After all, there is the decision ‘To Be’ – a consideration in itself.

      I wonder who made that decision? 😉

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

      Quote: ” 5. The inconsistency here is that Hubbard borrowed data from Eastern philosophy and altered its very fundamentals. For example, he put “self” on pedestal, whereas, Buddha had discovered self to be transitory like anything else. This was derided by Hubbard in his book Scn 8-8008. ”

      It is no more an inconsistencey than what you mixed in with Scientology when you did your TRs and Wordclearing. And no more inconsistent than what you do with KHTK.

      I wouldn’t call any of it inconsistent at all … they are all paths to discovery.

      As for their workability, that a whole other kettle of fish.

      Reply

      1. Logic #6: “Absolutes are unobtainable.” In other words, what is at the bottom of it all cannot be known.

        There is no absolute “who.” There is no absolute “Cause.” Any “who” or “Cause” is part of this phenomena called universe. One may get trapped into looking for a “who” or a “cause” of this universe. This makes a subject very complex.

        .

        Reply

        2. Sometimes one needs different words to get the point across, But the point is there.

          All that we can ever be aware of seems to define this universe. If one thinks that one is aware of something beyond this universe, then one may simply be changing the definition of this universe.

          .

          Reply

  34. KEY CONCEPTS OF PDC LECTURE #2 (E-METER DEMO)

    1. An individual has areas of dense energy (ridges) that react or respond to environment on an associative basis. The denser are the areas the heavier is the association, until it gets quite crazy.

    2. Ideally, a person will knowingly make associations just for kicks. He is highly differentiative and aware of the assumptions, and can disagree with them. He can be very non sequitur.

    3. However, a psychotic must fit everything together exactly according to some pre-determined pattern. The assumptions are very dense. Not being aware of those assumptions, he cannot take them apart. He must agree with them and follow them.

    4. MEST universe consists of very dense associations. It takes quite a bit of disciplined thought to take them apart and sort them out clearly.

    5. The MEST laws are a basic series of solid agreements. Underlying these agreements, exist assumed associations among discrete postulates.

    6. The denser are the associations on any subject the harder it is to start and stop, increase or decrease a chain of logic. There is dispersal (continuous random associations) instead of differentiation.

    7. A dense person has ridges full of unrelated material packed together. He thinks he is being logical even when associating randomly. He cannot confront the thought of something expanding.

    8. The ridges are attached to a body. The body is attached to the thetan. The thetan needs to be separated from the body.

    9. An individual who can only create, and cannot destroy would be holding on to his ridges. He would be thick. A person who can only destroy would be crazier still.

    10. Theoretically, the sanity of an individual would depend on being able to create and destroy anything. Anybody who can do all this finds himself automatically moving into the necessity for an ethic and so adopts an ethic: reasonable behavior, rational behavior.

    11. PROCESS: Determine what the person is unwilling to create or destroy on various dynamics. Apply Creative (Mock-up) Processing to those areas. You may start by determining the degree to which the pc is in agreement with the physical universe.

    NOTE: A mock-up is simply something you make which you know is yours and know that you made.

    .

    COMMENTS AND CRITICISM

    A. There are some brilliant observations here, of course, in terms of differentiation, association, and identification. Hubbard is trying to associate them with the functioning of the E-meter.

    B. Association has to do with “if this, then that.” As association gets heavier, it moves toward identification. As association gets lighter, it moves toward differentiation. Hubbard is trying to associate this characteristic with the density of physical energy, on which the e-meter operates. See point 1 above.

    C. Assumptions underlie these associations (see point 2 and 3 above). A person is saner to the degree he or she is aware of these assumptions, because he can then take them apart. He does not have to agree with them.

    D. MEST universe consists of very dense associations. The scientists are taking them apart and clarifying them in terms of simpler and more basic associations?

    E. A dense (not so sane) person cannot clarify and simplify dense associations in terms of more basic associations.

    F. In point 8, LRH says that these dense associations are attached to the body, and the body is attached to the thetan. Just as there is a continuum from very dense association (identification) to very light association (differentiation), LRH seems to be drawing a parallel in terms of body, mind and thetan. The body is like a dense association. Thetan is like a light association.

    G. The LRH statement that does not make sense is, “The thetan needs to be separated from the body.” He is taking something very abstract and making it concrete. There is an inconsistency here, because the thetan is not a thing that can be separated from something else. All we need to do is to keep simplifying denser associations in the mind in terms of lighter associations. Scientists are doing this.

    H. Basically, any aberration originates from fixation. This brings about a condition that is out of equilibrium. Here LRH gives the example of a person who can only create, and cannot destroy (See points 9 and 10). Thus, the way to go is to remove fixations. Such fixations are called “attachments” in the eastern philosophy.

    I. Does an E-meter reacts to density of associations in the mind, as LRH is trying to convince us? I think that there is a stretch here.

    J. A person’s attention reacts to perceived inconsistencies. If no inconsistencies are perceived (even when they are there) there is no reaction. An e-meter may react somewhat like the reaction we observe in attention.

    K. All Hubbard is doing here is to justify the need for an E-meter in simplifying the mind. If attention is tuned per KHTK principles, there seem to be no need for E-meter usage.

    .

    Reply

    1. Hubbard seems to be dense on the subject of “self” (thetan), and, thus, not so sane when evaluating associations in that area.

      .

      Reply

            5. Not trying to be rude. Trying to be funny in an effort to defuse your obstinate comments to Geir’s question with humor.

              We can be democratic. Anyone reading this can vote. Rudest person apologizes and changes his ways:

              1. Chris is rude: yes or no
              2. Vin is rude: yes or no

              If both persons receives rude vote, both apologize.

            6. Chris,

              You are an angel in my books 🙂

              Vin: The tone of your comments is confrontational. Aside from being rude these comments actually work against the credibility of your work.

          2. I think I have done that. Please see my extensive notes on the link that I have provided above.

            There can be no further discussion unless you point out some inconsistency in what i have already presented.

            .

            Reply

            3. Please see: previous posts on subject. haha

              But seriously, you work against yourself. If it is to be a discussion, then discuss, don’t lecture. It works as ad hom by yourself against your work, oops, I mean, you know, er what you call it, not what I call it. The longer distance the communication line, the softer touch we need to use to maintain good relations. After all, it is a social blog. I have been unsocial at times and it has worked against me as well.

          3. A discussion is a cooperative effort to understand a subject better. Are you interested in a discussion or in a debate?

            I am not interested in any debate.

            .

            Reply

  35. In order to save my time and other people’s time, let me respond in one place to several recent messages to me.

    (1) I find it rude when I am asked to explain my logic without any preamble and suddenly out of the blue. I think I have done a pretty good job of explaining my views. If somebody has disagreement with what I write then that person should lay out that disagreement. If the person sees some inconsistency in what I write, then he should state that inconsistency. If the person feels that I am incorrect in my statement, then he should present a falsification.

    (2) A debate seeks to make the other viewpoint wrong and one’s own viewpoint right. That is not my cup of tea. I prefer a friendly environment in which people are discussing as a team against ignorance. If a person is wrong then others correct him nicely explaining why he is wrong rather than challenging him outright and telling him that he is not sociable,

    (3) I find it hilarious when I am told that I lecture others, while that person is lecturing me on how to be sociable; or when I am told that I am confrontational, while that person himself is being confrontational.

    (4) I find it inconsistent when a person takes Scientology definitions as absolute, and cannot relate to knoweledge outside Scientology.

    (5) And, lastly it is really amusing when my comment to a person is responded by a different person as if it was meant for him when it wasn’t. This makes me wonder if i am talking to a bee hive.

    Come on guys, let’s not get hung up on ego. Let’s take it easy and talk about knowledge.

    .

    Reply

      1. Being asked one single, simple question about one logic link in your argument, and it’s time for a vacation?

        And you talk about Ego?

        Let your Ego take a vacation and lower yourself to answer the simple question.

        Reply

        1. The fact is that simple question has already been answered; only you are refusing to accept it. Now here is a simple question for you.

          What is your disagreement with what I wrote?

          If there is no disagreement, them what inconsistency do you see in what i wrote?

          If you do not see any inconsistency then why are you asking that question?

          .

          Reply

          1. For crying out loud! What on Earth has gone into you?

            I have no disagreement with what you wrote. Nor do I see any inconsistency. The fact that you imply as much tells tales.

            I AM SIMPLY INTERESTED TO KNOW YOUR SIMPLEST EXPLANATION OF THE LOGICAL LINK BETWEEN “DENSE” AND “NOT SO SANE”.

            Now, is that clear enough?

            C’mon Vin; Put those sour grapes down on the table. Please don’t chew another one and ANSWER THE FUCKIN QUESTION.

            Now, on the light side of life;

            The 50-50-90 rule: Anytime you have a 50-50 chance of getting something right, there’s a 90% probability you’ll get it wrong.
            (Andy Rooney)

            Reply

    2. Vin: ” I find it hilarious when I am told that I lecture others, while that person is lecturing me on how to be sociable; or when I am told that I am confrontational, while that person himself is being confrontational. ”

      There is nothing confrontational about spotting an outpoint unless you yourself consider it so.

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

      Vin: ” I find it inconsistent when a person takes Scientology definitions as absolute, and cannot relate to knoweledge outside Scientology ”

      Nobody says all definitions are ‘absolute’ – yes, you accuse them of this but it is your own re-wording of a definitions and then trying to ‘prove’ it wrong that is inconsistent.

      If there is a specific Scientology definition or procedure which you mis-quote, or re-define, or have incorrect; we have every right to correct this.

      If you want to re-define something – say so. But don’t re-define & then say this is where Hubbard got it ‘wrong’.

      You do have a habit of misquoting or giving YOUR understanding of something and then going on to prove it wrong even when it was misquoted or misunderstood by you in the 1st place.

      This was very apparent in your explanation of how you were doing TRs and how you Word Cleared a number of posts back.

      How can you expect to properly evaluate a subject or process if you never did it in the first place?

      It is fine to have an opinion, but if you never did a simple CS-1, inconsistencies occur and credibility of data being put forth as ‘fact’ becomes suspect.

      Reply

    3. Wow. Kettle, black, etc. Very touch you seem.

      A simple question to clarify one single logic link in a statement of yours gets you worked up like this. Why Vinaire?

      It can’t be that hard to answer my very simple and very honest question. “C’mon” right back at you. Back to the topic; Now could very easily delineate the link, in your view, between “dense” and “not so sane”?

      Reply

      1. Why is it so difficult for you to read the first few pages of PDC Tape #2 transcripts and my comments there?

        I am getting disappointed in you Geir. You seem to like creating games conditions.

        .

        Reply

            1. Note to self: Never question Vinaire. Only listen to his lecturing. I repeat; Never question.

            3. Note; Tread very, very carefully so you don’t risk in the slightest to step on Vin’s Ego.

              My guess is that this exchange will be used in the future as an example.

            4. With respect, if you will allow yourself to be the effect of a communication, it will not be a waste of time. This is a about a personal inconsistency as viewed by others about you. Whether it is fair can be left for another discussion. So there it is. The inconsistency exists. It is a consensus reality as observed by others. It is not a condemnation but a coaching, a gift for your perusal.

        2. No, I simply asked for your (as simple as possible) view on the logical link between “dense” and “not so sane”. In as few words as possible. You stated it as a sort of “of course” in your statement, and me (and perhaps other readers of this blog) could do with a sparse, quick fix explanation – from your point of view – of that logic link. Nothing to be worked up about or be offended about, no reason to bring your Ego into the equation. A simple question. Requiring only the simplest of answers.

          Reply

          1. If you read PDC Tape #2 transcript you’ll see in the first few pages that LRH is relating dense energy to dense association, and dense association to how those, who are closer to being psychotics, think.

            I also referred to that in my summary. I thought it was pretty obvious.

            It is my observation that LRH is unable to see that beingness and cause are also manifestations, and anything manifested has structure. This applies to self. This applies to thetan.

            A scientologist will be unable to see this unless he goes outside Scientology, but the way KSW #1 is applied, that option seems to be prohibited..

            Scientology has created a trap for itself with KSW #1.

            .

            Reply

            2. It is painful to see why it is so hard for some people to see the obvious, even when it is already written down, and I am being forced to repeat it.

              .

            3. Vinaire; Is this how you are going to conduct yourself when being questioned in the future?

              Now; Going to bed 🙂

              See you guys tomorrow.

Have your say

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

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Cancel

Connecting to %s