Is David Miscavige the true source of what ails the Church of Scientology?
Given that LRH was a great OT, what cause does he have in the abuses happening in the church today?
What exactly did he write or didn’t he write that allowed the current scene to happen?
Could we safeguard this from happening again?
Dare to challenge your beliefs.
Geir Isene - uncut 
“Given that LRH was a great OT, what cause does he have in the abuses happening in the church today?”
That’s a bit circular, isn’t it? 😉
BUT, it’s not that you don’t have a point. You and others have brought me to the realization that LRH did have something to do with it, maybe a lot.
However, if one person commits some (relatively) low-level crimes and thus inadvertently opens the door to real evil – I wouldn’t then say the first person was THE cause in any truly meaningful way. That for me would be a mis-evaluation of relative importances.
What if there was a man whispering a few well formulated words into the of a madman whom he knew would pull the trigger. And he does. What level of cause was the first and the second person?
Very interesting. My first impulse was to say that in such a case they would both be equally responsible. But on second thought, there is the factor of intention. And on third thought there’s responsibility. That brings me to the Responsibility triangle you came up with, which would include Purpose, covering the intention aspect, and would also include Ability and Opportunity, also relevant factors. Food for thought here…
Are you indirectly saying that someone did something on a par with pulling a trigger as a result of LRH directly “whispering a few well formulated words” to him intending to get him to do so?
I am simply making a parallel to show that it is hard to fully disregard a persons responsibility when he utters, writes or commands another to perpetrate crimes – intentionally or by accident. It is all on a gradient scale. To give LRH credit for All The Good and give him no credit for Any Bad is of course silly.
Very good point.
There is a precedent for this kind of thinking. All the good that there is, is attributed to God. None of the bad is ever attributed to God, even when God is considered the creator of the world.
God is either source of everything, or he is not the source of everything. There is an inconsistency here. This inconsistency is not being confronted by followers of God.
Similar inconsistency in Scientology is not being confronted by the followers of Hubbard, the scientologists.
KHTK highlights such inconsistencies. It is only upon the resolution of such inconsistencies that a person becomes more rational.
.
Vinay, God is source of everything, in my view nirvana is a real and desirable spiritual advance, but it is not the final step in the spiritual development.
You should write more about the character traits of your god if I am tracking with you and if my question applies.
Looks like you completely ignored the inconsistency that I pointed out.
Why?
.
Vinay, the why is explained in my next comment post. https://isene.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/an-open-letter-to-independent-scientologists/#comment-15750
Chris, your question applies and you can ask a clarification on any point you wish. In the link I provide to Vinaire are the character traits of my understanding of God plus my comments on the matter in the blog post: https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/ideology-and-responsibility/ nothing to get angry or discuss about just a personal belief.
Of course nothing to get angry about… gods are a large subject so when you made the reference I only wanted to know a bit more about what you meant by it.
I too can use the word god but I don’t in order to avoid the personifications and anthropomorphic descriptions I might get boxed into, and which are not my concepts at all. But at that level of existence I think it is appropriate to think and converse about it. My own auditing, study, and contemplation of my observations and experience leave me feeling with that “something there is” feeling which trumps the language of which I am capable. I might describe god as that backdrop of infinite potential something like we talk about the wave-function. But a big thetan in the sky?…not so much. More like a baseline of continuity that is common to you and I. Nothing very specific and certainly nothing worth arguing about. To me, we would only be arguing with ourselves.
Rafael, I have responded to your other post. I hope that you will address the inconsistency that I am pointing out.
“God is a being” is a personal opinion or a belief. That does not mean that there is actually a “God being,” no matter how much comfort that belief may bring.
People do take comfort in their ideas and beliefs even when those ideas and beliefs are generated by them.
.
“People do take comfort in their ideas and beliefs even when those ideas and beliefs are generated by them.”
You can see this to be case with many Scientologists who are still in the Church.
.
Vinay, I have responded to your other comment too.
Nirvana and full OT powers are personal opinion and belief too.
You right my dear… all or nothing…
Chris, You are right, to use an anthropomorphic description of this baseline reality would be incorrect. I think of it more in terms of ” the generator of the quality called free will. “
. . . that sounds good.
Elizabeth, I say ” till we don´t see we will not believe ” .
There is plenty of belief out there without looking or seeing.
.
I think LRH as the discipline of Aleister Crowley forwarded some black magic stuff with Scientology. The very dualism of 1st and 3rd dynamic tech is black magic in itself. A theta trap:) But as I told earlier he was an intelligence officer and as such I am sure he was subjected to psychiatric training/handling. It works that way. So knowing the profession back those days it is hard to tell who made the first whisper and from what purpose.
It is better to focus on the inconsistencies than on the person. The very first inconsistency that i see is that Scientology claims to have been derived from Buddhism, and positioned as a successor to Buddhism, yet it goes against the very fundamentals of Buddhism.
Why is this deception?
Scientology squirrels Buddhism by mixing with it Christian church’s ideal scene of owning lot of property around the world.
Do you see the inconsistency?
.
Vinay, there’s a lot of persons in need and ignorance. The money is the medium to solve these problems. The Christian churches ( the catholic church being one of them ) are trying to do someting about it . I do apreciate this activity which is in need of a looooooot of money but never enough to fullfil the intention. I am not christian, I am Monotheist and see the good in the activity of this monotheistic section of churches. Of couse there are abuses here and there but these will be handled as needed in order to continue the assistance to the persons in this little spatial sphere.
I see the following inconsistencies in what you wrote:
(1) Money does not necessarily resolve ignorance. It is LOOKING that resolves ignorance.
(2) Monotheists believe in God as a personal being. This is inconsistent. Please see Essay #7: THE NATURE OF GOD
.
Vinay, (1) schools need money to teach how to look to millions of persons, it is not a matter of let´s go all to a monastery to find inconsistencies. ( hospitals are needed too)
(2) I have seen your essay, it is enlightening to see how you do an analisis of his essential nature as follows:
a) God is unknowable. Yes Vinay “God is a Being, and we are created in his image.” .So of course, if God is unknowable you should LOOK to the other side of this coin, I mean to the created beings as in looking at them there is the image of God, one you can know, one that describes your own spiritual nature.
b)God is a personal being. You are right again, There is an intense desire to know how this universe came about. please see my egg on the table paradox which explains our un-awareness in this step of spiritual advance.
c) terms like YHVH, GOD, ALLAH, BRAMHAN, NIRVANA, etc., are labels for the unknowable. Yes Vinay.
additionally you say, “Attaching such significances to the unknowable and acting on them, unfortunately, has contributed to deadly conflicts in the past and also in the present.” Yes Vinay the way to behave is not attaching significances to God or persons as this contribute to deadly conflicts. Instead it is better to look to the persons not to the matter because a natural knowledge is born out of it. ( I have talked about this in this blog post : https://isene.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/ideology-and-responsibility/ )
(1) Any activity requires money. But goals of a church should not be to amass money and property.
(2) How can God be unknowable and then, at the same time, be known as a being ? This is inconsistent.
(3) One may hold the consideration that God is a being. But that is just a consideration. This does not turn God into a being.
.
Vinay,
1) I agree.
2) How?, in the same way a little child is not aware of his parents as beings but in the process of growing he will be aware of it, awareness of persons can be gotten from extrapolation of a growing process.
3) Considerations about the existence of other realities like nirvana and full OT beingness are in the same speculative situation.
Rafael,
1) I am glad that you see this.
2) Unknowable is unknowable. It cannot be known as a being. Only one’s consideration about the unknowable can be known. Therefore, “God is a being” is a consideration held by one.
3) That is correct. Please see Essay #4: THE NATURE OF THOUGHT
4) What it boils down is (a) Looking, and (b) spotting inconsistencies.
5) Looking tells me that (a) God is unknowable, and (b) “God is a being” is a generated consideration.
.
Vinay,
1) ok
2) May be a better description is the one I proposed to Chris, the one stating that God is the generator of this potential quality called free will, or it will be a useless consideration from your viewpoint.
3) ok
4) What it boils down is (a) Looking, and (b) spotting inconsistencies. I agree, adding just that the important inconsistencies are those related to the relations of the persons and their condition.
5) I can live with that meanwhile. I am still investigating this as part of the free will substance.
Rafael,
1) OK
2) A consideration is just that… a consideration. Whether it is useless or not is another consideration. The definition of a consideration is simply what one considers or puts out there.
3) Ok.
4) An inconsistecy is just that… an inconsitency. Whether it is important or not is a consideration, which may or may not contribute to the inconsistency. An inconsistency is anything that is not harmonious and jars attention.
5) Free will is an additive to unknowable. It is a consideration too, which is generated to explain the unknowable.
.
Vinay, thanks. I would ask from you a more thorough description of what ” jars attention ” mean. It seems that stare at the vacum is the state which don´t jars attention. thus complete armony.
“Jars attention” may be just my way of experiencing inconsistency, and this may not define what inconsistency is. So, let’s go by dictionary definition of inconsistency:
in·con·sist·en·cy noun
1. the quality or condition of being inconsistent.
2. an inconsistent thing, action, remark, etc.
in·con·sist·ent adjective
1. lacking in harmony between the different parts or elements; self-contradictory: an inconsistent story.
2. lacking agreement, as one thing with another or two or more things in relation to each other; at variance: a summary that is inconsistent with the previously stated facts.
3. not consistent in principles, conduct, etc.: He’s so inconsistent we never know if he’ll be kind or cruel.
4. acting at variance with professed principles.
5. Logic . incompatible ( def. 4b ) >>> (of two or more attributes of an object) unable to belong to the object simultaneously.
I hope this clarifies what inconsistency is.
You said: “the important inconsistencies are those related to the relations of the persons and their condition.”
That may be so, but that importance is not part of the definition of inconsistency.
.
Vinay, thanks it helps.
Great! Engram is only one type of inconsistency, and it is not basic at all. Please see
KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY
.
marildi, it is not circular at all. lrh declared himself FULL OT ( he could read minds and be objective cause over the phisical universe ), so any disclaim on him is cancelled. He knew what was gonna happen with his subordinates.
Where and when did LRH state and declare this? I would like to hear/read this for myself.
Read the bridge chart, where he states ” power on all 8 dinamics “
Where/when did he ever say he personally had achieved all of that?
Valkov, in my only defense for having lived article he says he could read minds since his chilhood and in the church promotion it is marketed without objection since the living years of lrh.
Rafael,similarities are not identities. I am sure you normally have the “ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities”. So I wonder if you are reacting when it comes to this subject 😉
marildi, just read the definition of OT currently offered by the church ( operating thetan ), Show me one OT who is able to lift a single coin in the air and I will give you the reason fastly.
http://www.scientology.org/faq/operating-thetan/what-is-ot.html
There are lots of people who can read minds in one way or another. Non-scientologists in fact. Just as there are people who recall having lived before, who have never heard of Scientology.
Animals are very perceptive in this way, too. Many animals sense intention and emotion very acutely.
It is possible these are abilities that are latent in anyone.
Yes, Rafael, that is one definition, a very old one from The Book of Case Remedies. It isn’t the one on the Bridge and the Bridge isn’t complete anyway – only up to the “first OT level”, obviously meaning there is more to go before full OT.
Furthermore, that definition isn’t something LRH said applied to him. Please don’t equate things that don’t equate so that we can get somewhere in our discussion efforts (rather than just argue). You know – accomplish something. 🙂
marildi, it is an old one, but the rest of the definitions I have here in my hand in the scientology tech dictionary says more or less the same stuff regardless the time quoted. You say there is only one OT level released 24 years ago , ” the first OT level “. When lrh was aboard the apolo flagship released the actual OT levels and these were being delivered up to 1979 when NED for OTs was made mandatory for the existing actual OTs, there are more actual OTs around than the first you mention.
May be lrh don´t dared to say ” Hey I am OT per my own definition” but you can be sure he sold the definition of actual OT to the parishioners, I have with me a big stack of scientology old magazines approved by lrh stating that.
Oops, sorry Rafael. I meant to say “the first FULL OT level” – that is what LRH said about OT VIII. And the fact that he said it was “the first” tells us that more is to be gained after that.
But I get what you’re saying about what has been promoted and there you do have a point as regards definite exagerrations. The only saving grace is that the Bridge itself only states certain “Abilities gained”. The false claims of reg’s and others would be something in need of correction, for sure.
marildi, for sure, but The false claims of reg’s and others will never be corrected from within the CoS, it would be an SP action. The correction is and will be done from outside, from the WOG world.
It seems that KHTK provides the “OT Levels” subsequent to OT VIII.
.
Here is an insightful article on LRH’s vision for scntlgy
http://www.freezone.org/LRH/bob_ross.htm
Dio
Great article Doiogenese. Thanks for posting.
Much of it reminds me of similar viewpoints, experiences and stories that many experienced years ago.
They were exciting times.
I only was ever curious to learn the things Scientology claimed to deliver. I never particularly wanted to join a church nor promote the teachings of that church nor worship according to another’s ideas of how I should do that either.
What did LRH write? The Scientology Ethics Codes for one thing are such a conglomeration of condemnations as to defy successful practice. DM did not write these but uses them as his personal whip.
My view is that in reality,there is only present time. Searching for “causes” in the “past” is a wild goose chase based on imagination and is basically just rationalization and justification, the assigning of cause and responsibilty to others.
By analogy, Stalin was the Premier of the Soviet Union from 1941 until he died in 1953. Was Stalin responsible for the form and qualities the Soviet Union took during those years? Of course he was. It was his “Command Intention” that set the direction.
What “cause” can we assign to Lenin, or Trotsky, or Karl Marx for what the Soviet Union became?
“Blaming” or assigning cause to past identities is a vain exercise, like saying “The Devil made me do it”.
Where does the buck actually stop?
The buck stops when you find the person being cause of a specific action, he is the resposible one in the line and you may add more on the line if you wish.
Valkov; Was Stalin responsible for the condition of the Soviet Union in 1955?
No. It was already in transition to something else. Reality flows. He was no longer directly guiding it. It is true that there were still channels(agreements he established, still guiding it in the directions he chose for it, just as a ship continues on in the direction it was pointed, if the steersman happens to die at the wheel. But that is not the same thing as direct responsibility on the part of a living agent. Perhaps that is the distinction I am making.
Automaticities do exist, but they do so only as long as they are continuously created.
I use “source” as referring to a living present-time agent. You may be using the word in another sense.
I use it here to define who is responsible.
Are you defining “responsible” as meaning “acting or having acted as cause”?
Pretty much – read my article “Processes, automation and human potential”. There you will find a deeper understanding of the component parts, in two levels, of responsibility.
So if you ask someone to pull the trigger, and 5 minutes later they do – do you carry any responsibility in that shooting at all?
The reason I think this is a slanted question is it is on the order of “Have you stopped telling people you know are yo-yo tools to pull the trigger?”
Anyone can be damned by that kind of question.
LRH really hammered folks getting trained and auditing others to make them more able and free. That’s what he “whispered” and SHOUTED over and over in people’s ears. Probably 10,000 to 1, he said that, over and above telling anyone to pull some trigger in a destructive way.
So, if you get trained and audit someone to Clear, do you carry any responsibilty in that Clearing at all?
Or to make it a little less global and more specific, if you are an auditior, and you tell someone to come in for his next session at such-and-such a time, and he does, what is the extent of your responsibility, when he actually does come in at that time, and the session does take place as scheduled?
Any idiot can cherry-pick something LRH said or wrote 50 years ago and use it to justify some act of his own. And any idiot already has done so, more than once, I would wager.
So, what is the alternative to speaking/writing? To keep silent and not communicate at all?
Valkov, I totally get what your saying, but I think it’s a matter of frame of reference, or you could say gradients. I’m sure you’ve seen this defintion from “Advanced Procedure and Axioms”:
“It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions on every dynamic and in every sphere as one’s own. It includes such ‘disrelated’ data as the death of an individual one has never met on a highway on which one has never travelled at the hands of a stranger no matter how culpable. One does not send to find for whom the bell tolls without full willingness to have tolled it and to have caused the cause of its tolling.”
.
From my understanding, that would be the highest level of responsibility and below it every other step or gradient.
And surely LRH would embody his own definition of responsibility?
It was certainly not a slanted question. It was pretty straight forward, really.
And then you defend that LRH has no responsibility in the current CoS scene?
Does he have any responsibility for the good that has happened with Scientology?
“And surely LRH would embody his own definition of responsibility?”
Well, I think LRH would accept responsibility, absolutely. But – “embody” that definition? By that definition, you and I are also responsible for the current state of Scientology, and everyone else as well. But, realistically, probably not nearly as much so as LRH – and LRH may not be nearly as responsible for it as DM.
In practical terms, I don’t think we can look at responsibility in the frame of reference of that particular definition. Most (I imagine all) of humanity isn’t operating on that level, and neither was LRH (and he never said he was). However, in the usual meaning of “justice”, I think we definitely can talk about what LRH should be held responsible for – and that would be a worthwhile topic.
But for that we need to name specifics, so we know specifically what is being referred to as the cause. Just saying “well, he claimed to be OT’ doesn’t do it, IMO (as that can mean different things). Neither does “he set the stage, purposely or not” – intentions are important to know. It’s like the difference between premeditated first degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, and acquittal 🙂
marildi, so you say intentions are important to know if the trial is to result in an acquittal. So if I take a weapon and use it thinking i am a great shooter and kill a man, my stupidity releases my guilt. And even more, if I tell someone else how to shoot that way and he kills a man, then I am released from that situation. And if i say that this way of shooting is standard tech and will never be changed EVER …… in my opinion this is criminal intention not just stupidity.
No wonder why lrh had to hide in creston away from family and lifelong friends.
Did LRH have lifelong friends?
Chris, I don´t know of any. Good point, it is a big out point to investigate.
I also think there is a difference between whispering in the ear of a specific person who is easily influenced and whose judgement you know is unsound, and publishing your thinking to the entire world thus making it accessible to all and sundry, to do with as they will.
Look for inconsistencies and not for cause or effect.
.
This is an interesting question. How much of the Soviet Union’s condition and operating basis was Stalin actually responsible for?
How much of the Third Reich’s actions and operating basis was Adoph Hitler actually responsible for?
After all, there were millions of Germans involved and participating in the one, and millions of Russians as well as many other ethnic groups who co-existed in Russia, participating in the other.
It is not so easy to assign responsibility to one person. Because after all, “reality is agreement”. What needs to be established is who is the source, the originator, and who agrees. One is “cause”, the other is “effect”, in terms of the communication formula.
So assigning it all to DM would be silly, right?
Silly? Not at all. That’s pretty much the opposite of what I am saying.
If you read studies such as are described in The Lucifer Effect, to whom do you assign the responsibilty for the acts the subjects performed?
Would you not assign primary responsibilty to the researchers who designed and implemented the study?
I would.
They designed the environment that pushed or pulled the subjects, manipulated them, if you will, into doing things that “good’ people wouldn’t do without their influence.
Or how about the training in the armed forces? They use carefully designed training and indoctrination which turns some normal basically good young people into killing machines.
Or the many American POWs in North Korea who just sat down and died because of the emotional manipulation they experienced as a result of the carefully crafted communications they received from their captors.
Or “hazing”‘in fraternal groups, etc.
In present time, SOME ONE is busily at work applying methods to achieve some intentional result. There is always a leader, a trend-setter, someone who sets the tone, models and commands the behavior, who teaches others to “act that way”, who designs,initiates or teaches and reinforces the behavior.
Call this the Prime Source, the Originator. In Present Time. Others adopt or absorb the intention and then pass these intentions, just as children absorb and perpetuate the intentions they experienced from their parent. However, their misbehavior is likely to be most intense when they are actually connected in present time to the originator/reinforcer of the behavior.
For example, an abused child may grow up to be an abuser himself, but he may also struggle with his impulse to act that way.
But you know all this. We’ve discussed it before, and it’s common knowledge in psychology besides.
So there are “antecedent causes”, but in order of priority it is any present-time instigator(source, cause) that needs to be identified and handled, before more distantly removed “antecedent causes” or “antecedent sources” can be identified.
I believe in all cases it will always be an actual present-time personal influence that originates the abusive behavior, not some book or piece of writing. Those would only be justifications, something an abuser latches onto to justify abusive behavior he originally experienced at the hands of someone else, not the author of the book.
That’s also pretty much what the different types of PTS are all about.
See also the Book of Case Remedies.
Valkov, this question of responsibility has to be one that philosophers have debated for ages. You know – all the different aspects, including for example whether the person had the intelligence to actually grasp what he was doing, or whether or not it was intended, etc.
Do you have knowledge of different philosophical viewpoints on this? I vaguely remember this point from my philosophy classes years ago.
marildi, may be the absolute concept of responsibility is the study area for philosophers but if someone steal my car, he is the responsible even if he has intelligence or not
Marildi,
my view is that “responsibilty” would be on a gradient scale, much as anything else in this world is.
Reality, by definition is co-created. But some co-creators are more causitive than others, carry more weight, are prime movers, whatever. They are Opinion Leaders, the ones who make things happen. They carry more of the responsibilty for things that happen than others.
This is Common Sense 101.
Probably the best resources would be found in the area of Law and Jurisprudence. Judges and juries have been settling these kind of matters for ages.
No-one should be shot out of prejudice. Responsibity needs to be addressed on the basis of thorough evidence.
Valkov, I think even Geir is basically in agreement with you and I on this and was only making the point that there does exist true responsibility even if it is indirect. I’m not sure if you read his article “Processes, automation and human potential”, but in that he has a triangle that adds up to Responsibility.
I think of it as a fractal of the KRC triangle – i.e. it takes the R corner of the KRC triangle and breaks it down into its own triangle components that add up to Responsibility. In the article Geir named those components as Ability, Opportunity and Purpose.
I was looking at that to see how it applied on this question of responsibility, level of. I guess Ability would include for one thing the person’s intelligence and thus, for example, a mentally challenged person would have a low Ability. The Purpose corner, or intention, would include such things as “didn’t know the gun was loaded” and in such a case, the intention or Purpose corner would be low. I haven’t quite figured out how Opportunity fits in but it might have to do with mitigating circumstances, such as the person being under heavy duress at the time.
But the main piont is this. Let’s say we have a case where the overall level for the three corners of this triangle is low – then Responsibility would also be low in terms of the degree to which we could hold the person “responsible”.
When I broke it down this way it wasn’t such a conundrum. How does this view of it seem to you?
Valkov, ok you have convinced me, It is not so easy to assign responsibility to one person. So in the topic at hand, for you, who is the guilty one for the poor CoS operating basis.
Mr. Nunez, I guess maybe I answered your question in my post just above, before seeing your post.
Basically, there is a Leader and there are Followers. They are all responsible collectively and individually. But unless there is someone behind Miscavige, he is the “chief mobster”, he makes the rules and has them enforced, so he is the one who drove all the LRH trained staff away, rewrote the tech, etc etc.
So it is logical to look at him as the prime suspect, the prime source or cause of much of the Church’s troubles, the one who is primarily responsible, seeing as how he has been in charge for 35-36 years and more and more things have gone wrong.
He has demonstrably been changing LRH Tech and Policies
(squirreling) and getting bad results, crashing the Church stats, and driving public into Liability or worse by impoverishing them with his “donations programs” which he invented and which are 100% against LRH policies.
At the same time as he takes the money, he is promoting himself as the hot shit real deal selfless leader.
The CoS is a gang. He is the gang leader. But his followers are also gangsters, no? So they also have responsibility.
So he has the present-time responsibility of the problems of the CoS and it’s bad behavior, and it’s failure. He is the source, the cause of them.
It’s happening on his watch.
Is David Miscavige the true source of what ails the Church of Scientology?
No.
Given that LRH was a great OT, what cause does he have in the abuses happening in the church today?
Responsible for not putting a good admin structure that prevent all this kind of abuses.
Responsible for withdrawing from the subject all the final years of his life and leave the run of the show to bully kids.
What exactly did he write or didn’t he write that allowed the current scene to happen?
Didn´t write about independent admin entities that oversee each other. Didn´t wrote about clear info to public about origin and use of all money, about transparency.
Could we safeguard this from happening again?
No.
Beto, the omitted data is a very good point you show us. Bright on your part.
What exactly did he write or didn’t he write that allowed the current scene to happen?
The following is a selection from the post on ESMB by Veda (http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?26057-Just-a-reminder&p=652070#post652070). The post was there to prove that much bad stuff was going on in Co$ long before KSW.
“The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win.
“The law can be used very easily to harass… If possible of course, ruin him utterly.”
— ‘Manual on Dissemination’ (1955)
“Find or manufacture enough threat… bring the government and hostile philosophies or societies into a state of complete compliance… This is to be done by high level ability to control and in its absence by low level ability to overwhelm.”
— ‘Department of Government Affairs’ (1960)
I think it makes a big difference to include the context for those statements – which from my understanding were made in reference to specific persons or governments attempting to squash Scientology.
Not to say that there was nothing wrong with such statements – they were very “politically incorrect” at best. And probably at worst they pointed in a certain direction that is being followed to this day by CoS management. That is a legitimate criticism, I feel.
But again, to slant it in a certain way by not taking context into account isn’t quite fair or the truth.
I agree, Marildi.
Not only specific persons and specific governments, but manifesting at specific times.
Sorry, but this “taking out of context” is a kind of “brainwashed by Scientology” expression. There are things in itself which just can’t get out of context.
Hubbard claimed himself Maitreya. There are not too many words of Buddha which you can take out of context…
But with LRH’s words it is always come up “taken out of context”. Sometimes it is OK. But only sometimes.
Now, the Bridge is applied to everyone. Everyone starts with the lowest level. Usually with Book One. But people are on different levels spiritually. Why can’t you “take the Bridge out of context”?
gODd, I agree that “taken out of context” does not always apply. And you are right that this has been overdone by some who are biased and not being objective.
But as for the harassment techniques, the context for both LRH’s words AND the context or circumstances of the times need to be taken into consideration. That may not absolve him but it would mitigate his responsibility and guilt. I think you can see what I mean.
Nevertheless he incited even murder. This is insane. I’m sorry I did not know about it at the beginning.
Look at authentic religious leaders. Sorry, that I compare Hubbard with authentic people.
When you say “he incited even murder” you make it sound like he was tried and convicted in a court of law. But you may at least know of some actual evidence – do you?
However, ignoring context completely is also brainwashed.
Now you’ve done it.
You challenged Independent Scientologists to challenge their beliefs.
You hater!
I understand that this may not get me re-listed among Marty’s blog links, but I believe in always challenging my own views – and I recommend it to others.
I was curious about that – what exactly was the reason you were taken off? That was the way I myself found your blog, a year or so ago.
I really don’t know.
I would guess it was because you do not promote Standard Tech uber alles. In other words, misunderstanding happened. The world is co-created. Often by a process that resembles “He thought that you thought that he thought you thought that…..”
But basically, because Marty’s agenda was apparently not Geir’s agenda.
SP’s do not agree 😀
And in Scientology force and clever brain-washing makes you agree with the others and with LRH:)
People who think for themselves often don’t agree.
.
— even with ourselves.
LOL! Spot on. There is no absolute truth. There is only looking!
.
It is my view that the scientific approach of Geir to scientology was too much in the presence of the KSW # 1 blind faith.
🙂
Is David Miscavige the true source of what ails the Church of Scientology?
He (DM) has perpetuated and expanded on certain aberrations (notably the service facsimile) that are the root cause of the problems of the Church and philosophy today.
Given that LRH was a great OT, what cause does he have in the abuses happening in the church today?
Ron was extrordinary in that he was able to see that he was as, or more, aberrated than the average guy, wanted to get rid of the aberrations, and coallesced the relevant knowledge of others, and his own, into a research path that led to Dianetics and beyond that to Scientology.
I used to think Ron had eliminated all ser fac type constructs from his own case. Much of what has been written about him by former colleagues suggests he held and dramatized a number of ser facs. That doesn’t diminish the good he also did but should be recognized as the aberration that does need to be eliminated. In just about every example of where we see Scientology philosophy being used destructively we can see clear evidence of a ser fac being dramatized.
The biggest problem we have is acknowledging his aberrated side without having to think that this invalidates his technological accomplishments. Some will say that because he (Ron) was flawed, that means all of Scientology is bunk. It is the fear of that reaction that leads others to refuse to say, or allow being said, anything negative about Ron. Ron, himself, may have had that fear. It matters not, now. We are at a point in time where we should be able to learn all the truth and make our own evaluations. Those who conclude that the technology has an amount of validity will continue to use it. Some will hold steadfast to the letter and continue some of the ser fac dramatizations. Some will understand the concepts and use them without the ser facs. As individuals we need to get to the point where we can recognise dramatizations, both our own and in others, and not let those dramatizations affect the sanity of actions.
What exactly did he write or didn’t he write that allowed the current scene to happen?
Tech and policy were supposed to be the means to overcome dramatization. Largely they are, but they are not perfect. Evolution is still required.
Could we safeguard this from happening again?
I think so. It may take a while. Denial of any fallibility must end. Workability can be emphasized, but acceptance of others – despite alternate viewpoints – must be allowed. The Scientology philosophy must be returned to the path of expanding the free will of the individual. Some chaos from this such a path must be expected and accepted. Ultimately, though, it will lead to a more evolved, more workable, far less pedantic philosophy.
Wow, really good contribution!
About LRH, you said, “The biggest problem we have is acknowledging his aberrated side without having to think that this invalidates his technological accomplishments.” This is a point that has been discussed here quite a bit with some definite headway for both extremes in viewpoint, I would say. For the most part, we’re much better at seeing it as the fallacy of Ad Hom.
Actually, pretty much everything you brought up has been being discussed a lot – except for the subject of ser facs! As for my own observations, I’ve been kind of surprised at how often ser facs can be seen in most everybody, and I agree that this is one of the most, if not the most, important aberration to handle. But I never really looked at DM or the CoS from this standpoint – and now that you say it, it seems obvious. DM is really, really good at making people wrong. The running “feud” he has going with Marty Rathbun comes to mind – ser fac expanded to GPM, maybe.
And I got that you were saying the tech itself contains ser facs. Will you please elaborate on what you mean, specifically? You also said, “As individuals we need to get to the point where we can recognise dramatizations, both our own and in others”, My immediate thought on that was – the way (or one way) to do that is with training and auditing. Do you have any other ways in mind? That would be interesting. As for your point that , “evolution is still required”, there has also been lots of discussion and a fair amount of agreement that research needs to continue. You’re in the right place, it seems. 🙂
It was great reading your sane viewpoints. Thank you!
“Ahh…” said the white guy as he looked around the igloo at all the smiling Eskimo faces after his oration on snow.
My guess is that I will be adding to the humor by citing KSW1 as a source of a (tech) ser fac, but I’ll take a shot at it:
Most of us have listened to many a tape that contained a comment such as “We’ve got it all taped now…”, “We can clear anyone now…”, “There’s no case we can’t handle…”.
Quite possibly, at the very time Ron made one of those remarks, and with the data set he had at hand, he may have been telling the truth as he knew it. But in many, many later cases research showed that “something else” needed to be addressed to handle yet another case anomaly. And so the bridge evolved as the best-ordered set of steps to address cases in general. “Evolved” is the operative word.
The simplicity of the ser fac created using KSW1 is that “you are wrong for applying the technology in any way other than the way we say to apply it (today).” However, if the technology changes tomorrow, then tomorrow you will be wrong for applying it the way you were right, today. KSW1 takes just being “wrong” to the heights of squirrelling, out-tech and off-beat practices. Because such practices are anathema to Scientology orthodoxy, it becomes patently easy to make another wrong – and self right – by claiming any perceived imperfection as out-KSW.
(Unless, of course, the “other” is somehow senior to you. Then we enter into the domain of the admin ser fac. …)
I would have no problem with an organizational policy that said “Here’s the rules for playing in this sandbox. If ya wanna play here, follow these rules. Capiche?” Such rules are arbitrary and can be arbitrarily changed, but the difference is no one is saying that the rules are immutable and “all true”.
As far as a method of gaining the ability to spot one’s own ser fac dramatizations, I would give Scientology auditor training the top marks. However, I have seen many a trained individual who couldn’t see the bat flying in the belfry, so more than just training is indicated. On a personal basis I use a drop in tone to be my indicator of charge moving in. Then, by looking at the thought that accompanied that drop in tone I try and make an aware decision about the best handling.
Thanks so much, humorous white man 😀
Your basic point is really well taken –.that no one should be “saying that the rules are immutable and ‘all true’” and that things have to “evolve”. The interesting thing for me is that I think LRH actually did say that, at least as regards admin tech. In basic PLs on the theory of admin it’s pretty clear that the way you are to apply policy (or not apply whichever policy) is determined by whether it aligns with purpose and expansion when applied to the current scene. And I can easily take the viewpoint that maybe the problems that arose were a matter of not really applying policy with that conceptual understanding.
I tend to think there were even similar principles in tech, but I don’t have enough training and auditing experience (and recall, ha ha) to be able to give specifics. But one thing I always remember is the datum – there’s no substitute for understanding. There again, as with admin tech, roteness of application causes problems.
Actually, your basic viewpoint reminded me of Geir’s article, “Processes, automation and human potential”. He makes a great case for why any “process”, in the broadest sense, must be flexible if the result itself is going to be exactly what is wanted – Gödel’s theorem is one thing he bases that on. You might want to check it out, pretty interesting article.
You know, where I mentioned training and auditing as a route to becoming able to spot one’s own dramatizations, I meant training and auditing of pc’s – that flow. I’ve observed great presence and discipline in experienced auditors. But short of that, your method of being aware of a drop in tone level seems like a good gauge – ,more workable for some than others perhaps. I think I try to do something similar, actually, but have thought of it as noticing “a reaction”, and that could also be described as a tone level drop. Thanks again for the comm. 🙂
p.s. I guess I completely as-is’d your point about KSW 1 and ser facs – I totally get it. Very interesting assessment.
When it came to the tech, LRH was pretty much a “do as I say, don’t do what I do” kind of guy. His auditing demos were very much an example of that. He could pull it off because of his fantastic understanding of the auditing process and his giant beingness. He was the master of the variable process, fixed result.The inability of others to easily duplicate his understanding and presence led to the training lineup of the academy levels. I expect he figured that the considerable roteness of the academy levels would be enough to bring an auditor to understanding of the auditing process. In reality it was just the hours and hours of chair time that would make the auditor and auditors who made it were universally not rote. Although I haven’t yet read the comments section of Geir’s article “Processes, automation and human potential”, I do get it.
As far as spotting and handling personal charge, your method and mine are further examples of variable process, common result. 🙂
Yep, you’re right, yours and mine are just different variations on the same theme, with the same purpose :).
As for the training lineup being rote, I myself never thought of it that way, just “standard”. But when you have something that’s quite “standardized” I can understand the viewpoint of “roteness”. What I always saw, though, was what seemed to me to be a definite flexibility or variability in auditing – first and foremost because of TRs and secondly, the correction lists. These two things are what make it possible to “audit the pc in front of you” and handle the unpredictable things that can come up. (Or do you feel there are still things that aren’t provided for and don’t get handled to an specific result?)
Also, as I believe you indicated, it takes experience for an auditor to have enough conceptual understanding to “vary standard tech” (funny way to put it) in a way that sticks to basic principles – the part that doesn’t vary.
It seems Ron knew that to get the most out of even “chimps” (as Valkov put it) there had to be as much of a fixed process as possible – combined with the catchalls of TRs and correction lists.. (You have me calling him Ron again, as you do sometimes – not too many people do so anymore.)
I do see that you get this concept about fixed vs. variable processes, but I wasn’t sure if you were saying you read the article or didn’t. It wasn’t a blog post with comments (the article itself is on Geir’s permanent site) although he did have a post about it and the comments on that might be the ones you were referring to. Anyway, the context of the article is business processes, but that particular principle about fixed vs.variable is truly a universal one. In the same article there’s also a description of some triangles he derived, which I thought of as fractals of the KRC triangle – pretty interesting stuff too.
Hey, just curious – what’s the significance of “2ndxmr”? Are you a 2nd time around returnee, Mr. ;)?
@marildi :2012-02-23 at 19:56
re: “… things that aren’t provided for…”
The desired product of basic academy levels training might be summarized by another triangle: TRs (top) – Tools (right) – Application (left).
While that triangle might be more appropriately called “Auditing”, it also sufficiently embodies the subject of “Training.”
In the Tools category – at the academy level – you have PC hatting, Processes and Correction Lists.
The thing that I noticed most untrained PCs were deficient in was an understanding of the PC’s hat in the auditing process. This was supposed to be covered by CS-1 hatting but was regularly missed. The result would be that in session it was one thing for an auditor to get a read on the meter, but it was another thing to get the PC to go into the bank and look for an answer. More often than not that was due to the PC not having been hatted to LOOK.
That is one of the simpler examples of things that would be corrected in cramming but that should have been covered in training.
re: “… triangles… as fractals of the KRC triangle…”
Yes, excellent article and concepts. It articulated many of the principles I use in my business but never formally put into words. The variants of SCS (start, change, stop) do form a fractal structure throughout a business and are especially important in computer programming(setup, operate, shutdown; input, process, output, etc.).
Your comment in the “Final cut” blog about applying the fixed/variable concepts to thought processes was superb:
Marildi: “I thought of mental processes too and the comparison would be: fixed ideas (whether reactive or learning/training patterns) as opposed to creative or fluid and flexible present-time thinking. And even where thoughts and thinking are purposely held as a set form or process, if they are used like tools, with awareness and evaluation and not just as rigid, pre-set mental structure, then you maintain the difference between fixed and flexible mental processes. ”
That makes an important distinction which has relevance to the ser fac topic we were on. The ser fac is a self-generated thought/computation with immense reactive power. The amazing thing is how rigidly they can be held and yet remain uninspected. Your comment made me wonder if maybe “practiced creative thought” could be employed by an individual as a means of establishing a fluid awareness that would be a strong enough counterpoint to the fixed idea that a recognition of the fixed idea (when triggered) would occur. (That is somewhat akin to the methods we use to detect and handle charge i.e. being sensitive to a deviation from the norm and then inspect the accompanying thought.) Would one, then, be able to blow the fixed idea by inspection with fluid thought processes?
Oh, yes,… the moniker. Kicking the can around the block once more.
Hey, that’s pretty good – the Auditing/Training triangle. I see it as corresponding to be-do-have even more than to start-change-stop or input-change-output (but those too). TRs have everything to do with ARC, which is the being and beingness – and the necessary ingredient for any sort of originality or creativity within any doingness. Tools by themselves are a rote/standard doingness (including Correction lists, as I now see it), but the variability of combining TRs with Tools results in the intended, correct Application. Yeah, that’s good 🙂
Interesting what you say about pcs who are not only untrained but not well hatted on the CS-1 – I wasn’t aware of the latter being that common. (You must be an experienced auditor, sup or other Tech/Qual terminal, huh?) I thought of another triangle related to that: Meter read – Auditing comm cycle – Charge blown = VGI’s. If not a true triangle, I think it’s at least a true sequence.
Thanks for the ack on my comment about mental processes. I’m tickled that it inspired your idea having to do with “practiced creative thought”. By “countering” a triggered ser fac (or any other fixed idea? false datum?) do you mean recognizing it as a divergence from creative thought? Reminds me of the principle that one has to know what light is before being able to recognize darkness (as with any other dichotomy) – or, for that matter, spotting a shift from being uptone or at some higher tone (your method), or a shift from being (relatively) free of charge to being less so (mine), as you already indicated.
There was a similar kind of thing that was discussed on a thread a while back – Geir came up with the idea that there should be some way to proof ourselves against going PTS to suppression. I wonder what that dichotomy would be… But this is probably a whole new blog thread.
Wow, your moniker has a lot of meaning to it, with the combination of those two phrases. I bet it could be the title of an essay you might well write. Maybe a whole book. You must elaborate some time, including as regards only “2nd” time 🙂
@Marildi
re:”… recognizing it as a divergence from creative thought”
Yes, that would be an example. Or as a dichotomy of state, or as a ridge that stops a flow. When one is feeling relatively tranquil thoughts seem to easily flow from one to the next. A very creative state can be attained. Neurophysiologists would call this an alpha-theta state based on the brain electrical patterns at the time.
If we take a look at the state from a function viewpoint (thetan tone/state) as opposed to a structure viewpoint (brain electrical pattern) it is easy to see the dominance of function over structure: restimulate the thetan and the electrical pattern will shift. (It is true that if you electrically stimulate the brain you can restimulate the thetan, but a thetan in good shape will not succumb from that restim.)
As LRH said, function monitors structure. Flows and ridges would occur at the “function” level. Getting thought to flow in a creative manner (tranquil state) is different from thought flitting about in an agitated state (different brain electrical pattern, too.) When thought is flowing and some restimulation keys in a fixed idea, the physical/mental sensation is like hitting a brick wall. The wall is the ridge that blocks the flow. It is tangible. Misemotion accompanies the ridge. Being able to observe the misemotion without “being” the misemotion is the key to releasing it.
Since the ridge is part of the mind and we are thetan/mind/body, when theta can differentiate itself from the mind (pull back and look/inspect) it becomes possible for theta to release the charge (or blow it) by inspection, or by duplication, or even a few other means. Essentially, any one of those means can be interpreted as a flow.
Objective processes are very effective at bringing theta to this ability – to be able to control thought, to be able to duplicate a thought, to be able to spot the spot in space where a thought is, to being able to put a thought at a point in space, to being able to keep or discard thoughts, and on and on. Objectives are incredibly powerful and necessary to the understanding and control of the mind. Like any other process, though, they should only be run to an EP – not for fixed lengths as reports from the church now indicate they are being run.
The point is, there is a mental mechanism that keys in charge and by understanding that mechanism and being able to spot its activity – however one might do that – the opportunity is at hand to release the charge.
I’m sure that’s a lot more preaching to the choir, but it goes towards the subject of the thread and my premise that we can do something about the decline of Scientology (due to ser fac dramatizations) by gaining the ability to spot and handle dramatization on an individual basis. Perhaps few will be able to do this easily, but the first step is always recognition of the problem. Means of solution can then be worked out.
The same holds for proofing oneself up against PTSness: there is a mechanism to falling PTS and a mechanic of de-PTSing. That should be an interesting thread.
I read your comment twice over than once more.. Thank you…
Well, I tracked pretty well with you on your description of things in physics terms (as I see it). Luckily, I’ve learned a little about physics from other posters here over the months, and I figure if theta is composed of A-R-C then we have to be into the field of energy, rather than theta being a true static as per other LRH definitions. I’ve really found that relating it to the laws of physics has given me a better understanding of the theta universe.
Something that occurred to me from your comment was that I had never thought much about the difference between duplication and blowing by inspection, more or less equating them. I’m thinking now that it may essentially be a matter of the comparative speed of each. And that, I imagine, would be determined by the “theta power” involved vs. that of the manifested charge, i.e. whether the theta energy was of a higher or lower quantity – or in other words, the theta-entheta ratio, as per SOS. Thus, a relatively high amount of theta, as in blowing by inspection, would not require the more or less detailed and more time-consuming inspection that’s needed for duplication, to get a blow.
Also tracking with you on what you say about not “being” the misemotion, rather being able to differentiate oneself from it. You say it relates to certain abilities to do with thought and that made me think of TR 8, where you have to put the thought into the ashtray. There was another auditor drill that also had to do with placing thoughts – in smaller or larger areas, as I recall. Can’t remember exactly what it was – probably because I never felt all that confident about it, LOL.
Even with TR 8 and putting a thought in the ashtray, more than anything it seemed to me that I was merely getting “the idea” that the thought was being put there. But it could be that the consideration itself is actually the whole of it, I don’t know, because coaches on TR 9 did seem to get my intention just fine. Also relevant, from what you said, is the fact that I had had objectives already. The point I’m making is that although this idea of doing something about ser facs on an individual basis is a great one, I agree that it might be easier for some than others.
Well, we may pretty much have exhausted this particular subject for now. As regards your comment about preaching to the choir, I don’t know how much of a “choir” there is here, and in any case I’m sure your posts are appreciated by others besides myself. You show a lot of study and thinking has been put into lots of things and it’s obvious that you are willing to share. Thanks so much 🙂
Elizabeth: “I read your comment twice over than once more.. Thank you…”
I love this comment. 😀
Marildi wish you could understand what is the reason for reading that comment over and over again…..
Elizabeth: “…the reason for reading that comment over and over again….”
Please do tell.
That would be difficult to explain…. and not likely believed….
@Marildi
Your insights and understanding have been equally appreciated. I am a proponent of using the concepts of physics to address theta in the physical universe. Much of my own understanding has come from this approach. I am happy to continue on with such topics through email. 2ndxmr at hushmail.
If you want to try to explain, we’ll try to understand. 🙂
Click the “reply” button from your email rather than from the blog and your comment will be posted directly under the comment that you are replying to even if there is no “reply” button in the blog.
What I want to know is how others are able to manipulate their fonts and get their fancy wordprocessing to show up on the blog. I feel left behind with my typewriter and am ready to move into the 21st century.
hehe
Thanks, 2ndx (I’ve given you a nickname :)). Will email you soon.
This exchange between Elizabeth and Marildi is hilarious.
“Complexity is directly proportional to the degree of non-confront ~LRH
.
Exactly so.
Vin dont start on me about confront you dont even know how to acknowledge when I have addressed you… so please ……or I will rattle your old cage…I am in a man eating mode this morning….I did not have “gentle” spinkled in my coffee… look out…
‘Man-eating mode’ Yikes!!
I’m going to slip into a dress or something and display my more sensitive side 🙂
A dress will hide you body but not you mate…. Remember I got your number too..Observer..
🙂 All right … I’m ‘out of the closet’ hahaha
Very funny…. after all this time care to comm..? Has a withold been missed? You own me one communication and few ack on mine……
My email has changed and I have been compiling a new contact list … different ISP (internet service provider) – we moved … still on the island though
Email is similar to before but different
red-sky@shaw.ca
…and Vinaire, how are so able to manipulate your fonts on the blog? I am ready to learn.
I use HTML tags. Please see
http://www.w3schools.com/html/html_formatting.asp
.
Elizabeth, your confront is just fine.
.
knuckled you right under – good thing for you – haha
Mister…. you OWN me big time…apology…in public and why too. lets have it it is a good day for good clean communication…
No Elizabeth, no red herring for me. I am not in the mood for fish today. You have a blog where you can manipulate what is written how you like it, and that is your right. Over here, what is written is left up without censor. This blog is free and the contributors feel free to speak their minds. Your shtick has worn thin for me. It is unacceptable to me for you to write condescendingly to Marildi who has shown you nothing but kindness and respect even defending you to your detractors. It is not cute nor funny nor endearing. Also it is unacceptable to me for you to evaluate that you are missing others withholds; to talk about how tough you are; to explain to others what their MUs are; and to be so very insulted when anyone asks you to back up your claims of OT and auditing almost 10 hours per day every day of the week for the past 35 years. This obviously never happened the way you say it did and leaves the string dangling so long that anyone walking past must trip on it. I enjoy blogging here and don’t intend to be careful or tiptoe around your 800 lb gorilla. This blog is self-moderated so please play nice or refrain from posting.
I am open to reading others opinions about what I have written. Otherwise, Elizabeth is on notice that I will apply for a yellow card in her favor if she continues this path.
That I know…. Vin admit you dont want to become a good meal…. not to worry… your are too though to eat…
2ndxmr,
” When it came to the tech, LRH was pretty much a “do as I say, don’t do what I do” kind of guy. His auditing demos were very much an example of that. He could pull it off because of his fantastic understanding of the auditing process and his giant beingness. He was the master of the variable process, fixed result.The inability of others to easily duplicate his understanding and presence led to the training lineup of the academy levels. I expect he figured that the considerable roteness of the academy levels would be enough to bring an auditor to understanding of the auditing process. ”
******************************
Well said!
He did have a real knack with being in comm, granting of beingness and fantastic understanding with a pc in session; and as you mention ‘a master of the variable process’.
To me this is an evolution of the student hat – the assimilation of the tech.
I always found it odd watching students or being coached on TRs/drills after listening to Ron on the Fish & Fumble and 3D XX tapes. He was so natural, yet the coaching and ‘acceptable’ TRs at the time were very robotic.
Again, it’s an evolution and sooner or later a student will attain that natural beingness as an auditor.
Thanks again for the great postings – I read them all.
Dennis and 2nd transformer: We would be remiss if we did not also include that LRH was a master of asserting results over the top of any evidence to the contrary.
Chris where is your confront?
@Elizabeth – thank you for the comments and mystery sandwich. I’m sure it has interesting contents.
@Vinaire – we both agree that looking at an inconsistency is an excellent method of resolving it. I would apply that principle to a charged item or area. Your method is to examine only inconsistencies without respect to charge. To me, Scientology and LRH are discharged items and though inconsistencies abound, there are also many consistencies. Enough to approach the subject from a pragmatic view, i.e. take what works and use it. KHTK has merits from the point of view it can be solo’ed. It is a “lite” process. However, if you’ve ever been out-lists or out-int and had that handled by an auditor, you might be happy that you didn’t have to approach it from the “lite” touch. The point is, there are some amazing tools in Scientology: if you go looking for the diamond at the center of a 10 meter square block of concrete, you need a jackhammer for a large part of the work. You can use an airbrush for the day-to-day cleanup of the block but a variety of tools will be needed to eventually reach and restore the brilliance of the diamond.
@Dennis – thanks.
@Chris – I need to learn those HTML tags, too, to put text in italics. For now:
Chris “We would be remiss if we did not also include that LRH was a master of asserting results over the top of any {sic} evidence to the contrary.”
His aberrations have already been acknowledged. However, in session, he was a master and he ran the session exclusively for PC gain. I have never seen or heard anything contrary to that.
I don’t know how much auditing you’ve had, or how many auditors you’ve known, but there was one common trait amongst good auditors: they’d leave their own aberrations at the door. The session was for the PC. LRH dramatized, sure, but he set up the auditing process and the auditors code so that the auditor’s case did not prevent PC gain. Beyond that it came down to good CS’ing and good auditing application.However, even poor trainee auditors routinely brought PCs to exams with F/N VGIs (back in my day), so that was clear evidence of the tech working in spite of flubby application.
Where PCs didn’t gain, Qual should (did in my day) first look at the PC program (auditing steps the CS wanted done). When this program paralelled the PC’s case, the PC made gains. If the PC wasn’t making gain – given good auditing procedure – then a probing DofP or Qual Consultancy was the answer to find out where PC attention was hung-up. I never had to deal with a PC who didn’t want (bridge) auditing or didn’t want to be in our org, so that’s as far as I can comment.
What is charge made up of besides inconsistencies? Please see KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY
Consistencies spread out infinitely. It is hard to pin point them. But, it is inconsistencies that stand out. And such inconsistencies should not be ignored.
Out lists and out-int are created by bad auditing. It would be interesting to research what could create out-lists and out-int in real life. If it is suppression then this area needs to be researched. The concept of “suppressive person” doesn’t explain suppression.
Yes, there are tools in Scientology that handle out-lists and out-int, but in real life, such tools are needed only in extreme cases that we find isolated in society. such as, in asylums. I have not seen these tools being applied there. These tools are used in Scientology in situations that created in auditing.
Most cases can easily be addressed with the light touch of KHTK, with much less effort than that used in Scientology. The trick is LOOKING at inconsistencies in the sequence they are presented by the mind. You don’t really need so many processes, who purpose is to restimulate the bank in some way or other. Priority should be given to those areas that are already in restimulation. That is how KHTK works and that is why it is very effective.
[More later…]
.
one half of the mystery sandwitch I am eating… You see i have no idea… what Mu I have caused…none what so ever…Please believe If I could I would explain …
I like to think of it when looking at perfectly smooth water. You can easily spot the ripple (inconsistency) but maybe not the surface of the water when smooth.
Yet if you look close enough, there will always be consistencies, then more.
Hey second transformer! With respect, nice little digs but not so fast with the sparkling generalities: True Scotsman doesn’t wash around here, just ask Marildi! You never dealt with a PC who didn’t want to be in your HGC? Sorry but that only means you had limited involvement with PCs. And then if the PCs attention was hung up in a way or manner that couldn’t be handled in session then he was sent to Qual? and if that didn’t handle it, then he was sent to Ethics? and if Ethics couldn’t clear him up then he was appropriately labelled or your HGC never had any failures? No illegal PCs? No psych-bait? No PTS Type2s and 3s? No PTS Type 1s who couldn’t be gotten to disconnect from their family or job or friends?
When L. Ron Hubbard introduced “the world’s first Clear”, Sonia Bianca, before a public audience in 1950, he was embarrassed by her poor performance. She was a physics student, but couldn’t remember a simple formula asked and couldn’t remember the color of Hubbard’s tie. 10 years later in the 1960’s, Scientology announces a new world’s first Clear, John McMaster. Widely acknowledged as a charming, sweet man, he didn’t demonstrate the abilities of Clear either. Later he was declared SP when he didn’t tow LRH’s party line. Are you saying that LRH didn’t audit McMasters? These stories just go on and on so no point reiterating them here because I don’t want to paint LRH black or white, and I don’t want to let you get by with it either.
I’m not used to corresponding with you and don’t know anything about you so I’m not sure where you are going with this story? And I’m not so sure about your declaration about LRH’s perfect intentions toward the PCs. Are you still a true believer in KSW?
@Vinaire – I think some inconsistencies should be ignored. For instance, I am not interested in going to Flag for any services so I am not going to get worked-up by the technical and administrative inconsistencies present there. If I had charge on any of those inconsistencies, sure, but otherwise I can move ahead without addressing them at a 1st dynamic level.
Out-lists can occur in life quite easily. Wrong indications and wrong items are possible even when not intended. Out-int typically would be relegated to Scn since very few life circumstances will cause a person to go exterior. However, out-int isn’t simply a matter of bad auditing, its much more a matter of the PC’s own past track. The PC can have a great session, the auditor ending just as he should, and later the PC re-interiorizes and keys-in int. That’s just another case matter to handle. Nasty, sometimes, until is is handled, but handleable.
@Chris – Did McMaster complain about LRH’s auditing? That’s the question that must be answered before condeming LRH as an auditor. What he did to McMaster, Mayo or anyone else out of session speaks of another hat, not his in-session hat.
As for Sonja and attributes of a clear, those benchmarks have changed over the years as the distinction between clear and OT has evolved. Her story is another case of where we can only acknowledge what ever occurred and then get back into PT with the real issues, namely, what tech to use, what to discard and what to evolve.
As far as our True-Scotsman org, during my tenure we didn’t have any of the issues you brought up. On-lines, sure: a few illegal PCs petitioning, a few PTS handlings, but no blows from the HGC and few ethics cycles that got stupid for any other reason than an exec ser fac.
So, no, nothing that went off the rails that didn’t get back on. Ya, it was a small org, but it was delivering. I don’t discount any of the issues you brought up and any absurd handlings that were delivered elsewhere. Simply restated, we were not faced with those problems.
Good question. What did McMaster think of LRH style auditing and of LRH. There’s quite a bit on the subject. I imagine that you have already encountered the following materials:
http://www.lermanet.com/exit/JohnMcMaster.htm
Looking is non-judgmental. No inconsistency given by the mind should be ignored. The mind should be allowed to unwind the way it presents itself.
2ndxmr you are being judgmental. I don’t think that you understand KHTK.
.
@Vinaire
Vinaire:”Looking is non-judgmental. No inconsistency given by the mind should be ignored. The mind should be allowed to unwind the way it presents itself.
2ndxmr you are being judgmental. I don’t think that you understand KHTK.”
Can you look at that reply and say it is not judgmental? If I said I don’t think you understand int/ext phenomena, would I be equally non-judgmental?
In KHTK you may look at something perfectly non-judgmentally, and that is fine. If something needs to unstack, fine, look at it. I totally agree. However, if I see an illogic – such as I previously described – that doesn’t bother me, it can’t be on the stack. So to try and handle it means I’d be running an uncharged item. That is one of the complaints about current Scn procedure: the running of uncharged items.
If your argument is that all inconsistencies ARE charged, then I will have to say I disagree because that is simply not true for me. Your argument ceases to be logical when it says something must be charged which isn’t. Charge occurs where it occurs and that’s about the only thing you can say with accuracy – even if it’s bad logic.
Chris.. Marildy and I, we talk on the phone… she is not offended, she has no reason. I am more than found of her. and she know that… About Dannis. he real knows where I am and I know where he stand, he is not offended.. Dennis is more than a friend.. a fellow traveler…. He is one of the most knowlegable spiritual beings I have met.. Dennis duplicates what I write…my thoughts… there is nothing new to him…
2ndxmr, A key to KHTK approach is to let the mind unwind itself, without judging whether to take up an inconsistency or not. Most inconsistencies simply require inspection. If an inconsistency is understood then the mind simply moves on to the next one.
If one finds some inconsistency to be irrelevant and not worth further consideration then probably one has inspected and understood it. I would not say that one should take the further action of ignoring it. The needed action is probably complete if it is not bothering the person.
But if the mind continues to bring up the same inconsistency again and again, then one should look at it more thoroughly.
Please see
KHTK 8: UN-STACKING
KHTK 12: COMMENTS ON LOOKING
.
Great posts, 2ndxmr.
My commnet about evolving tech and making i better is this: Even if you manage to make a “perfect” tech, if you give it to a chimp to use, likely he will not get very good results with it.
A valid point – if you don’t take the time to really train the chimp. But some chimps have been trained to do remarkable things. The trick is to give the chimp a task it can possibly do, then train it well to do that task without destroying its basic willingness, and without the use of force that would turn it into a terrified robot.
The real problem with “evolving” the technologyat lower levels doesn’t so much involve changing the technology as changing the training methods of the technology. GAT was just a disastrous attempt at that. I don’t claim to have a full answer to training, but the pre-GAT co-audit route was definitely the best – when it was allowed to be implemented.
At the upper levels the story is very different. Both research and evolution will have to occur – perhaps even being led by sanctioned disclosure. Since the materials are already out there and nobody has yet complained of adverse effects from being exposed to them, the biggest logical argument for keeping them confidential (that one could get sick from reading the material) has been rendered nul. The only remaining argument would be that “crazies” would alter it to complete unworkability. Considering that is the complaint leveled at the church by some very talented people, even that argument is impossibly weak.
On the other side of the coin, those who are actually at, or above clear really should have the data as the OT case will likely be very perceptible to them and they should know how it operates. Instead of making them sick, that understanding could well be the thing that keeps them healthy.
Valkov I should not put my last post in your space… but in Vin’s…. Sorry.. remember the song Tip through the tulips?? Forget that… in my book I call things as they are…
Based on my experience and evaluation of that experience with a number of religions, I have come to the conclusion that at least the bible and scientology are complex allegories, written with more than one level of messages.
I found the comment that scn contains serfacs, catching my attention.
I realized the bible contains serfacs too. And I assume all other religions contain various numbers of serfacs too.
( Digression – note:
I understand serfac as- a something to make others wrong. But I get the impression that it is much more than that. People seem to use the word to mean some kind (s) of valence (s) too. I would like the word serfac defined in clear detail by someone who knows exactly and certainly knows what it means. Realize that I have done any bridge. Only read the scn books. )
The reason being that humans cannot handle too much truth at one time.
If humans are given too much truth, either of a couple of things can happen.
They will blow their brains out or blow someone else’s brains out. Or some degree of that.
Most humans thrive better on bullshit and lies than on truth.
So religions and all other dissemminations of truth are given to earthlings on a gradient laced with various degrees and levels of lies.
At the same time, there are truths hidden within religions that only those with eyes to see and ears to hear and a mind to understand, will do so.
That is what I mean by very clever and complex multi layered allegories.
If you complete your cycle of learning on religions and philosophies, you should catch on to this idea.
In addition to the bible and scntgy the Oahspe and the Urantia are the best sources of incredible amounts of wisdom and knowledge.
I suspect all religions are given to earth by the same group of etheric begins, or beings from other dimensions.
We are only living in their terrarium.
They feed us like kids feed their pet hamsters and what ever else kids keep in there terrariums.
If you read the link I posted by Bob Ross, you should of got that hint in words.
I did not get any feedback on that article, so it seems that no one bothered to open it up and read it to duplicate it.
Bob Ross was my first freezone phone auditor after I got declared from the CO$, in 1997.
He was a good auditor. He died in around 2001 or 02.
Besides being my auditor, he wrote a number of personal letters to me, telling me a few things.
I wish I would of had the opportunity to meet him in person and get to know him that way.
Dio.
Actually Dio, I did read the Bob Ross article but didn’t think to comment on it. I think his idea is very plausible and does make sense. There is also the possibility that the Church itself was set up the way it was to take all the flak and therefore no one else paid attention to the spread of the information on other channels. of course, it is all speculation but then pretty much anything to do with some of things LRH directed can only be speculated upon at this time.
I agree with you 100% that most religious works are written in a layered fashion and it really is true, let he who has ears to hear, hear. I was reading somewhere that most practices and teachings of religions are accomplished by using the “illusions” to undo the “illusions” consequently they read differently from different “levels” of awareness and/or understanding.
Maria, great point about the speculation being just that, for now at least. And speculation has everything to do with layers of understanding too, IMO. You could also call it frames of reference, points of view – even gradients.
Religious works being written in a layered fashion could also be described as at different gradients or different reality levels. If the intention is to communicate knowledge or wisdom then it has to be at the correct gradient, reality level. “Illusions to undo the illusions” I think is a more “poetic” way of expressing it, though – and there again, it will appeal to some people’s “R”.
Oops, I was too hasty……I did not check my post well before I posted it. I assumed for a moment that I was perfect. (Actually too in a hurry. The faster I go, the further behind I get. )
I see I made a few mistakes.
On the following: Correction added.
Realize that I did not do any bridge. Only read the books.
Another one with correction added.
If humans are given too much truth, either of a couple of things can happen or both.
Another one, with correction added:
In addition to the bible and scntgy the Oahspe and the Urantia are the best sources of incredible amounts of wisdom and knowledge, that I found.
If you see any other items that do not make sense you should realize that it is likely a mistake.
And I should add that I have come across a couple of people who have cognited on the idea that scn is a complex allegory. Not all what it appears to be.
Once these people have caught on, they leave the arena.
All religions are traps for fools and gold mines of knowledge, wisdom and freedom for the wise.
The best trap that scn has is the billion yr contract at third world- slave labor conditions and almost or practically no pay.
Note:
There should be a way to edit the post on this wordpress soft ware.
And there should be away to use simple tools like bold, italics , underline , color type, etc.
If there is I can’t find find them.
Dio
I get a daily quote from the Uranitia foundation and just received the following:
From the Urantia book:
“Religion is now confronted by the challenge of a new age of scientific minds and materialistic tendencies. In this gigantic struggle between the secular and the spiritual, the religion of Jesus will eventually triumph.”
I thought it was in alignment with what I was saying….
Dio
I pointed out earlier that Hubbard wrote some really heartless and aggressive stuff. Like in the ethics book about beating up the bad boy, etc. Than it was said by some that I took it out of context.
In Science of Survival he writes about disposing those low on the tone scale without sorrow. And there is the Fair Game Policy.
I think there are many examples of this and the fact that he created the Sea Org, the managing unit of Scientology as he created it, I mean most who join an organization like this had no proper childhood for sure and are a magnet for these desperate and unworthy solutions.
Given the discipline in the Sea Org…
In the early days I was suspicious about these claims of Hubbard. Now I can clearly see that he had a very sinister nature behind the image he forwarded about himself.
Dear goDd,
Another way to look at LRH is this:
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Generally speaking or maybe even specifically speaking, no one does anything unless they need to solve some problems.
And it takes one to know one. You can’t really recognize and truly understand a defect in someone unless you have experienced it yourself, or at least something similar.
Hubbard came here extremely aberrated, and a unstable or aberrated childhood.
He also is said to have extremely high I. Q.
So he set out early to find the solutions for his problems.
Scn is the product of his search.
And like I said previously, religions are complex allegories and written on more than one level, of meaning.
In the Oahspe it is said that the beings who are in charge of earth have many millions of yrs of experience.
What you think is going on on earth, is not what is going on earth.
One aspect, is that all the bullshit is done for show, to make it look real.
There are other reasons too.
Dio
But stating that he has the only solution and leading people into the trap is a great sinister overt.
He warned against yoga.
Yoga is the best spiritual way if sanely done. Almost free, contains OT data and above:) Much simpler than Scientology. The reason Hubbard warned against yoga is that yoga is a spiritual path. A true one…
The solution to the problem is the problem.
I believe that LRH studied early translations of Eastern texts that were very westernized and therefore somewhat misleading. One of the things I have realized while studying Eastern religions is that the translators and consumers of those translations like to extract the religions out of the culture they live in and miss important nuances and ways of living that are completely different to the West.
For example, LRH goes on about how the Eastern practices are very “introverted” and a withdrawal from living and civilization. Yet, if you study the cultures of the East one finds a rich tradition of debate, of confronting skills learned in the context of the martial arts (for example) — up to and including being able to face another without flinch and without the need for aggression at all. There is also often a tradition of meditation undertaken while doing very menial and often repetitive tasks. These are outward facing lessons in which one learns through MOVEMENT and practical application. There is also a rich legacy of music and art throughout the East, which often has its own spiritual aspects and effects.
As well, in many of the Eastern traditions, one’s life is divided into segments, with the young and middle aged adults concerned primarily with family and citizenry and when one has served one’s familial and citizenry duties, one then undertakes tremendous focus on the more internal types of practices. It isn’t always that way, but often enough that it needs to be remarked upon and taken into account.
Maria, you are right, the martial arts develop confronting skills like those learned in the objective processing
gODd, Let me take up the quote from SoS, which is frequently cited by critics as some kind of indictment of LRH.
Have you ever really thought about it? Because in fact, every society on Earth has used and is still using this method, “disposing quietly and without sorrow”, of it’s undesirables. No matter what country you live in, it is being done right now, all around you.
The USA, for example, probably has the world’s largest prison population per capita, in the world. Millions of people are “disposed of quietly and without sorrow”, kept locked up every year.
Societies have always done this. Australia was originally a British penal colony whose population grew by the wholesale deportation of British undesirables to that continent, beginning in 1788.
GULAGs have existed and still exist in many countries; the Soviet Union, China, North Korea etc.
A notable and well-remembered example of “disposing quietly and without sorrow” is the Holocaust orchestrated by Nazis in Germany.
My point is that Hubbard did not originate the principle, of somehow disposing of social undesirables, especially not going as far as actually advocating the killing of undesirables however they may be defined by any particular society. Hubbard did not invent genocide, or advocate it. He did not advocate sterilization of “defectives” as many European and American Eugenicists did.
No. I read what he wrote as his attempt to shift a common practice(incarceration and isolation of society’s undesirables) in a more rational direction, put it on a more rational basis, than was being done.
I think he reasoned that given that societies were doing this anyway, let’s try to put it on a more rational basis, by separating out and isolating those who were likely to be really harmful. Proven criminals, for example. Let’s try to identify the really harmful ones, he was proposing. Let’s not just jail a higher proportion of Blacks, simply because we don’t like them. Let’s not jail those whose sexual preferences we disapprove of simply out of prejudice, or those whose political views we disagree with.
He wrote SoS in 1951, long before he had developed the tech which could resolve the seriously SP or PTS cases. That didn’t come along until the late1960s. Today some of those people might still require some incarceration, but theoreticaly at least, the methods are available to rehabilitate even the really criminal so they could rejoin society.
It does not matter that “every society on Earth has used …this method” This is unacceptable. And the dispersion is too big.
“Let’s not jail those whose sexual preferences we disapprove” He says that perverts are below 1.1, so he would dispose them. What is perversion? And which pervert ethics officer or SO member will tell and define perversion? Because Hubbard did not care much about defining that.
“theoreticaly at least, the methods are available to rehabilitate even the really criminal so they could rejoin society”
Very very theoretically. Hubbard even redefined the definition of Clear a couple of times.
KSW tells everything about Hubbard.
gODd, so it is unacceptable to jail anyone? No-one should ever be locked up, in jail or in a hospital?
I would suggest you be an activist for more humane treatment of all the people who are imprisoned world-wide. Perhaps someday no-one will need to be jailed at all.
There are plenty to choose from. Here’s a list to start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:International_human_rights_organizations
Or find one particular to your country or your local area.
Maybe find one relevant to your interests and ideals and help them towards achieving their mission of improving life on Earth.
But it would be a good resolution money wise for National Health Care purposes:) Everyone who is chronically ill could be sent to gulag as they are 1.1 therefore a menace to society:)
Look, Ron was a bit crazy.
Despite some technology works. But as it was pointed out by Maria, he wrote, standard tech is not in Dianetics or Scientology books but in HCOBs. So I became a bit uncertain what is working and what is not working and what is standard and what is not standard as I mainly know the books and some lectures. But if these are not standard but disseminated, than he himself violating KSW even by saying that books are not standard tech.
He was not crazy. He was mad.
I do not know how that all works really, I found the quote and posted it because I thought it might offer some insight. I do know that when I started in the Academy in 1976 I signed a registration form that stated that the books and lectures were a record of research and NOT a statement of current belief or technology.
Well gODd, who will pay for the GULAGs? Do you think prisons are free of operating costs? In the USA, prisons are a big “growth industry”, employing thousands, possibly millions, of people and and costing millions of dollars to operate. This money comes from the taxpayers one way or another.
I have a problem with KSW.
What is the goal of Scientology?
As far as I know, from reading the books, the goal of Scientology is to make a Homo Novus, or some enlightened being, full OT.
Homo Iluminous.
I imagine that an example of such an individual would be the present “idea” or concept of what at least Christians have of Jesus.
A Being refined and developed to his full potential. A master of life.
A Being that could heal the sick and walk on water and raise the dead, etc..
A Being that uses 100% of his mind instead of the 10 or 15% as is said.
An ideal role model.
At least that is what I would expect from a Homo Novus, or Homo Iluminous.
If I am correct in that definition, then I have not seen , nor heard of even one success story.
I have not even seen a scn Being who even uses or has achieved a fraction of those abilities, or position in society, not even as much as any other ordinary non scn people in society, those above tone level 3.5 – 4 and up.
You could probably count the number of people at tone 4 and above in the world on your fingers.
Those who society depend upon. The movers and shakers of society.
So by that definition of “work” as used in “Scientology works”, there is no evidence that Scientology works, ( works as claimed) that I have seen or heard of.
I have experienced that Scientology “helps”. It helped me. I think it maybe has helped some others too. To cure or resolve my other aberrations I have had to go far outside the box of Scientology.
Scientology has some tools to cure some kinds or types of aberrations, but far from all.
I found that to cure other types of aberrations one has to think and go far outside the box of Scientology.
Hubbard alluded to that a few times. It is hidden data. The message is contained in the data for Scientologists to complete the cycle of learning.
Also contained in the data: no subject can be understood from within itself. In order to understand a subject, one has to evaluate all other subjects of comparable magnitude in the existing universe.
So unless one has did the above one cannot understand understand Scientology, never mind make it work, not even to a fraction of it’s potential.
So in that respect, I have yet to see, meet or hear of anyone doing that.
On that basis I have not met one person who understands Scientology.
Close examination and evaluation of every Scientologist that I have met, seen , or heard of, is still pretty aberrated.
Mush more so than the people who I refer to above, the people who society depends on, the movers and shakers of this world.
So the best that can be said of Scientology is that it “helps”, but does not work.
No mechanic can be a competent mechanic with only a screw driver, hammer and adjustable wrench.
Therefore KSW is a lie or false datum. It is a trap.
It is at best part of a business plan.
It is but one tool in a tool box that a person who wants to become a Homo Novus, or Homo Illuminous, needs to use to achieve that goal.
I have studied the books of people who I would say were pretty close to full Homo Illuminous, that did not do Scientology.
They were examplary Beings.
I have yet to meet any Scientologist who I would fully consider “examplary”.
In 15 years of being in the fz, I have met only one Scientologist , ( or anyone who has done Scientology) who I consider is very far above the average Scientologist, or even those in second place.
Dio
Well, Dio, here are some of the goals and purposes of Scientology in LRH’s own words:
1. The Aims of Scientology, by L. Ron Hubbard
A civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights, are the aims of Scientology.
2. 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
3. According to lectures LRH delivered in London in early October of 1954 I believe it was(4th London ACC), the PURPOSE of Auditing is:
“To increase the ARC of the preclear.” According to Hubbard, that IS the bottom line on the purpose of Auditing.
LRH was unable to achieve the goal of Scientology within his own organization even on a small scale.
He just talked big.
.
… and blamed others for his failures.
.
Hmm … why would someone continually have to belittle someone?
… seems like a bit of inconsistency there
Dennis, I have’t had time lately to comment as much as I would have liked but I read your comments and they are are appreciated. Consistently 😀
Marilidi,
No problem.
I have been following your discussions too … good stuff 🙂
On a little side note:
If you ever happen to be up in Canada on the west coast (and this goes for any of the posters here), do drop a line and come for a visit. Just give us a head’s up so I can wrassel up some grub :-).
It’s one step better than sitting on the computer each day looking for new posts … more consistent 😉
Sheesh … did an auto spell check and the program suggested ‘tassel’ for wrassel … ahh well, bring your tassels too! Corny, I know.
On an even wilder note:
I took my son to a Deep Purple concert last night. His very 1st – he’s 18. What a blast … great to get out and relive some of the old hits from my ‘mispent’ youth 😉 with my kiddie
Thank you Dennis… I’ve a brother in law in Bellingham, so you are definitely on my visit list…
Excellent!
We’d have some good stories and great laughs!
We look forward to it!
Dennis, thanks for the invite once again. I actually still have your email address, tucked away since the last time you so generously posted it for us. Or should I say I’ve tucked it away “for a rainy day”? Ha ha – I know what the weather is like up there in the beautiful and green Pacific Northwest. If I haven’t told you, I grew up in Seattle – lots of rain up there!
Hey, that wasn’t so wild – you commenting about you and your son going to see that old band. I enjoyed hearing about it. And I liked the sound of affinity for an 18-year-old in your words, “with my kiddie”. 🙂
Hi Marildi,
Seattle … not far from where we are … a short drive and a ferry. Yes, nice country in the Pacific Northwest.
Yes, the concert was great and watching my son experience it was great fun.
On the way there, I told him that most of these guys are pretty old (in Deep Purple one of the guys was 63 and 2 others were 66 years old) so he should try to get out and see what he can while they are still kicking.
Take in an opera, a ballet recital, live theatre, a symphony …. even if at first glance it may not be your cup of tea, at the very least you got a bit more experience and are a little more worldly for it.
The arts to me have always been closer to pure theta than most other parts of life & livingness so I do have a passion to see others experience some of the lighter things in life.
Hey, we even got the tee-shirts 🙂
Good advice, pops. Live theater is my favorite. But I even love American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance on TV. You can totally see the thetans in those singers and dancers. Usually movingly so.
Hey, I got an idea. Why don’t you take a photo of yourself in the tee-shirt and use it for your avatar? I’m only half kidding – it would represent “the lighter things in life” and a light guy too ;-).
Pops?? hahahahha
Yes, I am older, but POPS? lol
As for the tee-shirt, I wish I had the physique my son has so I could fill it out a bit … I’ve noticed a bit of sagging lately 😉
@ Dennis
LOL!
With Love Vinay, I might even agree with you but maybe you should look at your inconsistent feelings toward LRH (please see http://vinaire.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/khtk-16-some-directed-processes/). You’ve been an important contributor to the changes I’ve made this past year (with which I am pleased!)
Like your Unknowable, the most we will ever know about LRH will be a personal opinion which is a part of ourselves and not a part of LRH. The iteration which was known as LRH has been rapidly fading into the stack of past considerations for more than 26 years now and like a far away galaxy, he recedes ever faster the longer he recedes.
Who or what he was is relevant to those who want to incorporate that iteration into their own beingness. That is the most he will ever be going forward.
Namaste Vinay.
Well written post, Chris. And very nicely said on that first paragraph. 🙂
Oh, and I did take my own advice and applied KHTK “directed looking” at my ideas on LRH and was pleased with the result. My feelings toward him are more consistent than before.
I have praised the good in LRH and I have condemned the bad in LRH. “LRH” is just a symbol. It is a condensed form of Scientology.
Scientology is a subset of knowledge, and not the other way around. There is a lot more out there than just Scientology.
Look at “LRH” for what it is. It is a summation of good and bad. That is all.
.
Of course, but this does not explain your prickliness on the subject of LRH. I do not care one way or the other and have no interest in painting LRH any way at all. As I said, I do not disagree with your assessments. The main point being that they do not belong to LRH but to you.
The biggest lie is BEINGNESS.
.
non seq
The greater truth is consistency.
But the ultimate consistency results in as-isness.
What remains is unknowable.
.
There have been many great contributors to knowledge. Yes, LRH also contributed. But the contribution is far more important than the beingness.
Now the job is to spot and recognize the inconsistencies among those contributions, and not get hung up on the beingness.
Beingness is there only to spot and recognize those inconsistencies.
.
I believe that is what I wrote. If not wrote, then meant.
The theory of Relativity is what made Einstein famous. That theory and understanding (consistency) is far more important than Einstein. Einstein is revered mainly for that the genius of that theory.
Hubbard shall be remembered for his contributions in the field of mind and spirit if only they can be separated from his follies. The scientologists seems to be unwilling to do that. It seems that they cannot isolate the good from the bad in Scientology. It is not limited to tech being good and policy being bad.
There is good and bad in tech too. There is good and bad in policy as well.
It all boils down to spotting and recognizing inconsistencies in the work of Hubbard. If we don’t do that then the good in Hubbard’s contribution would go unrecognized.
.
You are re-stating the obvious. 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.
What was “Up to LRH” to achieve? Do you feel it was up to him to achieve all those things, without the creativity of others contributing to the motion towards those goals? It is up to each individual to contribute to the achievement of those goals or not, to the extent each one is able.
The reality of achievements is a co-created reality. The goals were achieved, to the extent they were achieved, to the extent that all involved were on board and contributing to their achievement, additionally, their is no point at which one can stop contributing to the achievement, because reality exists in an ongoing creation in present time.
Spectatorism, saying “LRH should have done it all with out our active participation” can actually be the expression of a counterintention.
Valkov in my reality LRH has laid out the bridge beautifully… He has given all the tools to use and instruction manuals and a big nudge in the form of basic auditing where One could learn how to confront for the self and MEST…. With that learned confront the self-determinism was returned… But the rest was and still is to achieve the top of the chart ” Infinite” that reality for self that depends on the individual being to reach for .. Hard work just starts after the OT levels… it was very inconsiderate of LRH not to include Magic Wands as a parting gift with OT 7…and puff the bank goes… no more work… no, that would have not been very good that would have disastrous outcome.. but most, they are still waiting for it to happen..
Valkov. Here is the reason the Magic Wand Bit won’t work….. You see we already have that Wand… we are in the possession of such a tool since the first light was created in the Universe..
That Wand is called “intention- postulate”. Having that Wand has created the MEST Universe and everything in it… By having such a Toll at hand as a Infinite is just fantastic… out of this world…
Our own creations: intention-postulated placed us in the MEST… LRH.. Blast him for the bad and bless him for all the good he has created… I believe he has given something.. it those not make any difference how he put it together.. how he acquired that knowledge…. He has create a tool in form of auditing- auditing questions which is the Magic Wand when used in the right way will free the being by confronting ones very own creation which is the whole bloody Universe which is here only because of that…… How valuable is that such a tool?
First time in the history of the Universe there is a Tool which when used but must be used in order to free man…. Is there any other being out there who has given that much? Those who rag on the negative… well.. that is OK.. be a victim… enjoy your creation… dwell in muck… but don’t lay that on somebody else who given the tool to free mankind.. He aberration the human side don’t outweigh the value of his accomplishment.. He had to have bad otherwise there would be no good side.. In this Universe one exist because the other is there too..
Elizabeth: One hell of a solo auditor who uses the tolls that Magic Wand daily [ I put this in just for the hell of it]
I wonder why you are defending LRH when he was not able to meet his claims?
You are blaming people for not supporting him. Wasn’t the application of his tech supposed to bring people up to that point of supporting him?
Hubbard created attractive goals. Looking at concepts such as “squirrel” and “suppressive person”, I doubt if he had intentions of meeting those goals. He had the game of OT (dominance over others) going on.
Vinaire,
“He had the game of OT (dominance over others) going.”
Your MU what is a OT is so huge it is out of this world… You have no clue what is OT means…knowing words will not place you in the reality of experience…
If One is infinite.. There is no dominance exist over others.. Only human language has that word and by agreement too because here on this Planet value to exist… Vin, you real put your foot in this time… more than two… LRH was playing a game but not on OT game….learn to evaluate the difference..
Elizabeth, you are on a different track than I am on. I am looking at inconsistencies in what emanated from LRH, and not at your experience.
.
Hug wash….I dont believe that for a second… you are putting up something which is total MU on your side… you are clue-less what is OT… That MU has nothing to do with me it is your reality… We all create on many different level… no such a thing as positive only…. We all have sides or ability to create the so called “GOOD or BAD…. That is what makes the game a game… The game cant exist without those components…If you are looking for a Saint…. well you not going to find one on this Planet….
Vinaire, I am not the fan what LRH has done with the Church… I could care less on that area.. That was his game, his human side his aberration.. you have your game so is the man who sleeps in the doorway on the street…. Or others who shoot up whatever… mine is being a solo auditor and a grand gardener…
But one need to look at the positive.. the great side what he created…. It has value” beyond recognition”.
Those who have not duplicated the material, those persons have not recognised the real meanings of cognition and the materiel, in other words have not duplicated what they were studying. well they are the once who complain against the church MD who ever…. Blame is the game… I am not on OT because I have not achieved the promised because….. Excuses all the way by the thousands…. These beings still believe that they are owned something… Where is the responsibility level?
PS: you were in the church how come you have not contenued and did the OT levels? What have you not duplicated while being there? Blast the INCONSISTENCIES, that is the game condition… the minuses and the plusses!!! They are not bad or good they are simply “what is”!!!!
Wrong why!
.
comming from you there is a “wrong why…”
As usual, Vinnie, you miss my point.
Am I defending? Are you attacking? Those would be inconsistencies.
My point is that LRH is not responsible for creating our overall reality because each person has self-determinism. He cannot be Total Cause unless we become Total Effect. He contributes to it, as anyone does, that’s all. He may carry more weight than others, but that’s all.
Even an OT is not omnipotent; I say that because even if he is omnipotent, he is acting in a universe full of other omnipotent beings. Therefore “irresistible force meets immovable object” does apply.
LRH proved that to himself at least, in Rhodesia. He experienced that even an OT could be overwhelmed, acting alone.
After that he focused on building the Sea Org, because he figured it would take a team of OTs to be effective in this universe.
Unfortunately, the Sea Org never actually fully became a team of OTs, a group of self-determined, in ARC beings working in cooperation with each other.
Valkov, I hate to play devil’s advocate, but being Lucifer, I must opine that you are forwarding the party line and shore story of COS when you talk about LRH’s failure in Rhodesia.
In my opinion, LRH failed not because he was an “overwhelmed OT operating alone.” He failed because he lied about his purpose for being in Rhodesia. He played the race card, and like in Clearwater, he planned to “take over” to become a big fish in a little pond. The understanding that I have from studying this is that Rhodesians weren’t as naive as he thought. They got wise and simply gave him the bum’s rush. In my estimation, he was “so OT” that he thought that Rhodesia breaking away from Great Britain in 1965 was an opportunity for him to capitalize on. Yes, the opportunity to alienate Great Britain through backing the seceding country, and that’s what happened — relations between COS and GB worsened after the Rhodesian fiasco . . . . That, and he bounced checks per John McMaster. I tend to believe McMaster on this one as neither LRH nor his organization today has good credit. Check out your Finance Series on this one for the reason. LRH loved to drag out his bills and if possible never pay. His attitude reads loud and clear in his finance policy.
That whole “overwhelmed OT operating alone” story to me was funny. If any SO missionaire came back home having failed their mission and also ruined for all time the reputation of Scientology, LRH would instantly have RPF’d, off-loaded, or beached (depending) the offender.
I’ve “operated as a lone OT” many many times in my life without being overwhelmed. Difference was that I didn’t have a hidden agenda and wasn’t trying deceive people or carry on illegal activity. I do not think I believe LRH’s version of the Rhodesia story on this one.
@Val . . . And as usual, I went off on a tangent dwelling on Rhodesia when I had really wanted to ask you about your affection for LRH. You’ve previously mentioned that you wished you’d done more Scientology when you had been involved years ago. I can easily see in your writing that you are well steeped in the Tech whether officially trained or not. You are also well read in many other disciplines. I’ve respected and enjoyed your writings for more than a year now and my experience of your writing is that you’ve increased in favor toward Scientology Tech. This coming a little bit behind the curve of Scientology’s rise and fall, I am curious.
Firstly, would you agree with my statement about your affinity?
Then, if you don’t agree with my first question then nevermind, but if you do agree then would you comment a bit on the reason as you see it for this increased affinity for Scientology?
Chris, I think your post proves my point – that an “OT” is not an omnipotent being, or, if he is “omnipotent”, then everyone else is just as “omnipotent” as he is.
Omnipotent means just that. An omnipotent God, for example, could have created you, me, and everyone else in the world including LRH just 5 minutes ago, complete with our memories and abilities, and a complete fossil record, this blog with all it’s posts and comments, and could terminate it all 5 minutes from now, or alter it in any way He wished, without our knowledge, consent, or participation except as effects.
Omnipotent means “all powerful”. Hubbard was not omnipotent in Rhodesia because he did not solely create Rhodesia. Rhodesia was, is, a co-creation like most everything under the sun. Other beings there had their own ideas. If he were omnipotent, he could have put whatever ideas he wanted into their heads. The fact that he couldn’t, or misestimated the situation,(I tend to think he went there to do some “reality testing”), to me proves that a “full OT” is only responsible for so much of the totality of any scene, when there are other beings involved.
As for my relationship to the Tech, it is slight. I am more familiar with the theory than the practice. I am more familiar with the Philosophy than the Practice.
What many fail to understand, is that I was a “scientologist” before I ever heard of Hubbard or his Scientology. I did not “convert” to Scientology.
We have had other names for ourselves.
LRH “clicked” for me because he was explicating things I already knew or felt or thought. I understood what he was saying because I had already understood those things, and I knew that I had understood them in the past.
It was like re-reading a book I had read so long ago I had forgotten reading it, but as I re-read it, it started to come back to me more and more. It was like running into an old associate I hadn’t heard from in so long I had practically forgotten about him.
So when I appear to defend Hubbard, quite often that is not what I’m doing. I am trying to convey understandings I have had for a long time.
“What many fail to understand, is that I was a “scientologist” before I ever heard of Hubbard or his Scientology. I did not “convert” to Scientology. We have had other names for ourselves. LRH “clicked” for me because he was explicating things I already knew or felt or thought. I understood what he was saying because I had already understood those things, and I knew that I had understood them in the past. It was like re-reading a book I had read so long ago I had forgotten reading it, but as I re-read it, it started to come back to me more and more. It was like running into an old associate I hadn’t heard from in so long I had practically forgotten about him. So when I appear to defend Hubbard, quite often that is not what I’m doing. I am trying to convey understandings I have had for a long time.”
I really get that Valkov. I could’ve written that paragraph for myself.
Wow,
I was thinking the same thing … this is not ‘new’.
Hmm … maybe we are ‘thetans in pawn’ 😉
Yes the Tech had a familiar feeling to it but the auditing has consistently been different than my expectations. In other words, good but surprising. The more that is revealed to me, the more surprised I am. Since the beginning, my discoveries of self have continually been new and unpredictable vistas.
I predict this to continue.
Affinity? Without Affinity, there is no Understanding.
Valkov: “My point is that LRH is not responsible for creating our overall reality because each person has self-determinism.”
You are continuing to defend Hubbard. That is a losing battle and a waste of time. Get off this topic of Hubbard and focus on knowledge.
.
Valkov: “Omnipotent means just that. An omnipotent God, for example, could have created you, me, and everyone else in the world including LRH just 5 minutes ago,..”
God is a terminal, self, thetan… just like Hubbard. God is an outcome of speculation over unknowable.
Omnipotent is not God. Omnipotent is speculation and visualization.
Self is a symbol. It is an extreme condensation. You are not going to get anywhere by focusing on self, thetan, Hubbard, God, etc. Focus on knowledge and inconsistencies and you will start to make progress.
Try KHTK.
Vinnie, what does the word “omnipotent” mean?
Don’t you get the difference between mass and significance?
I am talking about the meaning of various words and concepts being used in posts.
Your apparent meta-statements about my posts strike me as non-seq, irrelevent, and Dev-T.
Knowledge of words and their meanings is a subset of all knowledge. If you don’t want to discuss them, then just don’t discuss them. Why derail it off on a nullifying tangent?
Please, either respond to the substance of my posts, or shut up.
Good posts Dio & Valkov,
Aside from the broad general goal of a world without insanity … I looked at greater ARC, pan-determinism and Cause/Effect.
I looked (and still do) at one’s progress up the Bridge as a steady evolution as is general day to day life.
I found early on that PCs reality differed dramatically even though they may have completed the same Grade or OT level. A specific win may be attained by one individual on ARC S/W and that same knowingness for another on some OT level.
My gauge was firstly did I gain something from a certain process. Obviously some areas have charge; some do not.
Secondly, were others experiencing similar gains.
I always found that something could always be done for an individual to raise him a bit no matter what shape he was in. A process, a simple acknowledgment, an assist … whatever. For some, this evolution is a long route and I daresay for myself will be a couple or so lifetimes.
Would I have changed anything?
My first answer is ‘yes’, although in the next split second I thought ‘No’ – it IS was it was supposed to be.
The experience gained from both good and bad has been rewarding for me – it is something to look back on with a smile on my face.
Was it all *that* bad? It appeared so at the time, but now, it’s an old ‘war story’ that I can fondly look at and realize “Hey, I’m still here and my integrity intact”.
I still know what I know.
Recently Mike Rinder wrote a very good post on Marty’s blog about “Why We Stayed”.
It was truthful and contained very little Scientology thought-pathways. It was real. And it led me to have hope that these people are beginning to heal themselves after so much cult abuse.
I did not know if this was ever going to happen when they first got out and began writing. It looked to me like they were going to perpetuate their own pasts, and keep going with all the abusive Scientology bullshit, but just in a new form.
I don;t think they will now. What I hoped would come to pass, I think is coming to pass. These people are beginning to wake up and see the true causes of their abuse. And once they do, I believe they can be trusted to clean it up.
I have never been more hopeful for Scientologists and the future of a crime free and abuse free Scientology than I am now.
And I hope that Independent Scientologists will continue to clean up Scientology for all future generations.
Finally, I feel that I can stop worrying for the future victims of Scientology.
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.
The correct approach is to focus on inconsistencies and resolve them for yourself.
The effort to get agreement from others about what one has concluded is neither here nor there. Each person need to spot and resolve inconsistencies for oneself.
There lies progress.
KHTK 6: INCONSISTENCY
.
Vin: ” There will always be as many blaming LRH, as those defending him. That is the wrong way to go. ”
Totally agree … Let’s go after that damn Programs Chief on the Apollo.
Hell, he rammed those faulty programs down onto those poor Orgs lickety-split.
We never knew what hit us!! lol
😉
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”?
.
Very well said.
Pro-LRH defend bad policy by LRH by saying that it was written to defend Scientology against the attacks from Governments. There seems to be an inconsistency here.
Is it OK to be evil when defending against evil? That is the genesis of evil, isn’t it?
So, LRH fell into this trap, which is pointed out in Eastern philosophy many, many times. This is a very fundamental trap.
.
Rafael said: “… to use an anthropomorphic description of this baseline reality would be incorrect. I think of it more in terms of ”the generator of the quality called free will. “
Well, that is a consideration too. The baseline reality is unknowable.
.
Vinay, thanks for your viewpoint. I am still looking at it to get the exact truth.
You are welcome. Looking is the key.
.
Rafael, please also look at Essay #3: KNOWABLE AND UNKNOWABLE
Let me know if you find any inconsistencies in this essay.
Thanks.
Vinay, you say: UNKNOWABLE is that which is not yet manifested. This ” not yet ” infers that there is a potential there to manifest something KNOWN or UNKNOWN, so your UNKNOWABLE is not completly ” NOTHING “. Here lies an inconsistency.
Yes Rafael N.,… We know. He knows. Everybody knows… We’ve spent a year going over and over and over it… (Reminds me of Sunday mornings with my fatherinlaw… just kiddin pop)
Chris, lol, oh yes, but I have been chewing it for some days.
Better to chew on this:
explained by this:
These graphs are of course only 2 dimensional. However, you can also find 3D examples of fractal math. I like the 2 dim examples for their beauty and the illusion of movement and the lessons I learned about finite vs infinite which is presented by zooming inward closer and looking at progressively higher magnifications of smaller and yet smaller areas. In this framework, I can meditate on the orders of magnitudes of things and get the sensation that I am getting somewhere.
In my imagination, there is no reason to think that the universe stops at 4 dimensions or at 5 dimensions or more. For me, this debunks the paradoxical prediction of unknowable and leaves in it place infinite universes left to know.
I can think of no reason to ask “what is unknowable” since by definition it isn’t anything at all except the very refinement of paradox and we all know there is no valid paradox. Don’t we?
RN: “…chewing on it for days…”
Chris: Better than chewing on it for lifetimes. Unknowable is a theta-trap only and exists for the purpose to stick your attention like fly-paper. Spend this time and energy on understanding something that exists where you can get traction. The results will be more pleasing and satisfying. That 5th dimension (rather than unknowable) is hovering all about us waiting to be discovered.
After that, why not another?
Chris, I agree, these recursive images give the concept of orders of magnitude. About the 5th dimentional space, I think it is more the working field of particle physics, as it is the rest of the postulated dimentions, who knows, may be some day a quantum physicist will show us a bit of one of these dimentions in a jar. About valid paradoxes, there are different paradoxes: some helpful and some just a joke. About more universes left to know, yes, it will give sense to our lives because this time-space universe don´t seem to have any prize for any of us at long term.
Not clear what you mean by prize long term. Maybe an example?
To think about the 5th dimension, I try to imagine working in only 3 dimensions without the 4th. I used to imagine that “lesser” lifeforms might have no concept of the passage of time. As I tried to find examples of this and dwelt on it I found I couldn’t find an example. You?
Chris, ” working ” is a verbal word wich implies action and this change of position in space is time, you can not work in space and have no time. But I understand your point as regards of the lack of awarness of time, even human beings experience this eventually in conditions of sickness. On the fifth dimension, I would like to know what do you think it is composed of ?
I didn’t communicate my meaning very well. I wasn’t considering there being no time. I was doing a thought exercise where I was taking the viewpoint of being unaware of time — an attribute we might try to assign to a “lower-lifeform.” At least unaware of anymore stringing together of time than feeling hunger and satisfying it by tilting my head down to tear at some grass on an immediate basis.
Yet, the more I looked the more awareness of time that I see in Nature’s lifeforms, whether deciduous trees, turtles making their circles around the globe, migrating birds, or even a simple fruit fly with a lifespan of a few days. In that awareness I see a remembrance of past events as well as a planning for the future.
And the 5th dimension? It seems that like the Twilight Zone, the 5th dimension like the first 4 dimensions seem to me to be a construct of mind. A good model for this 5th dimension is the Mandelbrot Set. This dimension is the dimension of “orders of magnitude.” This is of course only my conjecture based upon my meditation upon the zooming in and out of the fractal construct based in the first four dimensions.
If you want me to communicate it better I will try.
Chris, in my view, the subject of universes is related with a protest by the person. This universe is a mass labeled with the tag ” you will die ” and as a person do not want this, starts imagining parallel universes much more kinder and with no death phenomena. Then we see the religious doctrines teaching how to reach the better universe or as I told you the long term prize. Personally I see good in these religious doctrines because give hope and more civilization but I feel very offended when a blood sucking cult uses this tool often mixed with psychotherapy to abuse of the parishioners seeking spiritual redemption. In other area, the theoretical physicists postulate the existence of parallel universes but it is just speculation.
Ok. I follow you. I can see how you got that observation, however, that’s not really where my own train of thought goes. Steering as clear of religious references as I can, I am simply studying the universe and what others write about the universe and how I relate myself to that whole.
I am working on an article about space-time. I am trying to describe in simple and easy to understand terms how much of it we use compared to how much of it there exists. I am hoping to firm up some ideas to open the door to understanding more about the speed of light in this universe and why it should be constant. Connected to that thought is what is motion? As well as why mass should increase relative to acceleration. It is a first effort of mine and it is hard for me to organize the many stray data and when I study I am cowed by the very very good jobs that have already been done with the data and I begin to doubt myself and wonder why I would try to mix with these trained people. But my hope is that I will be able to describe some things I am looking at from an fresh angle that will give others more able than I some traction in their pursuits.
Chris, may be the awareness of time is more related with the attention span of the given life form. Your point is very interesting as if you can increase your attention span then you can be more aware of the processes ongoing with you or the nature.
Yes, and think of your “attention span” not only of focus on a present instant of time, but consider whether “present time” can be thickened. Could this “thickening” be part of a 5th dimension?
The 5th dimension may be a dimension of light, of information, most certainly of mind. Do we already operate in the 5th dimension and could we, can we operate more? Would “thickening of present time” be a correct language to describe this ability? What would the abilities of a being using the 5th dimension look like? Would they appear to be a seer to a man of average 4 dimensional operation?
Chris, these self-similar patterns called fractals are a very interesting mathematical constructions. Even lrh did his try on this with his works on original OT 4 and OT 5 but only for some 10 years and these then were forgotten. I guess because the unstability of such condition. It is my opinion that more dimentions can be found in the gravity and sub-atomic level phenomena. Anyway, the certainty on these dimention will come from high tech labs, not from speculative theories in my view.
With respect, “Relativity” was worked out in the mind and on a piece of paper and chalk board by Albert Einstein. No more laboratory than that. Not contradicting the need for evidence — Einstein bit his fingernails for years waiting — but we must be careful of the thought-stoppers.
Each sense organ seems to represent a different dimension. These dimension relate to visible forms, sound, odours, tastes and tangible objects.
The sixth sense organ, which is not recognized as such is the mind. Mind represents the dimension of ideas. Please see
KHTK 15: Observation, Experience and Looking
“Now ideas and thoughts are not independent of the world experienced by these five physical sense faculties. In fact they depend on, and are conditioned by, physical experiences.”
.
.
Chris, thought-stoppers, yes you are right and I had forgotten them. Well, let me tell you that for me the fifth dimention is not a physical one but a personal matter. It is one related to the rendering of the present time as connected with your inner nature. All this work been done by the physicists in the high tech labs are just to find new ways to handle the energy in order to reach new worlds to find new inteligent species to talk to. Just to find equally confused ” inteligent species ” about his purpose in the existence. Intuition is what will make a real diference in the quality of your short existence in this physical universe. Intuition is born out of honesty and common sense and respect for the person´s basic human rights. This is the worthwhile part to be understood about existence not the 11 dimentional M-theory.
Good point! It is a conjecture, and a conjecture has to be known.
Just the fact of calling it unknowable is inconsistent in itself. It cannot be communicated with this universe as a reference point.
That is my conclusion.
So, I would say that unknowable is a conjecture. But this conjecture goes much deeper than the conjecture of God.
.
Vinay, on this I agree.
How do you know?
Isn’t your consideration that ‘the baseline reality is unknowable”, just a consideration, too?
It seems like a bald unsupported assertion on your part, nothing more.
Maybe it’s just unknowable to you.
My condolences.
When a post is too long and the first few sentences are not quite clear, then I find these characteristics to imply some sort of inconsistency. It communicates to me that something is not being looked at, or confronted.
One LRH datum that I have always found workable is, “COMPLEXITY IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO NON-CONFRONT.” The kind of long posts that I am talking about are usually quite complex.
.
I agree and then the message gets ignored. Through practice I have tried to shorten my posts so that they are not so long that any point I am trying to make gets lost.
Writing is good practice for organizing my thoughts. Another practice which holds my feet to the fire to to attempt to write in the first person. Beginning a sentence of opinion with the word “I” makes it less attractive to write down indefensible generalities.
I am not an independent Scientologist, but I shall take a shot at these questions.
“Is David Miscavige the true source of what ails the Church of Scientology?”
“Source” implies the condensed form of a system. The best way to recognize “source” is to audit the inconsistencies of that system. We seem to be addressing the system called “Church of Scientology.” Take a look at the first inconsistency, which appears in your mind when you think of “Church of Scientology.” That will be a good start.
“Given that LRH was a great OT, what cause does he have in the abuses happening in the church today?”
My response here would be the same as my response to the first question above.
“What exactly did he write or didn’t he write that allowed the current scene to happen?”
My response here would be the same as my response to the first question above.
“Could we safeguard this from happening again? Dare to challenge your beliefs.”
My response here would be the same as my response to the first question above.
.
To Marildi:LRH’s vocabulary simplified
Theta Universe = universe of thought
Static = Unknowable
Duplication = spotting of inconsistency
Blowing by inspection = recognition of inconsistency
Theta Power = consistency
Manifested charge = presence of inconsistencies
Theta energy = thought in motion (computation)
Theta-entheta ratioo = clarity-confusion ratio
Please see
Essay #4: THE NATURE OF THOUGHT
.
LRH has been a big influence on my life. He has been a positive influence in the sense that his writings helped me focus my thoughts in the area of psychology and philosophy. His methods helped me overcome certain inconsistencies as documented in Vinaire’s Story.
I believe that this turn of the event came about because of a fortuitous combination of certain occidental and oriental aspects of awareness within me.
However, where either of these aspects have been in the incorrect ratio, the influence of LRH has been quite negative. In such cases the effect has been more of a euphoria leading to conditioning than to increased ability to think for oneself.
Unfortunately, Scientology has degenerated into a cult instead of a grass roots movement that uplifts the society. That is the biggest inconsistency we are faced with at the moment.
Praising or condemning LRH for this, which I see happening on this and other discussion boards, is unproductive. But sorting out what is consistent and inconsistent in what emanated from LRH is certainly beneficial.
It seems normal to be fawning over LRH on one hand, and to be bitter about him on the other. Neither is productive though, I have been full of praise about LRH when I was on Beliefnet. Now I have expressed bitterness as I have become more and more aware of the negative influence of LRH’s actions. Yes, these may come across as inconsistencies in me. And, most likely, they are.
But, as the bounces of a bouncing ball gradually peter out. I do see the inconsistencies in my reactions toward LRH to be petering out too.
It is no use being defensive, I admit to these inconsistencies. I also observe such inconsistencies in my reactions to LRH to be petering out. This is normal not just to me, but to others out there too.
I think that LRH would be redeemed as the increase in awareness takes its course. He may not be highly praised. But he would not be highly condemned either.
And his positive contributions to knowledge would finally be widely acknowledged, because those contributions are factually there.
.
.
Vinaire: ‘ However, where either of these aspects have been in the incorrect ratio, the influence of LRH has been quite negative. In such cases the effect has been more of a euphoria leading to conditioning than to increased ability to think for oneself.’
It may be as simple as realizing it was you who AGREED to be ‘conditioned’, as you put it.
Personally, I never once felt ‘conditioned’ – I was always aware of my decisions, right or wrong, and, the willingness to change/not change.
Good post Vinaire. I very much relate to your comments as to your attention on LRH. My path has been very much like you describe.
Ultimately we see the world as we see it regardless of any supposed objective reality.
Thank you, Chris.
Dennis, blaming somebody else for the negative influence of Hubbard’s actions is neither here nor there. Should we also credit others for the positive influence of Hubbard’s actions.
You cannot leave Hubbard out, and why should you?
These are inconsistencies one must deal with. There are factors in what emanated from LRH that are good. There are also factors in what emanated from LRH, which are bad. We should be looking at these factors squarely.
Crediting LRH for the good influence and blaming others for the bad influence reminds me how God is viewed in Christianity. Christianity created Satan as the fall guy.
LRH created squirrels and suppressive persons to take the fall.
.
Even as a true believer I hated that word – squirrel. Seemed so demeaning to squirrels. Also “squirrel” didn’t seem frightening enough to me to use to label a horrible SP with…so I went into the squirrel valence and became an SP and here I am today.
LMAO! “Squirrels are actually there to carry the subject forward in the spirit of science. SPs are there to point out that Scientology has ways to go.” — so true dat!
(no joking now) I truly loved your “Vinair’s Story.” It is written in a voice that rings candid and true. When I read it last year, I read it straight through. You only need to expand and update it and write it in the same voice. I know it will be thoroughly interesting and poignant.
I have now added “Vinaire’s Story” to Vinaire’s Blog under the title “My Introduction to America.” I may expand on it in the Comments section.
.
Hi Vin,
I don’t leave Hubbard out, or anyone for that matter.
One of the premises LRH put forth was to look, examine – discover for yourself.
This is what I have tried to do throughout my ‘career’ as a scientologist.
As for the word squirrel: I don’t know where it came from. I understand the concept (alteration), but I don’t know how it came to be used as a derogatory term.
I never heard it used much at all in my early years. Much later I heard it being used by OSA quite a bit as a denigrating term to Freezoners,
To call it ‘despicable’ I think is a bit over the top. ‘ Distasteful’ – when used as a derogatory term – likely 🙂
OOps … forgot.
The key for me is WORKABILITY.
I
I think that you are simply not informed fully. If you wish you may inform yourself by searching on internet. For Hubbard, it was a tool to put down competition. Here is something you may want to take a look at.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?4836-WHAT-WAS-AMPRINISTICS&p=655221&viewfull=1#post655221
.
What I remember of the term is that it meant ‘off-beat scientology processes’ – meaning that they were not duplicated & applied as written.
As Maria mentioned, Mike Goldstien is a good example. He maybe was called a squirrel by some church members, but he wasn’t calling his procedures scientiology. He called it Identics. Btw, I met Mike many years ago in LA – he happened to . I liked the guy but unfortunately didn’t get a chance to yap with him for any length of time.
In my mind nothing wrong with Mike doing his own thing, or for that matter, your KHTK, As I mentioned, the test is workability.
Frankly Vin, it’s all very boring to me now.
It really doesn’t matter to me what another may think regarding Hubbard, Buddha, etc, etc, etc.
I do however like to hear from someone thinking in Futures and looking towards life in anticipation of something exciting & worthwhile and creating.
At the same time I realize there are many who need a terminal to yap to and I can be of help there.
Yes, there may be a bit of moaning and ‘look what’s been done to me’ – some of this stuff was very painful – spiritually and on the pocketbook. But, that’s part of moving thru this and shifting one’s eyes out of the past and towards the future.
It’ll all come out ok.
If you have a chance, read one of the older HCOBs from the early ’60s … When You Need Reassurance.
Dennis, I am fine. KHTK might do you a lot of good too.
Stop thinking in terms of self (thetan). Start looking in terms of knowledge (theta).
.
What in the world in Dennis’ post makes you think he is inappropriately “thinking of self”? I don’t see him even use the word “thetan” in his post at all, much less using it to refer to himself. Could it be you are dubbing in? (again, or “as usual”?)
Or that you are in any condition to be his mentor or advisor?
Squirrels and Suppressive persons should be taking the fall if Scientology is claimed to work. This is an inconsistency.
Squirrels are actually there to carry the subject forward in the spirit of science.
SPs are there to point out that Scientology has ways to go.
I disagree. A squirrel is someone who alters a specified process and makes no distinction between the process done as specified and the process altered to something else. In other words we have two DIFFERENT processes being called the same thing when in reality they are different and because they are different may very well have different outcomes.
i.e. Aunt Jemima`s pancake mix is no longer Aunt Jemima`s pancake mix when you change the ingredients. And if people are evaluating Aunt Jemima`s pancake mix and are given some other recipe then they are not sampling her mix and will base their judgment on a false presentation. That is what a squirrel does.
Now if you want to call it Aunt Susan`s pancake mix, based on Aunt Jemima`s mix, then we are talking about possible innovation or experimentation that can be properly evaluated and with proper evaluation may lead to improvement. Aunt Susan`s mix may be found to be superior in taste tests.
Suppressive persons are not there to point out that Scientology has a ways to go. They are simply there per whatever definition or criteria is used. They were there before Scientology existed, and they will be there if it stops existing. Perhaps they will be defined differently or different criteria will be used to identify them such as the term psychopath or sociopath or the latest term – interpersonal deviance – the fact remains that prisons and institutions are full of people who cannot make their way in society in ways that others will tolerate.
This does not mean that people will always appropriately assign these labels — such labels can and have been used the human groups since time immemorial to get rid of people who merely disagree or believe differently – in that case, they are not pathological but out of step enough that groups of people have ostracized and alienated and dehumanized them.
Maria, what you right..is simply perfectly stated… I think i used the right word..
Maria, a qual function is appropriate for what you are pointing out. But why should a term, such as “squirrel,” be there and used in a demeaning way? LRH used it to denigrate any competition to Scientology. LRH would have used it for Idenics and for KHTK if he were alive today.
Buddhism never used concepts similar to squirrel and suppressive person. LRH and Scientology used them for business and political purposes. These are despicable concepts that do not belong in a movement intended to help everyone. I don’t think KHTK would ever employ such concepts.
Are you defending these concepts?
.
Vinaire my dear I left a comment for Chris but mostly it is for you . please read it it… at the bottom of this posting… Thanks.. you are a good kid…you made my day since i was bored silly…
Not defending anything. Simply clarifying it. Read it again.
I’ve no doubt that Idenics would have been labeled squirrel by LRH. I’m pretty sure I saw it on a published list of disapproved organizations somewhere on the Internet. Probably KHTK as well.
And the use of the term there would have been wrong too.
Just as Mike Goldstein is definitely NOT suppressive in any other way than bucking the authority of the Church. And neither are you.
I prefer to closely define terms. Then I can see misapplications and departures from their use. Its a common deviance of mankind to slide from tight definitions to loose applications and most usually in a most negative way. Just consider the progression of the word cult.
I am pretty much at the end of the project I have been on, which is tracking down the roots and sources and prior innovators that contributed to Dianetics and Scientology.
So far I have found only a very few concepts that are completely original to L. Ron Hubbard that truly distinguish it from earlier practices and concepts.
But I’m not finished with my project yet.
That’s all fine. I am simply pointing out what is despicable in Scientology. The terms “squirrel” and “suppressive person” top the list. LRH was not innocent.
.
How about ‘ inconsistently despicable’ 😉
haha – seems “consistently” despicable to me… haha
Actually, ‘despicably inconsistent’ may be even better 🙂
yes better
Whatever. I don’t find that there are a great many so-called innocent people anyway and to tell you the truth I see little value in looking for one. I suppose I could go around grading people on a scale of pure innocence at the top and 100% guilt at the bottom. Assign numbers up and down scale and then assign each person I encounter with a number. What’s annoying is that I would have to review each person each time I encountered them and review their assigned value because people do change in the face of changing circumstance and life processes.
But it puts me into a mode of being a judge and jury. A role I don’t much care for.
Did LRH make up the definitions? Yes. 100% guilty.
Did he misapply them as defined? Guesstimate 20 – 80% guilty
For me, the question is not, was LRH innocent or guilty. The question has to do with whether the terms have validity when viewed as originally defined.
The disdain for the word squirrel is due to association.
Just as the word cult is now held in disdain due to association.
Just as the word gay was held in disdain due to association.
Just as the word Scientologist has come to be held in disdain.
yes Maria, it is a fruitless waste of time. And now that has become the stock in trade of COS… oh well.
Meanwhile, you see what you see and I see what I see. It seems that you will never see what I see and I will never see what you see. And yet, there is a paradox of how do we see what each other sees… Gave me nightmares this past weekend! haha
Correction:
Squirrels and Suppressive persons should NOT be taking the fall if Scientology is claimed to work.
.
Right. That reads better.
Chris,
I really like your viewpoint on “sqirreling”.
I hated that word soon after I figured out what it meant.
It makes me sick to my stomach.
It meant that people were not allowed to think for themselves.
Not allowed to question.
Not allowed to learn for themselves.
It meant that you had to be a parrot or a robot.
I just cannot function that way.
I am not a good follower, or a good sheep ( sheople?
The word is also used to spite people, or to put people on a lower altitude, by low theta beings.
Also SP is used similar to squirrel, as a swear word in scn, or just used to degrade people, who think for themselves.
Or just for name calling.
As name calling is done by spoiled brats, by losers, and other lower forms of life.
I can’t properly explain how those two words make me feel.
Dio
I get it and really agree.
Remember the return address on every letter from the AO’s had been rubber stamped with a red squirrel, circle around and a strike through? When I saw that I was personally embarrassed.
I remember thinking to myself that the postal workers and my mailman could see and read that embarrassment on a letter from my “church” and would get the “wrong idea.”
PS to a earlier comment…
PS Chris…. My mannerism as I talk is pure Hungarian interpreted into English; Hungarian is a very flowery language Every Hungarian I know expresses them self as I do…we love to use strong expressions.. and we do.. Top of that if you would have lived through one war and one revolution.. you too would have gained experience which affect your personality. By the way all Hungarians do travel up and down on the tone scale freely… national thing… inherited…
As for Vinaire.. he can stick many pins in me as he likes…he is more than welcome… I usually ask for that… he has contributed to my knowledge since he challenges… which I admire…also has a sense of humor which he slides in very quietly.… I like it.. I see the twinkle in his eyes when he say those things…. He thinks I am a nut… rightly so… since I don’t fit the pattern… We play a game.. in fact I look forward to when he challenges me… I think it is fun… He is one of the reasons I come to Geirs blog… with his comments He adds color and Diversity… His conservative mode compliments mine… so what is your point? My auditing hours… you are wrong on the amount… I do more… since I do nothing else that is my life…
Something to keep in mind when pointing fingers, blaming and accusing:
He who has not sinned, throw the first stone.
Dio
I will renew my effort.
To throw the first stone?
.
(Joke! :-D)
preemptive stone throwing = good, right?
Yeah Chris … better you than the other guy.
It’s just like being chased by a cougar … always have a friend with you who is slightly slower at running than you are.
Plan ahead 🙂
Chris and Dennis, down deep you guys are a couple of ruffians from the wild, wild west 😀
Dennis? Yes, definitely. He is a wild man.
Me? We are poor little lambs
Who have lost our way.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
We are little black sheep
Who have gone astray.
Baa! Baa! Baa!
I’m more of a scallywag 😉
Chris,
Blah blah blah. (Love the song, though.)
.
Dennis,
You’re right – scallyway is more the right wavelength. 😀
To the tables down at Mory’s
To the place where Louie dwells
To the dear old Temple bar we love so well
Sing the Whiffenpoofs assembled with their glasses raised on high
And the magic of their singing casts its spell
Yes, the magic of their singing of the songs we love so well
“Shall I Wasting” and “Mavourneen” and the rest
We will serenade our Louie while life and voice shall last
Then we’ll pass and be forgotten with the rest
We’re poor little lambs who have lost our way
Baa, baa, baa
We’re little black sheep who have gone astray
Baa, baa, baa
Gentleman songsters off on a spree
Doomed from here to eternity
Lord have mercy on such as we
Baa, baa, baa
“What many fail to understand, is that I was a “scientologist” before I ever heard of Hubbard or his Scientology. I did not “convert” to Scientology. We have had other names for ourselves. LRH “clicked” for me because he was explicating things I already knew or felt or thought. I understood what he was saying because I had already understood those things, and I knew that I had understood them in the past. It was like re-reading a book I had read so long ago I had forgotten reading it, but as I re-read it, it started to come back to me more and more. It was like running into an old associate I hadn’t heard from in so long I had practically forgotten about him. So when I appear to defend Hubbard, quite often that is not what I’m doing. I am trying to convey understandings I have had for a long time.
” I really get that Valkov. I could’ve written that paragraph for myself.
Pretty much the same for me, but at first it was what I was really looking for over 25 yrs of searching and reading several 100 books. The short story is: Scn clicked and I took to it like a duck to water then as I read more and more scn, everything else I read prior began to make sense, or come into alignment.
Dio
Nice Dio.
Wow Valkov. You really hit the gong.
I’m just a one-man Gong Show I guess. I’m searching Youtube for a special super-giant-Gong for Vinnie.