David Miscavige is the leader of the Church of Scientology. There is much effort spent demonizing, paint him pitch black and to point him out as the only reason why the church is in serious trouble. As far as I have seen, and I have read most of the pro and con sites on the Net, no one tries to actually understand Miscavige. So I will make an attempt to highlight a possible reason why he acts as he does.
Scientology promotes the states of Clear and OT. But no one has reached the state of Clear as originally defined by the church founder L. Ron Hubbard. And Scientology has yet to produce a stable OT.
As the leader of the Church of Scientology, Miscavige is charged with the responsibility of delivering good on these promised results. He is also charged with the responsibility of following to the letter and to the dot any and all scriptures by Hubbard. He is faced with the impossible task of ensuring a fixed process producing a fixed result.
Seeing that the results are not consistently produced (and far from it), he naturally gets frustrated. He enforces the process in order to fix the result. Seeing that the results are still not coming off the assembly line, he fixes the process further. And further. And further. All the while getting more and more frustrated. And it doesn’t take a genius to understand this frustration. Frustration leads to anger, to shouting, to slapping, to imprisoning the idiots who cannot get the process right. And he starts to enforce his own ways. Make up his own policies and rig his own processes. But alas, a fixed process still doesn’t produce a fixed result.
He probably never heard of Gödel or General Systems Theory. Had he only learned to empower people instead of the process. To assign responsibility and really help those people thrive, be creative and produce the result. But to do that, he would have to violate the sacred scriptures of Hubbard. To achieve a certain result, one needs a flexible process and flexible tools. One would need to bend or break the rules more often than one would think. Scientology is dealing in people, not the manufacturing of cars. The input (people) are uncertain, or even random – while the input to the car plant is rather set. That is why one can have a very rigid process producing cars while such a process will have the opposite effect when dealing with people as input. Witness the current state of the Church.
People (and Scientologists in particular) are prone to stigmatizing, painting the world black-and-white and swiftly calling people good (social) and evil (anti-social or Suppressive Persons). This is hardly an effort to truly understand one’s fellow man. Rather, it is mental laziness to toss stuff quickly into the white or the black bin.
I believe a situation to be more easily handled if one tries to understand it. And if the situation is a one man show, understanding the man would make it easier to handle the whole.
608 thoughts on “Understanding Miscavige”
Agree with the mental laziness. I overcome it and then overcome it again and yet the tendencies remain for further purging.
I have written many times that Dave Miscavige is not the root cause of the problems with the COS. He was raised at the knee of LRH and ambitiously sought to emulate LRH and never knew he was in a games condition until . . . I don’t know if or what he knows now.
25 years ago, DM that I remember was a fanatical zealot of Scientology, but taking the reins of a group this large, as a boy without broad education and with possibly the entirely wrong education; he was in over his head from the beginning. The fact that he wanted to be in this position is irrelevant to the notion that he bit off too much without being ready.
Add to that the KSW mandate to practice without flinching from, or modifying a controversial mish-mash of management policies and the bloke may have never had a chance.
Unable to bend, COS will be snapped off at the root. What happens after that is open to speculation.
I’m surprised at you, Geir, for a couple reasons off the top of my head. One is that you would make a “case” out of something that was at first considered by LRH to be possible and then later very plainly revised by him, namely the definition of Clear.
Another is that you would offer the justifications that you do for the evils Miscavige has perpetrated – that is the one most unlike you, IMO.
And another is that you do not see that the tech can be used rotely and perceived as a fixed process, OR that it does not need to be and in fact in the best auditing by the most experienced auditors, it is not. This last even flies in the face of your own auditing experience and the fact that you have wanted and reached for more auditing outside the CoS (L 11). Have changed your mind about it since then?
With all due respect and fondness. 🙂
Firstly; Understanding bad is needed in order to solve bad. Condemnation never will solve the issue.
Secondly, my best auditors did bend and break the rules. Even Hubbard did. But in other places he was very stern about rules that were NEVER to be broken. I find that interesting and opens the door to some explanations, methinks.
There was a lot of attempt at understanding that went into understanding how an SP became one and it was combined with the datum that all beings are basically good. One might either argue that this concept of SP is a condemnation or that it is a simple description of an isness that does exist (redundancy intended for effect ;)), just as in the physical universe black exists along with all shades of gray.
Which rules were never to be broken, other than KSW 1 – which is one policy only and it exists alongside others that indicate any policy can be broken if it does not align with purpose and expansion and the existing scene.
(I have such mixed feelings about taking a stand against anything you say while you are doing such a great job on the other “discussion” currently going on. Oh, well, truth must prevail! LOL)
marildi, lrh was the top specialist in detecting SPs, if he don´t detected the SPness in his ASI inc. administrator I guess his ethics tech has BIG HOLES.
Very good on spotting this inconsistency.
Probably LRH did not have clean hands, so could not detect SPness correctly. He declared many innocent people as SPs too.
May Dennis should take another look at LRH’s picture and tell us what he sees.
Vinay, good challenge, Dennis?
As a promotion for Study Tech and on one of the Study Tapes LRH says that the Tech alone separated from the trained auditor is useless. This is why the “psychs” etc., could not assimilate or duplicate or use Scientology.
To me this means that the Tech is not and never can be done by rote, thus in conflict with KSW. You?
p.s. Do you really believe that DM follows “to the letter and to the dot the scriptures of LRH”? You only need to read that recent email of Debbie Cook’s, where she delineates blow by blow what he has so blatantly violated in both tech and policy and quotes the references fiolated, let alone many other assessments to the same effect.
As I say in my blog post; I could believe that he started out trying to do so and how he came about to enforce his own process. As I said, this is an attempt (perhaps the first) to Try to actually understand the guy.
marildi, David Miscavige can´t follow “to the letter and to the dot the scriptures of LRH” if in the first place lrh selected him untrained in scientology tech up to class XII snr C/S as expected by sea org product 8 level of training , unexperienced in management as an interned FEBC graduate and exec evaluator plust the sea org only special sea org FEBC more extensive than the public FEBC ( contains flag orders, central bureaux orders, gold orders, etc. ) and not being a scientology magistrate on ethics and justice policy. In my opinion the beutiful pair of blue eyes, silky hair, and big mouth weighted more in the choice of his ASI inc. COB administrator ( the administrator of his wealth ), thus enabling him to the de facto take over of the church.
I thought Scientology should be able to handle case conditions, such as, frustration.
Why is DM using squirrel processes like shouting, intimidating, slapping, imprisoning etc. instead of standard Scientology?
Obviously, Scientology does not work, and one should go into real estate business like the Roman Catholic Church. Well DM is doing that.
Vinay, I am sure in the near future these ideal org real state will become offices for the social reform programs of the Roman Catholic Church ( using the succesful parts of scientology on this subject ).
Quite an insight, I must say!
I think you made a pretty accurate pan determined evaluation of DM and his situation.
My very limited experience with the tech and being a keen observer of what has been going in the cos and in the fz and comming with many ex scios in the last 15 yrs has given me a pretty good understanding of what is going on.
An advantage I have is that i was on a similar path as Hubbard was to resolve his case and then come up with Dianetics and scn, for 30 yrs prior to me discovering Dianetics and scn in 97.
So the understanding of scn came to me almost in an avalanche.
But my experience is that the tech is only half there, if that.
The bridge is full of holes and very rickety.
The bridge is full of false and limiting data and traps and lots of contradicting data and missing data for the average case.
And there is some data that is written on different levels, ( tone 4 and above) that only the wise will see and understand.
The wise can cross the bridge and it is likely that some have, and became a stable clear and OT.
But I guess that they fly the coop and get on with life. Life can be beautiful out in the world with a clear mind and being OT.
There is no time for idle talk and feuds like which goes on on these comm lines and in the fz.
They find bigger fish to fry. Such is easy to do.
Hubbard reportedly said, that some day the pc will have to audit scn out.
They have done that and gone on with bigger win win games.
DMs trouble is that he is operating on false and limiting data.
He does not get the data that is written above tone 4.
It is there.
And he is not a high theta person either.
And I also suspect that everything is going the way Hubbard and his channeling entities ( assistants) secretly planned it.
I suspect DM is just a pawn, scapegoat and sacrificial goat.
All religions are traps for fools and gold mines of knowledge, wisdom, power and freedom for the wise.
People fail in any endeavor for only one reason and that is for the lack of the right knowledge to solve the problem at hand.
Well said. Fabulously written. Scientology has good things written in it that can help an individual. But as you said only the wise can see it and use it to cross..
The first thing I did was look at that photo … there is much to be observed:
a) This guy loves attention and desires to be admired
b) He is a heavy drinker and has high blood pressure
c) He emotes a flow that attempts to show authority
d) He is coiffed & dressed, again, to attract attention
e) He is prone to violence
f) He loves to control – there is no such thing as good or bad control to him – it is all about compliance – no talkback, no reasoning, no discussion – just do it.
g) He is desperate to be placed on a pedestal above anyone else and demands it to be so
h) He waffles constantly between loving himself and cringing at his crimes
i) He believes his outer shell fools others into thinking he is important
j) The rigidity in his pose was meant to impress & show authority (in his estimation)
k) He is a calculating psychotic
So, that’s what I see from looking at the picture.
Now, I’ll re-read the article. 🙂
So, I looked at what factors would bring this fellow to his current state of operating.
First the usual reasons claimed by similar cases:
Beaten up as a kid? – Possibly
Diddled by his uncle or some other deep-seated sexual trauma? – Unlikely
Small-man syndrome? – Possibly
Poor/no (not to be read as ‘porno’ although it may be true) education? Likely a factor
Any other syndrome to justify his actions – Only when confronted
The short answer for me is that HE is responsible for his actions.
At one point he knew right from wrong and could control his impulses. This is no longer – he now is on a systematic path of control & destruction.
Again, this is HIS OWN doing.
We all have seen & read bad things, people killed or maimed, suppressive activities, anti-social behavior, etc.
By seeing these things, do we act out the same?
Do we follow and do the same?
Do we look at it and say to ourselves ‘ Yes, that’s the way I want to be so I will be respected’ ?
What is it that we have that he doesn’t? Or, what is it he has that we don’t?
I saw people locked up, screamed at, months on the decks, heavy suppressive inval, etc.
I’m sure some of you did too.
Why didn’t we, after seeing this, continue along the same path ?
These are the questions I am asking myself …..
Dennis: “These are the questions I am asking myself …..”
Chris: Aside from our bias and unhappy experiences with this man and his circle of thugs, the OP suggests we consider if Dave Miscavige can be understood.
You got quite a bit from looking only at his photo !
Yes, I am able to look at a photo and get quite a bit of info and assume beingnesses within them …
I do think Miscavige can be understood – not the prettiest picture, but, oddly enough I still recognize there is this little clinker of a soul under that heavy exterior.
Btw, I forgot, I also see some pretty heavy mass around him … must have been the film 😉
. . . sorry Dennis, I meant to write an answer to your question, “Why didn’t we, after seeing this, continue along the same path ?”
Answer: It wasn’t our predilection to do so. There are self-similar iterations which copy or embellish others iterations. We are similar and yet different. I do not know for sure if our similiarities are because at the root source of this iteration we are same or if our differences are because at the root source of this iteration we are different.
I have a question for you. Do you think there might be a similar mechanism at the heart of our reach for ARC (sameness) as there is at the the heart of our desire to make others wrong (enforced difference of the service fac)?
Wow, good question Chris.
My immediate response was ‘No’
but quickly thinking about it, it may very well be a mechanism similar to creating a beingness.
LRH mentions as you know, that ARC is native to a thetan or compose of …
So, I’ll stick with my ‘No’ for now and reserve the right to change my mind 🙂
I can see how one could mock up a mechanism to appear as ARC, but natively? Hmmm … 🙂
If you spot one, we will need to give it a name. It would be a picture of why others are right in order to make oneself right…
In my estimation, this intuitive vs. counter-intuitive view of the world is present in Scientology when looking at GPMs. But then it drops away and discussions become more weighted on the rightness and wrongness of things. Do you see what I mean? I think this might be an area to which we could contribute in order to re-balance or help Scientology find its balance.
With reference to the OP, I feel that we must embrace every side of life to be a part of and to understand life.
Ahh … good Chris!
That was also my thought.
I like your last sentence … like rubbing elbows with all manner of men.
Not right or wrong … simply different (and fascinating) 🙂
David Miscavige is in the lrh valence.
Rafael Sánchez Núñez says : 2012-03-05 at 01:43
David Miscavige is in the lrh valence.
So, why didn’t David Miscavige just be himself, so to speak?
Why did he take on this ‘valence’ ?
Why didn’t I ?
After all, I’ve been a Scientologist for over 40 years and saw a lot of crap go down … read LRH, read Fair Game, read Disconnection, knew of the over-boarding?
Methinks there is something prior to all of this.
Dennis, when you live with alcoholic parents, you see natural alcoholism and become alcoholic. If you read about alcoholism, you don´t become alcoholic. livingness is the difference. Live the sea org stile of life and you will start behaving like lrh, garanteed.
Rafael Sánchez Núñez says : 2012-03-05 at 02:13
Dennis, when you live with alcoholic parents, you see natural alcoholism and become alcoholic. If you read about alcoholism, you don´t become alcoholic. livingness is the difference. Live the sea org stile of life and you will start behaving like lrh, garanteed.
Some big generalities and leaps there, don’t you think? 🙂
Dennis, if it makes sleep you better, I am a SP talking in generalities and unable to think without logic leaps. ( as an SP I hate the social persons you know ). But still you have to experience the sea org life stile from the pristine viewpoint of the EPFer ( just recruited teenager )
yes, yes we had already ascertained that from your photo alone!
Good point though about the young and impressionable mind. I was 30 years old when I joined, so not so impressionable.
Yes, I see where you’re coming from. 1st hand experience is good (or bad) 🙂
I had my 11 year old son in the SO but was not in myself.
hallo Anthony just passed me the site info to look at I am enjoying reading. I know anthony many years and I msyelf have been on staff at St Hill /Sea Org Ship/ plus fort harriosn very early days .
Not always. This comment about about alcoholism is too pat. It might work that way and it might not work that way. Within the same family with alcoholic parents siblings may become both alcoholic and non-alcoholic. Conversely, growing up in a family with no alcoholism, there again will have both outcomes.
That’s the way I see it too Chris.
My parents never touched a drop, but I drank like a fish when I was a late teen.
Now, I drink every once in awhile if we have a guest or Xmas or some such.
If I drink to much, I just drive it off. 🙂
There … that’ll get some feedback lol
Spelling mistake … TOO much …
Yes, I find that the faster I drive the more quickly the alcohol wears off… Motorcycles? Even better. No helmet, the wind once again helps to remedy the drunkenness.
Yes, in my home too. Neither parents like the taste, but two brothers have had life-long battles with alcohol.
Hey Chris … I going to have a drink !!
I just got this email:
” As it may interest you to know, I got your impressive information through the business directory at chamber of commerce and Industry here in Burkina Faso, where i was searching for a good reliable contact of your family members which i will entrust this inheritance into its control, I was elated when i saw your contact and i picked a keen interest with confidence to solicit for your co-operation in executing this project.
Let me start by introducing myself properly to you. I am Barrister Hakim Abdullah Hussain the Attorney to your late uncle Engr. A.J. Al Fahim (Snr) a contractor with the Federal Government of Burkina Faso, until his death last three years ago in political crisis in Abidjan capital of Cote D’Ivoire, He Banked with Bank of Africa, Ouagadougou-Burkina Faso and had a closing balance as at the end of September, 2009 worth US$7,326,000.00(Seven Million Three Hundred and Twenty Six Thousand United States Dollars).The financial institute now expects the Next of Kin to come forward as Beneficiary. ”
Yippee – great old uncle Fahim (Snr) remembered me.
Ahh … life on easy street now 🙂
Now I can become a Patron Elitist Meritorious Somthingorrather
Congratulations on your unique opportunity, I have never heard of such a wonderful offer. I am sorry I am just answering this as I only just now saw it. I hope you have already answered Mr Hasim as he is a very busy man. You should always to remember to enclose your complete information including addresses both residence and mailing and telephone numbers use as many as you have so that you can easily be reached. Of course passport and driver license information goes without saying and when you email him copies of your identification, please remember to enlarge and lighten so they will be easy to read. Now the bank routing numbers and account numbers, be sure to double check them for accuracy and when you send credit card number for the small transaction fee to get the money out of Africa, maybe better send them a couple and rrmember expiration date and that little 3 digit thingy on the front…
Whew… I hope you are in time. Enjoy your 7 million dollars.
Thank you Chris …
Apparently, at my request as I was certain he could find your family members, Mr. Hussein started an intensive search for your relatives from the Wiki-Tiki tribe. He has found your long lost cousin ILookieforrichieamerican.
Language and speech were somewhat of a problem what with the 10″ plates for lips, but he has assured me that she is genuine.
As you know, all of her family were killed in that scrap over that water buffalo with the Ubangis and all she has left is you.
Lucky for you she has 3 cows and 32 million US Dollars but needs a $5000 plane ticket and $25,000 for transport of the cows.
Thankfully, she already has an account with Western Union and anxiously awaits her reunion.
Who knows, marriage could also be in the offing.
Mr. Hussein of course will expedite matters.
Dennis, I have just realised that the example of the alcoholic parents is not a good one to ilustrate my point, here is a better option to explain what i mean:
Hey RN, What an excellent video. Thank you for linking me up with that. Using that information I feel I could start a cult or better yet, an anti-cult cult.
LOL! Very likely.
Why isn’t there a reply button on Rafael’s post with the video?
Anyways I want to say that I also think it is an excellent video.
A heck of a lot of experience, thought, time and work has went into the video.
It amazes me that there are people out there that can do that.
I think they all have to have experience with scientology.
I also want to comment on the previous thread ( because that is from where this thread has evolved) on why people drink, meaning alcohol and using non alcohol parents and family situations as examples.
My situation was that I drank and went extreme opposite in some ways, to which my dad wanted me to go and be. he believed that in order to make a child good you had to beat them up when they did wrong or made a mistake.
Why did I drink?
Because his control and abuse was over bearing.
His ways, his programming of me was not compatible with the outside world.
I was in so much inner pain, and frustration because I did not know how to handle life and what he told me did not work, so I drank to numb the pain and frustration and areas of lack of good operating data.
Rebellion was maybe a small part of it , but if it was, it was a lot more than rebellion. It is difficult to put into words. The best word I can find is that alcohol was a pain suppressor. It put things on hold.
I think it is safe to say that all people drink for that reason, at least in part. To fill an area of void or pain.
I quit drinking about 30 and am now 58. I had enough cognition to realize that it was not a good thing to do.
I got to the point, the older I got and the more I understood, the more I despised my dad. I did not talk to to him for the last ten yrs before he died and did not go to his funeral.
I live a long distance away and I had so many problems, that I did not have any money to go, but I did not want to go even if I did have money.
In part I justified to myself, my not wanting to go to the funeral, as is said in the bible that Jesus said: Let the dead bury the dead.
So that is the way I see drinking in the terms it was being discussed here.
Heavy story. And now? What interests you these days? We are the same age.
What interests me these days?
That question kind of threw me off, at first thought ( it contained something that appeared to be from a superior snotty altitude looking down, putting down, belittling) , then I reconsidered and thought it was a fair enough question, in any event.
It is a fair enough question in the sense that it makes me re evaluate or look past my valences and thinking.
What interests me now days is recovering my true self and mastering life, in scn-geze becoming truly clear and truly OT.
There are right ways and wrong ways to do everything.
My true self is still in a state of paralysis, numb, zombie.
I can only operate on a mechanical learned consciousness.
A talking head.
Some old timer scngist said he never saw anyone so low on the tone scale.
I am afraid of the large majority of people.
So my only focus at the moment is recovery of MYSELF.
I spend every available moment of the day that I have the stuff it takes to do this.
It’s been a long row to hoe.
How about you, what interests you?
Diogenese, you say ” I am afraid of the large majority of people “. Let me tell you an advice, don´t be afraid of the people, the trick is to see PERSONS not just people. Word clear what a person is and then go out to a persons crowded place and look at them, repeat this in diferen places and the familiarity with them will bring about ARC for this aspect of the existence. I am sure you will feel more comfortable about that after a while.
Thank you for the quick and thorough reply. You are right, I was only asking in the interest of being interested, nothing more. I noticed we are the same age. I am an electrician for work and own a business in Phoenix, Arizona. Thinking with circuits comes easy for me (no jeering comments from Marildi, please) so I pretty much work on anything with wires.
I am married with two grown children and three children still at home, elementary school. My wife and I both work outside and inside the home and enjoy full action packed days and short nights.
My oldest daughter becomes an MD this Spring and my oldest son graduates BS in chemistry also this Spring. The younger three all play musical instruments both piano and single note instruments: trumpet, violin, and clarinet. My own musical hobby is the trumpet and guitar.
I was in Scientology from 1977 until 1991 and in the SO for the last 6 of those years. I then went approximately 15 years putting a domestic life back together and then at that point began probing my feelings about Scientology. At that point I was fortunate to make contact with Aida and Dave Thomas in Los Angeles who welcomed me into their home and using the best of Scientology in the form of correction lists, false data stripping, and service facsimile handling got me “repaired” and feeling myself again. Unafraid for my immortal soul, for the past couple years I have been back on my original purpose of finding out more about myself and the world in which I live. Part of this research includes solo auditing for the purpose of locating and relieving disagreements that I sometimes feel within myself.
I have been blogging with Geir here for over a year now and feel very much at home in a safe and uncensored environment. Geir’s broad based knowledge includes physics and he piqued and rehabbed my own interest, so for a while now I have been researching and teaching myself physics. I also have an interest in in fractal mathematics.
I hope you feel I that I took your question seriously and began to answer your question. There are many regular contributors to this blog as you can easily see and even more lurkers who comment from time to time. You should hang around. Your contributions of ideas are appreciated.
Chris: “Thinking with circuits comes easy for me…”
“(no jeering comments from Marildi, please)”
An even better LOL!
(Here I was doing so well, getting my work done and not chiming in with you guys and all the great comments, but this one I couldn’t resist :))
Glad to be of humorous service to your funny bone…
Please notice I am saying nothing about you and your circuits.
I won’t even put a little smiley next to my comment.
… and just to add:
I admire *any* electrician who can work in amongst all those circuits whilst pulling his wire.
haw haw u so funny
There are only so many levels of discussion possible (I get one more level than you guys…)
If you receive email notifications when people post, you can hit the reply button from within your email message rather looking for one on the discussion thread within the blog. If you do this, your comment will be posted correctly under the appropriate comment.
Diogenes, It is very appreciated your attention when you say ” Anyways I want to say that I also think it is an excellent video “. Yes it is a scientifically designed video to show graphically the diference between a cult and a real religion.
Cult vs. real Religion, Rafael, I didn’t see the comparison, where did I miss it?
Chris, the definition of religion is not covered thoroughly in this video ( it is assumed you know the definition already ) what is best covered is the selfish and insane departure of a cultish group from the ideal altruistic scene. May be the difference would be the abuse done to the parishioners in the egoistic benefit of the church officials so changing the religious escence of the group for a bussines like one.
I completely disagree with the article. Scientology does not work. It has never worked. There is no modification to it that will ever produce a clear or OT. Scientology is a destructive practice that harms people spiritually and separates people from God. The most helpful step David Miscavige could take would be to shut down the Church of Scientology.
In this you are saying that the Goal of OT itself is not possible. Please explain why you think so.
Quote: ” Scientology is a destructive practice that harms people spiritually and separates people from God ”
The concept of God and one’s relation to such is left up to the individual.
Yes, even if it is destructive. Or even if it is ever anything other than destructive.
“People (and Scientologists in particular) are prone to stigmatizing, painting the world on black-and-white and swiftly calling people good (social) and evil (anti-social or Suppressive Persons). This is hardly an effort to truly understand one’s fellow man. Rather, it is mental laziness to toss stuff quickly into the white or the black bin.”
This is very true of the hard core scientologists on this blog. In fact, one may recognize a hard core scientologist from the way he or she evaluates others.
This type of ad hom would be more relevant on the hard core critics thread.
I take it that you are rejecting this observation.
And yet Bill here seems to fall squarely into that category. Interesting.
This post then proves Bill to be a true Scientogist.
Is Bill an ex-Scientologist? Was he exposed to Scientology?
That would explain.
Bill? . . . Your turn.
I disagree very much with your POV that scn does not “work”.
You evidently mean, non of it works.
My case in point:
I was very much traumatized ( beat up) to almost a zombie as a kid.
I walked around in a daze and stupor for 25 yrs, while people ridiculed me.
I would only last a few months on a job and be so PTS, I would be let go.
I had about a couple of jobs per yr.
I was about commit suicide on good Friday morning in 97, when I saw a Dianetics commercial on TV indicating the source of emotional problems.
I got the book and read it and called a number that I do not recall how I got it or where i got it, on Saturday night and it happened to be the CO$ in Toronto.
We made an appointment for a demo on Easter Sunday.
After the demo, which was very well delivered, I had a small release.
I realized that this guy did more for me in that couple hour session than everything else I did in the 25 yrs prior.
I have been getting better since. But I do a lot more than scn, but scn is an important part of what I do.
If it were not for Dianetics and Scn I would not be here today.
The words “work” and “help” have to be understood right and used right.
If you go back a few posts and find my other post, and read it, I describe more on what my experience and POV is on scn.
When that data is used right, scn can be made to work.
(Some data is only in clue form.)
That means glean the good stuff from scn and then look in other fields for the remaining data.
Those with the eyes to see and ears to hear and mind to understand will find a way to make it work.
I suspect that it was meant to be that way.
What works is the principle of Looking. Scientology would work to the degree it applies that principle.
Scientology auditing is directed looking.
Not always. It could contain pressure to find something.
Directed looking IS pressure.
Model session is supposed to bring a measure of finesse to that pressure, and that has been my experience with that pressure.
This is very different from the ‘enforced’ scenario Vinaire has repeated a number of times when referring to auditing.
Assuming that the PC wants auditing to better himself and is there ‘in session’ and willing to talk to the auditor, there is agreement when directed looking occurs.
Pressure in the sense that Vinaire is mentioning has no part in it.
If one is being ‘forced’, it is not auditing.
Absolutely fantastic OP Geir! I was just thinking today about how no one really takes the time to understand the man and I believe it to be a worthwhile endeavor.
I wish I had more time to comment right now as I find this a fascinating topic.
I’ll come back when I have more time but I think you hit the nail on the head and are definitely on the right track.
I think you are absolutely right, G.
This process of going down the CDEI scale when Scientology consistently doesn’t work can be seen in Hubbard’s life, too. It isn’t that anyone is inherently evil, it’s that Scientology is a fixed game, with fixed processes and fixed solutions which are too fixed and inflexible to address most of the situations a person comes across – even though a person will keep trying and trying. As time and society move forward, always changing, then Scientology will remain fixed in the past and become even less workable.
And so the leader of Scientology must develop ways of blaming people when Scientology doesn’t work, distracting people from catastrophes like Quentin’s suicide and Lisa McPherson, kidnapping and falsely imprisoning people with too much information, etc.
The problem with any ideology is that it is a fixed set of thought patterns. And so when you adopt an ideology its like wearing on a helmet too tightly. Pretty soon your thought patterns and identity become fixed, you blind yourself to the times when your ideology is not true, and your head becomes smaller and smaller. You end up as a pinheaded little fanatic, running around screaming about SPs and Squirrels, etc.
You never notice that it all began when you adopted a fixed ideology and tried to make it true – even when it was not.
Excellent post, Geir.
With respect, my opinion of Scientology as a tool to be used with judgement is workable for me.
You see, when I use the claw end of my hammer to remove screws from my dishwasher project and get a bad result, it is not sensible to blame the hammer.
Knowing the purpose and use and being practiced with tools is part and parcel to them being tools. Until them these levers and inclined planes are just objects.
Isn’t Scientology supposed to improve one’s judgement?
Wouldn’t you then expect scientologists to always be using Scientology correctly?
You cannot shift blame to people where Scientology is concerned. That would be inconsistent.
Possibly. It is my understanding that the use of Scientology removes disagreements from oneself to oneself.
I would not make the logical leap that you are making.
I would expect a person’s judgement in Scientology toward Scientology to improve as they increased in knowledge toward Scientology.
So, the only time a scientologist would not use Scientology correctly is when it has been applied incorrcetly to him, right?
Because if Scientology were applied correctly to him his judgement would improve, and in turn he would apply Scientology with proper judgment.
So the conclusion would be that a scientologist would apply Scientology incorrectly when Scientology has been applied incorrectly to him.
Could it be that Scientology is not as workable as it claims to be?
I guess that conclusion supports the OP.
Except your logic contains one major hole (or a great leap if you wish). Can you spot that inconsistency?
This is your conclusion, not mine. You have been hammering away at this for quite a while now in such a biased way that your newest illogic begins to premise on your earlier false logic.
I do understand your points. I just think you could be less biased and support your arguments better. When you say a right thing for a wrong reason, it sounds wrong. I notice this mostly when you orate on the subject of Scientology. Scientology doesn’t work? No it doesn’t do anything at all. People work. Our questions might be better directed at ourselves asking “What can I make work? What product can I get? How can I use this opportunity to create? What can I use this tool for?
You write from a slant and some type of assumption that I am making a case FOR Scientology. I actually want to be fair and honest in such a way as to bring about a greater understanding. I don’t care about the result, right now I am going for just one more layer of leveling before I move onto the next layer.
Yes, the leap of logic appears to be from incorrect application to Scientology being unworkable. The only thing I can say to fill the gap is that Scientology does not seem to be self-correcting.
KSW#1 is supposed to be hammering out incorrect application of Scientology. Scientologists swear by it. Yet incorrect application seems to persist looking at the results, or the alternative possibility is that even when Scientology is applied correctly, the workability not that great.
You cannot spot your own leap of logic here?
Maybe you yourself don’t know, because you are not helping anyone here.
or simply address the question. If you don’t know what he is referring to you could just say that.
Your bias is painting with too broad a stroke. KSW is a particular aberration which if uninstalled from Scientology would open the door to all the incorrect application you wish to apply. (joke that last part)
… the workability is not that great.
The point i am making it that it is the product of Scientology that is supposed to be applying scientology, and that is not looking that hot.
You cannot just blame people and their judgment in using Scientology. The workability of Scientology must play some part in it.
If one has a bad tool, judgment doesn’t matter that much, if one is not allowed to repair the tool..
Yes, but you are preaching to the choir on this. I may be mistaken but it seems no one much here asserts the usefulness or benefit to Scn of KSW.
Chris, I question your judgment here. Please see my argument above.
Im looking and wprking
I am working to see past your bias toward Scientology as I also work to see past your bias toward Buddhism and KHTK. Your method of communicating leaves me with all loose ends, nothing tied up, and
unacknowledged in the sense that I am talked at and not talked to. You can write back and say I must look less at the self and more at inconsistencies and see if that is more workable than your complaints toward Scientology.
Ok; Here goes:
Vin: “So, the only time a scientologist would not use Scientology correctly is when it has been applied incorrcetly to him, right?
Because if Scientology were applied correctly to him his judgement would improve, and in turn he would apply Scientology with proper judgment.”
That would be the total end product at the very End Of The Line.
Vin: “So the conclusion would be that a scientologist would apply Scientology incorrectly when Scientology has been applied incorrectly to him.”
Obviously not – and here is the great leap of logic – this would only be valid if one tiny piece of Scientology would make the person’s judgement Perfect.
Vin: “Could it be that Scientology is not as workable as it claims to be?
I guess that conclusion supports the OP.”
But faulty logic is faulty.
Thanks for explaining that G, but my logic is quite fine. I disagree with your assertion
“That would be the total end product at the very End Of The Line.”
Any bit of auditing should improve a person’s ability to think logically.
I have observed the ability of many people to think logically to be better before Scientology than after.
Scientology creates a closed mind.
Methinks your post should be on the anti-Scientology posting Vinaire.
Vin: ” Scientology creates a closed mind ”
One of the best generalities I’ve seen
No doubt you’ve closed the book on that bit of logic 😉
Maybe look at your arguments more closely. It is inconsistent to first claim that using any Scientology should cause a person to have good judgement and then when Geir debunks that claim that “Any bit of auditing should improve a person’s ability to think logically.”
At this moment in time you are simply arguing without a clear purpose except to create a negative feeling toward anything Scientology. This is unfair to simply muddy the water with no purpose to achieve understanding.
Vin: “Wouldn’t you then expect scientologists to always be using Scientology correctly?”
That’s quite a leap in logic, isn’t it?
Not really. the alternative would be as I have explained above. It is not just a matter of judgment how one uses Scientology. Scientology itself may work only spottily and not all the time.
Well Chris, here’s what I mean by a fixed thought pattern that is embedded in Scientology. It’s one that Geir touched on in his Op – The Suppressive Person.
This idea from the Scientology ideology has 24 traits (social and anti-social) of a human being that you are supposed to apply to somebody to determine of they are this class of thing so you can label them with the label “SP”.
But a human being has way more than 24 traits. And social psychology shows that environments are way more important to a person’s attitudes and behaviors than anyone gives credit to (see “the fundamental attribution error”)
Yet a Scientologist, when he adopts the Scientology ideology, will take this fixed and limited thought pattern of “SP” and begin to see people through a fixed thought pattern of only 24 traits -social or anti-social. Yet what they are looking at – another human being – has an almost infinite number of traits. A Scientologists will still try to make it fit though, in order to make the ideology true – even when it is not.
So it isn’t a matter of using a tool incorrectly in most cases. It is actually a matter of trying to apply a fixed and limited thought pattern to an infinitely fluid situation.
Handling the infinity of life with an finite ideology is the fundamental mistake.
Yes Alanzo, you are right. I read your post too quickly and posted hastily. Your point is well taken. My own journey of de-filter-i-zation has opened my eyes.
Interesting angle (we have discussed this before – but not from this viewpoint)
I don’t agree that LRH is saying that the total of all traits is 24 – the 24 listed are simply those traits that should be looked at in the context of considering an individual’s basic intention, to help or to suppress. Yes, that could be greatly influenced by one’s culture – of course. But even if it’s a cultural predilection, the result would be the same – suppression or help. And don’t forget that the issue refers to 20% (not 2-1/2), which includes the PTSes, and as we know one can be PTS to a culture, e.g. PTS to the middle class.
But Marildi –
A person can have many more intentions than just “to help or to suppress”. And again, this SP thought pattern often causes scientologists to misunderstand people and their intentions. It is an incredibly over-simplistic template/filter to apply to people and to situations.
I have seen many businesses destroyed by using this oversimplified thinking and firing people as “suppressives” when they simply did not understand what problem the person was trying to solve, or what they were trying to do.
I believe this PTS/SP part of the Scientology ideology is the most damaging part. It is so simplistic, and it causes so much mistrust and even outright paranoia in place of understanding that its effects are wide ranging and almost always damaging. In fact, I would say that as soon as a Scientologist buys in to this PTS/SP tech that they begin stagnating in life and their head becomes pointier almost immediately.
That’s pretty good, Alanzo. I’ll buy that.
I question the intention among Scientologists to quickly label others “wogs,” “SP,” “PTS,” “low-toned,” etc.
What could lie behind such an intention?
I guess it’s the same reason why anyone would jump to any type of conclusion, suddenly decide someone is good or bad, suddenly becoming defensive, suddenly accepting some data without proper inspection, etc.
Vin: “What could lie behind such an intention? . . .”
Chris: Fear, prejudice, and laziness to name a few underlayments.
Your point of the cult weighted aspect of adopting Scientology is well taken.
A very good reply, Al. Thanks.
Alanzo, what you say about inflexibility of Scientology is very true.
From that point of view the process used in Buddhism is very flexible. This Buddhist process of Vipassana is now presented in its modern form as KHTK.
KHTK is a very flexible process that helps one move forward on the spiritual path. It helps one remove inconsistencies through mindful looking.
Yes. I reject because if its inconsistency only. It would be more consistent to say something like people who evaluate harshly have service facsimiles in restimulation. Something like that.
Is it then correct to say that most hard core scientologists have service facsimilies in restimulation?
Yes possibly if by hard core you also mean zealot. For instance when you proselytize continuously for Buddhism it can come as zealous also with KHTK. You usually are making reference to one or both of these when you post. Is this a fair statement?
Are you saying that if somebody is often referring to Buddhism or KHTK, he has service facsimilies in restimulation?
Could you please explain your logic.
Are you being rude, Vinaire?
No, I am being very gentle.
Not mine. Your logic.
When a person pitches for another to convert to their religious beliefs, this is proselytizing. Is it fair for me to write that you do this?
Proselytizing without making another wrong may not be impossible but it is a slippery slope, is it not?
Conversion to certain religious beliefs is a concept applied by western religions.
Eastern religions have always pitched knowledge and not conversion.
It can only be a discussion if we speak to each other’s communication without dodging.
So before I address your patently false statement about only Western religions proselytizing and Eastern religions do not, you must speak to my question of whether I am being fair or not in my statement that you are proselytizing for Buddhism and for KHTK. It is alright to disagree, then please give a reason.
There is no dodging from my side.
Good there will be no dodging established.
Do you feel that I am being fair to you when I say that your promotion for Buddhism and for KHTK is proselytizing?
Do you feel that your promotion for Buddhism and KHTK will create converts?
So do you mean no to the first question or no to the second question or no to both?
Why to push the two so vigorously?
My answer is “No” to both of your questions. KHTK is not a religion and I am not seeking any converts. And I am not pushing anything.
I am simply sharing.
On not pushing anything… you could have fooled me.
I don’t think you guys care for knowledge. You are just hobby horsing Scientology.
“you guys” = generality
“don’t care for knowledge” = generality & straw man
C’mon Vin – you can do better, you are above this.
Chris, you seem to have a shallow knowledge of Eastern religions . The common mistake is to look at eastern religions from the viewpoint of western religions. You seem to be making that mistake, as most westerners do.
“Western” and “Westerner” are not negative epithets except to you. If you write to my post and my question as I do for you, we can remain on topic.
. . . and you are very correct in that my knowledge of religion is very shallow.
For the most part, I concur with what Geir has suggested about David Miscavige. This is what I have noticed in addition to that:
– Each one of the grades or levels on the the Grade chart has its own END PHENOMENA. An END PHENOMENA is NOT the same thing as a RESULT. A result is fixed, and END PHENOMENA is merely an indicator that a series of processes have run their course. It is very much in keeping with how the auditing processes work to establish an end phenomena that prevents overrun. It is disastrous to work towards a fixed result.
– It is a valid stricture to insist that an auditing process be carried out as written and intended, and I believe that was the original intent of KSW. i.e. if the auditing command is “give me that hand“ then one does not alter it to “give me that ashtray.“ Running a process or series of processes to their particular end phenomena would be part of that. Shifting this to a result is an alteration of the purpose of an end phenomena.
– Marketing, which is utilized to create demand, seizes on particular results translating them into catchy phrases and evocative images. These are then seen to be the offered or promised results. Marketing is not a vehicle to accurately describe what an end phenomena is, it is a vehicle to simplify and quickly convey in a way that is desirable to people. MARKETING is the BANE of Scientology, whether that marketing is done through magazine, word of mouth, video presentations, or by excerpting from LRH books and lectures. It has always been the BANE of Scientology and it IS the source of all major upsets to do with so-called RESULTS. It is marketing that governs the process of packaging, pricing and promoting goods and services.
Consider the implications of this marketing blurb: Rocket your way to OT at AOLA! First of all, there isn`t going to be any rocketing, not in this or any other universe. The space ship on the launch pad suggests visually that one is going to ignite all burners and achieve lift-off from planet earth. Its an exciting and very misleading image. And then as well, AOLA does not offer a RESULT of OT. The only thing that AOLA has to offer are the end phenomena associated with sections 1 to 5 of an OT course.
There is much ado about DM pushing on having people read the basics. Its actually not a bad idea — if people succeed at it, that is. If they read the basics they will come to understand (hopefully) that all is not cut and dried and beautifully perfect as Marketing is so prone to presenting. They might even come to understand what an end phenomenon actually is. Then again, maybe not.
Bravo! If this were actually duplicated, it would save a lot of misunderstanding – by Scientologists and critics alike.
Good points about end phenomena. Are you saying then these levels could be re-used again for more benefit or a furthering of the end phenomena?
I`m not really saying anything other than confusing an end phenomena with a result is disastrous. I would assume that if the full end phenomena has been reached then anything beyond that would be an overrun. I don`t think the processes would be reading so one would not take it up anyway. I do think that there is a cyclic or spiraling aspect to deeper and deeper insights into these core areas of concentration. But the initial EP would not be revisited, pehaps rehabbed, but not revisited.
I do think there would be great value in extending each end phenomena area by offering a combination of knowledge and skill sets that could serve to establish a deeper understanding, stability and ability. For example, in the area of communication, one could certainly offer an array of skills to do with communication. This is somewhat served if the individual does the corresponding auditor course — i.e. does grade 0, studies level 0. Works with that for a time, then goes on to the corresponding level of the briefing course.
There would also be the aspect of improved quality of communication — grade 0 EP is ability to communicate freely to anyone on any subject. This does not address how to communicate to others in ways that foster clearer understanding, the underlying factors that cause a being to decide not to exercise their ability, the skills needed to not make a hash out of others while communicating, the ethical use of communication and so on. There is a great deal to explore just in this one concentration and Scientology offers little in the way of knowledge and skills outside of the realm of auditing. I think it would be safe to say that Grade 0 addresses only 1st dynamic concerns, but most communication mishaps are not purely 1st dynamic.
The EP of Grade one is indeed an exact result, though.
3. something that happens as a consequence; outcome.
4. Mathematics . a quantity, expression, etc., obtained by calculation.
5. Often, results. a desirable or beneficial consequence, outcome, or effect: We had definite results within weeks.
I don`t think it is an EXACT result. For an end phenomena to be an EXACT result, we would have to INTERVIEW the preclear with a closely and carefully defined list of precise and measurable parameters, conditions, skills, ideas and so on that exactly and precisely manifested from preclear to preclear. Now that would be EXACT. And that is simply NOT possible to do on subjective processes.
However there is a complex of indicators serving to establish that a process has reached optimum usage. They are taken together, and with the exception of the meter phenomena (i.e. a floating needle) there is great variation in the indicators from one person to another.
I might add that to the interview of the preclear, we would also have to follow that preclear around in life and assess whether or not he was now freely communicating on any subject. This assessment would have to be done without his knowledge for the assessment to have any value whatsoever.
Except there has been on the Grade Chart exact results given; Like that of the original OT VIII (Cause over Matter, Energy, Space and Time, Subjectively and Objectively(, OT III (freedom from overwhelm).
“HAS BEEN” is the operative term.
And “Ability to…” should be consider in Grades EP’s.
(Sorry to butt in but Maria will likely have her own viewpoint to add.)
Yes – that was how it was under LRH – until DM & Co took over and blurred the promised results 😉
As far as I know, the particular ability gained is for OT8, circa 1970.
The term that is not exact in this instance is CAUSE OVER, which is a decidedly odd way of putting it. The question is what CAUSE OVER really means.
It smacks of promising something that can later be justified.
Like I said, marketing is the BANE of Scientology.
You probably weren`t there for the rollout of the Big League Sales course with prospecting and closing and hard sell. You might have been present for the rollout of the Dissemination drill and course, and its MARKETING methods.
Certainly you would never have seen the simple little newsletters that the Mission I went to used to put out. They did not MARKET Scientology. Repeat. Did not MARKET Scientology. People didn`t come in to the Walmart version at that time and PURCHASE a shopping cart full of exact results for it was well understood by the auditor`s who spoke to preclears that there was NO SUCH THING. The people who ran the successful Mission were DEEPLY offended by the used car salesman techniques and slick advertising that came out of the Central Marketing Unit. Prices were reasonable. People co-audited.
You didn`t come to the Mission to get FIXED. You did not attend a clinic where the guru auditor did something TO YOU and GAVE you something that you could put in a shopping bag and take home and show off to all your friends. We understood (because it was explained to us by auditors who had hundreds and sometimes thousands of hours in the chair) that it was work on self-realization and that the individual`s understanding and cognitions and gains would be experienced differently and whatever gains to be had were in the realm of individual understanding and insight. There was never an EXACT list of EXACT results to be evaluated against a checklist of what EXACTLY should that individual be like when they completed a series of processes with all individuals having an EXACTLY identical so-called result.
Sounds pretty cool.
It was. And I cried the day it died.
Yes, Maria, this was my experience as well. You stated two major points that can’t be overemphasized:
The incredible significance of hours in the chair for the understanding of what Scientology really is: “We understood (because it was explained to us by auditors who had hundreds and sometimes thousands of hours in the chair)…”
And, indirectly, the great value and importance of training: “…that it was work on self-realization and that the individual`s understanding and cognitions and gains would be experienced differently…”
I would guess that it is virtually impossible to find critics of core Scientology who have trained and audited to any extent.
Marildi: “I would guess that it is virtually impossible to find critics of core Scientology who have trained and audited to any extent.”
Chris: Not saying that finding critics of core Scientology proves a right or wrong, but why do you think this is so?
marildi, Google Maria Pia Gardini , catholic sister OT 8 Class 9 auditor, OT 8 preps auditor. She is a big scientology core critic and there are more.
It is my opinion that scientology needs to be preserved as there are very interesting phenomena from auditing and training that I have experienced but not at the suppressive cost asked by the criminal cult.
Maria, what would you propose to get scientology to the delivery stile of the early days, what promotion would you approve?.
Rafael — it is already happening. The number of auditors who are out there delivering on an independent basis is rising. It was the auditors who were successful at any “promotion“ that was done. They talked to people, they audited them, they ran little courses, they trained others. People talked to others, etc. You know, talking to real people one on one and all that.
I would suggest taking the Big League Sales Course, the Hard Sell pack, the Marketing Series, and the Dissemination Course and chucking them out. They are all suspect.
And consider the impact of them on DM`s organization as the reges and FSMs apply them with greater and greater zeal. Read them sometime with a very critical eye — and then ask what the consequences of applying them with great zeal and demand would be.
Amen. Not only chuck but burn.
Maria, you are right. The magic of auditing was what kept us working under hard conditions, not the admin courses. And of course a single session on self analisis or an assist would create interest in any new person.
Wow Maria. I never thought about the term “cause over” until reading your comment. It seemed unambiguous until just now and upon Googling found it to be uniquely a Scientology term.
Was it always meant to be so ambiguous? Where’s Marildi?
Couldn’t agree more about the marketing. The way things are marketed really stood out for me when I first got in. I remember the tag line from Student Hat stating ‘this course will lift your life into the stratosphere’ or something. Being a matter of fact englishman I used to chuckle whenever I saw it.
I also remember a poster in the academy about how bad it is to be a dilletente, reminded me of those old ‘your country needs you’ notices from the second world war, kind of menacing.
I remember that stratosphere thing. I used to look at it and sigh and go back to my word chains. Stratosphere wasn`t a word I would have used to describe the Student Hat. And believe it wasn`t what sold me on it. What sold me on was doing the cheaper Basic Study Manual and realizing that I really wasn`t getting as much out of what I was studying as I could. And the Basic Study Manual was sold to me as a recommended pre-requisite for doing the HQS course, which I really wanted to do because it had co-auditing on it and I really wanted to do co-auditing. All these people were doing co-auditing and having a whale of a good time and I wanted to do that too. So I was willing to put up with this short little study course so I could get the most out of the HQS.
Same here, Maria
I did the Student Hat … it was a grind at 1st – I was never an enthusiastic student when it came to just reading … especially about studying … what could be worse 🙂
Like you, I wanted to get into auditing although once I started using the Student Hat material in studying to be an auditor, I’m glad I did it – it really made things simple.
Yeah. With you. I did the Student Hat along with the Method One so I could be fast flow. Lord I hated waiting for starrate checkouts! I too am really glad I did the Student Hat and I am even more glad that I did the Method One. It has served me well all my life.
Ahh forgot about that … hahaha
Yes, I did M1 too – and it was exactly that – so I didn’t have to wait for starrates.
Going thru the HSDC 3 times – waiting for starrates?? Excruciating! LOL
+1. I began my education as a promising student but years went by and for (pick a reason) I deteriorated and became a dud student. Student Hat was something I desired and had a tremendous reach for and Method 1 co audit was a polishing that helped me achieve confidence that I had only dreamed about.
. . . but I really meant to comment that I wonder at DM’s literacy.
Chris: I really don`t think it is a literacy problem. The booklet The Way to Happiness is not written in difficult language nor are the concepts difficult to comprehend. Yet, by testimony, DM has routinely violated the precepts when it seems to me that if the Church is going to direct the distribution of millions of these booklets around the world, the Church should be acting at its very best to set the best possible example for everyone around the world. And that does include Church leadership.
It also does not explain the changes made in the Code of a Scientologist, as it has been published in the recent HQS course, which now reads:
1. To hear or speak no word of disparagement to the press, public or preclear’s concerning any of my fellow Scientologists, our professional organization or those whose names are closely connected to this science. (Total rewrite)
2. To use the best I know of Scientology to the best of my ability to help my family, friends, groups and the world. (No Change)
3. To refuse to accept for processing and to refuse to accept money from any preclear or group I feel I cannot honestly help. (No Change)
4. To deter to the fullest extent of my power anyone misusing or degrading Scientology to harmful ends. (Total rewrite)
5. To prevent the use of Scientology in advertisements of other products. (Total rewrite)
6. To discourage the abuse of Scientology in the Press. (Total rewrite)
7. To employ Scientology to the greatest good of the greatest number of dynamics (Total rewrite)
8. To render good processing, sound training and good discipline to those students or peoples entrusted to my care. (Total rewrite)
9. To refuse to impart the personal secrets of my preclear’s. (Total rewrite)
10. To engage in no unseemly disputes with the uninformed on the subject of my profession. (Total rewrite)
Code items 11-20 are gone.
And even with the severe changes in this code, it doesn`t explain the reported violations of items 4 and 9 (to name two of them in particular), even of the re-written version of it.
Note: This alteration was reported by Randy Cook on Marty Rathbun`s blog on Feb 28th.
Weirdly, the full 1973 version is still published on the official Scientology site: http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-scientology-creeds-and-codes/the-code-of-a-scientologist.html
As Geir pointed above, it is this: And he starts to enforce his own ways. Make up his own policies and rig his own processes. But alas, a fixed process still doesn’t produce a fixed result.
Unfortunately it appears that not only does he insist on a fixed process, he insists on a fixed result and that result appears to be only acceptable if it is in keeping with whatever standard he seems to be applying. The man is in LOVE with multi-media and MARKETING. He appears to be trying to FORCE people to be and behave in a certain and specific way i.e. a fixed result.
You bring a lot of organized thought to bear on these writings. Thank you.
I would agree to that.
aotc, I used to chuckle whenever I saw GPM material in the Studient Hat materials and I do in fact felt like being in the stratosphere. Even now I doubt seriously that an average scientologist having done this course could be able to provide a correc definition on these esoteric ( and un-necesary ) material.
Maria, How well, do you think, DM understands the basics?
I have no idea. He clearly has some kind of problem with application or we would see the Church being a model of the Way to Happiness. And one thing is certain — it is definitely NOT a model of the Way to Happiness.
There are some inherent shortcomings in Scientology technology.
Let me say that I have definitely benefited from Scientology, but that benefit has been limited, and with that benefit came a bit of conditioning as well. It has taken me a while to get rid of that conditioning.
Part of that conditioning is looking at Hubbard with awe as the “source” of all the benefits one supposedly got. Some Scientologists even raise Hubbard to a status almost godlike (big OT, or big Thetan).
The primary principle which Scientology borrowed from Buddhism is THE PRINCIPLE OF LOOKING. A preclear in auditing looks at the contents of his mind as re-stimulated by the auditing question. This is fine and works quite well, However, there are the following factors that cuts across looking.
(1) The preclear is interviewed, and from that data an auditing program is drawn for the preclear. The auditing program consists of different arrangements of hundreds of Scientology processes that are fixed in nature. Thus, auditing program is sort of customized to the preclear, but not quite due to the processes being pre-determined.
I have run into many instances of a person admitting that he got benefits from Scientology, but he never got the original problem resolved that brought him to Scientology. Many of those problems later got handled through a more flexible approach provided in Idenics.
(2) Looking depends on mindfulness. It requires discipline to see what is there without adding one’s own visualization to it. This applies to existing objects in the mind as well. In Scientology auditing, pressure is put on the preclear to answer the auditing question through repetition (“TR3”). This has the liability of pushing the preclear into visualization when the mind does not come up with immediate answers.
So, the fact of this “evaluation of the case” in Scientology, more likely than not, prevents the natural unwinding of the case (mind). Secondly, the pressure put in auditing to answer the question pushes the preclear from looking into visualizing the answers. This is also called dub-in. This factor of dub-in actually harms the case in the form of subtle conditioning.
Cool Confucious, let me know if you have specific questions for your paper.
I have isolated the good bits of Scientology, and aligned them with original principles from Buddha’s Vipassana meditation. This is presented as KHTK LOOKING on my blog.
Whatever Vinnie – this is just weird. It is so off topic that it is jarring. On this thread we are discussing UNDERSTANDING David Miscavige, not doing a critique of Scientology technology.
Well it is pertinent to DM’s frustration with a subject that has shortcomings.
I have heard that DM is very smart and fast in his thinking. He is there at the top for a good reason.
DM may be crazy but he ain’t stupid.
Scientology technology is no holy grail as it has been presented by scientologists.
Vinnie, I don`t know what is going on with you on this. You are preaching to the bloody choir. I can`t even imagine who this post was addressed to on this blog. Certainly no one participating on this thread.
I believe the term we are searching for is “hobby horsing”.
That’s true, All of us have our hobby horses, including you.
Sure. I was simply pointing out yours. And if you experience some resistance to your ideas and posts here, maybe it is time to take a look at how you communicate to others here. Maybe there is room for improvement.
Vin: ” Some Scientologists even raise Hubbard to a status almost godlike (big OT, or big Thetan). ”
Well, considering all he accomplished; looks pretty big to me.
Vin: ” The primary principle which Scientology borrowed from Buddhism is THE PRINCIPLE OF LOOKING. ”
Huh?? Absurd. Looking has been occurring long before Buddhism. And what is the point of borrowing such a basic activity.
I heard there’s this thing called KHTK out there – the guy’s borrowing from centuries of great thinkers – sheesh, can ya believe it? 😉
Vin: ” I have run into many instances of a person admitting that he got benefits from Scientology, … ”
” Admitting ” ?? Great word – what is it a crime to have a win?
Vin: ” … but he never got the original problem resolved that brought him to Scientology.”
What level was this person? What processes did he have? What was this problem he had?
All I see are generalities – no specifics and lack of auditing knowledge in order to actually critique the subject.
Vin: ” It requires discipline to see what is there without adding one’s own visualization to it. This applies to existing objects in the mind as well. ”
HUH?? … and that’s a BIG HUH? 🙂
Vin: ” In Scientology auditing, pressure is put on the preclear to answer the auditing question through repetition (“TR3″). This has the liability of pushing the preclear into visualization when the mind does not come up with immediate answers. ”
Misunderstoods …. I never once read the word ‘pressure’ in all my training nor experienced it in my auditing. If you did, Vin; it wasn’t auditing.
I did read the word ‘force’ though … he said NOT TO FREEKIN’ DO IT.
Vin: ” This is also called dub-in. This factor of dub-in actually harms the case in the form of subtle conditioning. ”
The only dub-in I see is what YOU were doing as a PC.
I asked you before and never got an answer …
Did you do a CS-1?
Dennis; That is a very thorough reply to Vinaire. Point by point, very to-the-point. It serves as a good example on how one can address another’s comment. More often that not, I see only parts of another’s comment addressed, leaving unanswered areas strewn across the thread. Thanks for this.
I don’t think you can see the inconsistency either like Dennis.
Generality. Would you please specify?
Vinaire? You there?
Ah, I see, you copied this over from a post you made on the ScnForum.org.
What`s with jumping the Anonymous Participant over there and accusing the AP of being 1.1?
The AP`s request for you to describe the difference between your experience of Buddhist states at advanced levels of meditation and Scientology states at OT7 was valid — you do speak of Buddhism as if you are a practicing Buddhist of tremendous experience and study (expert knowledge) — i.e. experienced bodhi at least and you do speak of Scientology as if you have experienced the entire bridge i.e. OT7 (expert knowledge).
Note: the above comment is in the wrong spot — it should be to Vinaire right after the italicized post on the critique on Scientology – the comment with the link to the ScnForum.org on it.
Maria, I am surprised at your inability to recognize the 1.1 level.
With respect, accusing another of 1.1 aligns with your complaints as written this past few days on this blog and organized under your “despicable practices of Scientology.”
Telling Maria she cannot recognize 1.1 is attacking a straw man.
Plus, you do not recognize any validity to the tone scale. If you are accusing someone of something negative which you don’t believe to be of any use anyway would be 1.1. Is this what you really mean to do? Or am I mistaken about your opinion of the tone scale?
At any moment you could decide to stop; take a breath; take a look at what is bugging you using KHTK; then begin again. No one here even needs an explanation. You can simply begin over.
Just a quick note, Geir. I think it is a very good post. I was thinking about it long ago and my conclusion was very similar. However, since than I considered many other things like changing basic books, eliminating technical dictionary, stopping people on the Bridge, endlessly regging and sec checking people…, Ideal Org, Superpower, etc…
Not speaking about the actual human rights violations, etc…
He is not so white:)
But one thing is sure. I think in the time of poor LRH much more people died, went crazy or got sick on OT levels. And he wrote the basic policies which helped turn people into aggressive, soulless robots, servants of a ruthless empire:)
I have a couple of non understoods, which I have been trying to figure for some time, hoping the answers would pop up, but they haven’t.
One is “OP”.
What does “OP” mean?
Does it stand for more than one thing?
It seems like it is used to mean:
1. opening paragraph
3. opposing position or point….
What does it mean?
The other is KHTK?
I know it means knowing how to know.
I know that it is one of the definitions of what Scientology is, but the way it is being used, it seems it means something different, it is something else other than Scientology.
What is it?
OP = Original Post (the actual blog post here or the first post on a forum thread)
OP=original post (the original statement beginning the blog topic)
KHTK is Vinay’s own organized method of looking at one’s own mind. You can find a thorough treatise on it at http://vinaire.wordpress.com/
I feel so much better now.
What a relief….
Perhaps the demonizing of Miscavige comes from a personal need. Maybe people need to cast him in black.
I’m sure you would agree that the same could be said about critics. I have wondered about their seeming need to repeat themselves over and over – even to each other – about the perceived or misperceived or mocked up evils of Scientology and LRH.
When it gets pretty obsessive it begins to look like a need to be right by making someone or something wrong – especially if that is made easy by there being a huge band wagon to jump on. And there definitely are bandwagons for both, whether valid or not. I see that now that you’ve brought it up about MIscavige.
Indeed – I believe that one would either do something about a bad situation or STFU – or else one is carping about it out of personal needs.
The bad thing is that with a strong need (like with a ser fac) it’s almost impossible to STFU. How you are ever going to avoid this on your blog, I don’t know. But hey, there’s a teaching lesson to it, for sure. I don’t know about others but I’m still learning on the subject. 🙂
Yes, learning with every post.
marildi, if the premise is that David Miscavige is not the evil source then what is left is scientology tech, don´t you think ?. It is my opinion that the scientology materials need to be sorted out and corrected to be really useful at large in the society and I feel myself competent to do so, the problem being only the resources at hand for me.
To divert from confronting our own failure to have out-created him.
There is an undercurrent to life, the understanding of which escapes me and which has its own iteration, which seems deterministic and outside the scope of any free will. This of course isn’t news to anyone. But I wonder about the goals of OT and wonder what manner of “elephant” we are trying to describe.
Sometimes I think (fatalistically) that beginning from where we are starting, as small bits of meat on a spec of sand floating in a sea of I don’t know what, that we are on board an iteration which will simply run its course in due time. Then iterate off into another direction, unaware that we came and went.
. . . Or I might wake up.
Or we are all part of a dream and then she wakes up.
haha – I needed that.
Chris, we can call the dreamer paradox. You can not be aware that you are dreaming while you are asleep. But when you awake you know pretty fine that you were just dreaming ( good or bad ).
Interesting. Relevant sources you want to share?
Chris, to be truthful, you are the real source of this discovery. No sacred book will give you this knowledge just reading it. The INTENTION makes the diference. Intention to practice what is recomended by the so called awakened. If you don´t have this sincere intention in the first place, then it is better not to get ARC-broken with the sacred materials and let them stand in the shelf. Humanism is a good second option and very rationale . ( Christ and Buddha can serve to start with )
Geir, I see the doctrine of the stable datum at work here. In order to get out of the confusion a big group of persons need to blame the lack of proper results on a single person. But it is not necessarily the exact truth about what should be done to correct and start an operative activity. In my view the solution is not to blame a single person but to actually sort out the scientology materials to a workable fashion otherwise the same situation will repeat itself again with the next person in charge.
And to my knowledge that what DM doing
2012-03-29 at 08:26
And to my knowledge that what DM doing
Ahh, well good!
Of course this would be reflected in the stats
I understand the ‘removal of dust particles’ stat is way up. I also noticed that the mechanical arm graphs shown at the last few events are identically uptrending.
Can you post the Org VFP stats for say the last few years? I think I must have nodded off during that segment.
Also, the 339R stats at the last LRH Birthday Event.
I am considering the idea that it is escalating frustration that fuels the course of action taken by David Miscavige.
There appears to be a precedent for this, a precedent with LRH himself. Jeff Hawkins wrote an article entitled “Too Gruesome” where he says: “I don’t know what LRH was running into that caused him to write such things. But they did set the tone for the Sea Org in 1968 – and thereafter.”
Jeff refers to a policy issued in 1968 that instructed to: “make the penalties for non-compliance and false reports too gruesome to be faced and ENFORCE them.” (caps mine)
Jeff goes on to say: “We soon had our own ‘overboardings’ (buckets of icy water thrown at staff by a ‘firing squad’), running ‘laps’ up and down the stairs, and ‘noncompliant’ people imprisoned in the elevator shaft. The stench of fear permeated the place. It was, in a word, gruesome.”
It is clear from Jeff’s account that they were not doing these things out of frustration.
From that one can make a case that David Miscavige is just following policy to the letter and executing “pure” LRH policy.
But this is contradicted by the evolution of the basic books library, where he proudly proclaims that he has “purified” the books, restoring them to “pure” LRH. This was preceded by a “purification” of the OEC volumes, again to applause.
So perhaps the understanding process has to explore this “too gruesome” aspect, not as a result of frustration but perhaps as a perceived necessity.
Or as you just pointed out, Geir, personal need of some kind.
Good post Maria,
I was prompted to reply when I read ” From that one can make a case that David Miscavige is just following policy to the letter and executing “pure” LRH policy.”
It’s obvious there were some questionable policies that went into effect, plus the tone & general demeanor that a Sea Org member was supposed to exude or emanate (no nonsense, no smiling, no ARC, etc).
So, I can understand Miscavige MAY have taken this to be sooth and felt that commanding thru duress, torture would be the way to go but I find it a real leap that he would have thought this way.
If he in fact is a 2-1/2 percent-er, then that’s easy.
But, if I put myself in that position, I would have reverted to the kinder gentler days of Scientology from a public or Mission/Class IV org viewpoint where those initial 1950 visions were put forth.
It’s obvious that dropping ARC as a basic did great harm – it even permeated down to the Orgs when staff would head off to ITO and be treated like crap and return with a hardened soul.
I just can’t see that Miscavige had any good reason *not* to improve conditions since 1986 (hell, that’s 26 years) other than consolidating power … and money. It is quite obvious that ‘clearing the planet’ is NOT part of his vision.
This goes for other Int exec’s over the past 25 years – were they all that evil or blind as to not say to themselves “Ok – the old Man’s gone – let’s clean up some of this crap and make a few auditors.” I don’t think so.
I have always thought that where a subject such as Scientology would be tackling the basics of human-kind and theta – the guts and aberrations of this & other universes, that we would see displayed the very worst and the very best of what we are about.
It seems to be taking place right before our eyes.
What we do with this recognition and how we handle it will shake the rafters of the universe.
Looking ahead … what happens when Miscavige goes down … interesting times these are.
Remember, Miscavige only saw LRH in his later years – he never saw the man that didn’t write the off-the wall policies since 1965 or so – he never experienced the good old days, only the sternness, the pressure, the “we are at war”-attitude.
Ya got me thinking 🙂
Okay … I thought for a bit.
Say all he saw was the hard-lined, hard-nosed S.O> viewpoint and totally believed this was the way to operate to be successful.
Now, most SO and staff members thoroughly enjoyed getting even a miniscule bit of personal enhancement – being audited and auditing others.
So we have Miscavige with what seems like a high enough position to get some auditing and auditor training.
Now, he can help another in session, and, get some of this great auditing he’s read about himself.
As per reports, Miscavige has not had auditing for a long time.
And while holding the hat of an Auditor, reports he slapped a PC in session at ST. Hill.
Surely there is another reason for this very bizarre behavior.
I don’t know of any hard-line tech or policy LRH wrote that would encompass either slapping a PC or not availing oneself of enhancement.
Yes, he has a choice to get auditing or not … but abusing someone you are supposed to be helping?? And similar behavior while on post.
Does he not see that many of his actions are destructive and that just maybe a session or 2 is in order?
If this guy is NOT a 2-1/2 percen-ter, he sure has some nasty ev-purps going on.
Most probably. But I am interested in the computations behind those purposes.
And I am very sure that LRH had the data on him slapping a PC in session before he then hired him at Gold as a camera man. Very strange also.
Now, if he truly believe he is at war, then I can see how he justify waiting with the personal enhancement for the good of all. I have seen scores of staff at lower level with exactly that attitude.
Geir: ” Now, if he truly believe he is at war, then I can see how he justify waiting with the personal enhancement for the good of all. I have seen scores of staff at lower level with exactly that attitude.”
Very true – I have seen the same.
Almost like a sacrificial lamb syndrome.
Total 3rd/4th dynamic and the rest of their dynamics going to hell.
Very strange indeed.
A god complex is an unshakable belief characterized by consistently inflated feelings of personal ability, privilege, or infallibility. A person with a god complex may refuse to admit the possibility of error or failure, even in the face of complex or intractable problems or difficult or impossible tasks, or may regard personal opinions as unquestionably correct. The individual may disregard the rules of society and require special consideration or privileges.
Wow, what i video. Priceless:)
. . . more labels, I know. But looking at the coiffure alone, I can tell instantly that these two characters share precisely the same psychological profile… (just one of my abilities)
Just to add …
I think the ‘escalating frustration’ David Miscavige is experiencing is not from failing to get proper VFPs, but having to constantly fend off exposure of his actions from well-meaning people and of course, covering his a$$.
” I am considering the idea that it is escalating frustration that fuels the course of action taken by David Miscavige.There appears to be a precedent for this, a precedent with LRH himself “. Yes Maria, it is not just my intention to blame LRH, the missing data here is that LRH did write a lot of sea org only policy ( flag orders, central bureaux orders, orders for diferent s.o. bases, etc ) and gave sea org only lectures which have a very diferent approach to solving 3rd dynamic problems, not the ARC one. You would be surprised what is the recomended ( by live voice from LRH ) way to behave for a treasury inspector per his lecture just to be heard for this pesonal or above. the same with CMO ( commodore´s messenger org ). Really, it was LRH who by WRITING AND RECORDED LIVE VOICE set up the current direccion at upper management, and this policy ( which is so abundant and comparable to the OEC/FEFB in volume ) will never let the upper management correct itself due KSW # 1. To find the who and the why is the correct form to health this situation ( LRH, KSW # 1 ) long term. I know this because I was there. About the indies, they have no copyrights and marks, their activity can not grow much in this condition.
If you read the debriefs of Aaron Saxton, you will find that he realized that DM is acting , strictly and only on LRH orders. Most of it you find here; http://caliwog.wordpress.com
The guy had access to files which Ratbun did not had.
The only thing I doubt, are the tech alterations. However maybe uncle Hubbard told Miscavige to destroy the Church and the tech, but before collect a lot of money…a few billions, and have fun with it. *looooool
We got a little busy being off-topic but I’ve been wondering why haven’t we discussed David Miscavige in the context of his being a suppressive person? If anyone thinks that the anti-social personality as described by LRH has validity, then there is understanding to be had by correctly labeling DM.
I believe this compartmenting the general population into a “2,5%-er” and a “20%-er” is too simplistic and wrong. There are many billions of shades of gray (and all the other colors) – and people can gently become more suppressive and ease off on it. What I am trying to figure out is the real rationale behind his actions, not simply to put a label on him or discuss his whole being based first on the assumption of the correctness of a theory.
To substantiate my viewpoint; There are lots of people who have been very social and constructive, who under extreme situation (like in Darfur or Rwanda) become very, very suppressive – and after such a war can ease off on the suppressive acts and again be more sane, even constructive. Or old criminals turning good, charitable, etc.
Understanding the rationale is deeper than the SP/PTS theory methinks.
I agree that compartmentalizing may be a bit simplistic.
It also seems that as a being goes downscale that the points of creativeness diminish and sooner or later, destructive actions dominate one’s activities/intentions.
It is a sliding scale – as you put it ‘billions of shades of grey’.
I have only met a couple of people in this life who truly exuded real heavy evil.
I think Miscavige has flipped into what he perceives as a ‘winning’ valence – the one he was beaten by previously to the flip.
He is still fighting a long lost battle.
I liked Trey Lotz L’s videos on YouTube – a very good explanation of such a flip.
Might it be a dramatization of the Goals – Problem Mass?
Goal =the objective to be achieved.
example: to achieve OT
Problem = intention vs. counterintention, force vs. counterforce
intention: to get people to follow commands
counterintention: remnant free will
force: whatever is “too gruesome”
counterforce: rejection of a “too gruesome”
Mass = the collapse, condensation and solidification of waves – a ridge.
ridge: a barrier that can inhibit easy flow
waves: flows of energy between terminals.
example: Affinity – an enjoyable wave that will always flow, not stick.
example: Hate – an un-enjoyable wave that can stick or ridge.
mass example: a heavy-heart feeling.
This is simplistic to get the idea across, but is the essence of the subject. The components of the problem need to be refined and the terminals and opp-terminals identified.
terminal = an identity attempting to achieve the goal
oppterm = an identity opposing the achievement of the goal
When a terminal begins to fail at reaching the goal, the terminal can start acting like the oppterm i.e. getting into the valence of the oppterm. The extreme of this is becoming an oppterm.
The valence DM occupies would well suit the valence of an oppterm of the good part of Scientology.
We see some of these characteristics in ex-scientologists who have become vehemently anti-scientology i.e. they’ve gone from being pro-scientology to anti-scientology.
Now suppose that in just one lifetime they flipped back and forth a number of times. Think about the confusions and fixed ideas that could result from that! Further multiply that by a number of lifetimes of crossing between being the terminal and the oppterminal and it is easy to see the resultant mass that would hang up the being’s ability to achieve anything.
Add in a lack of understanding of the means of achieving the goal and it becomes even easier to see how a being who, having gone down this multi-lifetime criss-cross path of term/oppterm, could not only get a nickname like “slappy”, but go from a “free-er from MEST” to a “purchaser of MEST”.
This is off topic but it is in response to ………
Your words that I quoted here caught my attention.
Now suppose that in just one lifetime they flipped back and forth a number of times. Think about the confusions and fixed ideas that could result from that! Further multiply that by a number of lifetimes of crossing between being the terminal and the oppterminal and it is easy to see the resultant mass that would hang up the being’s ability to achieve anything. Add in a lack of understanding of the means of achieving the goal and it becomes even easier to see how a being who, having gone down this multi-lifetime criss-cross path of term/oppterm, could not only get a nickname like “slappy”, but go from a “free-er from MEST” to a “purchaser of MEST”.
(Very likely DM’s problem. Standard tech will never solve his problem.)
This is in exact alignment with what Dennis Stevens deals with in TROM. Dennis did the whole bridge and was still not in good shape.
So he continues searching for a way out.
The result is TROM The Resolution of Mind.
It deals with GPMs or more accurately the postulates contained in GPMs that keep them in place.
He developed the postulate failure chart.
He figured out why and how people fail and land up in a heap on the floor of life, with all flows blocked, total overwhelm, meaning a total failure, where it is impossible to make any postulate work.
I found some false and limiting data in it, and it is on a very steep gradient, but I still think it is a valuable contribution to the world of clearing.
I blew charge off incidents in a few hours with TROM, on which I had done 100s of hours of auditor auditing on over the previous 12 yrs.
It is well worth the read:
There is a discussion list devoted to TROM too.
Some one should tell DM that to keep on doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, is a sign of insanity.
Insanity: not knowing the difference between right and wrong.
It is time for DM to look and think outside the box.
Dio, your comment isn’t off topic at all, that I can see, since we’re looking at how DM became what he did. So far the comments have mainly been on the order of what happened to him this lifetime that contributed and, even more narrowly than this lifetime, looking mainly at LRH’s and Scientology’s influence on him.
To me, if there is going to be an understanding of how his actions could have all come about (and if we’re not just looking for how we can all commiserate with him as regards the bad influence of his Scn experiences – i.e. a preconceived idea of the specific area to look into) it makes a lot more sense that one single lifetime is hardly going to explain much.
I hope 2ndxmr sees your comment and comments further (he is obviously Scn trained or well-read), and I wonder what he might have to say about TROM, if he’s familiar with it. Thanks for your contribution.
While I understand the mechanism of the GPM I have not run any in a Scientology session and could not comment on the absolute workability of the GPM handling processes. If some people got gains and resloved GPMs while others didn’t, then that is pretty much on par as a comment on the general workability of Scientology.
The same will apply to TROM. I hadn’t heard of it before and just read the opening pages. It echoes my own observations and methods to the point I ended reading. There will be a segment of people for which it works, but it won’t work for everyone. Stevens could see this.
I am very glad you had success with it.
I look forward to a closer inspection of the data. Thanks.
There exists something which is not a dramatization of the goals problem mass? (humor)
Chris: There exists something which is not a dramatization of the goals problem mass? (humor)
2x: If your goal was to make that sentence understandable, then we’ve got a problem. Since the sun might take exception to you saying it was a dramatization of a GPM, let’s humorously assume you meant to say something more like “Is there any dramatization which is not due to a GPM?”
I think we could agree that GPMs are a powerful component of the bank, but are they the only bats in the belfry? Are GPMs the most important bats? Are all those bats the person’s own bats?
An excellent demonstration of the result of implanted-battiness was shown in an episode of “My name is Earl” where Earl discovers he can use a walkie-talkie to communicate to someone else’s hearing aid. The result is he can play God with that person.
Multiple Personality Disorder might be a dramatization to consider in this context. Is there any reason multiple thetans couldn’t co-exist in one body? If they did and there was not one that was super-dominant, could not they enter into a sharing of consciousness? In that case we would expect to see completely different personalities with dramatizations unique to each one.
What dramatizations might an only slightly dominant personality suffer if sub personalities were giving helpful “suggestions” about how to act?
Now suppose that those personalities were not all equal – that one was very dominant and the others were pretty much hidden, but still able to supply suggestions in some way. Would that still be MPD or would that be more like… say, normal? How many “normal” people don’t have a few things about which they feel bat-crap crazy and which they feel are out of character for them?
So maybe DM’s battiness is more than just a GPM, but he’s throwing a lot of energy into it in just the manner of a GPM. IMHO.
That’s what I call conceptual understanding 😀
Haha. I may have overarched.
good post 2ndxmer
I have been looking around in my environment, and I doubt the percentage of (true) SP´s given by Hubbard. 2,5% is too much. maybe 2 of 1000 or even less.
Thanks so much for posting the video on the “God complex”.
I love the mind that wrote the lines.
What movie is that from?
Who is the actor “god”?
I rarely, rarely ever watch movies, because I find them more often than not, insultingly stupid, and a waste of time, but this one may be worth watching.
I would like this post to appear under your post with the video, but I do not see how to do it.
The movie title is “Malice” from 1993. That actor is Alec Baldwin and co-starring Nicole Kidman. Drama.
The movie is: “MALICE”
The actor Alec Baldwin.
A masterpiece, one of my all time favorites, I bet you will love it.
What happened to my post on this question Geir?
I don’t know. Did you post a question?
Found it, is an answer:
Regarding David Miscavige and understanding him.
When I (and a lot of other people) left the Church and SO in 1982 we did that because we saw that the Church was no longer able to help people, it’s own public. Because of the Church’s mishandling of the people outside session, it became impossible to help them IN session. Specific example: “If I tell you this overt and you write it down, I’ll spend the next week in ethics writing up O/W’s”. I put down the pen and PC told me and we got on with it. This could only go on for a certain time, then no more.
At this point there was no Miscavige to be seen. There was a whole group being kicked around by the exec strata and a group agreement was formed about how to do things. In fact this started much earlier when Ron went off the lines, much earlier.
There came a roll-back mission and everyone was sec-checked. I was asked: “What about the management are you dissatisfied with”? I said I don’t know WHAT it is, but I do know that if Ron was here running the show, everybody would be happy, well paid, well fed, well groomed and cases handled. Since this is NOT the case, there is something wrong with the management. (An auditor being in session 40 hours a week is not very updated on management and what goes on in the rest of the Org).
For this statement I was invited to do the RPF and presented with a R/F. I do know the 5 reasons for RPF-ing someone and this was NOT one of them. I said that I would NOT do the RPF based on that. I was asked what I would then do. I said: “Go back and audit my waiting Pre-OTs”. I was told that I could not do that. Asking what I could then do I was told I could leave. Within ½ an hour I was out with all my belongings and moved back to my family 5 miles away. No routing form, no ethics condition, no nothing. (After 10 years in the SO, having been awarded Kah-Kahn by Ron and being in Power as NOTs lead auditor and AO Review and Power auditor for 2 years). What a lovely application of standard admin, tech and ethics. I left, created a centre and all the PCs and Pre-OTs from the org came to the centre where they were completed on their services.
As mentioned, at this time, there was no Miscavige, the rest of the group was capable of not using or spoiling the tech, all by themselves. So the whole problem did not rise with Miscavage, he is a wrong target and much too late on the chain, so why bother understanding him. Why use a lot of effort trying to dig up data and make a proper evaluation and finally reaching understanding of him, for what use? So you get to great understanding without being able to communicate to him anyway, so what is this understanding supposed to accomplish? One should try to understand ones enemies, yes, but he is not an enemy. There is no fight between him and me. He will handle himself. We don’t need to do anything. He is really on a downwind spiral, and the rest of the guys in there are following him like a bunch of lame sheep. I understand him anyway because I once did a course and heard a lecture called 3 Parts of Man. I know exactly how a guy like he operates. I studied behaviourism for 50 years by now. I don’t think that I missed something which would bring a new scintillating wonder-light over my eternal understanding of his universe.
I find any understanding valuable. That’s all.
Obtained at any cost? We (Danes) got to understand the Swedes after 30 years of war.
Not at any cost. But as I said “I find any understanding valuable.”
Per Schiøttz, you saw it, ” So the whole problem did not rise with Miscavage, he is a wrong target and much too late on the chain “. you are right.
Geir, is your page supposed to run GMT?
This was posted on another list and I thought it was fitting here:
Who is the guy?
Whose valence is he in?
That would be DM’s best friend and fellow Scientologist, Tom Cruise, actor, with his decades younger wife, Katie Holmes, actress.
I will address two posts here.
1. Thanks for the story of your life.
2. Re: Tom Cruise: You only answered one question of the quiz.
Second question was: Whose valence is Tom Cruise in, in the picture?
Sorry I didn’t understand the question the first time. But I don’t know whose valence he is in. Who is it?
Doesn’t Tom Cruise look to be in DM’s valence?
RE: Sorting out the scn materials to a workable method:
Geofrey Filbert claims to have done that with his Excalibur revisited.
At least read the end of prologue.
And thanks for the recommendation on how to over come fear of people.
Diogenese, you welcome and I will read Excalibur revisited but it is not just a tech matter but an admin and ethics/justice line of work too.
That should read:
Read at least to the end of the Prologue chapter.
Not: read the end of prologue.
Why you may ask?
Because in that chapter he gives a dissertation on his viewpoint of Hubbard and why he is qualified to glean Hubbard’s work to pick out the useful and organize it. It is quite interesting.
At least I thought it was interesting. And I think it serves for a necessary read for any critical thinker in or of Scientology.
I can’t comment anything on admin and justice, because I have no experience with admin and very little on justice, other than my own fiasco during my declare, which I wear as a badge of honor.
I was in the CO$ for only a few days and I realized that something was very wrong.
Even though I was in a very bad state of mind ( suicidal) and low point in my life, the only reference point I had, or the only reality I had, was that I recalled that Hubbard said in Dianetics ( which I read only a week before) that the client should always be aware of who should be on the couch, the client or the therapist?
I was certain that it was they who were crazier than I was, and that it was they who should be on the couch and not me.
In brief: I made that known and the crap hit the fan and I was declared soon after.
The interviews and sec checks I went through over the next three weeks or so, were pretty bizzare, that is all I know about scn justice.
In hind sight it seems as if destiny led me in there and out.
It was far from funny then, but it is now.
Thank you God.
I may hold one of the records for shortest time in the CO$ , from entering to getting a declare.
I like Filberts book. It answers a lot of questions, which Hubbard did not answer.
Yes Geir. The operating word is FIXED.
Fixed Data: At the time of the production of the policies of the C of S, there WAS
a particular EXISTING scene. That scene no longer exists. Examples of that scene, circa 1960 – 1975, include:
– Violence was acceptable and considered valuable. Men were “men” and that meant they were powerful fighters in a world where “might makes right.” Most men were taught to fight – boys were enrolled in boxing clubs, rugby teams, football, and so on.
– “Real men” owned and controlled anything lesser. Not only did men own other men, men owned their wives, women, children, dogs, land, cars and the planet.
– Corporal punishment was the norm, not the exception.
– In the arena of domestic violence (just to examine one area of violence) the backlash against battering does not begin until the 1960s, with laws against domestic battering appearing in the 1980s. Prior to that, my father aptly summed up the attitude: “a man’s home is his kingdom.” Wives subjected to domestic violence prior to this were told that they should not have aggravated their husband.
– Strategy was in terms of war. War requires secrets. War requires propaganda. War requires enemies. War requires soldiers.
– Soldiers must be tough. Toughening soldiers requires “boot camp” to harden and toughen soldiers so they do not flinch in the face of violence and do not flinch when called upon to use violence.
– The subject of psychology at that time was little more than an accumulation of authoritarian methods that could be used to instill, enforce or produce “acceptable behavior” one way or another.
– The entire taxation scene has changed since the 1960s – the changes are good or bad depending on point of view. The point is that the EXISTING scene then is NOT the same as the EXISTING scene now.
– This list goes on.
The point is that the bulk of the policies of the Church of Scientology were born out of an era that no longer exists and were based on cultural norms and ideals that are no longer acceptable and in many cases now illegal.
The Way to Happiness booklet is very much in keeping with the general direction of the cultural shift that occurred from 1960 onward.
The Sea Org and its policies of force and toughness and WE WILL WIN BY GOD! is not.
But the policies are FIXED too.
There are policies that were written by LRH that addressed this very issue. They are ignored in favor of policies that FIX the Sea Org into place.
Good post, Maria. Your last comment is one that I too have tried to point out:
“There are policies that were written by LRH that addressed this very issue.
They are ignored in favor of policies that FIX the Sea Org into place.”
Also, you made a comment on another thread regarding the fact that other psychological studies have come up with almost exactly the same 2-1/2 percentage of people who are anti-social personalities and I think it would be good to quote that data again on this thread if you still remember the specifics.
The mindset you describe is what we laughingly now call “old school.” My father, same age as LRH, was old school and brought me up old school. Adapting myself to the more modern world I find myself living in has always been a challenge.
. . . and maybe that’s the way it has been for DM.
The problem with changing any of LRH’s policies is that it opens the door to CHANGE. Not only is it against Keeping Admin Working, but one would have to rely on People to Judge what to change. And there is this very gradient and blurring of the lines between Ethics, Tech and Admin (they are far from separate subjects) – where many policies are also bulletins, and most ethics is written down in policies. Open that door to CHANGE is a Very Dangerous Slippery Slope (according to many I have discussed this with). Except it is the only way to salvage the good in the subject of Scientology. But first one must go through this scale:
Admit LRH was not perfect
Admit LRH may have been wrong in Admin
Admit LRH was wrong on occasion regarding Admin
Admit LRH was far from right regarding Admin
Admit Admin blurs with Tech and Ethics
Admit that the actual Goals and Purposes of Scientology is the only real focus
… the rest is up for CHANGE if it doesn’t truly forward Goals/Purposes
… and that means Everything must be open for scrutiny.
Yes it does mean that.
And really, that is exactly what DM has been doing. And he has been making changes. Lots of them.
It seems obvious to me that where DM has implemented changes in policy (and that includes ignoring aspects of ethics gradients that don’t suit him) it has been in terms of efforts to strengthen the position, authority and power of the Sea Org or his own position, power and authority.
He has been messing with the tech and by all reports by experienced auditors, quite disastrously. How is it that various independent auditors can take the same “old” tech and have people doing very well, even when they were doing very badly with the “same” tech in the C of S?There is an entire group in Russia happily auditing away outside of the bounds of the organized Church, the draconian policies of the Sea Org and the dictatorial edicts of DM.
But honestly I don’t think any of the Church structures are going to work anyway because they were born out of a hierarchical, authoritarian culture and ethic that is being swept aside by new ideas in our culture. So it will fall to the independents to make anything of it. And they will begin and have begun without most, if not all, of the policies so near and dear to the incredibly bureaucrat C of S.
Agreed. I have several independent friends who are highly trained and who apply Scientology is a very sane and civilized and warm and loving manner and they get great results. I believe there is a future that them and for their careers to be salvaged.
In regards to the comments on the future of the CO$:
I recall reading in the Oahspe, it actually tells ( prophesied) about the future of organized religion. It is not actually a prophecy, because it is told by beings who are in charge of what is going on on earth. They plan what is going on on earth.
Organized religion served a necessary purpose until this present age, now they will become increasingly unnecessary and will soon be done away with as man learns to think for himself.
If you take a look around, you will see cracks ( more and more unrest) in other organized religions.
So I think the CO$ (especially the CO$) has about as much chance of surviving as a snow ball in hell.
Why especially the CO$? Because Scientology especially ( the real Scientology) teaches people to look and think for themselves.
You may say that most people in the CO$ are like robots and do not think for themselves but parrot Hubbard.
Well, yes that is true, but there are enough that do think for themselves and leave the CO$ and take off on their own and start up their own little orgs and offer services. Especially the higher theta beings like the ones Chris mentioned.
The parrots were/ are only added to make it interesting and looking realistic, as Joe Larabell said.
There are an increasing number of those little private orgs around the world, as you all are aware.
So the seeds have been formed, distributed and planted and now the totalitarian structure is no longer necessary and will be done away with soon.
The cracks in the walls are very visible already, as you all are also aware.
(I have to say that the Oahspe is one of the most incredible, informative, mind changing, enlightening books I have read. It answers almost every question man has ever thought of asking and even some that he has never thought of asking. I highly recommend reading it. It gives a person a bird on the wire viewpoint of what happened on earth for the last 78,000 years, how it works and where it is headed and a lot more.
In regards to the comment on the discussion by Chris and Rafael, on the other blog topic on gravity, etc.. :
There is an incredible chapter on cosmology in it too, where it talks about how matter is formed and what gravity is. Gravity is a vortexial push towards earth, and not an attraction or pull from the center of the earth. The same goes for any celestial body. There are many scientific facts and principles explained there ( written in 1870,) which scientists are only discovering today. Geir, you have a copy and I wonder if you read it?)
Pretty good “6-step program”. I can check off all but one:
“Admit LRH was far from right regarding Admin”
You jumped a pretty good gradient from the item before this one. And it’s the only one that enters in something of your own firm conviction ;). All the others just stand to reason, IMHO.
You may find that people don’t easily agree with the one above – either from bias, or not having enough knowledge on the subject (that’s me), or having knowledge but a different viewpoint. Just saying’ 🙂
I have covered that one before – and from factual evidence – there is not one single implementation of LRH Admin Tech that stands out as more successful than the competition. Convincing facts should be convincing.
Right. HCOPL began life as an operational manual for St. Hill. Rules like “don’t pick up the children and spin them around” were included. It was probably fine for St. Hill back in the day, but the relevance factor of that time has been lost to antiquity.
In business, I don’t think that a Burger King operations manual would be touted as the ultimate business technology for chiropractors and dentists.
Also, I doubt if McDonald’s board room meetings have arguments over “No, we can’t change the menu, Ray Kroc wrote it.”
Yes, I agree . You have covered it well (and patiently so!). And you are a pretty reliable source on top of having a lot of experience. It’s just that saying LRH was “far from right” regarding admin seems like too much of a broad generality, the way it’s worded. I guess if you said that LRH was “far from being COMPLETELY right” or “TOTALLY right” it would be a better gradient and appeal more to some of us. From what I know about policy, not a lot, I’ll admit, but I think that there are not just tiny bits but chunks of it that are valuable.
I can’t really compare it to other admin systems since I know even less about those, but I do know something about your own admin principles that you’ve shared with us and they make total sense – I’m just not sure that LRH policies would differ from those principles if they were applied fully and intelligently.
One thing I’m still curious about is that you seem to qualify your comparison to other systems when you say that LRH admin tech is NO MORE successful than the competition. I remember you qualified it that way before too, and I know you choose your words carefully. So I wanted to ask you about it – are you basically saying that it is JUST AS successful as any of the competition, maybe more so than some?
I would say that of all the LRH admin tech I have studied, I reckon some 20% to be of actual value, 40% as “whatever” and 40% as “crap”. I may be overrating the value here somewhat. Of what I have seen, it generally does more harm than good. As for other systems… like ITIL; I would rate that at 40/30/30 with the total that it generally does more good than harm when applied “by the books” (although not by very much).
Wow, interesting data. Thank you! I want you on the admin committee “to salvage the good in the subject of Scientology.” 🙂
p.s. In those percentages, are you including the specialized things for St Hill and things like that?
No, I only include what is in the current OEC vols/Mgmt series. And mind you, the percentages I gave are for using th Admin Scale outside of a CoS. For use IN a CoS, the value probably rises to the level I quoted for ITIL (and those figures were for using ITIL equally as a general Admin framework)
Did you mean to say Admin Scale or Admin Tech?
Assuming you meant Admin Tech, what I wanted to say was that the green vols have so many issues that are specialized for Scn, and I can see why they would not work well for WISE groups, etc. But I’m curious about your view of just the more broadly applicable policies, as to their workability percentages.
My bad – I meant the Admin Tech.
And I only count the policies I have studied which basically only include those who are supposed to have general use – like the Mgmt Vols, Vol 0, much of Vol 7 and 1, a sizable portion of Vol 3, some of Vol 6 and some of Vol 2 and some in 5.
Well, since you’re so kindly letting me pick your brain, let me quibble with your wording of “supposed” to have general use and ask if you agree with that opinion (not getting into workability, just general applicability).
I have both been presented with a large set of policies (as in various hats and in WISE courses and in many crammings) and have myself gone through the volumes to sift out what I deemed for general use. And yes, WISE does a pretty good job at culling the policies that are the most valuable for general use. And then I get to those percentages.
Okay, thanks for that. I just hope that any Independents who decide to implement LRH admin tech will be applying the basic theory (and not just rotely apply certain policy letters, as has been the case in the CoS). That alone should accomplish what you were saying about forwarding goals and purposes, since that is what the basic policies require as a guideline. I’m pretty sure that they even provide for writing whole new policies, but if not I would agree that this should also be done as needed. Flexible process, fixed result. Duplicate you utterly. 🙂
Yup – and the possibility of discarding policies altogether 😉
Roger. That too. :).
I see that you left out admitting that there was anything wrong with the tech.
Wouldn’t that be a pre-req, too?
If you are referring to the Tech, then the Tech wasn’t the topic right there.
But you would think that being able to question the tech, and its actual results, would also be an important pre-req for anyone who would reform Scientology, too, right?
I mean, wouldn’t the Tech be open to change as well as the rest of Scientology?
The topic is “Understanding Miscavige.”
The topic is NOT reforming Scientology.
The following thoughts come to my mind
“I can use logic to circumvent anything you say.”
“My logic is superior to yours.”
“Logic is everything.”
One may say,” I am being sneaky and snide.” But I am also looking instead of thinking (using logic).
The following thought comes to my mind:
The topic is “Understanding Miscavige”
There are different levels of looking it seems.
I like Data Series. It is based on looking. The best feature of Data Series is narrowing down the target by digging further into the location where most inconsistencies occur.
Where do most inconsistencies occur on the subject of “Understanding Miscavige”?
Vin: ” I like Data Series. It is based on looking. The best feature of Data Series is narrowing down the target by digging further into the location where most inconsistencies occur. Where do most inconsistencies occur on the subject of “Understanding Miscavige”? . ”
If you read the thread, this is what the rest of us have been commenting on for the past few days.
Take a crack at it yourself … I’d like to hear your views.
Let me make it more simple. What are the various areas to which inconsistencies on the subject of Miscavige may be assigned?
(a) Parental upbringing
(b) Cultural background
(e) L. Ron Hubbard
(f) Past life influences
You may add more areas. Then start assigning inconsistencies to these areas.
What is the first inconsistency that comes to mind when one thinks of Miscavige?
(1) He is using force. Hubbard says in Scn 8-8008 that using force is playing in the hands of the MEST universe. So we have a head of spiritual organization using force. This inconsistency seems to fall in the area of “Miscavige and Scientology.”
Let’s now hear from others.
Yes, this has been discussed on this and other blogs.
Why do you have to keep on discussing the same inconsistency endlessly?
Now it is your turn to come up with a different consistency.
I was acknowledging the inconsistency *you* brought up.
We have been discussing the topic for a few days
Any more you can think of?
You came up with an inconsistency that Dennis pointed out has been discussed before, and then you reply:
“Why do you have to keep on discussing the same inconsistency endlessly?”
Wouldn’t that be an inconsistency right there?
And, could you come up with an original one? Like in the OP?
… different inconsistency.
Vin says: There are different levels of looking it seems.
I prefer to acknowledge that there are different WAYS of looking, learning, discussing, and sharing / comparing knowledge.
This is a DISCUSSION and that means that it may not fit into the bounds of “looking” as you prefer to narrowly define it.
If you do not care for the quality of discussion on this blog, then perhaps this is not an appropriate venue for you. You may do better to find a discussion group that is more to your liking.
I find that Data Series approach of looking, narrows down much faster to what lies at the bottom than any discussion.
If there is discussion, it should be in the direction of where to look for the next inconsistency rather than keep on discussing the inconsistency found.
And who decides what are inconsistencies and what level it is at and what level is next, according to you?
I think that Data Series is a pretty good reference. Or, you may go to the original materials of Alfred Korzybski.
It’s in wikipedia:
Antisocial personality disorder is seen in 3% to 30% of psychiatric outpatients. The prevalence of the disorder is even higher in selected populations, like prisons, where there is a preponderance of violent offenders. A 2002 literature review of studies on mental disorders in prisoners stated that 47% of male prisoners and 21% of female prisoners had antisocial personality disorder. Similarly, the prevalence of ASPD is higher among patients in alcohol or other drug (AOD) abuse treatment programs than in the general population (Hare 1983), suggesting a link between ASPD and AOD abuse and dependence.
Not the same as LRH’s 2,5%-er though.
Geir is right, that it’s not at all the same as percentages for the general population. The thing I had in mind may have had to do with the subject of hiring and the percentage of errors that are unavoidable being around 2-1/2%
That would introduce something entirely different – the impossibility of ascertain the skills in a candidate, the intelligence, the required experience, the correct personality, etc.
Okay. I might be mixing a couple of things together. I just recall that some non-Scn organization had come up with almost the same figure of 2-1/2 % for antisocial personalities, or something that would infer that, and I thought it was notable. I wish I could remember which thread it was on.
Googled it and found this:
“Antisocial personality disorder is more prevalent in males (3 percent) versus females (1 percent) in the general population.”
Depending on the figures for men and women in the population, this might even come out to exactly 2-1/2%. This is close enough for me but that would be amaxing. Maybe some mathemetician here will figure out the overall percentage.
Interesting. Although I doubt that the definitions are close.
Why do you doubt that?
You made that up!!! hahaha as any man knows!
Chris, something even funnier is that I hadn’t given it a thought 😀
But it looks like Geir is right that the Scn and non-Scn definitions of antisocial personality don’t really compare, except in certain ways – like “lack of remorse”. Here’s a quote from Wikipedia, which may not match up very well with the LRH issue but seems to match DM pretty well:
“There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three or more of the following:
“1. failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
“2. deception, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
“3. impulsiveness or failure to plan ahead;
“4. irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
“5. reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
“6. consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
“7. lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;”
I copied a bit from one of the other pages:
” As with all personality disorders, the person must be at least 18 years old before they can be diagnosed with it. ”
Mom: ” Honey, our daughter Tabitha tore the head off that little kitten we bought her! ”
Dad: ” No worries Sweetie-pie, she’s only 17. Dinner ready yet? “
Consider the thousands who have been declared anti-social by COS who exhibit *none* of these anti-social characteristics that you posted. It gives me pause.
You should be a writer for Saturday Night Life. Or maybe The Daily Show…
Another piece of information that may aid in understanding David Miscavige is that his family was Roman Catholic. According to Wikipedia:
“David Miscavige was born in 1960 to Ronald “Ron” Miscavige, Sr. and his wife Loretta, the youngest of their four children. Born in in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Miscavige was raised in New Jersey. The Polish-Italian family was Roman Catholic.
Miscavige joined Scientology in 1971. By the time he was 12 years old, he was assisting others to experience Scientology by conducting auditing sessions. When he was 15, his family returned to Philadelphia, where he went to a local high school. Miscavige has said that he was appalled by his classmates’ drug use, and in 1976, on his sixteenth birthday, he left high school with his father’s permission to move to Clearwater, Florida, and join the Sea Organization…”
This is not a slur on Catholicism, by the way, but it is nevertheless true that the Roman Catholic Church is extremely authoritarian, patriarchal and hierarchical with little tolerance for heresy and a tradition of excommunication.
Maria, the CoS is extremely authoritarian, patriarchal and hierarchical with little tolerance for heresy and a tradition of excommunication for his own right coming from the LRH policies and example ( he was catholic too ? ). In the other hand, a Catholic parishioner can acces internet without fear of been excommunicated with family or bussines associates. ( just to point one big plus point ).
Like I said, no slur intended on the Catholic Church. Of course there are significant differences at this time. I am considering the impact of combining an upbringing in the Catholic Church with the policies that DM chooses to enforce to the exclusion of policies more in keeping with the Way to Happiness or the Creed of the Church of Scn. i.e. if he had been raised agnostic or perhaps Buddhist, how would he see things differently?
Maria, now I can see your point. Yes, it could have been a significant factor but lets take into account too that LRH choosed him knowing very well his character ( by 1979 LRH was full OT, the only one existing and DM was only a bully kid ). Had him been more passive, then he would had been sent to the kitchen with Sinar not to ASI inc. as COB there.
Indeed, but the OP is understanding DM.
Maria, ok I will put it in the following manner, look at this photo ( published by Jeff Hawkins as editor of the sea org magazine high winds in 1981 as the front cover to be seen by all the sea org staff as approved personally by LRH :
This photo shows my point on this tread. After the weird death of Quintin Hubbard and the declaration as SP of L. Ronald Hubbard junior, LRH was in need of a substitute for him and DM became the adopted one as a son not as a qualified sea org executive, look to the photo and you will find the preferences towards him even since the first year working with LRH. In my view you can´t separate LRH from miscavige because the kingdom was a gift to him in fact.
I can only speculate, but don’t you think it is a little odd that it was really Broeker named as successor (First Loyal Officer) by LRH? Then disappears? What about Starkey? Disappears. I remember the event to do with LRH’s death. DM was not in charge. Period.
Also the documentation accumulated at savescientology.com completely invalidates this idea that DM was LRH’s trusted right hand man and successor in any other way that a limited scope as a trustee or board member, one of MANY.
I do not agree that DM was appointed by LRH. If he had been, and had documentation to that effect, it would be framed and hung on every single wall in every single Church building.
That is correct. But LRH did put DM in charge of the All Clear Unit.
Also Rafael, there is this write-up, which paints a very different picture than LRH with his arm around DM’s shoulder.
This write-up very much aligns with what I observed from my small corner of the world.
Fascinating discussion. Did LRH naturally bequeath the COS and all his wealth to DM? Or did DM scheme and conspire to take it over from the first go? Or did it develop gradually and for what purpose did DM cut heads and consolidate all power in the COS to be under his sole control?
“When whales fight, shrimp are eaten.” – Korean Proverb
Geir: That is correct. But LRH did put DM in charge of the All Clear Unit.
Yes, that’s true. But a UNIT is not even close to being the entire Church of Scientology. The authority of a unit is EXTREMELY limited. I don’t even think that unit was on a Church org board anywhere.
This cannot be seen to be naming DM his successor! Its not even remotely close!
That whole time period was utterly INSANE. I mean INSANE. We have Mayo being run out of the Church, we have 600 Mission holder/executives being hounded and harassed, we have Broeker and Starkey just disappearing, we have DM, who was running ASI (NOT THE CHURCH) suddenly taking up leadership in the Church and on and on and on. Massive, wholesale declares and crazy crazy orders leaving the entire underpinning network of the C of S GONE and many, many former executives just plain disappear from sight.
Maria, you say ” I can only speculate, but don’t you think it is a little odd that it was really Broeker named as successor (First Loyal Officer) by LRH? ” . The info you quote is based in the fake F.O. 3879, here is a copy :
This F.O. was created by Pat Broeker in the push for the power after the LRH´s death. Even the writing stile show it is not an LRH´s document. It can be understood his blow don´t you think ?.
Maria, you say ” Also the documentation accumulated at savescientology.com completely invalidates this idea that DM was LRH’s trusted right hand man and successor in any other way that a limited scope as a trustee or board member, one of MANY. “. Maria did you know that DM was in fact LRH´s personal NOTARY PUBLIC ? get an inside look at how it was done up to the last will of LRH the day he died:
Maria, about the all clear unit. The history is well described in David Miscavige´s Bio you quote from wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Miscavige
Hubbar appointed DM as the head of the CMO in 1979, responsible for enforcing Hubbard’s policies within the individual Scientology organizations. Then he was rised as in charge of the Watchdog Committee and the All Clear Unit. Then as a notary public He established the Religious Technology Center, in charge of licensing Scientology’s intellectual property, and Author Services Inc. PLUS The Church of Spiritual Technology was created at the same time with an option to repurchase all of RTC’s intellectual property rights. In my opinion, only LRH´s right hand could have been able to do this.
Rafael: None of that is naming DM as his successor.
And according the write-up I linked to: In June 1982 Pat Broeker and David Miscavige resign their positions in the Sea Org and are now full time non-Sea Org members running RTC and Author Services.
RTC, in its initial formation, clearly indicated that it was NOT a management arm of the C of S.
There is much confusion during this time period and conflicting reports. But the fact remains, DM was NOT named, EVER, as LRH’s successor.
If you want to make an argument that DM was influenced by LRH and his attitudes and so on, that’s one thing. But there is NO indication that he was ever NAMED as LRH’s successor or granted the right to be the SOLE authority over the C of S.
Maria, now I understand you. You were non-sea org staff and public. Let me tell you that in the sea org the world works different. The scientology justice policy is different. i.e. if a CMO member says to you to do something it is expected that you comply as if LRH himself were asking it personaly to you. CMO mission can SP declare anybody without comm ev ( you can ask one latter ). CMO had in fact all the power needed to take over any part of the church ( included RTC, AUTHOR SERVICES, CST, you name it ) as designed personally by LRH in the Sea Org various organizational policies. The June 1982 resign from the sea org positions is just PR coming from LRH himself to cover him and his wealth and closest assistants from the various demands upon him. A similar action was done when LRH resigned from Saint Hill to form the sea org remember ?. About DM being named as the successor or granted the right to be the SOLE authority over the C of S, it is just the natural outcome expected following the resposibility of the leaders policy ( the de facto power formula policy for the CoS).
Rafael, I am aware of all that, but DM was not a CMO staff member at the time of the takeover. He was very much ASI and believe me, everyone in the L.A. area knew it because he staged all kinds of events for ASI and fundraised by selling LRH properties to the wealthiest Scientologists in the area. This is how he came to know all the wealthy Scientologists. We all knew who he was and what he was in charge of and we knew he was not CMO and not Sea Org at all.
I am aware of the various dodges used over time to avoid tax and legal problems, but the fact was that DM definitely was not CMO at the time of the takeover.
It does however explain the behavior of those around him who did not act to prevent his ascension to power. Does it help us to understand him better? Maybe.
Perhaps understanding that culture and way of thinking will work towards understanding him but it still isn’t a DIRECT edict from LRH naming him successor — there is no post called COB and he sure as hell isn’t the Founder.
As far as the Bolivar policy letter goes — does it cancel all policy? I don’t think so. But I do take your point and I have read info from others that this is DM’s favorite, even hobby horse policy letter and that does make sense.
Frankly, very little of it makes sense to me. I guess you had to be there.
Rafael, I meant DM and crew throwing LRH under the bus.
No wonder the Sea Org regards LRH policy with contempt.
Sad to think that at we the lower levels (Missions/Orgs) studied those policy letters with great diligence, thinking that it actually had some meaning, value and authority. No wonder they regarded us with such contempt — one would regard someone being played like that as a naive idiot. It makes me cringe just considering it.
Maria, you say ” Frankly, very little of it makes sense to me. I guess you had to be there.” you are right as usual. The DM´s rise to the power was intended but not written by LRH and as you very well know, intention is cause ( LRH was cause or not ? ) the rest is just PR and legal protection stuff. And finally, it is why I say that the current CoS will never reform till a wog comes and stops this.
What does not make sense about the CMO idea is that LRH was DEAD. How can a CMO (if indeed DM was seen to be CMO) be speaking for a dead man? As I understand it there was only ever one Commodore and that was LRH.
But if you are suggesting that the entire action of LRH from 1966 on was all a ruse, and all the so-called policies nothing more than a smoke screen, then indeed, DM learned well because he sure does love smoke screens.
Of course, this would explain his cavalier attitude towards policy and his attitude towards LRH. If this is the case, then the policies never meant anything in the first place and all of them were nothing more than pretty window dressing and really, DM is entirely justified in throwing LRH under the bus and doing whatever he pleases.
My 2 bits worth …
It was my understanding that the CMO were strictly passing on LRH’s communications – not making them up as they went along.
What was to become of the CMO when LRH passed on I haven’t a clue, but I would not think that they would be a substitute.
In the ’80s we saw Messengers running around with a superior attitude eve giving orders to public … what the heck was that about??
On another point, I have never read where it was LRH’s intention to have DM take over … if it isn’t written …
And another point, there was a specific issue that David Mayo was the ‘holder/keeper of the tech after LRH passed on. That of course disappeared and the rest is history.
I remember sitting at the LRH death event and watching. I elbowed my senior who was next to me and said ‘Watch what happens now with an internal power struggle. Prior to that I knew LRH was quite sick & one of the fears I had was the future playing out as it has.
I am certain the whole takeover was a planned Op and trusted individuals, most who were pioneers, were drummed out of the organization.
Unfortunately, the rest of us stood by and watched it all happened … no one said NO and those who did were disappeared.
Maria, in the LRH dead memorial event, DM seems to be wearing a sea org uniform and being the master of ceremonies, here is the evidence:
About smoke screens, not really, the policy of this period was built mainly to dalegate the LRH´s power who had heart health problems, just in case.
Of course, this would explain DM´s cavalier attitude towards policy and his attitude towards LRH. In my opinion LRH was not thrown under the bus as the LRH brand tech still sells ( in the dependent, independent and freezone areas ) but DM is in fact doing whatever he pleases within the CoS.
I posted this in the wrong spot above, so I’ll post it here again so it makes sense:
Yes, it does look like a Sea Org uniform. But hey, what’s a little uniform mean anyway? (Sarcasm, given the info surrounding this)
Rafael, I meant DM and crew throwing LRH under the bus.
No wonder the Sea Org regards LRH policy with contempt.
Sad to think that we at the lower levels (Missions/Orgs) studied those policy letters with great diligence, thinking that it actually had some meaning, value and authority. No wonder they regarded us with such contempt — one would regard someone being played like that as a naive idiot. They must have laughed their asses off. It makes me cringe just considering it.
Dennis, the real activity of the CMO then and now is to get compliance of upper orders by whatever means.The superior attitude is real and backed up by internal LRH policy on the matter. About David Mayo, he is a big coward and don´t count. Dennis you say, ” I am certain the whole takeover was a planned Op “. Well, you are right, planned by LRH himself with years of anticipation ( he was a inteligent OT ).
Rafael, you make statements as if to say that they are all confirmed facts when there is plenty of differing opinion. As far as I can see, right now all of it is just that – opinion. And I don’t agree with referring in a general way to “the Sea Org” when it appears that the context of these comments as regards more recent decades is specifically related to DM and those close to him.
The main thing I wanted to note is that the vast majority of Sea Org members don’t even know what is actually going on at upper management levels. You have experience at upper middle management and so do I, but I also have experience at org level through Flag.
Planned by LRH himself… an intelligent OT! – That’s classic.
I beg to differ on David Mayo.
He got in in 1959 and was a pioneer and well trusted by LRH, enough to audit him.
I understand he was a little pissed off near the end, but who wouldn’t be after giving 3-4 decades of help and then ousted along with so many other well-meaning individuals.
As with LRH, one can zero in on oddities or eccentricities, or even transgressions and miss the forest for the trees.
I will always admire the old-timers and pioneers.
Dear Maria, it is not my intention to inval/eval you, I am just letting you all know what I see from within. It would be good to see what the rest of the ex-s.o. members in this blog can say about my comments. About policy letters, as Geir has told, there are good and useful ones but need to be sorted out. About tech, if it works for you, it works period.
RN please give me the years you were in the SO so I can get the frame of reference.
Dennis, David Mayo was the first SNR C/S int personally appointed by LRH and his NOTs and review auditor. By now he is enjoying the money DM gave him as PAT is. About LRH, he is dead so doesn´t matter.
Chris, 1989 and on.
marildi, you are right ” the vast majority of Sea Org members don’t even know what is actually going on at upper management levels.” There is not an official info letter on this subject to them, it is avalaible only via the internet ( which is forbiden with the penalty of expulsion from the church )
Rafael, you said: Dear Maria, it is not my intention to inval/eval you…
I have no idea why you would think this would inval/eval me! I’ve offered information and speculation and that’s all. Its as good as anything else anyone else offers and no better.
No, what you have done is invalidated the people in the Sea Org who went along with DM or as you point out, with LRH and the issues hidden from the rest of us. You knew these things, you knew that the policies we thought we were operating on were not much more than window dressing. How did you explain this all to yourself? When you saw those people below you in lower orgs working so diligently and with such sincerity, what did you say to yourself?
I am not criticising you when I ask and I am not asking as a make-wrong — I am asking so I can understand from at least one person’s point of view just how this all gets perpetuated and justified. What was the think on all this? Or was it simply never discussed or thought about at all?
Maria, it is simply never discussed or thought about at all when you are in the S.O. . As I told marildi, when you are in the S.O. you are un-aware of what happens at upper management or most of international S.O. orgs and don´t know most of the S.O. policies. It is needed to get out of staff and start looking to the internet to begin this realization. When you are in the S.O. you think it is ok what you do, the correct action per LRH and command intention. How is this perpetuated ? with the recruitment of more S.O. staff coming from the sons of the public scientologists, because the S.O. staff is not allowed to have sons.
In fairness, there are far fewer policies supporting a gentle side than there are those enforcing compliance. I’s say the ratio is at least some 20:1 in favor of compliance.
This may be relevant here:
I don’t really know what the ratio is, but I do know that there are people successfully auditing others who really don’t use much in the way of any policy. That’s why I keep realizing that there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of a future for the monolithic C of S — its just going to become more and more archaic and more and more out of step with present day culture.
I liked that article. It’s funny to me because I am always thinking I need more structure along these lines, both at work and at home raising kids, but it always seems so burdensome to me and my associates that I never get around to it.
Now I can point to this and say I’m not lazy – I’m innovative.
Here is a summary of an European EX-GO staff.
WARNING: I do not agree with the activity at all, Mr Erikson is involved. I think it´s a shame especially for an EX SCNist to be active in such an activity. But the lecture gives you some interesting strings, view and data, useful for further research. Just search the doc for “Scientology” and read the chapter.
Wow … ex-GO
I glanced at a few of the beginning paragraphs … in the 1st paragraph he pretty well rips everyone a new one for ‘mutilating’ his name.
But, the Human Potential Movement section near the end where he promotes using some of Hubbard’s techniques to rid us of the ‘Jewish Yoke’ …
Well, what can ya say … quals for staff were pretty minimal for much of the times … breath shows up on a mirror – you’re in. But really, did nobody talk to this guy?!?
Next thing ya know they’ll be barking out orders to the general public, pulling people in for interrogation, wearing uniforms and … oh …
I’d like to add that Miscavige’s background is not simply Roman Catholic, but Polish Roman Catholic. The Poles are known in the Slavic world for their authoritarian severity about some things.
What non-Catholics and non-religious scholars don’t understand about Catholicism is that the Catholic Bible includes an entire group of Biblical Canon that are not included in Protestant versions of the Bible. These books support particular Catholic practices, practices that Martin Luther rejected. As an example from the book of Tobit: “For almsgiving delivers from death, and it will purge away every sin” (Tobit 12:9). “So now, my children, consider what almsgiving accomplishes and how righteousness delivers” (Tobit 14:11). Sound familiar?
I do not agree, Valkow. I got family in poland. These guys are the most hard working folks I ever saw. Sadly their mindset is a bit messed up by communist thinking, but if they ever recover and learn to organize and administer like the germans do, they will overhaul them just like a rabbit a snail. furthermore they are the most hospitable people in Europe.
If they want to accomplish something, they give a shit on rules, policy and law. I mean they find a SMART way to bypass them….*looool
They are specialists in improvising. I have seen polish mechanics changing wheel bearings on a car just with a hammer a big screwdriver
and a piece of hard wood. *loool
I love them..
ok dennis, it looks for me other religions have got the same problems like Scientology has:discussions about the authenticy of religious writings, and the consequences of following it or not.
here is a very interesting page:
It seems to me that at least in Western religions there is a long, long history of “double-think” that contributes to a very divided state of mind. Taking the Christian Bible, for example, the atrocities and edicts issued in the name of God or by God are remarkable for their violence, cruelty and violence. Yet it continues to be recognized as the HOLY Bible.
Wikipedia sums it up nicely:
John Hemer asserts that the two primary approaches that Christian teaching uses to deal with “the problem of violence in the Old Testament” are:
– Concentrate more on the many passages where God is depicted as loving – much of Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Deuteronomy.
– Explain how the idea of God as a violent punishing war monger is all part of the historical and cultural conditioning of the author and that we can ignore it in good faith, especially in the light of the New Testament.
In opposition to these two approaches, Hemer argues that to ignore or explain away the violence found in the Old Testament is a mistake. He asserts that “Violence is not peripheral to the Bible it is central, in many ways it is the issue, because of course it is the human problem.” He concludes by saying that “The Bible is in fact the story of the slow, painstaking and sometimes faltering escape from the idea of a God who is violent to a God who is love and has absolutely nothing to do with violence.”
Anyone with a Christian upbringing is likely to be prone to a double-think — holy writ contains violence and edicts contrary to current culture, but it is still the word of God.
This is a 2,000 year long indoctrination in living with extreme contradiction within holy writ. It is entrenched that hardly anybody ever remarks on it any more.
Agreed. Religious morals amongst humans are situational. The human edict is “survive” and if survival becomes easy enough to buy recreational time, then man turns his thoughts to himself and his relationship with his environment and to “higher” pursuits such as art, philanthropy, etc.,.
But people seem to reserve the right to judge moral issues for themselves, especially if decisions made by autority granted to others impinge on their survival. People’s tolerance for getting the short end of the stick, even when their getting the short end of the stick is “fair,” wears thin quickly.
They do seem to do that. But what is really weird is that I have seen people read the most violent and cruel passages in the Bible and make no connection whatsoever with the reality of how that would really be in present time. For example, putting gay guys to death, stoning women, and other violent or cruel edicts. Its like having a big shark in the middle of your swimming pool and everyone is having a pool party and not even noticing the shark, except once in a while someone says — oh, don’t pay any mind to the shark, we just ignore him. Oh yes, he ate Joe a couple of weeks ago, but that’s okay — Joe was kind of messed up anyway.
WHAT IS THAT!??
Maria, it is laziness and fear to create a new religion more civilized. It is supposed that religion is a revealed knowledge by god. This is why buddhism is so popular amidst the intelectual persons, it at least gets the revelation by god out of the formula with his historical excesses.
I disagree on Buddhism. What we have in Buddhism is the statements by Buddha of his own enlightenment / revelation. You take him at his word or you don’t. The fact is that there are very few claimants in the last 3,000 years for attaining the state Buddha described and even with those claimants, it is still only their word of what occurred. Buddha may have taken a personal and capricious “God” out of the equation but he did not take personal subjective / spiritual reality out of it and who’s to say that God or a God didn’t inspire him after all? He’s not here to question and we sure aren’t going to “prove” anything now. With or without God, these states of awareness are not physically measurable or provable.
Here is a list of some the Buddha-ship claimants that are known about:
And here is a list of partial bodhisattvas:
Please note that many of the Bodhisattvas could be thought of as Gods in their own right.
Buddhism is scientific only up to a certain point. Beyond that point, science cannot follow. And that is true of all subjective endeavors.
However, in favor of Buddha, he taught a very civilized, very ethical and moral 8-fold path that is intended to be LIVED. Sincerely, diligently, and with great devotion, life after life, as a necessity for anyone seeking enlightenment. And true Buddhists work hard to live their lives within the bounds of of the 8-fold path. There’s none of this “do as I say, not as I do” hypocrisy for the true follower of the Buddhist path. You also won’t find instances of Buddha exhorting people to stone women or kill all the infidels.
The idea that I find most fascinating in Buddhism is that even self is a construct. Self is created, and it can be dissolved. This fundamental idea makes the following absurd:
(1) That self can attain enlightenment.
(2) That there is a self called God.
(3) That there can be selves that claim to have attained Buddha-ship or bodhisattva.
(4) To think that Buddhism leads to the absurdity in 1 – 3 above.
Ahh. My eyes open. Good and helpful post.
Vinay, you say ” Self is created, and it can be dissolved “. I see this like when you as-is an is-ness to experience a static truth, just that in this case what is being as-ised is your spiritual nature. I personaly find this operation riskful because one can think is becoming static when in fact one could be getting overwhelm.
It seems that the “spiritual nature” goes beyond self.
No, Vinnie, the true absurdity is that you insist on the idea that your concepts are the “true, original” teachings of Buddha. Please explain how you came to be in receipt of these true, original teachings when all other scholars admit that they have not been able to track them down and determine 100% authenticity.
It is clear to me that you prefer your version or viewpoint of Vipassana meditation and choose to ignore and even dismiss all other forms of meditation and learning offered by the Buddha. You have every right to do, but you do not have the right to misrepresent what Buddhism is “really all about” because you somehow “know best.”
To my mind, what you have done is to develop your own definition of “self” based on your own subjective reality at this time. I find your definition narrow, restrictive and demeaning. And it does not align with my own “looking.”
You don’t get it, Maria. I have repeatedly said that there is no absolute truth or untruth. I have no idea of knowing, nor does anybody else, what is original Buddhism.
We can only look at relative inconsistencies, and use them to look deeper as laid out so nicely in Data Series.
There is no use in discussing inconsistencies, except to recognize new inconsistencies, and use then to look at the next deeper level.
Vinnie: I have repeatedly said that there is no absolute truth or untruth. — And so it is for you. And I do not agree with you.
Vinnie: I have no idea of knowing, nor does anybody else, what is original Buddhism. — Thank you for admitting that.
Vinnie: We can only look at relative inconsistencies, and use them to look deeper as laid out so nicely in Data Series. — Rephrase this to “I BELIEVE we can…” I do not agree with this restriction. I do not believe this. Nor do I find the Data Series to be useful except within a very narrow context.
Vinnie: There is no use in discussing inconsistencies, except to recognize new inconsistencies, and use then to look at the next deeper level. — I disagree. First of all, to define discussions only terms of inconsistencies is an unnecessary and very limiting restriction on communication. Second of all, I do not enter into discussion only to recognize inconsistencies. Again, this is a limitation I do not subscribe to. Third, I find the concepts of “deeper” and “higher” to be yet another limitation.
Vinnie: You don’t get it, Maria. — why should I? it is YOUR belief system and YOUR concept. It is YOUR path. I appreciate that you want to share YOUR belief system and path, but I do not appreciate your continual assertion that I should have to subscribe to it because you have some superior way. Besides, how can you possibly determine what comes from my own looking and learning and experiencing?
ahh. My eyes open. Good and helpful post!
I could assert that a superior path to LOOKING is that of KNOWING – but I won’t do that. Each to his/her own.
Geir: “Each to his/her own.”
Chris: Not only smart, cardinal.
“Each to his/her own.”
Well “self” is part of that equation. Nothing wrong. I am just pointing that out.
To what purpose?
“Know to know” doesn’t make sense. “Look to know” does.
Just KNOW makes sense (to me)
It seems Maria that you have found some absolute truths and untruths. Good for you. As far as I am concerned I haven’t found any.
It is snarky to say, “Thank you for admitting that,” as if I were resisting that. I never claimed otherwise. I have learned a lot from what has been purported to come from Buddha, but I was not there when Buddha spoke. I was not privy to what was in Buddha’s mind. I can only sort through inconsistencies in different interpretations of Buddhism and work out for myself what Buddha might have meant.
You do not find Data Series to be useful except within a very narrow context. OK. No problem.
I believe that the purpose of communication is to understand. Data Deries technology provides the method of communication that brings forth understanding very rapidly. I do not see any limitations there. I just see a more efficient approach.
I do not have a belief system. A belief system is always tied to absolutes.
I do not claim to have a superior way as Hubbard did. You have your own method. OK. No problem.
Vin: “A belief system is always tied to absolutes.”
I disagree. Belief is much more nuanced than that. It can also mean “to hold an opinion”.
Whatever “it is” Maria, Scientology has not caused any remission of this condition in mankind.
I agree, well spoken.
On the “look” vs. “know”, I think Vinaire may actually be including both when he says “look”, because I get that it means to have a direct perception of the given “object” (one of mental MEST) in the mind, and thus to as-is it – i.e. starting from Look and going up to Know.
Sorry to go off-topic here,
Marty just posted the Ethics Repair List link on his website.
This is the direct link … it downloads as a .pdf
Click to access Ethics%20Repair%20List.pdf
Have a read … personally, I was stunned … in a good way
Yes, I saw it – It is very cool.
Dennis, That site seems to want to load a program on my computer. Is this necessary? Is this what you did in order to download that file, or do I misunderstand?
Yeah .. it has some goofy advert links.
Click the link that says: “click here to start download from sendspace’
It’s a blue coloured link
The document is a .pdf readable with Adobe Acrobat as you likely know
If that doesn’t work, I can email you
Thank you Dennis.
Geir: “Just KNOW makes sense (to me)”
Well, Geir. You are OT, I am not. Maybe, you have some secret method that doesn’t require communication.
Not really. I see communication as a level below KNOW.
That is what I mean. I am not an OT, and I don’t have the insight you have here.
To me, if I know it already, then I don’t have to know it.
If you are the creator of all you can experience, then you already know it all…
That is how all hard core scientologists seem to come across. They are “know it alls.”
It would be helpful if you could explain the rationale behind that comment, lest it looks very non-sequitur.
“If you are the creator of all you can experience, then you already know it all…”
The above idea is derived from Scientology think. Scientology focuses on self and assigns it immortality.
I don’t think self is immortal. I do not think self is the creator of all it can experience. To me, it doesn’t follow that self knows it all.
One can just look and observe that self doesn’t know it all, but scientologists are taught to believe that all the skills are there in their memory, and that they can make anything go right. That is think Hubbard applied to Sea Org. If a Sea Org member cannot make it go right then he is punished. This is the kind of thing Miscavige operates on.
Sea Org members then feel guilty when they are not able to pull of a job, which they were not trained for, and which was pretty difficult to do even for a skilled person.
I will never put a scientologist or a Sea Org member, who is a High school dropout, to look after the engineering functions of a Nuclear Reactor.
I am sorry to say that scientologists are usually pumped up to believe that they have superior knowledge by virtue of being in Scientology, to a point that most scientologists act that way.
That is a much better answer that the condescending non-sequitur answer you gave above. Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.
My statement follows a long tradition of philosophical thought – and I wasn’t pushing that, I was merely suggesting that “IF…”. No need to get snarky about thet 🙂
You spelled “thet” wrong. 😉
Why not I be snarky. I love to be snarky. There is no fun otherwise. 😉
See how my comment on KHTK relates to your form of communication right here. If I have the time, I will do a post count on this thread to summarize how many of your comments have been On Topic and how many of your comments have brought negative value to the discussion.
As I stated elsewhere, stop being judgmental about self and focus on knowledge, and I shall do the same.
Vinaire, please. I am not concerned about you or me. I am concerned about how knowledge reaches people. And right now you stand in the way of KHTK. That is a pity. Please, please consider this.
That is a wrong judgment. KHTK is capable of surviving on its own.
My crusade is against scientologists being so judgmental that they can’t focus on knowledge. The very vocabulary of Scientology is judgmental, to wit: “wog”, “low-toned”, “service-facy”, “SP”, “PTS”, “anti-social person”, and so on.
Please be fair, and don’t just single me out. Issue a warning to all who are being judgmental.
Vin: ” That is how all hard core scientologists seem to come across. They are “know it alls.” . ”
Although it may appear that this is true to you, I wouldn’t class persons with that viewpoint as hard-core scientologists … not even a scientologists.
I never saw anything like that written by LRH either.
Quite the opposite actually.
“Each to his/her own.”
Well “self” is part of that equation. Nothing wrong. I am just pointing that out.
Geir: To what purpose?
The purpose is to encourage looking. It is providing a little bit of direction in which to look, just as auditing does. If you don’t see anything in that direction that is perfectly fine.
Would it be OK with you if I encouraged you to take a look at how you communicate and that it often come across as a condescending and “know best” fashion? Would you benefit from such an encouragement in LOOKING?
It is perfectly OK for you to encourage me to look.
Good. Did you benefit from it?
One of the KHTK principles is that benefit comes from looking, and not from talking about it.
You have done your job by encouraging me to look. Leave it at that. Otherwise, you are trying to probe. That is additive and very evaluative.
That action, in other words, is harmful.
It would however be of help if I knew whether the encouragement was of any use to you. It would help correct my encouraging if I could get some feedback on that.
” It would help correct my encouraging … ”
This I found funny.
It actually encouraged me to smile.
See the Success Officer! 🙂
Nope. Not necessary.
Encouraging to look is what is important. You have done your job.
“Nope. Not necessary. ”
Unless your intention is not to help but to make yourself right.
A Service Facsimile perhaps!
I stand by the KHTK principle.
I truly want to help, because I don’t like to see the KHTK approach been dragged into disrepute by your for of communication on this blog. The KHTK is far to valuable for that to happen. Just like Tony Ortega voted LRH as the #1 person to cripple Scientology (although I disagree with that), I can see your form of communication as the #1 reason why KHTK will not gain traction. Please do consider this. KHTK is more important that you being right.I disagre
This is non-sequitur to the point I was making.
I know my communication style is “in your face” type. That style is simply to highlight what I observe in the communication of Scientologists here, who are quick to judge others.
I am very much for non-judgmental communication focused on knowledge. If I have gotten my point across then I shall revert back to non-judgmental communication focused on knowledge.
The problem is that you come across as very judgmental. Very. And I am truly concerned that it indeed does damage to the uptake of KHTK. I cannot find any uptake on it at all, so if you want to help, if you want to spread your discovery, then maybe you should look at how that can best be achieved?
Tell me who is not coming across as judgmental here. As long as focus is on self there would be judgment. Personally, I would like to focus on knowledge. I happen to react to scientologists being so judgmental. Dennis asking me repeatedly, have I had CS1, and avoiding the point being made. You don’t seem to think that is judgmental. Maybe, you just can’t see and that is your problem.
KHTK is not my discovery. You are trying to tie it to me to control me. That is a very Scientology-like tactic. The knowledge underlying KHTK has been there for last 2600 years. That knowledge is not going into oblivion anytime soon.
You need to be fair and tell everybody who is being judgmental to stop. After all, it is your blog.
Vin: “Tell me who is not coming across as judgmental here.”
Most seem less so than you.
Vin: “I happen to react to scientologists being so judgmental.”
So, you being judgmental is not your responsibility?
Vin: “KHTK is not my discovery. You are trying to tie it to me to control me.”
Please, Vinaire. Cut the crap. This paranoia does not suit you.
Vin: “You need to be fair and tell everybody who is being judgmental to stop. After all, it is your blog.”
Yes, it is my blog after all. I pick out the person behaving the worst here. And that happens to be you, by a fairly good margin. So please reconsider your behavior. You have gotten plenty of encouragement from many on this blog to look at how you communicate.
Your policy that you will pick only the worst judgmental person does not make any sense. Any focus on self is judgmental and detracts from discussion on knowledge.
This policy is not fair. Either you should allow people being judgmental, or warn them against it alike.
Please set up a fair policy.
Vin: ” Tell me who is not coming across as judgmental here. As long as focus is on self there would be judgment. Personally, I would like to focus on knowledge. I happen to react to scientologists being so judgmental. Dennis asking me repeatedly, have I had CS1, and avoiding the point being made. You don’t seem to think that is judgmental. ”
I was asking a simple question. You did not answer it.
The purpose of it was to fill in my own void in that many of the answers or comments you were posting indicated that you had not had a CS-1.
It puzzled me.
That is all.
Sorry, Dennis, that is a justification.
You should be puzzling about the inconsistencies in knowledge and not about self, because that is judgmental.
Discuss the principles, the beliefs, the considerations, etc. That is more productive. I ‘ll be happy to do the same.
Then tell me this Vinaire:
Say I quoted some phrase out of Buddha’s works and it was incorrect (and who the heck knows if it was translated with the full concept that the originator intended). I would expect, and at the very least not be offended, you to correct me on this. I would not consider it ‘judgmental’.
If I see you mis-quoting some scientology text or a poster’s text here on this blog, does it not make sense that one could/should or would correct you? Otherwise as Maria points out, the discussion goes off on a tangent based on your misinterpretation.
As I said my reasons for asking in this instance about the CS-1 was exactly that. It appears (and this IS my judgement) that you did not do one, or, some of the concepts were mis-duplicated. It is not my intent to make you wrong for this but to simply have you look at the text in the way it was intended. It increases understanding.
I am not arguing whether the text is correct in content or not, after all it is simply one’s viewpoint whether it is LRH, Buddha, or a poster on this blog.
Please see my response below.
The moment one starts to use subjective personal ideals. it becomes judgmental.
There is nothing wrong with the concept of judgement. We do it all the time in everything we do. To me, knowing would be above judgment, but the use of that knowingness would again entail judgment (OT Maxims).
When judgment is used to make another or another’s comments wrong , then we are into a different definition.
There have been numerous posts where you have posted judgmental comments about individuals here, scientology or generalities on how you view life.
Asserting that one’s judgment is ‘right’ or ‘better’ and within that same breath making others wrong for their viewpoint does not add to the discussion.
A suggestion (and please don’t take it judgmentally):
Download the Ethics Repair List that was recently posted on Marty’s blog (if needed, I will email it to you.)
Read the preamble and then take the first question and have a look. Do this for each one – one at a time.
You may find some interesting observations, and who knows – a realization or two.
Dennis, it is very different when one is judging knowledge as principles, beliefs, considerations, etc. compared to when one is judging self. It is the latter kind of judgment that becomes judgmental. The dictionary definition of judgmental that seems to be applicable here is,
tending to make moral judgments: to avoid a judgmental approach in dealing with divorced couples.
In Data Series it is called an ERROR:
“Thus errors are usually a comparison to one’s personal ideals. Out-points compare to the ideal for that particular scene.”
The argument becomes judgmental the moment one introduces one’s personal ideals, rather than the ideal of what is being discussed. That is where the argument goes off the rails.
Judgmental is not just making another’s comments wrong. It is getting into the subjective territory. The use of words right and wrong gets in the subjective territory. More accurately, judgmental is straying away from the ideal that applies to what is there, and getting into personal subjective ideals. Data Series 12 – How to Find and Establish an Ideal Scene is an excellent reference that provides exercises to determine the ideal scene of what is there.
I would be happy to discuss with you objectively about what is there if you also be objective about it. Rather than saying it is a generality and dismissing another’s person argument, be upfront about what you are objecting to. Principles are very general. Talking about principles gets into talking in a general way. It is not wrong and it should not just be dismissed.
Please engage in a discussion rather than rejecting something under the excuse of generality. I find that to be an excuse and avoidance of something one cannot counter.
Waaaay off topic.
Again, you evaluate and misinterpret the definitions of judgment.
again, you gave YOUR OWN idea of what YOU THINK it ‘should’ be.
This is YOUR ideas, not mine.
Please explain yourself.
See my other post
… and where the heck did I mention MORAL judgements?
YOU added this in as a some sort of ‘battle of MORALS’.
YOU CREATED IT.
You did not mention moral judgments, and I didn’t attribute any to you.
Vin: ” Please engage in a discussion rather than rejecting something under the excuse of generality.
I find that to be an excuse and avoidance of something one cannot counter. .
That is exactly my point.
btw, do you want me to send you the Ethics Repair List?
post your email if you do.
Here is my email address:
Besides, what is this thing about “Know to know.”
Vin says: Your policy that you will pick only the worst judgmental person does not make any sense. — You have reworded what Geir said just like you did to me. Like I said before, you are welcome to make your own statements but have a care when you deliberately rephrase what another has said and speak to that. HE DID NOT SAY THAT. You did.
Any focus on self is judgmental and detracts from discussion on knowledge. — BULLSHIT. UTTTER BULLSHIT. And on top of it, this is NOT a discussion on knowledge. It is a discussion on UNDERSTANDING Miscavige. Exploring ideas, sharing concepts, etc. UNDERSTANDING. Not finding the WHY for the Church or solving reform issues.
This policy is not fair. — Of course not. Not the way you have restated it.
Either you should allow people being judgmental, or warn them against it alike. — This is nonsense based on your false restatement of Geir’s position.
Please set up a fair policy. — No. You go and set up your own blog and you set up a fair policy. THIS IS NOT YOUR BLOG. It is NOT YOUR PERSONAL DOMAIN where you can ride in here and dismiss people’s ability to see and look and think and come to their own conclusions.
And I might add that you have effectively and I believe, DELIBERATELY, derailed this discussion. I said it before and I am saying it again. IF YOU DO NOT FIND THIS BLOG TO YOUR LIKING GO SOMEWHERE THAT IS TO YOUR LIKING.
You are the ONLY ONE complaining about the quality of this blog.
I like this blog.
I intensely dislike what you are doing.
I was about to answer Vinaire’s comment when I saw that you replied. My reply was dwarfed by yours, so I will rather applaud yours.
Vinaire; Behave or GTFO. No more whining, condescending comments, rewriting statements (Straw Man) or spewing out generalities in an effort to make others look bad. Use KHTK and shape up. I was about to add “please”, but my patience is worn out, so I will instead add; Get your shit together.
Dennis, Here is the next glaring inconsistency about Miscavige:
(2) Miscavige is trying to correct Scientology materials from the reference point of his own understanding of Scientology. Looking at his other actions, I do not think that he has a deeper understanding of Scientology than LRH.
This inconsistency also falls in the area of “Miscavige and Scientology.”
That is a good inconsistency. It is pointed out in the OP.
I too see ‘inconsistencies with Miscavige – lots of ’em
I have enjoyed this thread so far – it seeks to find truth
Another glaring inconsistency is as follows:
(3) Instead of pushing new people in droves up the Bridge and show the world the real benefits from Scientology, Miscavige is pushing the existing scientologists to invest more and more in Ideal orgs to make it believable to the world that Scientology is expanding.
This inconsistency also falls in the area of “Miscavige and Scientology.”
So the most glaring consistencies in Miscavige has to do with how he is handling Scientology. Furthermore, his handling does not follow Scientology principles and policies. So, what is going on here? It seems that, personally, Miscavige has tremendous disregard for Scientology.
This makes me wonder where did he learn such disrespect and disregard for Scientology.
Miscavige saw Hubbard only in his declining years. Hubbard felt he had wrapped up the subject of Scientology. His attention was mostly on saving himself from being indicted, and, furthermore, getting the most money out of Scientology operations for all his hard work. Miscavige saw Hubbard yelling and screaming, and mostly ordering actions that would bring security and enrichment to Hubbard.
These were very MEST oriented goals, These are the goals that impressed Miscavige the most. Thus, Scientology is being looked upon by Miscavige simply as a resource to accomplish certain MEST oriented goals.
This is my conjecture. Miscavige does not have the the same goals that Hubbard was pursuing in his declining years. But his goals are also as MEST oriented as Hubbard’s were.
This is just a quick sketch. Effort should be made to falsify this conjecture.
The OP is oriented around Geir’s idea that fixed process cannot bring about fixed result. That may be so, but, it seems that Geir decided upon that idea to be sort of a WHY and then wrote this OP around that idea.
But in any Data Analysis, one should start as broad as possible, and pick out the most glaring outpoints without being judgmental. These outpoints will then direct one where to look. This narrows down the target field. One then repeats the same actions thus narrowing the target further, until the WHY just pops out by itself.
I am not trying to make Geir wrong, or any such stupid thing. I am simply noting down what I see. I may be totally off base for all I know. It all depends on further research. But now we know where to look further.
The OP merely suggests one of many possible reasons. I do not think there is “ONE WHY”. I think there are several reasons.
As I understand Data Series, a situation may have many outpoints but it is the most major outpoint, that explains the rest, which is termed THE WHY.
And I disagree with this. In many situations I find that several disrelated reasons coincide to make one disaster.
I stand by what I wrote above.
What Data Series calls an outpoint is referred to as an inconsistency in KHTK.
Just like KHTK, the spotting of outpoints in Data Series should be totally non-judgmental. A judgmental approach leads to errors as pointed out in Data Series 9:
“Thus errors are usually a comparison to one’s personal ideals. Out-points compare to the ideal for that particular scene. ~ LRH”
Data Series 9 is being violated big time by Miscavige. He is all about his personal Ideals. He doesn’t seem to care about the ideals of Scientology.
Any of you consider a factor the lost legal battle of the CoS against Lawrence Dominick Wollersheim as a vital factor to protect by DM with is current management stile. A kind of ” it should never happen again so lets change our operational basis ”
Rafael: I agree with you. I think a factor is also that Wollersheim scared the living piss out of DM and crew because he spoke so much truth. So much truth that he won his case.
I well remember being called to go out and crusade in Portland on that case and it was a real shock to learn many years later what Wollersheim was ACTUALLY complaining about. They hid it from all of us and desperately need to keep this kind of information hidden. So at least one element of DMs behavior is finding more effective ways to protect the Church (read this: hide the withholds of the Church and himself) by creating a huge threat factor — disconnection, surveillance, endless sec checks, deranged propaganda and so on.
On an aside, I found Larry on the Internet — here is what this “horrible” and “antisocial” personality worked on after all that:
Its a nice website and as you can see, he is working to create a movement that is both enlightening and beneficial.
Maria, the link you provide in interesting. About the Wollersheim case, the important part to see is that it settled a precedent for further litigation against the CoS where the abused case can get a compensation from the church, even if the corporative name is changed ( from Church of Scientology of California to Church of Scientology International ) and so it is established a civil ( and may be penal ) responsibility by the church as regards the quality of his service.
It is my observation that the Data Series is seriously flawed. It starts with a fixed idea in the form of a conceptualization of an ideal scene. From that fixed idea, comes a series of statistics that are supposed to reflect closer and closer approaches to the now “fixed” ideal scene. Within this NARROWED field of observation and endeavor, one extracts the so-called “why,” the SUPPOSED major departure from the ideal scene. All solutions must be found in policy, which of course are based and aligned with the conceptualized ideal scene — a scene which never existed and may never exist and may never be actually possible.
Meanwhile the PES is working frantically with a WHY derived from narrow statistics that reflect a narrow and fixed ideal scene. It is so narrow that it fails to account for the FACT (not imagined based on a contrived ideal scene) that there are thousands of antagonistic ex-members posting thousands of antagonistic statements and articles on the Internet and hundreds of news blips that convince would-be participants to steer clear.
But the why is God applies. And in keeping with the data series the PES must not look outside of her sphere of influence. She may only look at her own actions and the actions of her juniors. All else is looking for incorrect whys because stats are created locally. She works her heart out until convinced that she is lacking and unable to get anywhere, and continually targeted as a downstat, she leaves. This is a “blow” and a suppressive act. So now she is found to be a “who” and she is excommunicated. Obviously she is a who because statistics are not just down. They are held down. And her crime is that she was there. If she is very badly treated on her way out the door, she will come out fighting. And she will probably eventually find ESMB.
And that’s the data series at work.
Agreed. The narrowing of focus introduces limits that are hard to see.
So very true, fixed ideas (stable data) which is used as substitute for reality. When Scientology is used in that direction it loses all its valid purpose
i don’t see Data Series that way. The ideal scene can be flexible and develop along the way as clarification takes place. Of course, the ideal scene has to do with purpose. One need to be very clear about the purpose of the activity.
The essence of Data Series is good. The misapplication is not.
Oh it is much worse than simply introducing limits. This is the genus of DON’T LOOK outside yourself and your area. DON’T LOOK at your seniors. DON’T LOOK outside the org at what is ACTUALLY going on.
Now add, DON’T LISTEN to what suppressives (who are outside the org and possibly inside) say. DON’T LISTEN to anyone. DON’T LISTEN. Only LOOKING is valid.
This is NOT true. It should be LISTEN and get the data you got from LISTENING verified, check that the data you LISTENED to makes sense. LOOK don’t listen, results in no COMM CYCLE at all. LOOK don’t listen results in ignoring completely subjective reality in an arena that does nothing but handle and change subjective reality. The SUBJECTIVE reality of would-be participants IS critical and CANNOT be ignored. It should be LISTEN AND LOOK.
One should use all senses to perceive what is there.
Included intuition and common sense in my view.
Intuition and common sense falls under “mind.” Buddhism regards “mind” as a sense organ. Please see
KHTK 15: Observation, Experience and Looking
Vinay, thanks I will read your article carefully.
I was just over at the ScnForum, reading an interesting thread on the religious status of Scientology. Much for for thought.
DM is much criticized for his current focus on new statistics to do with social programs, for his campaigns to acquire Church buildings, and his practice of minutely examining the ethical/moral behavior of individual public Scientologists. This is seen to be a deviation from the core purpose of the Church of Scientology which is to make auditors and deliver auditing.
However, if you examine these actions from the viewpoint of obtaining, maintaining and protecting government sanctioned recognitions for the purposes of tax exemptions and other Church related benefits, these actions make a great more sense.
The governments generally offer exemptions (legal and taxation) to groups that are seen to be generally beneficial to society at large, not just the members of the group itself. If the group’s activities harm society at large, and / or violate governmental rights and laws, then the group will not be granted recognition and even where recognition has been granted, the group can have its status rescinded. BUT this doesn’t mean that the group will not continue to be recognized as religious. It just means that it will not be given societal benefits because its benefits do not extend to all of society.
I just finished reading the entire dissertation by Stephen Kent, who spoke to the German government on the subject of Scientology as a religion. It is an excellent article, and provides a perspective that may go a long way in understanding the actions of David Miscavige.
Of particular interest in this discussion is the re-working of the “LRH Library” to produce course materials based on the works of L. Ron Hubbard. Could this simply be a way of providing the materials without LRH’s cracks about various groups and governments, cracks that can be very much interpreted (or definitely are) slurs or attacks on governments and other religions? According to Stephen Kent, this is very much an issue that the German government.
It could also explain the extreme lengths to which Miscavige goes to silence ex-Scientologists who have experienced the RPF at its worst and the insistence that there is no coercion going on at all in terms of disconnection and fair game.
It also explains Mike Rinder’s visit with the most extreme activist against Scientology in Germany, where Mike clearly delineates the difference between the religious practices of Scientology (the beliefs of its members) as differentiated from the practices of the orthodox Church.
Hmm … looks like it time for a few more short topics 🙂
Wow … no posts for a few days.
I feel like I’m talking to myself …
Was any of it real – Geir’s blog, Marildi, Chris, Val, Vin, Marie, etc, etc ?
Maybe I *have* been talking to myself and creating the whole thing in the first place 😉
Reminds me of Number 9 Dream ……
Dennis, I love this origination of yours. 🙂 It was like suddenly seeing another human out in the desert.
Strange indeed, not to have the comments going. Maybe Geir will see yours and mine and pipe up to let us know all is well and that he’ll be back soon with another morsel or two for our “food fights” 😉
I have been off-line for a couple of days., attending a conference (itSMF Norway) after having been rear-ended by a big Chevrolet Thao. Life is an adventure. I have a post brewing 🙂
In a couple of days.
Hurray, you’re there! Great to hear you are doing fine after that recent “adventure” 😦 And great about the post that’s brewing! 🙂
Thanks 🙂 I think the post will be good – at least it is something you guys have not seen before. Here or elsewhere.
Nice little mystery sandwich to hold us off for a bit. 😀
There is life out there!
Yes, I have been a bit bored … I kept thinking my computer may be on the blink, but all is good now.
Looking forward to the new post!
Since we have a couple of days to kill:
I just came across this lecture on Justice given by Prof. Michael Sandel.
Very interesting to me; I hope to you too.
There are 2 lectures in Episode 1
I hope you enjoy the interesting questions he poses.
Hey Dennis, I’m in the middle of a fascinating article giving data about the NOTs case and how it is handled. (Anybody who doesn’t want to read confidential data shouldn’t read this, though).
You being an OT, I wonder what you might have to say about it, if you are interested. I’m finding it to be very helpful data to have, at least for Clears and above – maybe even those not yet Clear, per David St Lawrence. Here are the links to his article on the subject and to the NOTs article.
I read thru David’s article and the one on the various Nots procedures/steps.
First, for the purposes of discussing it, we will assume or consider that there is such a thing as Clear and there is such a thing as an OT case. We are also assuming that the basic info on entities given in the basic books/HCOBs is true and that we are handling a more complex unit than a simple being.
I just wanted to state that because there surely are some who believe this is a lot of bunk. 😉
David’s article is quite good. As you know, there has been many people who, after attesting to Clear, have had their state invalidated and ‘removed’ and then have been put back on various lower bridge actions.
While there have been some who have made it onto some of the upper levels with missing or incomplete lower levels in which case this is good that they are required completed these levels; many have been forced to endure re-doing actions which are unnecessary as they were Clear already.
When the initial ‘Clear Interview’ came out, it was a simple interview to determine if one was Clear and a possible re-hab if needed.
Later the Dianetic Clear bulletin came out and there was a rush of people attesting – almost every Tom, Dick, Harry and their dog could attest. While it is true that one can go clear on Dianetics, there were many at that time attesting after virtually no auditing. It became more of a status symbol then actually attaining the state – it does take some work to get there for those who are not. I know I was ‘regged’ to go attest at that time – ‘everyone is doing it … why don’t you?’, ‘Hey, have you read the DC HCOB? You going to attest?’
Well, I refused for a couple of reasons:
1) It was a dog & pony show – I saw raving loons attesting … as terrible as it sounds, I thought ‘Hell, if they’re Clear, then I’m either totally nuts or the King of the Universe’ or some such.
2) The massive attest invalidated the state and those who had truly made it – it was too easy to me – almost anyone could attest.
3) Because of points 1&2, I knew LRH would come out with a correction for this lunacy which he did – DCSI.
Later the DCSI (Dianetic Case Special Intensive) came out which was a comprehensive series of actions.
Okay, so if one has gone Clear – and that is on the FIRST DYNAMIC, and one still experiences oddities, weird pictures, sensations, pressures, odd thoughts, etc., then this stems from the OT case.
It happens that one may invalidate one’s own Clear state as one assumes there should be nothing like this going on, but the OT case can still impinge and whack you upside the head .
So, you go thru OT Preps basically ensuring that lower levels are complete, a C/S 53, a Jo’burg sec check, a GF40 and anything else that needs to be handled.
Then eligibility – sec checking. Then you start Solo 2 – some basics auditing actions Solo so you can get a feel for Soloing – fun stuff.
Somewhere in there is a Sunshine Rundown if you didn’t have one.
Then, you get invite for OT 1 – a pretty simple level and great solo practice – this level has changed over the years.
OT 2 – a great level and you get an inkling what the OT case is about and it starts to make sense why you were feeling the way you were.
OT 3 – you’ve read it & heard about it. I did read quite some time back on Marty’s site about running this level Nots style – hell, that would have been a lot easier!! 🙂
OT IV – OT Drug R/D now – chnged from the original.
OT V – Audited Nots – changed from the original but a great level.
Now, I did read thru the link for the ‘Generic Nots’ you mentioned above. I found the article poorly laid out whereas the original LRH Nots data is easy to read and things follow quite simply.
The general procedure laid out in the ‘Generic Nots’ article is relatively accurate although it has been re-wwritten and looks to be about 8 or 9 HCOB’s combined into one – not good in my books. It seems disjointed and murky at times.
Nots is a simple procedure and a helluva lot of fun.
If you need more info, email me 😛
Sorry for the long posts … I tend to rattle on when I get going.
Feel free to ask questions.
Thanks, King of the Universe 🙂 I always enjoy your historical accounts and personal tales.
It’s interesting, the different articles about Clear that you can read on the internet. Some lay stress on the fact that you very well could be Clear no matter what you have or haven’t done and others stress, like you did, not to minimize that it takes some doing. In any case, ex-culties that we are, we’ll “assume” that there is such a state and that there exists entities and OT case.
About the NOTs article not being very well laid out or easy to read, I fully agree! Although some of it seemed to me to be LRH’s style of writing and may have been taken straight from the HCOB’s – it was poorly organized. Nevertheless, one can struggle through and as I said earlier it does relay some very good data to have, whether you’re at NOTs level or not – since OT case is likely to be impinging at earlier points than that. There may, though, be better links where this data can be found but I haven’t run across them yet.
Like you, I also found it interesting to read that the NOTs procedures could be used in place of earlier OT levels, especially since OT III is so controversial and also because some pcs apparently have trouble running it (or so I’ve heard).
I think I already knew that you were OT V and I wondered if any of this data would be new to you. You seem to have answered the question I had as to whether all of it is given to OT V pcs in their hatting, rather than it being mainly for the auditor (the way it is with other auditing – maybe most other). And since independent OT V’s do have the data I can’t help but think that some them have taken it upon themselves to find their own way through OT VII.
Look whose rattling on now ;). Btw, I’ve thought of you as a sort of anchor point for the blog in this quiet period. And it’s good to know you have an open email line too! 🙂
Great reply …
This caught my eye:
” Some lay stress on the fact that you very well could be Clear no matter what you have or haven’t done and others stress, like you did, not to minimize that it takes some doing. ”
This is something I’ve looked at … that we could have already been Clear and just had to realize it, or realize we were creating a bank all along.
Could this be similar with the OT case, and are there other things at work? Likely so in both cases.
I am sort of taking the view that nothing is certain – what I thought was a big win yesterday is eclipsed by a monster win tomorrow.
Again, I keep thinking it is a steady evolution. I wish there were never labels (OT1, 2, 3 ….) – I would prefer just a continuous route or checksheet and you get whatever YOU get off each item.
I have too often seen hidden standards pushed regarding gains or abilities or certain types of wins one attains at each level. Other than the Grades, I thing it’s a crapshoot – there are simply too many variables to definitively say each and every person will gain ability X on a certain level.
I think it really is a personal journey of enlightenment and regained abilities with greater ramifications in one’s environment as one moves up.
Another point you made which caught my eye:
” …since OT case is likely to be impinging at earlier points than that. ”
I agree – it is impinging all the time – constantly. It is a certainty for me that beingnesses, identities, implants and heavy command value incidents are with a person 24 hours a day until he is cause over them.
Underlying that would be one’s consideration, postulates & not-ising of original times, places, forms & events.
Personally I think that if a PC simply answers the question and freely originates (itsa) what he ‘sees’, it’s all good.
If one is experiencing a pressure, thought, or some unwanted condition but at a certain level cannot see the source or where it emanates from, one likely will assume ownership of that item and believe it to be stemming from himself.
Not everyone can do this at lower levels so I can see some difficulties in using OT processes in conjunction with lower grade chart actions.
I do, however, believe that during ANY auditing, communication with a cognition, a Purif, etc., that one can blow parts of the OT case. They feel good and may assign this to something else but they still blew it. Once gone, it IS gone.
We may be constantly addressing the OT case from day 1.
I’m a lot more fluid in my thinking of this now … frankly I ‘m just looking for improvements no matter WHAT or WHO I am addressing. It’s almost a ‘Who cares’ attitude.
I remember coming out of a session – I think it was on ExDn. I rattled off this amazing cog I had to someone and they said “Have you ever read blah blah?” I said No. They pulled out the book and what I had just rattled off was one of the Q’s – verbatim. I had never read it before. I KNEW that baby inside out.
So, my point is that however LRH came up with some of this stuff, I have been and am continually amazed.
As for the data in that Generic Nots article being new to me – No. And YES, you are given all the material to read In Session on a meter so you know the basics and how it runs before you start. It’s quite a bit of fun and as you can see, the process is SIMPLE. Actually, there are some real highs & lows on Nots – it’s a wild level with some wild phenomena sometimes. NOTs along with Listing/Nulling are two of the most powerful techniques I have experienced – simply outa this world.
There ya go!
Dennis: “It is a certainty for me that beingnesses, identities, implants and heavy command value incidents are with a person 24 hours a day until he is cause over them.”
While I believe this thread of thought should have it’s own thread and be expanded on, this statement is so true to me I feel it’s one of those things that should be underlined, and on a “right now” basis.
ATTAINING CAUSE over the bank at whatever level the PC is at should be the determining factor in case gradation. That opens up a few interesting doors that I’ll mention later, but first let’s consider a typical Scientology path in light of this:
– we use TRs to gain the ability to confront. The PC can causatively confront the bank and remain in PT.
– we use Objectives to get the PC to be able to causatively control the mind and thereby execute an auditing command.
– we use the Grades to get the PC to be more at cause over the circumstances of life (ARC, communication, problems, overts, ARC breaks, fixed ideas – i.e. life ruds).
– we use Dianetics to bring the PC to a point of cause over the engram bank,
– (I speculate) we use the lower OT levels (up to 7) to get to a point of cause and control of the entity case.
Above that is more room for speculation, but the point is that gaining cause at any one of these levels pretty much obviates the need for running more of the level.
The additional point is that if the PC arrives at that level of cause by some other path, the ability should still be acknowledged, not dismissed because the Scientology path was not followed.
Using this reasoning, the Grade chart could be used as a list of remedies to fill in voids or handle areas of charge that have PC interest, or where the PC lacks the tools to advance on a later level. That thought may be a bit Utopian as it may well be in our nature to rabbit from some lower level of charge, or inability, but the other side of the coin – being forced to endure the entire Grades path when certain OT case phenomena are available and in dramatization – seems equally detrimental. The handling for rabbiting should be covered by educating the PC on the Grade chart, excellent case programming and supervision, and ethics ONLY to the degree that tech won’t go in by other means. Ethics should become the personal tool of the individual. Anything else is a justice action.
There are certainly hurdles along this line, the biggest one being that a PC or pre-OT should be able to understand the mechanics of the case at the level the PC is interested in addressing. Since gaining this understanding can be a challenge even to fairly bright individuals, it is likely that this will require the original LRH materials to be reformatted in an Audio-Visual-Written format (Wiki-ish) that addresses the different ways through which people best learn. Heresy that that idea may be, it needs to be confronted. Yet another topic.
Hi Dennis. Here I am, a day late and a comment (or two) short. 🙂
I have very much the same viewpoint and appreciation for what you were saying about probing and questioning, changing viewpoints and loosening up your universe. Seems to me there are unique benefits to be had from blog discussions, and I’ve concluded that it’s because of the combination of putting thoughts in writing and getting and giving feedback. A special way of learning that has no counterpart, IMHO.
Maybe future Scn training will include this “methodology” – and/or in-person group discussions, or even one-on-one between two “twins”. Revolutionary! (in both senses, I know! but this is just between us revolutionists ;)) Along with the discussion method there should be included what 2ndxmr brought up about using video and audio along with the written format, to get all the great learning benefits from those as well.
Speaking of our continuing research :), I really like the ideas the two of you have about simplifying auditing to where it comes down to the basics about the bank, and handling gradiently what’s there to be handled – and the idea that it’s a personal journey with no importance to assigning levels, which differ completely from pc to pc anyway.
Also, what you said about NOTs being both fun and simple was really interesting, especially after reading the data in that article which made it sound like a very complicated procedure, in terms of the wild variety of things that can come up. So if you can, say more!
p.s. Btw, you haven’t said whether you liked my movie idea. (Or are you already busy writing up the screen treatment for the scriptwriters :D).
Firstly, I’m no George Clooney 🙂
Nor am I likely a good actor … acting out – yes! Hahahaha
Yes, I did like 2ndxmr’s post too. Videos/films, of which there are very few, always seemed to help me when I was studying – I like things visual with lots of application. Even the tapes were better than reading much of the time as you get get the small nuances in LRH’s comm.
Re: NOTs …
Yes, that writeup was a bit disjointed & confusing to me. The LRH issues are laid out nicely and each paragraph follows the prior on in train of thought. The ‘Generic’ one seemed to be sections of many HCOBs put into one.
The NOTs process is very simple. Yes, there are buttons and a repair list like any other level but for the average PC who does not run into problems, running NOTs is fast and the amount of mass blown can be quite startling.
In example: Say you had a wall behind you but did not know it. That mass you felt (the wall) you thought was part of your body – or, you thought it was you, so much so, that you didn’t even know it was there.
Now, after getting rid of other general bric-a-brac, things loosen up. You have more space between these ‘objects’ and where you are.
Now, you can ‘reach’ out or put your feelers out and actually touch this thing. It has mass, it has dimension, and as you touch it, it becomes more solid. It grows and creeps in on you when in heavy restimulation and it can literally feel like you are leaning against a wall.
Running the NOTs commands on this can make you very aware of this item and it can exert great pressure so much so that these things can impinge heavily on a body unbeknownst to the individual in daily life..
With the auditing on NOTs , this object can as-is with much force – for me some would be like the wind of a rushing train or gale force wind moving away from the body. The shift in one’s space can be quite … uhm, disorienting but at the same time, very enlightening.
Hard to explain, but sometimes it’s like you’re on a rocket ship.
Now, with that mass gone, I found in it’s place a wide open cool nothingness. You could reach way the hell out and feel nothing.
It is quite noticeable to experience something that is gone that you didn’t realize was there in the 1st place.
I found that each session I would walk out very different from going in – sometimes controlling the body was very difficult, but fun 🙂
I’ve never seen so many Pre-OT holding & crawling along the walls after session than I did in NOTs.
Fun times 🙂
Btw, the movie idea was great!
Just think – all those unusual or fun times … what stories we could tell !
Dennis, thank you so much – as usual your explanations and descriptions make it pretty real. And I can see now where the fun came into it with trying to control the body and having to crawl along the walls. Actually, that general idea I think we all have reality on.There are similar things where a person needs to reorient some sense perception after having it distorted for a while – or reorganize the anchor points, as is needed with OT V, it seems.
And I see what you mean about it being simple in that most of the time pcs just run the process and don’t need the complications of buttons and repair lists. Would you in fact consider that the process could be run solo and without a meter, except for when a review is needed? (This subject could use its own thread, as 2ndxmr suggested, one where all of us, especially the solo auditors, could do a thought experiment on the subject and come up with ideas for new, simplified, easy to “access” tech for this entities area of case – which, as you were saying, doesn’t just affect people at higher levels.)
Yes, it is run solo on OT VII
Even then an auditor can pull out a repair list if needed – no need for an outside auditor.
I want to get back solo-ing myself. I need to get a meter, do a run thru the e-meter drills, drill the process, etc and start.
I’d also like to do that Ethics Repair list
As for the movie, I personally think it would be a blockbuster! Too bad Paul Haggis didn’t have the wins he should have. (I got that he was lukewarm at best about his auditing, which I believe included up through OT V.) If it had been otherwise, we could have gotten him to do the screenplay!
But hey… maybe Jason Beghe will play YOU! This movie would be quite illuminating, very enlightening across so many levels of the culture – and I’m sure JB has that kind of humanitarian heart. You can just tell. (And if he needs a little coaxing, Geir is our man ;).)
Seriously, just imagine the story line. It starts out with the original, idealistic Scientology (manifested by what was once an electrifying atmosphere in orgs and missions) which gradually (or not so gradually) changes into a full-fledged cult. Along the way there could be a wholevariety of scenes about the fascinating transformations of students and pcs. With lots of funny scenes too, like crawling along walls in gales of laughter, and other “unusual” ones as you so mildly put it.
Yes, indeed, this movie would have everything – from humor to pathos. It would be based mainly on your personal story (perfect perspective to tell the overall story from), but it could include other significant sides to the general history – like life in the SO (btw, who should we get to play your son?). And of course – the atrocities at Int.
Did you read Jim Logan’s article a couple days ago on Marty’s blog? Very moving. I’ve already imagined his poignant little memoir being played out near the end of the movie, culminating in our true-blue Scientologist (Jim) walking away from Scn International headquarters completely at peace, the forces of good having won over the epitome of bad – DM. (See that? We’re back on thread topic, hahahaha :D)
And at the very end, we see a few scenes of the current life of our main character (you), at peace with the world and still philosophizing about anything and everything with his now Independent Scn friends. But at the same time he is forever grateful for the major influence in his life – influence for the good – Scientology. (Are you sold? 🙂 )
I’m amazed you came up with this in the short time you did.
My life really has been interesting with my share of ups & downs although I know there are others who would have even more interesting stories to tell – Phil Spickler for one.
He is a gem.
My story is so much like many others – young, restless, living on the edge and looking for that something … and 4 decades later …
… hopes & dreams squashed pretty hard, but we are still here looking … now, *that’s* amazing.
Well, maybe there are more spectacular stories but I’m thinking you represent a sort of “mean” between public and org-level staff. The sub-plots could include someone like Phil Spickler (I’’ve heard the name but don’t know the story). Jim Logan’s story would be interspersed all through, portraying the gist of the SO from lower levels (where he no doubt started) to what all happened to him at Int, including Annie Broker’s part in it all too (and representing another key facet of the history) – and then the final scene with Jim, like I described. Oh, and don’t forget, you and the boys in Calgary is where it all begins. 😉
If nothing else, it was fun imagining such a movie on a Sunday afternoon. Maybe when the sh..t hits the fan in a big public way, someone will steal this great movie idea. 😀
Oh my gosh …
Here is a start to the Phil Spickler videos … may you cruise to new heights and never be the same.
Oh, okay, that’s where I know the name – I think I watched this video when Marty posted it a while back, but I’ll check it out again on your high recommendation.
Also, I wanted to say that I did know that solo NOTs audits the same kind of thing as OT V audited NOTs, but what I was wondering about was why OT V couldn’t be audited solo as well.
Re: Nots solo,
I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t be audited solo but I’m not tech expert nor a C/S.
I know it runs pretty fast at 1st … maybe an indoctrination (reading the materials) and a few solo sessions with an experienced auditor present in the auditing room with you may help.
I think Excaliber is run that way at 1st til you get the hang of it.
I went thru OT V twice … I could have done the second time solo, but I wasn’t calling the shots back then 😉
Well, honey, you’re calling the shots now! 😀
I hope you get onto it – and that Ethics Repair List too that you want to do, I’m sure gets incredible results. What you said about “hopes & dreams squashed pretty hard” I assumed didn’t mean the 1st dynamic so much as the 3rd and 4th. In any case, I know the feeling, but we still have plenty of doors wide open to us, in or around or out of Scientology – we are so fortunate to have our pick and be calling the shots ;).
You know Marildi,
I was just thinking …
I was noticing that when I answer your questions and start ratting off a past viewpoint I had, I am actually living the moment and thinking the thoughts I had at that time.
Then, I look over what I have written and find my viewpoint had changed – I didn’t know it until I wrote it.
I’ve been noticing that I have momentary changes in my viewpoint while I write also … I start, I write a thought and then ‘Poof’ I change my viewpoint.
I’ve been trying to figure out what’s going on … it’s kinda fun but at the same time it’s WTF???
I’m at the point where I feel very certain although can easily change my viewpoint in the next split second … very weird phenomena. I get asked a question, I answer and then wonder ‘Is that REALLY the way it is or the way I think??
Strange … very strange.
I am probing and questioning so much within my universe the last few months – it has loosened up one helluva lot.
Maybe havingness a bit low 🙂
Speaking of havingness … I remember going on a mission to the Calgary Mission in Canada a couple times in ’75/’76.
We walked in to a dark dingy reception area and there was one little lamp on with a bent over shade. The ED was sitting on a chair next to it with her head buried in the crook of her arm crying her eyes out – she looked up as we walked in – her face was red and puffed like … well, puffed BIG and mascara running down her face.
And that was the starting point of our mission – Yikes.
We would walk over the the Husky Tower – a big concrete space needle sort of building and just wrap our arms around it and hug the thing – we were a little buzzed out with the scene – great havingness that was. Then we’d race up to Banff in the mountains for lunch and a little R & R 🙂
Ha ha! Get this, Dennis – I have even written up a whole comment and then realized I’d changed my viewpoint and had to start all over again 😀
But this is what’s so great about writing down thoughts and viewpoints and knowing that they’ll be read, and intending that they be duplicated. Putting it in writing seems to be one of the best (maybe the best) way to sort things out. 2-terminal universe?
Anyway, you’ve said some interesting things and I may not get a reply (that I haven’t changed my mind about ;)) back to you tonight, but will do so tomorrow. Just had to tell you that much for now. 🙂
Thanks for the quick response 🙂
So true ! … I’ve written responses and then get to the end and delete them. I have also read a quick post or 2 as I’m leaving work. Something in the post piques my interest or riles me up and I race home, dash to the computer, re-read the post (ready to come out guns a’blazing) and I forget what the hell I was going to say.
It seemed all so important at the time 🙂 Hahhahah
Or, my viewpoint has switched and I sit back wondering ‘Sheesh, what the hell do I *really* know?’.
The only thing better than posting on blogs like this is to talk face to face with others – great fun!!
And yes, it seems writing it down, short of communicating it directly to someone, does go a long way in as-ising or re-aligning past considerations.
Hey, did you get a chance to listen to Part 1 of that Justice lecture that I posted above – the YouTube video?
The 1st lecture is about 24 minutes and goes into the viewpoint of ‘greatest good for greatest number’ – he’s a great speaker and some very funny comments.
After listening to it, I started looking at my own decisions and how I actually do decide and on what basis … very eye-opening and a new dimension to consider.
Okay … I’ll wait by the keyboard until you wake up 🙂 Hahahahaha
… and just to add a bit more to the Calgary Mission mission …
As the ED looked up with her puffed tear-stained face, she let out a blubbering “Oh, Thank God you’re here!” and burst into another sobbing wail.
Here we were, 3 rag-tag naive 20 year-olds arriving to re-establish a Mission … trained as we were, we were not prepared for what we saw and had to pick our jaws off the floor – what a mess!
Yes, the Messiah’s had arrived 🙂 Hahahahaha
Great stories and experiences from years ago …
I’ve got it, Dennis – it’s a movie! 🙂
Yes, that’s right, I’m imagining your posts expanded into a movie. You just need to collect them all up and fill in any and all gaps to the Scn history you lived through – including all the great anecdotes. And then all you need is a screenwriter. (I’m only half kidding, you know ;))
Seriously, it couldn’t help but be a captivating movie – from the standpoint of a young man’s (boy’s?) reach for spiritual freedom (or however you would personally term that) through the explicit miracles (on all flows) of early Scn – and then the cult aspects coming into the picture and increasing to where the CoS is today. Include, of course, the personal friendships you made and how you met your wife. Something for everybody!
I can picture the opening scene – you and the other 20-year-olds walking into that Calgary Mission. The audience slowly pieces things together and learns what’s going on and what it all has to do with Scn. Then we meet the older Dennis, who narrates, taking us back to how it all started and led up to that mission in Calgary – and well beyond (the longer part of story) – all the way up to your life in present time. (Who do you want to play you, if George Clooney can’t do it? :))
p.s. I’ll get to your other comments later. Don’t wait by the keyboard. Ha ha ha! 😀
That’s a really thought provoking series. Thanks for posting that Dennis!
What I found really interesting about it was the idea of utility being “general welfare” as viewed from the degree of “happiness,” maximal pleasure and minimal pain. With that being the definition of “good,” the results are not necessarily conducive to human rights. i.e. greatest good for the greatest number results in the majority “happiness” being paramount, with the fat man being thrown under the trolley.
In any case, there is an entire site with this series of videos, and it is a very big series indeed!
Yes, the usage of utility or cost/benefit analysis really widened my understanding of why corporations, or groups for that matter, make certain decisions. I did know this but the way he explains it in real terms makes it so much clearer.
Plus, he has such a great way of giving examples and situations with some great humour mixed in.
I also like the Q&A parts where he poses questions to the students.
This also gives excellent examples of the ‘greatest good for greatest number’ concept and the pitfalls associated with a rigid adherence to this type of think without taking other factors into account.
A great series …
not seen before. Here or elsewhere. WoW 🙂 .
But before I post something brand new – I just have to post something that hit me like lightning today…
” the majority “happiness” being paramount “, interesting.
Zen has taught that even the most ignorant of beings are TRYING to do good in their own way. For SOME REASON at a deep level, DM thinks what he is doing is going to help his world.
Even with the hole, the Debbie Cook blow up, the Squirrel Busters and everything HE THINKS PUTTING HIMSELF FIRST AT ANY COST WILL MAKE THINGS BETTER.
And to MANY that is unthinkable. We can’t perceive such a brutal mindset.
But then … many of us didn’t grow up in Scientology.
Hey Kata, it would be great to see a post on Zen from you in this blog.
Rafael you are kind and I enjoy your posts.
But I don’t think that my surly name should be associated with Geir’s coolness.
I’ve been labeled “OSA.”
True or False, an actual post from me would sully this wonderful blog so I’ll just stick to comments unless Geir wants me to post something.
But here is the heart of it for me:
Enlightenment is something you do.
It’s something we all can have right now as full as we can experience it right now.
Dogen Zenji taught that “Zazen is enlightenment.” That there is no “Final Attainment.” or “Ultimate Freedom” other than what you can create RIGHT NOW in your practice. I agree with this definition. For me, it’s a decision.
Here’s a demonstration.
Just sit down.
Now for zero to one second, be a Buddha completely enlightened and completely free of all suffering.
Not easy. You have to create a CRACK to release this. But any crack is … infinite since space/time is part of the universe.
Do it several times and expand it out to longer periods like 3 to 30 seconds.
Once you got that …
For three seconds, be a Buddha completely enlightened and radiating that enlightenment so much that ALL suffering has stopped for ALL beings.
Harder one that …
Find a CRACK where you can do it. Feel what it is like.
There. That’s it.
Now, JUST SIT. Open the crack and keep it open as long as you can. Each time you blunder go back and JUST SIT IN THE CRACK.
As they say, “SIt like your hair is on fire.”
Or the simpler version (cuz the crack is not stable to maintain) …
“Just sit. Nothing special.”
katageek, thanks, what you propose sounds like OT TR O with buttons to full EP. I have had very good wins on this and can understand what you mean. Done with preliminar clay table processing is better.
I think that TRs when done “Hard” do create powerful experiences. Probably more mind blowing experiences than zazen, but I really don’t know.
I really am NO EXPERT when it comes to the tech. But for me, its kind of like comparing baking a potato in a microwave or in a convection oven.
MICROWAVE: You hear steam escaping, pops and it’s all over FAST! BANG!
CONVECTION OVEN: You feel the room warm up from the oven, the baked potato is not rushed but slowly bakes.
I think TRs create more “WOW” than Zazen. Zazen is … well … boring and your teacher tends to downplay experiences. And for me, I prefer boring.
My zen teacher told me I should take a course after I explained to her about my two year involvement with the Scientology community who have left the church. I might someday take HQS or the com course and watch how my mind processes the tech.
But that’s a ways away for me. I know that is not right for quite a while.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you only do TRs when on course right?
I’m surprised that Scientology doesn’t do TRs more like Zazen. You never see “TR” sessions or “Sits” in Scientology like you have in Zen. I never hear people “go to the church to practice TRs for the sake of practice.”
Kg, the difference is that in TRs you are directly confronting another person – believe me, that is quite a different experience from meditation (which has its own great benefits, of course). In TRs with another person, there’s none of the usual social props of making conversation, or looking away briefly, mannerisms, etc. On TR 0 you simply look at the other person straight on, and at the same time that person is looking at you. And you continue until you are able to confront another person comfortably, just three feet across from each other. Interesting things can occur! Not uncommonly, people leave their bodies, btw 😉
You might also find that some introductory auditing could turn out to be something you would not have expected in a million years :). Obviously, for any Scn service you ever do be sure you choose an Independent who is well trained and well thought of.
I’m sure there is a big difference when you add a person. I have watched demos of TRs and have read a lot about the process.
Never been able to find the Tibetan practice it supposedly is based on though.
Powerful experiences are nice and add meaning, but experiences are not skills, abilities or enlightenment.
I could have some auditing and have mind-blowing experiences that may touch me deeply.
But for me, that’s a big “so what?”
Powerful experiences are not skills, abilities or enlightenment.
I guess deep down I’m a fuddy-duddy!
OMG, didn’t I say – it’s all about skills! TRs drill one’s skills in confronting and communicating. That’s the whole idea. Skills that can be applied in every aspect of life, from the most personal on out. I don’t call that fuddy duddy at all – just smart.
Hey, I was also thinking about what you mentioned about public going into the church just to do TRs. I haven’t ever seen that done but I know that auditors do TRs first thing in the morning before taking their pc’s into session. For one thing, it gets them into PT (otherwise known as the here and now). Obviously, it does the same for anybody, not just auditors.
If this were done, it might even make the church the place to be – to drill TRs, and then maybe sit around and talk to other Scientologists, the way it was in the early days. They could even discuss Scientology! Like they used to, and like we find so beneficial on the blogs.
All this would make the church a sort of haven where you could drop in any time, or just drop off your shopping bags if you wanted to. That was the example LRH gave to describe the atmosphere of a friendly org – a far cry from what it is today.
I think it would be very, very wise of practitioners to have a sort of open house for anyone who wanted to come and just do TRs, with the only requirement being that they had done a TRs course. Now, that would be the perfect Scn religious practice, definitely church-like. On top of it, it would keep the “flows” moving, which happens to be a particular mystical-seeming Scn principle known to miraculously pull in “business”.
Great idea, KG :).
Marildi, I heard the Awesome Tory Christman say how the comm course helped people who were shy to just truly “be” in another person’s presence.
I also think that having someone look at you honestly without judgement and with full acceptance is perhaps the best acknowledgement a person can experience.
But I also see what Vinaire is saying. TR0 is so effective BECAUSE the benefits are tied to a control structure and then right as the skill is acquired, it doesn’t get practiced daily unless you are an auditor.
I think the gradient could be turned WAY down and the consistency and frequency of the practice turned WAY up. And Hard “TRs” should be delayed for a long time.
I think that practicing it the way Vinaire describes is beneficial.
Think of this M.
What a lovely practice for the world if anytime you felt alone or rejected there was a place you could find kind eyes to hold and behold you?
Just to be seen AND accepted. No strings attached.
What if there was the “TR0” bell like the Zazen bell?
What if the “flunk/start” mechanic was turned down a few notches? Or if you could go in for a quick 15 minutes of TRs at lunch?
Then you would have these two models.
SOTO ZAZEN: “Just sit. Nothing special.”
TR0: “Just sit and Be with a person. Nothing special.”
And we both know what “Nothing special” means right?
Again, what has always bothered me are not the control structures in Scientology but the good ideas in Scientology that got shorted.
Do you or anyone here actually know of a place where the alleged Tibetan reference to this is? From what I can see, that was made up. Or perhaps burned up in the fifties.
I find that my perception of TR0 has always been different from most other scientologists because of my eastern background. In Scientology, the whole purpose of TRs is to train a person to audit. So, the purpose of TR0, in Scientology, is to make a person confront another person without reacting. TR0 encourages a person to develop a personality that is pleasant but firm and totally under its own control. It is like assuming the role of an auditor and be totally absorbed in it. It is what good actors do.
I didn’t know it, but I did TR0 totally differently. I approached it the way Buddha taught Vipassana meditation. I didn’t resist and simply experienced fully whatever came up during straight TR0 and TR0 bullbait. I have documented this approach in KHTK 1: INTRODUCTION TO LOOKING. Basically, I laid myself fully open to myself. It was like cleaning any behavior patterns that I may have unwittingly assumed in the past. It was opposite from developing any auditor persona.
I thought that I was doing what I was supposed to do on TR0. I found it to be very therapeutic. But, what I was doing was later termed as a “squirrel” practice by official Scientology. “Squirrel” is a derogatory term used in Scientology for those who alter standard Scientology practice.
Today, I do not subscribe to Dianetics and Scientology. I find their approach in TR0 as part of a subtle conditioning. I prefer the approach I naturally took, which actually was taught by Buddha 2600 years ago.
I find that Scientology approach actually leads to conditioning, Whereas, the eastern approach of “looking at what is there and spotting inconsistencies,” leads to mental and spiritual liberation.
It’s a shame such ideas are squirrel and go against KSW.
The phrase that comes to mind about a TR0 practice that would be beneficial (and NOT a control mechanic) is
“No strings attached.”
And from what I can see there is a lot of “String Theory” designed into the tech via KSW and not the kind that holds the universe together.
But I honestly think if TR0 was used as Vinaire describes, much auditing would be pointless. Face time is POWERFUL force for acceptance and well being. One Scientologist I was encouraging to look for himself at some things said a phrase to me.
“Buddha went clear on TR0.”
Hmm… makes you wonder why it would be squirrel to implement such an idea?
Who do you think would me more clear M? A person who did OT VIII circa 1978 or a person who spent 20 minutes to two hours a day with a different person every day for 20 years?
Well, I’m biased. I’m a Dogen Zenji fanboy.
For me, Zazen is enlightenment. The rest is just details.
Vinaire: ” In Scientology, the whole purpose of TRs is to train a person to audit. ”
This is only ONE purpose, and definitely not the main one.
Vinaire: ” TR0 encourages a person to develop a personality that is pleasant but firm and totally under its own control. ”
This is incorrect. TRs have absolutely nothing to do with developing a personality.
Vinaire: ” I didn’t know it, but I did TR0 totally differently. I approached it the way Buddha taught Vipassana meditation.”
Then you weren’t doing TR0. Call it what you want, but it was not TR0
Vinaire: ” I find their approach in TR0 as part of a subtle conditioning. ”
The only conditioning that occurred was what you put there yourself.
TRs are Natural, not some robotic exercise like you portray
Before one can spot so-called inconsistencies, one must be able to be there & confront
katageek, you say ” I think that TRs when done “Hard” do create powerful experiences. Probably more mind blowing experiences than zazen, but I really don’t know.” You need to know that scientology is bases on certain life energy fundamentals and exercises like those found in the TRs, when followed properly, lead the person to improvements in his condition. In the TRs case, the familiarity with the component parts of the communication cycle as related with persons is one of those fundamentals. TRs should be free for all denominational faiths. Done as an income $ source for the CoS is giving a bad name to it. Of course you can do these exercises badly and make them an hipnotic practice of control, but this is born out of ignorance.
Thanks Mr. church Captain, you did it again:
Rafael, i agree with you but I would like to add one piece of heresy that I really wish would gain wide acceptance in the Scientology community.
There are people who love their lives more because of Scientology. And there is a reason why many people are so strong in their commitment to it.
The testimonies are countless and they are heart felt. When it comes to meaning and purpose, the tech delivers meaning to many people in spades in a way that is unique to religion (especially pre-1964).
And to many, it is a horrible experience even in the early days. You can’t please everyone!
But … there is secret sauce in the tech my friend.
Now to the Heresy. Please read it more than once. Please be the first Scientologist to really “get” it.
WOULDN’T IT BE GREAT IF PEOPLE COULD GET THE FULL 1978 TECH WITH A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE CONTROL MECHANICS WITHIN?
You don’t change a thing. You just show them where the loyalty is created by LRH’s intention and how he did it.
Comm Course? Sure. Afterward, show the techniques that made their minds go “OH MY FUCKING GOD” and why.
kata : ” WOULDN’T IT BE GREAT IF PEOPLE COULD GET THE FULL 1978 TECH WITH A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE CONTROL MECHANICS WITHIN? ”
Ya know Bunkai,
This is the same crap idea that you have pushed on other blogs too.
No matter how much you repeat it, it doesn’t make it true.
When reading or using the tech, it is ENTIRELY up to the READER to get whatever he gets from it.
You can take it apart, try it out, or dispense with it.
It is SOLELY up to you.
And the interpretation is SOLELY up to you.
The only reason you think that there is hidden meaning in whatever you read is what you yourself put there.
I am surprised that you feel if you read something you all of a sudden would be ‘controlled’.
That’s not self-determinism,; it is assigning Cause to something else.
Good point, Dennis.
Yup. I’m saying the same thing Dennis.
“The only reason you think that there is hidden meaning in whatever you read is what you yourself put there.”
There is that magical word again … “only” powerful word that …
Kind of like how the ONLY reason you can’t learn something is a misunderstood word.
What IS that really Dennis?
It’s a word that is … um … uncompromising … um …
Letting yourself feel controlled by words on paper. Why?
“I am surprised that you feel if you read something WITH A CS MAKING YOU CLEAR EVERY WORD TO AN END PHENOM THAT MAKES YOU AGREE WITH A STATEMENT OR COG you all of a sudden feel ‘controlled’.
Tao Te Ching – Lao Tzu – chapter 20
“Give up learning, and put an end to your troubles.
Is there a difference between yes and no?
Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsence!”
Instead I suggest “Zombies Run.” I’ve lost five more pounds on my vegan butt with this ARG.
Katageek – as regards eyes open practices in Buddhism, there are these two essays that touch on the subject and describe what the Tibetan Buddhists do:
As well, the Tibetan’s practice live debate:
Of course, they have their own methods, but it is not true that all meditation is done with eyes closed, and at least in the Tibetan school on non-interactive meditation or concentration practices they do prefer to keep their eyes half open, somewhat averted, sometimes looking at the ground, sometimes ahead. It is clear from studying many of these articles that they fully intend to develop equanimity, a state that serves during life activities and while interacting with others — aware, free of judgment and poised.
In Bringing Buddhism Down to Earth, Berzin says,
“The standard way of starting any Buddhist teaching is to establish or set our motivation.”
I believe that one does not have to establish or set one’s motivation. The motivation is already there otherwise one would not be doing what one is doing. In my opinion, the study of any Buddhist teaching should be done by comparing it to one’s experience and then spotting inconsistencies in what now appears in the mind.
“The standard way of starting any Buddhist TEACHING is to establish or set our motivation.”
He does not say meditation, mindfulness, or any word suggesting the inner-work done by an individual. The key word there is TEACHING.
He is talking about the TEACHING and the motivation for teaching, both the motivation of the teacher and of the student. And it does matter.
The full quote is: “Let me just give you a thought – like a sampler from a box of chocolates, to give you a sense of what I have in mind. For instance, the standard way of starting any Buddhist teaching is to establish or set our motivation. Actually, that’s not very easy to do. I don’t find it so easy to do, because we have to make a careful balance between just saying words in our heads and actually feeling something in our hearts and bodies.”
I interpret “teaching” in this context to mean “doctrine or precept.”
The teacher is, of course, Buddha, who is in the background. Buddha’s motivation was to remove suffering through enlightenment.
So, the present time motivation concerned is that of the student, and that motivation is evident from the fact that the student is approaching Buddhist teachings. One doesn’t need to get interiorized into figuring out that motivation.
The next step would simply be to study the teaching non-judgmentally, look at what the teaching evokes in one’s mind, and start resolving the inconsistencies, which now become visible.
This is a very simply approach, inspired by KHTK. The resolution of inconsistencies would be felt in heart and bodies.
Forgive me for saying so, but I really don’t think you have expert knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism sufficient to pass judgment as you have done here. Of course, you are welcome to take your own approach on all of this, but you overstep when you begin to judge the experience and teachings of others and then assert that your personal approach is the “correct” approach, free of taint. I would give you greater latitude if you had studied and PRACTICED Tibetan Buddhism, but the fact is that you have really only read the materials and based on that very superficial review made evaluations of another’s practices and come to conclusions that border on dismissive, i.e. asserting that there is no value or importance for a teaching and inferring that it is somehow deficient.
One learns from discussing knowledge, and not from validating, invalidating or discussing “self” (meaning personality).
Some comments on Bringing Buddhism Down to Earth:
“… we have to make a careful balance between just saying words in our heads and actually feeling something in our hearts and bodies.”
This is psychology and not Buddhism. Berzin decries against preconceptions in the very next paragraph, but this talk about “careful balance” is just one such preconception. It is an attempt to be in control.
We always hear in the teachings that we need to try to relate to others as if they were our mother: “Recognize everyone as your mother.”
This statement about “mother” is special to the Indian culture where “mother” has the significance of nurturer, who would sacrifice herself for the sake of her child at the drop of a hat. Somebody from a Western culture will have difficulty relating to it.
Different cultural factors does make it difficult to understand the Buddhist teachings. I am glad to see Berzian pointing that out.
Such a peculiar bias toward “westerners.” It is inconsistent to lecture toward a non-judgmental attitude and then lump western people and the western culture that you’ve embraced and lived in for 40+ years, into a group of beings who are so unaware that they cannot recognize the significance of their mothers.
I am so curious why you do this.
Chris, you ought to be commenting on what I said, instead of trying to be judgmental about me.
If you disagree with what I said then please state what is incorrect about it.
In Buddhism, mindfulness is practiced 24/7 regardless of whether eyes are opened or closed.
Chris Thompson says:
2012-03-25 at 04:43
Such a peculiar bias toward “westerners.” It is inconsistent to lecture toward a non-judgmental attitude and then lump western people and the western culture that you’ve embraced and lived in for 40+ years, into a group of beings who are so unaware that they cannot recognize the significance of their mothers.
I am so curious why you do this.
I thought the comment odd too.
After thinking about it, I do realize we are in the ‘New Wold’ here and have thousands of years to catch up to the East.
As a matter of fact, I just got my wife to come down out of the trees last week.
She is now learning to suckle her young and is getting some sense of this ‘mother’ concept.
Now, if I can just get her up off all fours – it’s so embarrassing when we go shopping.
OMG Dennis!! LOL!!! 🙂
Chris, Dennis, and Maria Let me quote Berzian,
“We always hear in the teachings that we need to try to relate to others as if they were our mother: “Recognize everyone as your mother.” Many people, however, have difficulties in their relationship with their mothers, and so we can substitute for that idea or image our closest friend. This is because the point is not “mother”; the point is anybody with whom we have some sort of strong and positive emotional bond.”
Please read the article for better understanding.
Soderqvist1: katageek, how do you know that he want to make things better?
I claim that he doesn’t care! How do I know that? Because I reading Martha
Stouts book; “The Sociopath next Door” Recommended by Marty Rathbun, and there is a home site devote to her book and another book; “Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us” by Robert Hare. And on that home site there is a comment section with a diagnosed sociopath called “Eric” and he is answering questions about problems people have with sociopaths, and I have posted a summations with a link to said home site of his answers so it will not end up as TLDR!
Great comment Peter. The links were quite clear about the point you are making. I think we are both right but with different uses of the word “better.”
A sociopath CERTAINLY doesn’t care. Agreed!
By “better” I don’t mean AN INTENT OR CHOICE FOR ACTUAL IMPROVEMENT OR CARING, but rather an intuitive or even unconscious act for betterment.
A sociopath, based on my limited training on the subject, CAN’T FEEL EMPATHY.
And if you can’t feel empathy, you really can’t feel what it is like to be human.
I think some like Eric are trying to make their own world better by being evil because EVIL MAKES THEM FEEL SOMETHING.
I remember a scene where Heath Ledger playing the Joker is yelling at Batman to run over him on his motorcycle. Why? He just wanted to FEEL SOMETHING.
One last thing ….
It’s not like “Oh poor me, I want to feel something.”
Sociopaths don’t think or feel like that.
katageek, I don’t think the focus should be on showing something in the techniques of auditing leading to loyalty to LRH or the CoS. Even LRH stated in the formation of the CST that scientology and the church of scientology are not necesarily co-terminal, and this is the concept given in the CST simbol. So for me, is more a matter of correcting continually, daily and in each session the intention to relly help the person. And if administrative policy bugs this, to the hell it goes.
Thank you Rafael. I agree with you. It doesn’t lead one to loyalty to LRH or CoS.
The viewpoint that I humbly submit. Really I’m NOT trying to be a dick here…
CUE HECKLER: “But you do it so well!”
.. but …
It leads one to a loyalty to Scientology regardless of the alignment of the practitioner who delivers it.
This is my viewpoint. It’s not a glib viewpoint (some strongly disagree here), and it’s grounded in docs that I have blathered about incessantly.
Let’s use the scalpel analogy. You can use a scalpel to heal someone or kill someone. It all depends on the skill of the user, the intention of the user and the state of the patient.
Just like Scientology.
Question: “What is it IN THE SCALPEL that makes it cut and why on earth would doctors be so set on ignoring it or talking about it or explaining to patients the physics of a cutting blade?”
Anyway, for your reflection Rafael.
Peace to you.
Oh, and for the record I must volunteer this.
When I go on a Zen retreat what do I find?
Cult dynamics applied toward a good end.
But my teacher can laugh about them.
Yikes! That sucked. Let’s try again.
Thank you Rafael. I agree with you. It doesn’t lead one to loyalty to LRH or CoS.
The viewpoint that I humbly submit (really I’m NOT trying to be a dick here)
CUE HECKLER: “But you do it so well!”
.. is …
That it leads one to a loyalty to Scientology regardless of the alignment of the practitioner who delivers it.
This is my viewpoint. It’s not a glib viewpoint (some strongly disagree here), and it’s grounded in docs that I have blathered about incessantly.
Let’s use the scalpel analogy. You can use a scalpel to heal someone or kill someone. It all depends on the skill of the user, the intention of the user and the state of the patient.
Just like Scientology.
Question: “What is it IN THE SCALPEL that makes it cut and why on earth would doctors be so set on ignoring it or not talking about it, or not explaining to patients about the physics of a cutting blade?”
katageek, This is what this blog is about, but scientology is not so simple as an scalpel to be explained in one blog post. It is needed to take each part at a time and the OP at hand is understanding Davide Miscavige. I hope to see your comments in the future topics.
Katageek, the only reason why it leads one to a loyalty to Scientology regardless of the alignment of the practitioner who delivers it is because it is called Scientology. If we were to call it ooga booga, then we’d likely find a loyalty to ooga booga. I’ve given people auditing without identifying it as Scientology. They thanked me for helping them out. They did not become slavishly loyal to me!
Individual techniques from Scientology don’t create loyalty to Scientology but create interest in the subject. Real help can come from such techniques. But then when they want to know more…
And they go on the com course …
COACH: “Flunk, you laughed. Start!…”
The Key Cult Dynamics In the Lower Bridge ARE:
“Word Clearing” (Helps people create ways to accept statements that normally the wouldn’t.)
“TRs” (Induces trance states and obedience to commands as a normal way of being)
“Repetitive Acts With Commands” Like, Book and Bottle, Control and Being Controlled.
These acts make obedience NOT seem like obedience and actually is a wonderful thing. And even though you trade off who bosses who around, the act of bossing someone around IS STILL OBEDIENCE.
AND IT FEELS WONDERFUL AND DELIVERS MEANING IN SPADES.
For someone who, as I understand it, has not done a stitch of Scientology, you seem to take the usual leaps that most in your position take.
You are mis-informed; and even if you had started the Bridge at some point it would be apparent that you have some glaring misconceptions and didn’t understand the material you read in the first place.
For someone who, as I understand it, has not done a stitch of Scientology, you seem to take the usual leaps that most in your position take.
((EVAL – NO REAL DATA))
You are mis-informed; and even if you had started the Bridge at some point it would be apparent that you have some glaring misconceptions and didn’t understand the material you read in the first place.
((EVAL – NO REAL DATA))
There, I’m bored. Now you should move up a little right?
Eval? Not if it’s a fact 😉
Btw, you did mention it many moons ago in one of your rants on Scn Forum
While you speak intelligently on some subjects, when it comes to Scientology, it is obvious that your posts on the tech fall far short of anyone who has actually done something.
I find that Dennis cannot discuss the subject. He simply attacks the person who brings up a point as “unqualified.”
There are certain posts on this and other blogs, or subject matter that I know nothing about.
In those cases, I would class myself as ‘unqualified’.
Dennis, Bunkai is making some points. You should respond to those points instead of invalidating him.
The subject of this post is Understanding Miscavide and this is a DISCUSSION forum.
Your slagging of someone else’s beliefs is better suited for ESMB or some of the threads on Scn Forum.
How do you not know if I’m the reincarnation of John O’Brien? The husband of Helen O’Brien? He committed suicide after he and Helen left. He died …
right before … I … was … born!
Dennis, I’m NOT John O’Brian. It’s a joke I’ve been holding onto for just the right moment. I tried to find Scientologists who died before I was born and … then … just … wait …
You were mean, I was snarky. Let’s call it a draw.
Going back to “Zombies Run!” now. New episodes. You guys should really try this. The writing is brilliant B-Movie Awesome.
Hi Dennis –
I’ve done way more than a stitch of Scientology, and what KataGeek has written about the cult dynamics of the lower Bridge in Scientology is spot-on.
Spot-on, I say.
As a specific example for you:
Both you and I have read, drilled and applied what Hubbard wrote about CONTROL on the Objectives and the CCHs, and seen what he said about people who are UNWILLING TO BE CONTROLLED. They’re aberrated, right?
Do you see what he did there in order to get in control of you and your mind?
You will also then remember from your studies that there is Good Control and Bad Control.
There is a difference which I’m sure you remember.
Also, the optimum would be to be able to Control or BE Controlled with no adverse reactions to either – similar to any dichotomy.
Has there been ‘Bad Control’ ? Yes a lot of it. But please don’t assume that your boss at work telling you to be in at 8:00 am to be bad.
It’s all in the intention and the ability of the individual to experience both.
So when someone like Nancy Many was controlled by LRH to help destroy Paulette Cooper because Paulette had written a book critical of Scientology – was that good control or bad control?
I think most are tired of re-hashing the same old crap.
This happened years ago – time to get on with the show.
You know the tech in this area as well as I.
Whether you agree with any/all or none of the concepts is totally up to you.
Tiredness is a sign that the process is beginning to bite.
Must continue the session until the EP is achieved.
Do you believe that LRH used no mind control techniques on the lower Bridge?
I would agree with Katageek (Bunkai) and Alonzo. By having Buddhism as a datum of comparable magnitude, the mind control aspects of Scientology become viaible. This happens in Scientology starting from TRs. TRs are very similar to Vipassana or KHTK, but there is just that little bit of curve to bring about mental conditioning.
Yes, there is the “wow” factor, and hidden in that “wow” factor is an addiction and the mind control aspect.
Compare TR0 to Vipassana, or KHTK,, and observe the difference.
The more I study and practice Buddhism, the more I see the seemingly similar practices in Scientology as created mimicries. You have the Buddhist principle or practice here, and then you have the Scientology mimicry of it over there.
TR0 is NOT Vipissana, it only mimics it. It looks like Vipissana,but when you practice Vipissana as it is written, and then you practice TR 0 as it is written, you see they are VERY different things. And then when you look at what Vipissana in connected to in the rest of Buddhism, and you look at what TR0 is connected to in the rest of Scientology, you see TR0 as a counterfeit, placed there to deceive you, and take you off a genuine path, and set you on a path of deception.
When you look at what Hubbard wrote about himself in “Hymn of Asia” and you really understand what Buddhism is trying to achieve, and what Hubbard was trying to achieve with Scientology, Hubbard clearly is exposed as a deceptive demon.
It’s too bad I wasted so much time on a deception.
Lesson Learned: When you are studying Scientology you are NOT studying Buddhism.
The principles, practices and goals of Scientology and the principles, practices and goals of Buddhism are completely different. Hubbard just tried to make you think they were the same in order to deceive you.
Hubbard basically squirrelled Buddhism with the purpose of smashing his name into History.
How much more OT (full of self) can one get!
Vinaire basically squirrelled Buddhism with the purpose of smashing his name into History.
How much more OT (full of self) can one get!
Copying like a monkey!
Well there you go, the “experts” have spoken.
As far as I am concerned, this discussion has devolved to pronouncements that require an ENORMOUS grain of salt. I have noticed that there are those who jump into these discussion, TOTALLY ignoring the ongoing discussion to vent away on specific AGENDAS which are repeated OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again and again and again and again. Any other information or ideas are IGNORED or slammed or dismissed, including the topic of the discussion and the effort is to jump in and push, once again, the AGENDA.
Jeez Maria –
It’s just a discussion on a blog. You make it sound like a school board meeting or something.
Soderqvist1: “that scientology and the church of scientology are not necessarily co-terminal”?
On this home site owned by OSA; L. Ron. Hubbard claims that in HCOPL 14 June 65, that Scientology doesn’t work without central organization!
Some months later he Fair Gamed independent Scientologists called Amprinistics and he instigated his congregation to harass them!
Robert Vaughn Young testified in court 1994 that the Amprinistics is still fair gamed!
Oh, and to be honest some Zen Sesshins ALSO use cult techniques. Many of these are part of many spiritual practices.
Zen Retreat Rules
“No eye contact”
“No discussing your koan”
“No cell phones”
“Vegetarian Meals With Little Protein”
… but …
They are not as fast paced. Not like “Touch the wall … thank you.”
Sorry I derailed this thread.
Really. I just like discussing the secret ingredients of “secret sauce.”
Katageek’s original point was very much on the topic. He said,
Zen has taught that even the most ignorant of beings are TRYING to do good in their own way. For SOME REASON at a deep level, DM thinks what he is doing is going to help his world.
Katageek then associated DM’s mindset to “growing up in Scientology.” He compared Scientology with Zen to highlight the effects.
That there is no “Final Attainment.” or “Ultimate Freedom” other than what you can create RIGHT NOW in your practice.
He then went onto comparing Zen technique with TR0. I also did a similar comparison of KHTK technique with TR0 as part of this discussion. He made the point that TRs are designed for “wow” effects, while Zen is to be practiced as a way of life. It is the long drawn out process of Zen that brings one closer to enlightenment and not the “wow” effects of Scientology.
The main point being that Scientology didn’t bring enlightement to the top “OT” of Scientology. It rather created a cruel mindset in him. My observation is similar. Scientology makes one more aggressive than humble.
Besides, Scientology creates an addiction for the “wow” factor. A scientologist starts to crave for more. As an “OT” he must create bigger and bigger effects to get that craving for “wow” satisfied.
And that is where DM sits according to Katageek. DM is addicted to the “wow” factor. Thanks to Scientology.
I wasn’t referring to that post but thanks for your explanation/interpretation of his post
I just summarized Katageek’s posts to see what he means.
Here is more on TR0:
“TR0 was very important in facing whatever appeared in the mind in response to the auditing question, and not to get scared. The way out was the way through. However bad the reaction was, it would go away if I simply confronted it. If nothing appeared in the mind in response to the auditing question then I was supposed to report just that. TRs 1 to 4 were there to communicate clearly to the auditor what I was observing in the mind.”
However, there are many scientologists who would disagree with the above description. For them, “confronting” means “to force oneself to be there and not move away.” Here one is resisting the reaction to move away. This gets tricky, because one is then not confronting the reaction.
Actually, “force” or “resistance” has no part in confronting to understand something fully. If one is resisting then one is using force; and that is not confronting.
Per KHTK 21:
“Being there” actually translates as “putting no resistance there.” When you are not putting any resistance then any and all distractions will simply flow through you and discharge. The distractions, such as reactions, will persist only if you resist them.
Confronting doesn’t mean that you resist either. Actually, when you resist then you are not confronting. When you do not resist mentally, nothing can push you around.
Good post, right on about the difference between being there comfortably and forcing oneself to remain there inspite of the desire to be somewhere else.
Comment on DM being OT:
In Chapter 12, the Dianetic CLEAR is explained as follows:
“Dianetics assumes that the mind is inherently free of making errors in its computations. However, like a held-down seven in a calculator, externally enforced data may get lodged into the circuits of the mind. This creates errors in computation. The process of auditing is designed to CLEAR the mind of these “held-down sevens.” Hence the term CLEAR is used for a mind from which all the “held-down sevens” have been removed.”
However, the mind has these “held-down sevens” embedded at various levels described in KHTK 6:
Engrams are cleared only at the top level of perception. Therefore, a Dianetic CLEAR would need further clearing on the remaining seven levels.
Actually, in Dianetics and Scientology, the layer of “self” is never cleared. It is, instead, built up further on the secret OT levels of Scientology.
Self is basically the deepest form of storage.
It is interesting to observe where LRH ended up with his glorification of Self;
DM is following suit. He is not very far from madness himself.
Well said — madness being the operative word.
Chris and Dennis, Let me quote Berzian,
“We always hear in the teachings that we need to try to relate to others as if they were our mother: “Recognize everyone as your mother.” Many people, however, have difficulties in their relationship with their mothers, and so we can substitute for that idea or image our closest friend. This is because the point is not “mother”; the point is anybody with whom we have some sort of strong and positive emotional bond.”
Please read the article for better understanding.
Geir and a few others chide me about my “behavior” on this blog that it would bring discredit to KHTK.
But I wonder what do they know about behavior. Hubbard’s actual madness has not affected the results from Scientology.
The truth is that it is neither KHTK nor Scientology that leads to any results by itself. It is actually the efforts of the individual person that lead to results.
You don’t need faith in KHTK or in Scientology. You only need to know how to use these tools correctly. By that I do not mean “KSW” at all. Use your god-given brains and experiment away.
Use the scientific method and shoot for better discoveries. Nothing is set in stone.
LRH, DM, and dedicated scientologists are likely to disagree with the following.
Diamond Sutra of Buddha
Read this and thought of LRH..
DM was raised in a broken and utterly dysfunctional way. Like a street urchin fighting for morsels, he learned the school of hard knocks as a young boy, and since he surely didn’t attend or benefit from any type of formal education. I knew a DM years ago and I can tell you with certainty that DM didn’t start out to wreck Scientology. Scientology wrecked him by systematically infusing him with weird and wrong notions of managing others in and environment of ” ‘might’ making immediately ‘right’,” and by flowing him too much power that he was too young and too ill equipped to handle. Sitting at the knee of LRH, he was witness to a completely wrong example of how to make people better. He watched carefully how LRH did not practice what he preached and this is the reason that he hasn’t been in session for decades. Now through ignorance of any better system and left to fall back to his own devices, you can see what type of “Lord of the Flies” organization that he has built. At this point in time, it appears to me that he has been operating strictly on “motivators” for a couple decades, getting worse, and with very little free Theta left. He is utterly a broken person flailing about and punishing in every direction. His demise is certain, but it was the Sea Org, and public Scientologists and Scientology who failed HIM as well as the Church and, well, maybe that was the predilection for Scientology from the start. The writing was on the wall while Hubbard still held the reins. DM is HIS product. Scientology will fade from a little fringe group at its height to an even wispier little fringe group in the future years. Will it disappear utterly? I don’t know but it so totally could. A “true” Scientologist behaves like a degraded being who thinks they are being a superior being. It is upside down and reversed. They are just taught to cling to that “self” of a superior being on a superior track to a superior goal and PUSH! AND IT DOESN’T WORK; IT HASN’T WORKED; and IT’S NOT GOING TO WORK IN THE FUTURE. The “selves” participating in and calling themselves Scientologists are not getting better, they are getting more solid.
Anyway, I am not shooting at you Valkov, I guess I am just shooting off . . . I so totally duplicate your viewpoint and it is one reason I have so much affinity for you is that my own thinking processes and stable data are similiar to yours and in the past they were exactly like what you write about Scientology — I could have been writing the words that you write in support of Scientology . . . Always explaining that people are mis-using Scientology and this is the reason for its problems. The confusing part is that Scientology is not bereft of good ideas, so it is easy to get caught up in the “baby and bathwater” argument. The overriding and dooming quality of Scientology is that it is a totalitarian group. It is not the “True Group” that LRH wrote about. It’s never going to be that kind of a group because it is a totalitarian group. It overridingly IS a totalitarian group. That is not going to get fixed up.
Wow Chris … this post is going back a ways.
I was sort of surprised at some of the statements and agree wholeheartedly with others.
My own perception of DM is that since the 1st time I saw him as a teenager, he was one who wanted attention – a ‘Hey, look at me’ attitude to the point of being obnoxious, rude, & brash. I did not see one iota of change over the years in chance meetings or seeing him live at events. I remember him coming to Toronto a couple of times – 2 of the RTC guys who really stuck out at that time as being somewhat other than what I hoped were the sane heads running the organization were DM and Mike Sutter. DM loved attention and how people around him were cowed and jumped at his every utterance, while Sutter’s comm level and solidity was that of a rock – a heavy one at that.
As for ‘Scientology wrecking him by infusing him …’ (DM), or that he didn’t go in session because he was emulating what LRH preached, I don’t agree. His decisions whether to try to get along with others and forward some pretty decent basic Scientology goals or suppressing others and becoming a maniacal leader , despite his real world experience, was his doing. I was young too when I saw the G.O. keeping a young guy under lock & key or staff/public being demeaned in some fashion. As with DM, it was a choice; I could emulate what I saw, or be my own person, counsel and true to my own estimation of my ethics level & integrity.
The vast majority of the public and lower Mission/Org staff hoped like hell that the boys up above knew what they were doing and had a good hold of the reins … after all, if they’re up the org board one would think they would be half-assed sane I would think.
The only way I see any of us failing him was that someone early on didn’t say ‘No’ and kick his little keester outa there along with the few other goofs of similar intent. Other than that, it was solely DM and his baggage who made decisions.
Your statement ” A “true” Scientologist behaves like a degraded being who thinks they are being a superior being ” I think is general. While it may be true if you insert the names of any number of nut-cases from over the years, to generalize that a ‘true Scientologist’ behaves this way is untrue.
Is DM the sole cause for what has happened? No. Is LRH? No. Is Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, Mike Sutter, … the list goes on. The answer is still in my opinion ‘No’.
They all had their part, some more than others and some have a long road to make up damage done.
While one can moan about what’s been done to them while up-lines, some of the same crap flowed downhill to the lower level Orgs.
What I see in the last 20 or so years is that RTC & Int forgot about the real important things – the public, and, the lower Org staff sweating their buns off to have a taste of freedom and make this little mudball a bit better place.
Dennis, my comments aren’t meant as a personal attack on you or Valkov or other people of good intentions. Like Valkov, possibly “if it isn’t written, it isn’t true” would be less abrasive and stultifying in yours and his hands. Maybe a better way for me to have said this is look at Scientology. There it is. There is your ontongeny. Has it repeated its phylogeny? Is it following an iteration which will turn out alright? And is Scientology truly “off course” just because you and I don’t like the vector?
No problem … I didn’t take it as a personal attack … and quit using words I have to look up 🙂
Sure it’s off course and likely the ‘independent’ practitioner will be the wave of the future.
And yes, Valkov & I would run the show much better. After all, we don’t need fancy buildings or endless riches (although a Porsche Turbo cabriolet would be nice 🙂
Dennis, we can always count on you to bring a breath of fresh air and balance. I should have read the above posts of yours first today!
You have the distinct advantage of basing your views about DM (and Scn in general, for that matter) on what you saw for yourself – early on, before LRH could be blamed for DM’s character and the choices he made.
Bless you! Very well done as usual! I must learn from your high ability to look without reaction. 🙂