My current stance on Scientology

With recent events cencerning the subject and the church of Scientology, it seems appropriate to reflect on my current stance on both the suvject and the church.

Debbie Cook left the church. Katie broke up with Tom. And now the news that the one and only Mark Schreffler declared independence as a scientologist.These are but three of the many blows that the church of Scientology has suffered in 2012.

As you may know, I left the church in 2009 with a 6 page write-up on why I had had enough. Since then I have been exploring life along many avenues. This and my previous blog give a decent picture of my explorations. I even published a book titled “Six months in the open” to give some kind of insight into one person leaving at the top of the Bridge. When I wrote a blog post titeled, “I am not a Scientologist”, I got many reactions, even got de-linked on Marty’s blog. Some thought “Oh, finally, Geir has seen the light”. Others thought I had gone bonkers. But most people understood the blog post. Still, the picture is not quite descriptive of the present without this post you read now.

I will keep it short. I hold conciseness as a virtue.

  • I believe Scientology contains much value – in the basic philosophy and in the tools it offers.
  • I owe much to Scientology auditing; Personal integrity, confidence, artistic creativity, calmness, enlightenment, not taking everything so serious in life, enjoying life more fully.
  • The lower Bridge is generally very good. The upper Bridge (OT levels) did me wonders – but I belive it handles something different than what L. Ron Hubbard describes in his very dramatic sci-fi way.
  • I owe my surge in communication skills to the communication drills I did in Scientology. I owe my skills as a public speaker also to those drills, as well as to Mark Schreffler – the best public speaker I have seen.
  • I know Scientology to give great insight into how reality comes about.
  • I believe that the Tone Scale is a good tool to understand and help others.
  • I find the Admin Scale a great tool to help people get effective in life. The Admin Scale can be improved, something I will cover in an upcoming book.
  • I have seen the Study Tech, although incomplete, do wonders with kids and adults alike.
  • There are many useful tools beyond the above.
  • I think the Ethics Tech is unempathetic and humanly unfriendly. It equates human value to the person’s production output.
  • I see the Admin Tech as mostly a disaster – responsible for the Orwellian cult called the Church of Scientology.
  • I think it is important that thet human rights abuses in the church get stopped.
  • I believe in Open Sourcing Scientology, to let it evolve.
  • I still want to complete my Ls – L10 and L12.
  • I still want to do the old OT levles (4-7).
  • I still use Scientology every day in my life. I also use art, computers, psychology, physics and a lawn mover now and then.
  • I am not a scientologist. Just like I am not an artist, computerist, psychologist, physicist or the lawn mover man.
  • I am a seeker. An explorer of free will. Which is why a rewamped article, “On Will” is soon finding its way to a blog post near you.

If there is anything on the above list that you don’t understand, disagree with or want to question – feel free to ask.

95 thoughts on “My current stance on Scientology

    1. I heard they punish people and put them in isolation, and don’t feed you, and they abuse you, there are different levels, don’t think your gonna meet tom cruise and celebs, no way! They are completely separate, us commons are nothing to them, they take all of your money, clothes, etc… its horror, no wonder Leah Remini and lisa Marie Presley left!!!!!

  1. I’ve nothing to critique or question of what you have written — I will simply say that I have always admired your even-handedness and willingness to call things as you see them regardless of anyone else’s opinions. Thanks for the summary!

    I’ll add to the recent defections:
    — the en masse resignation of the staff and public of Haifa Mission in Israel, covered by the Village Voice here: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/07/scientology_dani_lemberger.php
    — the departure of Miscavige Senior and Diana Hubbard’s daughter, also covered by the Village Voice here: http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/06/scientology_roanne_leake_ron_miscavige_sr.php
    –the resignation of Wendy Honnor, who was an IAS Freedom Award Winner, covered here — http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/tag/wendy-honnor/.

    It has really been a bad week or two for corporate Scientology and I think that it may be the tipping point year for corporate Scientology. I believe your dream of an open source Scientology is well on the way.

    1. In addition to the defections I would add another recent occurrence that I think will have a big influence on the tipping point soon to occur – if it hasn’t already – which is Marty Rathbun’s recently released book: What’s Wrong with Scientology. For starters, it basically describes the whole Scientology Bridge in an easy-to-understand way. As a matter of fact, I believe even long-time Scientologists who haven’t done much auditor training or study of the philosophy will be delightfully enlightened on what Scn truly is!

      But just as beneficial if not more so is the description of all the various changes and alterations that came about over the years that perverted the basic philosophy and practice. Virtually anyone who has experienced the tools and tech would attest to the truth and workability of Scn, especially the long-term auditors like Mike R (comment below) – these are the guys with the most certainty, from what I have observed in my time.

      Actually, Marty’s book is an excellent read for every “variety” of current or former Scientologists, including the critics (at least those who are sincere and have no ax to grind in their criticism). And people who’ve had bad experiences will very likely find out why – and also learn that the ill effects can be easily corrected and that their lost gains can be rehabilitated.

      Even those people who’ve never been in Scientology but are interested, for any number of reasons, in finding out more about it would get a lot out of the very pertinent data in his book, including people who are simply interested in the human rights issues.

  2. BTW, I did do the old OT Levels IV-VII in 1981-82, they were fantastic. Way better than the current OT VIII that David Miscavige screwed up, and perverted.

  3. I approached this with a little apprehension until I finished reading it. Very well stated and nothing I disagree with altho some things not familiar with like Admin Scale, nor interested now.
    Good on you for the Cherry on top – seeker! 🙂
    I’m in the midst of finding my own stable current stanch on Scientology. Your write up is a good example and can help a person see where he stands. Like “opening up a can of worms.” ha, ha!
    Darn, I’ve already deleted so much… many thanks for this, sincerely 🙂

          1. Agreement, ally…..! No expecting, more like tinge of fear, like Oh Oh! Maybe he’s changed his mind about being a Scientologist. All’s well for now. Mucho gracia! 🙂

  4. I will be honest here, I was an auditor for 20 + years, and was a NOTS Auditor for 9 years. Just knowing the meter phenomena esp. on NOTS with blowdowns and seeing this for years and years, there is def. something to this tech that LRH developed. As we know much has been discovered or written about Hubbard- and it is clear he was no saint, but his philosophy has no doubt created a lot of positives. There are some things I just discard like Rollback tech, Sec Checking, ethics technology. Like Hubbard say’s “What’s true for you, is true for you”. There you go. The problem with the Church now is ALL IS ENFORCED. Sorry, that is wrong.

  5. Thank you so much for this post clarifying where you are at now (Scientology wise). It is good to see that someone who was at the top of the bridge can see where things went wrong and is willing to talk about it. As far as I am concerned, the Ethics tech can be thrown in the trash can. Period. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that the ONLY thing the Ethics tech is for, is to make a person feel like ugly garbage (part of mind control). Thanks again.
    Rob

  6. Hmm. much agreement from someone who left in ’09 after 20+ years, much training, auditing and c/sing.

    Ever hear of DMT? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine

    I had a chance to try N,N DMT and that blew my mind more than any processing I ever had and had numerous wins/ realizations in the months that followed.

    Next I’m going to try the 5-MEO-DMT…

    Worth checking into – the N,N DMT has been variously called the so called “Spirit Molecule”. I can attest what I experienced was non-dual unity with the universe. my “ego” or “self” was nowhere to be seen for about 5-10 minutes yet my experiential time was infinite. These are not one-shot clear kinda things, rather tools that allow you to energetically experience more of ‘yourself’ than you can with your normal day to day consciousness. And the crazy thing is that our normal ‘reality’ is based on these same two chemicals that are produced endogenously in our body’s anyway – we are tryptamine beings! DMT is naturally highest early morning when we are in REM sleep and supposedly at the moment of death.

    🙂

    1. Hi “someguy”. I read parts of those two links you posted and totally understand your enthusiasm. I made what I think is a similar discovery watching a number of youtube video lectures by a physicist/philosopher named Tom Campbell – who came to the same conclusions about the Oneness of all of us, and about the brain serving to constrict reality to that of the physical universe and to “self” or “ego”. He bases his theories on data from over thirty years of scientifically conducted experiments on out-of-body experiences, including extensive personal experience of his own.

      What is interesting to me is that here again, I think of early Scientology and one of the principal LRH discoveries, the tone scale – Science of Survival, l951. As you know, at the top of the Reality column of the Chart of Human Evaluation is “Search for different viewpoints in order to broaden own reality. Changes reality.”

      That’s the attitude of people like you and Geir, which Scn would be producing regularly if the core principles were actually applied. People would be rising on the tone scale and increasing their self-determinism – the whole point of it all. But in the CoS, even those who have actually made such gains are then conditioned to a group think that generally takes away any gains in self-determinism. At least that hasn’t included everybody – some have managed to escape. Or have been rehabilitated by the “escapees”. 🙂

      1. Well stated… You know – as one of the primary purposes of the auditing is to SHOW to the preclear that indeed he DOES have free will and ALWAYS HAS… In order to get to this point of cognition within Scientology one has to subsume his ego/ center of control over to the auditor – a submission of will of sorts to show that one is in charge… This is great and L. Ron saw that one has to put control in on people in order for them to regain control of the supposed unseen source of control – the Reactive Mind. However, even though LRH talks about restoring the viewpoint of the thetan, at no point within corporate Scn are you allowed to exercise free will… The design of the entire corporate Scn structure is that of handling unthinking particles – ones that get routed hither and yon with barely any credence of ack that there before the terminal there is a fully capable human incarnation. If the processes of Scientology start to work, one starts being able to think for themselves and find that one no longer needs to church as a nanny of sorts. So – if Scientology works, then the logical conclusion is that the people who are “getting it” get themselves the F out of Scn because the group think of well, just about *any* group out there is insanity itself.

        So, looks to me like Scientology is working just fine! People are leaving in droves, and those not fully there yet still have to cling to the Marty’s of the world as the “Process” isn’t fully complete in them – they are still dependent upon others for the formulation of an opinion/ belief – their own center of control has not been rehabilitated enough for them to have confidence in themselves.

        This is where Medicines that cause temporary ego dissolution are so very handy – they allow you to see quite clearly that you are more than just the contents of your shaky ego – you are indeed “Source” or “God” or whatever other tag you may want to put on it.

        Enlightenment is simply seeing beyond the limited ego and knowing oneself fully as an energetic being.

        God bless 5-MEO-DMT for this 😉

        1. I’m with lizabeth – really enjoyed your post.

          Right you are, Scientology is working just fine! And the Marty’s and the Geir’s of the world are pointing the ones that didn’t make it in the Church in a direction where they can. Whether that direction is toward true Scientology or otherwise.

          Speaking of “otherwise”, you loosened up a fixed idea I had that “drugs” could never be a way to go free. I already had learned from Tom Campbell,and the informationphilosopher.com site how much the brain actually does have to do with the barriers to spiritual awareness, and yours was the final straw that broke the false datum’s back.:)

          Btw, you might consider writing an article about 5-MEO-DMT and submit it to Geir for approval as a guest-writer blog post. See https://isene.me/2012/07/14/got-something-to-say/ Please include data about research on the subject. (For the more lily-livered, less-than-wild adventurers among us. ;))

  7. What I like about Isene. He show that he Really Does Care…! About Scientology, about people, articles, his blog, and through his communicating.

    I just felt like putting some well deserved butter on your bread, love.

  8. I think you have spoken(written) like an excellent Scientologist! Please don’t take that as an invalidation. By reading your post, I once again m confirmed on my understanding that the tools learn in scientology are for use(apply, utilize) and that not all these tools need be use at once, basically you reached into your tool box and grab the one(s) you need for that particular cycle. I think the mistake many people make is to try to integrate the whole of scientology in their lives all at once when in reality is not necesary. What I am familiar with are the study tech, supervisor tech, administrative tech, the purification run down which I use on a daily basis, I have also read other materials written by Mr. Hubbard that have been of great value to me and will continue to read more as a go along. I do agree that there is a lot of information one can learn in scientology that can be of great help to anyone.

  9. G-man, as for the sci-fi aspect, you may or may not know that LRH wanted David Mayo to pilot sending Clears right onto NOTs, skipping OT III, but Miscavige got Mayo shitcanned before he had a chance to do the pilot. And, yes, isn’t that great news about Mark Shreffler!

    1. This is something I read on ESMB about a week ago and I’ve been wondering about that ever since.
      BTW, Dan, I know you a bit from Marty’s website (I’ve stopped reading it regularly though) and I till today I had no idea you moved to Sweden.

  10. Geir, this was an excellent idea, to put together a list of all your relevant posts about Scientology. The timing is perfect in terms of current events and I’m sure that many upcoming defectors will find their way here and benefit as much as I and many others have on all these posts. Not just defectors, actually, but the soon-to-be disillusioned members of the CoS.

    As for your two main criticisms, the ethics tech and the admin tech, I will be interested in your take on the chapters in Marty’s book covering those two areas. On the ethics tech, for example, he sums it up this way: “Scientology ethics has become so perverted and bastardized in Scientology Inc. that one could write a number of books on that subject alone”.

    He does go into certain key principles of the original ethics tech and compares those to the perversions. And I would say he is a pretty reliable source based on his high-level training and experience as an auditor, as well as decades of experience in management.

    That said, you yourself have made invaluable contributions and I’m really glad that you went to the trouble to put it all together in one concise list. Yes indeed, “conciseness” is your middle name and your name is in the middle of “concISENEss”. 😉

  11. Geir, I agree with almost everything you wrote in this ariticle, even though I look at the scene from almost the bottom of the Bridge 😀
    Except I’ve still not come to the decision whether to continue in auditing. At the moment I’m doing Faster EFT. I can do that solo despite not being clear and also I’m almost completing studying the course of it, without all the unnecessary obstacles put in front of you by Hubbard and mainly by Co$.

  12. Smart choice is that, doing old OT4-7, i support that.
    But i also have ideas, that for anybody who finished the grades, he/she should be capable and allowed to invent processes for him/herself.

    An OT should be able to create processes that he feels are ok to him, for his personal use.

  13. In a universe of quantity, where any quality may be quantified, where did our previous discussions take us regarding the warmer human attributes such as compassion and kindness? I forget and your comment above about ethics reminded me.

    Would a correct ethics technology nevertheless contain quantifiable results as a part of the handling?

      1. Isn’t this also decided by Gödel’s theorems? In other words, if the quantities belonging to systems, all of which do (it seems to me), if those quantities can never in and of themselves be complete – ultimately – then it follows that there must exist something beyond the quantifiable physical universe.

        1. I should have added that Scn ethics is based on optimum survival and that does involve as part of the solution one’s personal viewpoint – the unquantifiable element. To me, that’s what is meant by “ethics is a personal thing”.

    1. Chris, A good ethics technology will need to contain quantifiable deeds. The reason for this, you could say, is that we have the (Be – Do) – Have: MEST.

    1. The enigma of quantifiability may be resolved by Gödel’s as there is always something else, something beyond that will complete the picture. So it may never be Fully quantifiable. That fact may be the quality we are looking for 😉

      1. It is the “secret of the universe” that I have been looking directly at and trying to find words to describe that the “orders of magnitude,” both great and small leave me with my mouth hanging open wordless.

  14. Taking the long view, do compassion and kindness have long run value? . . . or are these qualities human weaknesses and will more Spartan values ultimately win out?

    1. What’s it all about…?

      I don’t think any machine will ever win out over the irrepressible spirit. At least not ultimately. But just for you Chris, here’s my favorite rendition of the song that expresses your sentiment. And mine too. 🙂

      1. Thank you Marildi. Poignant sentiment IS what I was referring to and your eclectic song selection captures the idea very well. — Much more positive than “Dust in the Wind!” Is our human sentimentality our strength or our weakness? A nagging question in an irrational and often cruel and capricious existence.

        1. Yes Chris, I really got the poignant sentiment, and knew that you would see it in this song and its eclectic, as you say, lyrics. And the sweet and pure voice of the young Dionne Warwick couldn’t do it better justice. I guess we’re just a couple of sentimental slobs. 😉

            1. LOL. But we’re also volatile on the tone scale and very good sparring partners. You are another one I’m waiting to get your take on the “On Will” article Geir just posted. We still have the debate on free will that we never finished… 🙂

            2. Marildi, I want to participate but have been busy and can’t focus on Geir’s very able article just yet. When I do, I suspect I may want to express that I think there may be not a simple dichotomy of will vs. determinism at the bottom of the debate. I think there may be more possibilities. I think there may be room in that discussion for tangents such as not only parallel universes but serial universes as well. I have a couple ideas working on this and the crew here especially Sr. Isene know just how to draw them out of me.

  15. Geir , I love this post of yours very much. Everyone is free to choose and explore what ever comes up in ones life , whatever philosophy or else.

  16. De-linked by MArty, this is what I was talking about, godly correctness by highness M. Rathbun.
    There is nothing wrong with SCN, whats wrong is the administrative frame for the members,
    with or without Miscavige it doesn´t matter.
    I hope LRH learned that it does not work this way. He goofed.
    Great summary Geir 🙂

  17. Glad to see that you’re making progress. Right now you’re in transition in the way you regard Scientology. You’re still (what is sometimes called) a “Bridge junkie.”

    I agree that there are benefits to be had from some pieces of Scientology, and have found that a little bit of Scientology can sometimes be good, however, a lot seldom is.

    I feel sorry for those who feel tremendously indebted to Scientology. It does happen, but it’s unfortunate.

    You would have been better off not *owing* quite so much to Scientology. Nonetheless, you are where you are.

    I think, in time – a few years – you’ll be fine.

    Best wishes.

    1. Is this a backhanded compliment, scarcely veiled, or am I being as judgmental as you?

      I don’t get that Geir is at all operating from a position of *owing* or that he’s in any way stuck in his Scientology track. And neither is he easily intimidated or afraid to give credit where credit is due, in spite of the criticism he gets by people who are arrogant about their own viewpoint and have trouble granting beingness to any other.

      1. I twinged also upon reading Briana’s post, so this answer is to both. I did re read what Geir said. “I owe much to Scientology auditing,” which was simple.

        Now I could say I am very much indebted to my husband who was OT7, Class 6 for making our life successful and loving while I’m at Clear, but a good student, and helped him too. We didn’t continue on the bridge nor were interested, but sparse auditing as needed. As seekers for other avenues through business, we learned and grew. Always appreciated the gains we had in scientology, but didn’t Need more. Maybe if a better auditing tech in the field had been available, who knows. I say we gain from many techs and we are fortunate to have or had auditing and seek for more whatever works. One doesn’t lose the good stuff. Don’t we owe something to auditing? The more we are ourselves, the better to grant beingness.
        I’m happy with what I achieved and owe my mate for all his good teachings, now guidance. Maybe owing is the wrong word, tho fits for me, but intention is key.

        1. Thanks for your comm, lizabeth. You and Geir were much kinder than I! I probably wasn’t granting beingness any more than she was, LOL. But as you so precisely put it, “intention is key”, and my distinct impression was that it wasn’t a good one. The word “owing” can be given a connotation of being “owned” (they actually have the same derivation), or some kind of non-self-determined fixation. Invalidative evaluation is bad enough in itself, let alone when it seems patronizing and unfair. My immediate instinct was to protest!

          But I enjoyed reading about your experience with Scientology. I’m so glad that I no longer feel that everyone needs do the whole Bridge or even do Scientology at all. In fact, I admire yours and others’ self-determinism in this regard (or any other regard). And you seem to have the subject pretty well in hand, I’m happy to see. You should be proud of yourself and your dear late husband too. 🙂

          1. Nice comment, thanks marildi. If I would have answered the one you did, I probably would have shown more protest. Yours was perfect! I like that one can comm on this blog more openly than most others and be accepted. Along with Geir the commenters here care, no matter opinion, in a safe, high toned environment.

            1. You catch on quick. :). Yes, it is a pretty safe environment, and you are welcome to pour your heart and mind out. Not that we haven’t gotten into some heated discussions at times, but even those are enlightening. The heavy debates are almost all on the subject of Scientology, and in general most of the comments are too.

              Geir’s latest post is on Free Will. Not everybody is even interested in the subject, but I imagine you would be and I hope you have a look at it and comment. I think it’s a fascinating article and would love to see a good discussion get going 🙂

      2. marildi, I do not see this as a “compliment” at all. It is from start to finish.overtly condescending and judgemental towards Geir and anyone who finds much good in Scientology. This is a person who seeks to gain altitude by lowering the altitude of others. Maybe she is selling “deprogramming” services?

        The flavor is similar to the negative review and comments by “racecar”, of Marty’s book over on Amazon. And “racecar”, whoever she is, hadn’t even read the book when she posted her “review”.

        Smells like an ESMB extremist critic.

        1. Right you are – a backhanded compliment is defined as “an insult disguised as a compliment”. And that was just how I was using the term. My perception was the same as yours.

          I do know a bit about the campaign to counter sales of Marty’s new book – read some of the comments at amazon in the beginning. But I doubt those efforts will do much. Might even boost the sales, if you know what I mean. Is there any tally being kept of the number of books sold, that you know of?

    2. I have always been in transition regarding Scientology – always will be. Change is the essence of Life.

      I find it intriguing when people “wish I hadn’t owed so much to Scientology” or “wish it wouldn’t have been so valuable for me”.

      Apart from that – I am fine. Have been fine all along. It is not about the destination – for me it’s about the adventure. And Scientology is one hell of an adventure I wouldn’t have been without 🙂

    3. Wow! Nothing like stirring a hornet’s nest! No problem as I used to be as angry as your post. I’d like to share that it doesn’t matter too much about what others think about things. Whenever I remain mindful that my thoughts are my own; that my perceptions are not “out there” but “in here” (tapping my temple) I continually make progress on my path. The inconsistencies that I observe and that bother me gradually even out. My world opens to new space, new delights, and time begins to seem generous to me again and my tolerance for the petty foibles of others increases proportionally.

    1. Good get Maria. Very interesting article. Not to diminish her awesome achievement, from the article it seems that she is “hardwired” into the computer. As extraordinary as this is, I see no evidence of incomprehensible magic. This looks like very good science to me.

      What aspects of this article made you feel her “free will” was in action rather then her natural psycho-physical-electrical-phenomena?

      1. Actually Chris, I didn’t refer to free will, but to will. She has to will the physical-electrical-phenomena to trigger the robotic arm. She had to MAKE the connection deliberately.

        1. Thank you for your response Maria. Not being contrary, I am trying to understand that will and why or whether that hard connection is in concert with normal and extant physical law or if it is the result of a super-natural intention. Its come up to me because of reading Aristotle’s “prime mover unmoved” and trying to understand whether this is the best way or even a true way of understanding will.

          1. Yeah, me too. The thing I am coming to question is this whole idea of “natural” versus “supernatural.” Perhaps there are “routine” connections only and then there are super connections i.e. they are always there but they are not recognized or utilized because they are not thought to exist or to be functional?

            1. Me too. The language is failing me at every turn. I only use natural and super- to be conventional and to get “other” points across. Then are my own specialized definitions of words to fit my reality and be similar enough to conventional reality to communicate. Nevertheless, our paths are truly our own and you know what? I just think this is the grandest exercise and all paths lead home. We work and work so hard to “find it” all the while Home draws us inexorably to its buxom boson bosom so that one day, looking back on a non-existent past, we can have that good chuckle and say “ah! It was a grand adventure wasn’t it? . . . going to be hard to top that! And so now who / what shall I be next time?”

            2. Like children fighting to stay awake “just a little while longer,” we fight to hold onto the “dream of life” and fight for just a few more minutes of living this dream. And then in that final moment as the crust of individuality dissolves, the veil is rent and we smile, then laugh and say “oh for the love of Pete!!! I knew it, I just knew it!

  18. There’s really only one good word for response. I hope it communicates well: Namaste my friend!

  19. Hi Geir, I wonder how you deal with the contradictions in Scientology. Hubbard goes to great lengths to state that the tech works if applied exactly, he says how he and he alone is responsible for the tech, how he ate crow when he took tech advice from others, essentially saying it is his way or the highway. He claims Scientology is the most ethical practice on the planet, however, his organization mistreats the staff, lies in the press about disconnection, and has had a scorched earth policy in dealing with critics.

    The point of his being responsible for the quality of the tech is in question, especially obvious with the purif – One of the major points is how the person takes in oil, which replaces the chemical laden fats held in the cells, yet there is no known mechanism for that known to medical science. The body simply metabolizes the oil. And there is the question, how does the cells store water soluble drugs, when they are known to flush out of the body shortly after ingestion. There are physical dangers connected with high doses of niacin such as liver damage. The purify is not even dignified as Junk Science, but is looked upon as Quackery. And yet he says he is responsible for the quality of the tech.

    To me, he would have assembled a team of medical researchers, and with the vast sums of money he had available, he would have done a creditable job of putting together a valid and workable purification program. But he didn’t. I find it interesting, that many people have reported gains from the purif. How does one account for them? Daily exercise, the body reacting to the heat with increased blood flow? A diet and vitamin regimen? Placebo effect? Faith healing?

    And there is the business of his stating his being in the first class on Nuclear physics, rubbing elbows with the A-bomb guys, setting them straight with his definition of zero, his stating in his congresses that he slept through most of his classes, pawning himself off as a nuclear physicist, and he doesn’t bother fact checking his book “All About Radiation”, it is widely known to be full of errors on the subject of radiation. In other words, what you would expect from someone who flunked the class which he did.

    So here is a clear cut example of how Mr. Hubbard was disingenuous with regards to a portion of his tech. How his ethics were in the toilet. How much does this lack of ethics find itself find itself in the remainder of the body of the tech? And how do you deal with it? I grant that, he does have some workable aspects in his technology, the study tech, the lower auditing levels and some of the other points you make, however, this lack of ethical behavior on his part, is a major bone of contention with some, myself included. Where does the truth of Scientology end and the lies begin? What is valid and what isn’t?

    And how does Mr. Hubbard respond to criticism of his technology? He calls it entheta, which is essentially a thought blocker. That something is true or not, is not part of whether it is theta or entheta. It is whether it is good news or bad. So having instilled in his public a self-policing mechanism, that allows them to not confront or consider criticism, he sails along, not changing his moral compass. If anything, it gets worse and he institutes disconnection policies to prevent his flock from being alloyed by criticism.

    So, Geir, how do you deal with this thread of unethical behavior? Do you feel it has tainted his technology?

    Mimsey

    1. That was a lot of questions in one comment 🙂

      The short question: I take whatever works. And why anything works is covered in my article “On Will“.

      As for Hubbard’s claims regarding Tech that always work; See my article titled “Processes, Automation and Human Potential“.

      i don’t feel any urge to defend Scientology, the Tech or Hubbard.

      My observation is that most of what you address as negative issues in your comment can be boiled down to a disastrous Admin Tech and a faulty Ethics Tech.

    2. I’ll add to Geir’s last observation and say that the most authoritative explanation and history of how the corruption of ethics and parts of admin came about – as well as the gradual transformation of tech into Black Dianetics – is covered in Marty Rathbun’s new book: What Is Wrong with Scientology? It pretty much speaks to all the points in your post – along with Geir’s articles that superbly cover the specific ones he mentioned.

      1. I bet it’s the best 5K he ever spent in terms of bang for the buck. L11 for me was the most amazing auditing I have ever had.

  20. Wow, Geir, you more than held your own on that thread. I breezed over it except for the exchanges with you and you never missed a beat. (Remind me never to be on an opposing debate team :))

  21. Geir,
    The basic test is whether it is true for you and whether it works for you. Not if all the stories a gifted storyteller told are true, but does it work for you. And if it didn’t what exactly happened.

    Now I have a different view on this than a lot of people because I’m a former USMC Vietnam Vet, and the world can be a lot harsher and more difficult to survive in than the padded cushy society we appear to live in. So much of Science is only a matter of faith, much of it tossed off like it is perfectly true. And it is not. At best its a sometimes workable theory, usually it only works at times.

    I say this as someone who has worked with hundreds of engineering companies, and know engineering quite well, and know what can and can’t be done. When we looking at an engineered product we look at the results, not whether the guy who came up with it, or got it to work, was a world class jerk , and beat his family twice a day, or he was some theety weety do gooder who hid his sins well.

    Someone came along, in the midst of the preparation of one world war, then several police actions, and with a planet whose governments had massive nuclear weapons that could killl everyone multiple times over, and he put a bridge there. That when it worked, got someone knowingly immortal again, and much more able to live a full and effective life.

    And I see such bitching and moaning about how it doesn’t fit this or that standard, or doesn’t fit into ‘normal’ scientific practice, and I understand because I understand what actually happens in Science, is very much political and not some pure objective, always workable method that moves us closer to some ultimate truth.

    Many engineers and Scientists can’t even confront life or a live being.

    People hold up this unreal standard to measure the tech against, and then they complain because it doesn’t fit this or that measure.

    Yes, it is hard. And Yes it doesn’t always work, and lot’s of people attempted to use it that never duplicated it, and some people need instructions in how to pet cats.

    It’s not an easy road, life is not an easy road, this can be a very difficult and violent planet to survive on. And many people felt that they could attain their dreams and didn’t.

    and they felt betrayed.

    Get over it.

    So what, maybe it’s not for them. Maybe nothing will ever work for them. But it might work for them, if done by someone who does understand it, cares for the person they are working with, and helps them get the wins they want.

    Christ almighty. If you don’t like the subject, then don’t do it. Stay away from it. Do something , anything else.

    But it worked for me, thanks to it, I survived many horrific and difficult events in my life, and slowly things got better, and sometimes things got worse, but after persisting at it, I’m pleased to say it has exceeded my wildest dreams.

    That’s what I learned in the USMC – the will to persist no matter how crappy life became. And to use any tool I had , not matter what to survive and continue and hope for a better future.

    And Ron, my friend, no matter how he did it, helped me get there. When I needed something that worked more than anything else.

    I don’t give a rats ass as to whether he played nice, or always told the truth or was a saint, or was perfect in every way.

    What the hell planet are y’all on.

    It takes the very tough to survive on this planet.

    Not the socially acceptable, nice fit squarely in whatever box you want to draw person some want LRH to be.

    Get out of the damn boxes, and take life by the throat, and win at it.
    So that’s my test.

    If you feel ripped off, and you feel betrayed, and you want to blast everybody, go do it elsewhere.

    Its not for you.

    Find something else that is and do that.;

    Do or don’t do – there is no try.

      1. Geir,
        It wasn’t about you Geir. I’ve seen enough of your postings and actions to know that that isn’t true.
        I read over your processes document. I was heavily involved at Cadam (part of Lockheed) in the performance and automation of Cad Cam design tools, and I was part of a Start up software company that went from no customers to over 3000 – including 17,000 annual licenses at over 250K each – in 8 years – we specialized in the Automation of the operation of Enterprise computers (the giant IBM ones that move oceans of data per minute). We had a product that rivaled the Star ship Enterprise in complexity and depth and scope, and was one of the most deeply technical software products ever written.
        I was the first technical employee hired. We were more solidly technical and deeper than IBM was or any other software company.
        And I taught several thousand customers over the phone, in person, and at User conferences (we ended up with about 3000 thousand) in how to do automation using this. Customers that didn’t have background in what they were doing.
        They had to learn automation, policy , how to run projects and a number of other things, and I made sure they got it and won from the beginning.
        That was part of my special zone plan – making sure I was using what I knew and could do to enable them to play a better game in that area of life.

        It was very successful.

        And I sure didn’t gripe about the fact that the chief developer that I sat next to had some oddities now and then. He is the smartest guy I ever personally met, and made everyone around him smarter, and more able, an effect which lasted permanently.

        We were all about smart elegant well designed solutions, and 100% winning customers.
        And minimal effective policy.

        I shipped all the tapes the first couple of years (this was before the internet) – tapes are large cartridges. And never had a single shipping mistake, because I verified everything every time to make sure they got there.

        Things can be done right from the beginning. Not needing to be corrected later.

      2. That’s a very good essay Geir. Explains well why trying to produce higher awareness beings is such a tremendous challenge and why Hubbard’s attempt to “automate” the process with the assembly line called “The Bridge” failed for so many.

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s