I have mentioned Mark before. It turns out that he has one of his seminars up on YouTube. A full seminar on the emotional tone scale – complete with crazy anecdotes – and covering many other subjects such as the importance of decisions, raising of children, personal integrity, understanding of subjects, production and efficiency, and much more:
And here’s Mark’s new blog: http://markshreffler.wordpress.com/
Geir Isene - uncut 
“High toned people want to do the right thing, low-toned people want to BE RIGHT!” M Schreffler, Tape 4 above.
The tone scale is an ideology only, a set of ideological beliefs about life and other people. It is full of generalizations and very specious reasoning with absolutely no testing or documented results. It is simplistic, arbitrary, completely out of date and in conflict with established scientific fact about the role of emotions and their documented effect.
If the Tone Scale actually worked, and was true, the Church of Scientology would not be in the abusive, criminal mess it is in today.
The tone scale does not work, and it is so largely untrue that it is a destructive ideology for anyone to adopt. It does not help you to predict human behavior or to evaluate people. It is a fixed ideology that does your thinking for you. Some people cling to it out of a kind of nostalgia for the “wins” they had when they were first introduced to it.
The tone scale should be thrown in the 1950’s dust bin where it belongs, and its adherents should move on from it and learn real psychology and neurology and other established and tested lessons from modern science.
Alanzo
Is this the pole vaulting?
I was eager to see how the first comment on this one would be – would the commenter focus on what was right or good about Mark’s seminar, or would the person pick out something wrong.
I have used the Tone Scale quite successful in the last 20 years. It is not complete and it has it’s weaknesses, but all-in-all it remains remarkably useful. After all, I did predict that if Al, would comment here first, he would say something like the above 😉
That’s because of all your auditing and the OT abilities you have, not the Tone Scale.
This was a joke, by the way.
Only those high on the tone scale would get the humor in it.
Yeah,I got the joke. The reality was htat I used the Tone Scale to predict your behaviour;)
Geir, if you don’t mind, please say more about the tone scale being incomplete and about its weaknesses. Interest item! 🙂
Sure – I miss a few emotions -like “irritated” – the dictionary is full of emotions and many are not on the scale. That’s the incompleteness. I am also unsure if one actually has to go through all items and not jump on the scale. I’ve seen no real discussion or evidence on that point. Also, I can feel more than one emotion at a time.
Geir, you may like this very much — it filled in some gaps for me: http://www.rasas.info/
Someone else I knew mentioned an emotion that isn’t on the tone scale. Can’t remember what it was now, but at the time I thought he was right.
As for going through all the tone levels, I couldn’t find the reference but I seem to recall LRH saying that at times a person can move through them too quickly to realize it. It might have been in the context of the emotional curve.
I have a theory for you about the “missing” emotions. Maybe LRH included only the known emotions that are of a single, precise wavelength – which would thus make up a mathematically gradient scale. He says happiness, for example, isn’t an emotion, although most people would probably think of it as that. I figure it is either a combination of emotional wave lengths (tones) or it can vary somewhat as a single wavelength and therefore can’t be plotted on the tone scale. Happiness seems to be in a category with the rasas, listed on that link Maria gave you – which include love, joy, wonder, courage, peace and disgust, as well as the tone scale emotions of sadness, anger and fear.
So maybe the missing emotions are actually the other feelings commonly thought of as emotions and labeled as such, but which can’t be plotted on a precise wavelength scale. LRH has apparently narrowed the idea of emotion to just the single-wavelength ones that appear on a gradient as an increase or decrease of wavelength when a person expands or contracts as a being. And that might be why he mainly referred to them as “tones” or tone levels, rather than “emotions”.
Also, if it’s true that a being expands and contracts in terms of wavelength, it would make sense that this would happen by small gradients (perhaps digitally and in alignment with the Planck units), rather than as an irregular or arbitrary jump from one tone to one of several gradients higher or lower. Wavelength is of the physical universe.
Whaddoyouthink? 🙂
I think it was on the PDC. LRH confessed, or admitted that at the time he worked out the tone scale
(Science of survival) it was not done by observation. BUT COMPLETELY BY EXTRAPOLATION.
In this case he of course can´t change anything afterwards if he finds out that something does not fit properly.
Marildi: I think it comes down to the purpose of plotting the tone scale. It was a means of assessing which processes could be used for maximal gain for a particular individual. Only the obvious, habitual and discernible tone levels useful for assessment were needed.
The instructions are to use valid processes to assist others to move up the tone scale. Three valid processes – change of environment, education, and auditing.
I have yet to find any advice anywhere in those materials to use them to make an indication to another person of “you are 1.1” or “you are just an angry guy” as a remedy to the problem of behavior below 2.0.
And while LRH does make scathing remarks about various tone levels, he does not direct people to disconnect, harass people, or drive them further down scale with various wrong indications, judgments and manipulative behaviors. Quite the contrary. He considers that the actions of a person above 2.0 on the tone scale are the ideal operating basis for assisting others and recommends that if you find yourself below 2.0, to engage in valid processes and if you find yourself being audited by someone below 2.0 to find an auditor who is above 2.0.
Fast forward to 1980:
**************************************
(…) What you see as a human being, a person, is not a single unit being.
In the first place, there is the matter of valence.
A person can be himself or he can be under the belief
that he is another person or thing entirely.
This removes him a step from being a simple being.
Then there is the matter of being in a body.
A body is a very complex contrivance, quite remarkable, quite complicated.
And it is also quite subject to its own distortions.
There are also the entities
(as discussed in “Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health”, and also “The History Of Man”, pages 13-14, 43, 75-77).
These follow all the rules and laws and phenomena of single beings.
And then there is the matter of influences of other people
around this human being.
From a single, simple being there is a progressive complication
setting in as one adds all these other factors.
The single, simple being, without any further associations can be out of valence
even miles away from other contacts.
It is the aggregate of all these factors which you address when you seek to guide or handle the usual human being.
This is also why objective processes are so effective – they get many of these factors all going in the same direction for once.
None of this is to say that it is impossible to handle all this. Far from it.
But it does tell one why all the additional precautions (like don’t overrun, like careful session procedures) are there in all those materials.
But mainly it tells you that full recoveries seldom happen fast and that cases require an awful lot of work and often for a very long time. “
“When you are handling a human being, you are handling a composite.
and the release of HCO BULLETIN 30 JULY 1980 – THE NATURE OF A BEING, quoted as follows:
“(…) What you see as a human being, a person, is not a single unit being.
In the first place, there is the matter of valence.
A person can be himself or he can be under the belief that he is another person or thing entirely. This removes him a step from being a simple being.
Then there is the matter of being in a body.
A body is a very complex contrivance, quite remarkable, quite complicated.
And it is also quite subject to its own distortions.
There are also the entities
(as discussed in “Dianetics, The Modern Science of Mental Health”, and also “The History Of Man”, pages 13-14, 43, 75-77).
These follow all the rules and laws and phenomena of single beings.
And then there is the matter of influences of other people around this human being.
From a single, simple being there is a progressive complication setting in as one adds all these other factors.
The single, simple being, without any further associations can be out of valence even miles away from other contacts.
It is the aggregate of all these factors which you address when you seek to guide or handle the usual human being.
This is also why objective processes are so effective – they get many of these factors all going in the same direction for once.
None of this is to say that it is impossible to handle all this. Far from it.
But it does tell one why all the additional precautions (like don’t overrun, like careful session procedures) are there in all those materials.
But mainly it tells you that full recoveries seldom happen fast and that cases require an awful lot of work and often for a very long time. “
When you are handling a human being, you are handling a composite.”
HCO BULLETIN 30 JULY 1980 – THE NATURE OF A BEING – by L. Ron Hubbard
*******************************************
A sudden shift of tone level could be a sudden shift of valence or entity or influence. It would not happen as a curve.
Also could this play a factor in seemingly inconsistent tone levels? i.e. the person seems to be one way but acts another and is somehow hiding things or being contrived?
Funny, but I never thought of looking at the tone levels through this particular lens.
Great post, Maria. And you got me thinking more about it.
To start out, I have the idea that “in the beginning” (The Factors) a thetan, who is basically a static, has taken on a bit of mass (I believe LRH states such) and that this mass is his basic identity in the physical universe. And being mass, it would have an overall wavelength. The additions and changes to it along the track would add up to the evolving self/ego, with its continuously changing overall (combined energies) wavelength. This would be the tone level – acute or chronic – of the thetan (of his mass-identity, that is). The chronic tone would be where he is plotted on the thetan tone scale given in Scn 8-8008.
Then there is the thetan-plus-body tone (also Scn 8-8008), which is described as a socially-conditioned chronic tone and would be the result of all the environmental influences on the thetan. The only time the thetan tone would be manifested would be when neither the environment nor the influences of his own bank were creating an effect on him that would alter it. The bank influences would include not only the restimulation of valences and entities (as you pointed out) but any given incident or chain in the bank or, for that matter, any self-created mock-up such as a ser fac.
Now, the question is – do such environmental or bank influences, create a sudden or gradient (moving through all the intermediate tones) change in either the thetan tone or the thetan-plus-body tone. I think it might depend on how well the thetan can maintain a separateness from the masses and energies that appear in his space. And that ability would depend on the volume of his theta (his tone) compared to the volume of the tones exterior to him – as well as one other thing: his ability to postulate and make it stick. In which case he himself could determine his tone level.
It now occurs to me that the next question would be – what determines that latter ability? For the moment, I’ve run out of time to ponder, so I pass the ball over to you if your interested, or whoever is. 🙂
Marildi wrote:
Now, the question is – do such environmental or bank influences, create a sudden or gradient (moving through all the intermediate tones) change in either the thetan tone or the thetan-plus-body tone. I think it might depend on how well the thetan can maintain a separateness from the masses and energies that appear in his space. And that ability would depend on the volume of his theta (his tone) compared to the volume of the tones exterior to him – as well as one other thing: his ability to postulate and make it stick. In which case he himself could determine his tone level.
Question for you, since I know so little about Scientology…
If, per the axioms, Life is “basically a static’.
DEFINITION: A life static has no mass, no motion, no wavelength, no location in space or in time. It has the ability to postulate and to perceive.”
And if, also per the axioms, “Theta, the static, has no location in matter, energy, space or time, but is capable of consideration.”
Then how can a thetan have a “volume of his theta”, as you reason above?
Doesn’t volume mean “The amount of space occupied by a three-dimensional object or region of space, expressed in cubic units. or “The capacity of such a region or of a specified container, expressed in cubic units. or “Amount; quantity: a low volume of business; a considerable volume of lumber.”
Please make this Scientology thinking make sense for me.
Sure, Al. I was using the definition of “theta” as used in Science of Survival – where it is described as being composed of A-R-C, which equate to a tone level of a particular wave length. Wave length does not fall under static and neither would the particular volume of space a thetan occupies..
The definition you quoted from the Scientology Axioms came later. And just like regular English, you have to have the appropriate definition for the context.
Also note, this was just a theory of mine and I had as part of my theory that a thetan is in a little bit of mass and was identifying with it and that this mass was what had a certain wave length, a certain tone level. Just a theory but it aligns with LRH data, I believe.
Theories are always good. Didn’t Ron say think for yourself? It’s good to hear others viewpoints and fresh thoughts. 🙂 I enjoy and learn from all discussions.
Thanks, deLizabeth,
Yes, LRH did say to think for yourself. That is part of the meaning of what I think of as true Scientology, its original tenets. Not what the CoS puts out, or even what LRH may or may not have put out in later years when keeping Scientology intact may have made him desparate. And taking desparate measures may have been what kept Scn from being obliterated.
Be that as it may, I’d better say good night to everybody. 🙂
Maria wrote:
Sure, Al. I was using the definition of “theta” as used in Science of Survival – where it is described as being composed of A-R-C, which equate to a tone level of a particular wave length. Wave length does not fall under static and neither would the particular volume of space a thetan occupies..
The definition you quoted from the Scientology Axioms came later. And just like regular English, you have to have the appropriate definition for the context.
Also note, this was just a theory of mine and I had as part of my theory that a thetan is in a little bit of mass and was identifying with it and that this mass was what had a certain wave length, a certain tone level. Just a theory but it aligns with LRH data, I believe.
Thanks for that.
So when LRH says that theta is composed of ARC in one place, and then later says theta has “has no location in matter, energy, space or time, but is capable of consideration.” don’t these mental constructs contradict each other?
As mental constructs which are part of a model – and not part of anything objectively real – shouldn’t these constructs at least be consistent with one another if you are using them to think with, make decisions with on how to behave toward others, etc?
And if you are using them to think with, make decisions with about others, shouldn’t you be careful not to reify* them and to be very very clear about the distinction between things that are objectively real and things that are part of a mental construct only – especially when they contradict each other?
*Reify: To regard or treat (an abstraction) as if it had concrete or material existence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
Al, I love discussing Scientology with you! (The philosophy, not the CoS ;))
I probably misspoke when I said there were two different “definitions”. I should have said that the Science of Survival description of theta was later expanded – but not inconsistently so.
As you pointed out, in the Axioms LRH says that “life is BASICALLY a static” and that “Theta, the static, has no location in matter, energy, space or time, but is capable of CONSIDERATION.” In FOT he elaborates further, saying “no mass, no wavelength, no energy, and no time or location in space, except by CONSIDERATION or POSTULATE”. (Note – all caps for emphasis are mine.)
Thank you for getting me to look at that further and sort it out more clearly for myself. Geir got me to do that with the ARC triangle theory one time. He contended that it isn’t true that this triangle is always in effect and by the end of the discussion I had to admit that he was right. I saw that CONSIDERATION could and did modify the mechanics of ARC at times. But LRH still got it right as he also stated (in the Axioms) that “Consideration is senior to mechanics”. Nevertheless, I had to admit that the ARC triangle theory in and of itself had left this point out by not even qualifying it with something like “BASICALLY” or “virtually always”, or such.
And YOU just got me to look further at “theta”, and I now see that LRH wasn’t inconsistent about it at all, nor did he actually change definitions. So that was good! But try again, Al baby – hit me with your best shot! 😀
This is a game where everyone wins. (Al-style humor. LOL)
Ha! I called you Maria!
I guess I’m doing a “life continuum” on Dio!!
Al: “I guess I’m doing a “life continuum” on Dio!!”
Either that or you’re snapping terminals with him.
(LOL! Cracked myself up on that one. :D)
Maria(Marildi) wrote:
The definition you quoted from the Scientology Axioms came later. And just like regular English, you have to have the appropriate definition for the context.
Should these be thought of as different definitions of a word in a dictionary? After all, different definitions of a word are developed over hundreds of years, by many different people, and often come from different cultures.
Isn’t the “theta” concept more of a model, as in the “Theta/MEST Theory” and wasn’t it developed by a single man?
And so when you are dealing with a model which is just a few years changes itself to contradict the earlier model – with no explanation at all from its inventor – how can that model be trusted?
Think of this: What if Niels Bohr changed his model for atomic structure just a few years after he put out the first version, and this new version completely contradicted the old version? But Niels didn’t explain anything about the reasons for the change – it was just the path of his “research and discovery” etc. And scientists use each contradictory model interchangeably without even noticing it. In fact, instead of thinking about this model as a model, they think of it as different definitions in an english dictionary? What kind of thinking in science is that likely to lead to?
And Scientology is supposedly a philosophy! What are two contradictory versions of a model doing in the fundamentals of a philosophy – without its adherents even noticing the contradictions and using them interchangeably?
Alanzo said:
Then how can a thetan have a “volume of his theta”, as you reason above?
Doesn’t volume mean “The amount of space occupied by a three-dimensional object or region of space, expressed in cubic units. or “The capacity of such a region or of a specified container, expressed in cubic units. or “Amount; quantity: a low volume of business; a considerable volume of lumber.”
Please make this Scientology thinking make sense for me.
**************************************************
I can`t make this Scientology thinking make sense for you, but I can tell you about Maria`thinking:
If you take down the walls of the container or move them outwards then you have less restrained or confined space. But this isn`t a volume of his theta. It is a volume of unrestrained or unconfined theta. If you take down all the walls then you have free theta.
Or you could simply have nothing to do with the contrived construction of walls and containers and again you would have free theta, but then of course, you probably have to encompass that construction and it would still be contained in your unrestricted domain or space or whatever word you would like to use. So it would be like having something sitting in the midst of whatever you are currently doing or not doing as the case may be.
Of course the second scenario is the first scenario. Its just that in the second scenario you grant power to the walls and have them continue so you can now have this thing to play around with or find distressing or focus on or whatever.
I don`t think you`ll find this idea in Scientology, strictly speaking. This is a Maria idea.
As far as Scientology thinking goes, it seems that one definition of theta would be ARC,( energy, space and time.) There could be a volume of that and sure enough that would be a volume as you describe. The concept is that there is theta the problem, theta the solver of problems. A two-state beingness that goes back and forth and is BOTH depending on which side of the equation you look from.
Back to Maria ideas:
But that`s all on the order of created things.
It seems to me that one creates things and then gets all pissy when they won`t go away and pissy when they won`t come into existence on command.
So what happens if you take away all the barriers is that there are no barriers but to see this you have to put up some barriers or at least acknowledge some barriers i.e. you have to be it to see it.
I like these Maria ideas! Your last one summed it up well:
“So what happens if you take away all the barriers is that there are no barriers but to see this you have to put up some barriers or at least acknowledge some barriers i.e. you have to be it to see it.”
To me, the above also speaks indirectly to Al’s comments about constructs and reifications – i.e. they are simply the via, the means, for communicating about abstractions or actualities. In fact, we can’t do without constructs if we’re going to communicate about such things.
And even aside from communicating with others about them, the ability to understand such things for oneself necessitates constructs, unless you’re up to direct communication as in intuition or revelation.
Maria(Marildi) –
And YOU just got me to look further at “theta”, and I now see that LRH wasn’t inconsistent about it at all, nor did he actually change definitions. So that was good! But try again, Al baby – hit me with your best shot!
But if theta is composed of ARC and C stands for Communication and later in the axioms LRH defined Communication as:
Communication is the consideration and action of impelling an impulse or particle from source-point across a distance to receipt-point, with the intention of bringing into being at the receipt-point a duplication and understanding of that which emanated from the source-point.
The formula of communication is: cause, distance, effect, with intention, attention, and duplication with understanding.
The component parts of communication are consideration, intention, attention, cause, source-point, distance, effect, receipt-point, duplication, understanding, the velocity of the impulse or particle, nothingness or somethingness.
A noncommunication consists of barriers. Barriers consist of space, interpositions (such as walls and screens of fast-moving particles) and time. A communication, by definition, does not need to be two-way. When a communication is returned, the formula is repeated, with the receipt-point now becoming a source-point and the former source-point now becoming a receipt-point.”
Look at all those references to matter energy space and time for something that “has no location in space or time” but suddenly in the next version, does.
You say this is not a contradiction for emotional reasons, not for analytical reasons. You feel the emotional tone scale level of “ugh! Nnnnnnnooo!! I don’t want to look at that because there be monsters! Whole house of cards starts falling and all the times I’ve defended Scientology nnnnOOOOOO!!!”
(Cognitive Dissonance)
So your cognitive dissonance reduction technique is to ignore the contradiction and state how much more solidly everything is all consistent. And makes sense now.
Cognitively Resonant once again, an even more firmly a Scientologist than ever before, thank you very much!
Ever read this book?
http://www.amazon.com/When-Prophecy-Fails-Leon-Festinger/dp/1617202800/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1343243656&sr=1-1&keywords=festinger
Al, I think you missed the point: Theta is “basically static” and has no location, etc. “except by consideration”.
And the thetans taking part in this physical universe game do have the consideration of having a location in space, etc.
And by the way – why is Hubbard’s use of “theta” a simple definition and not a model?
Because definitions and models are too different things, right? And if a person is a careful, intelligent and critical thinker, one would be careful not to confuse a definition for a model. Because models are cognitive tools which are very useful in particular ways, but in ways that are different than definitions.
Right?
And so if you confuse a model for a definition, or you are never taught about models at all and can’t identify them, then you can miss all kinds of consequences of being in an ideological trap like Scientology with no way to think your way out of it.
Actually, I don’t think LRH ever used the word “definition” when describing theta. That was mine, loosely speaking. Even the tech dictionary, compiled by others not LRH, has so-called definitions which are actually nothing more than excerpts of various references. Here and there you’ll see one labeled “LRH Definition” but that is rare. Most of the others were never called definitions by LRH.
Maria(Marildi)
I sense you avoiding this concept of “model”.
Why?
Because there is no LRH reference on it?
The aversion you feel is quite correct. It is a dangerous idea for a Scientologist. It is a critical thinking tool that, once you learn about it, you learn the purpose, utility and..here’s the dangerous part… limitations of the uses of models.
So, is “theta” a model, or not?
I don’t think LRH intended theta as a model. His attempt was to use the word to speak about and describe an actuality, “what is”. As well as words can do that (see Maria’s ideas and my reply as regards any construct and its inherent limitations).
But how are you using the word “model”. Maybe I don’t have a full understanding.
Here’s a quote for you:
“A static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wavelength, no time, no location in space, no space. This has the technical name of ‘basic truth'”. (PXL)
p.s. I hope Valkov will contribute to this discussion of models. He’s more up on these things than I am. I simply think of a model as a kind of analogy about some subject, not a description of the subject itself. And I have also gotten the idea that it’s defined in different ways.
Here are some references on models and mental constructs with regard to critical thinking, science and philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy_of_science)
The reason this information is important, especially for Scientologists, is that one must always be aware when one is using a model to understand something real so they do not mistake the model for reality.
As I’ve mentioned, this is a problem in Scientology. For example, the reactive mind was always part of a model for the mind which was derived from a model in psycho-analysis. But later, Hubbard began to talk about the reality of the reactive mind and he started treating it as a real thing. Many Scientologists actually believe that they can see the reactive mind, and when this happens, you have the problem of reification, and all its attendant problems in critical thinking.
Here are some references on models and mental constructs with regard to critical thinking, science and philosophy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_modelling
Also important in the idea of a “construct”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Construct_(philosophy_of_science)
The reason this information is important, especially for Scientologists, is that one must always be aware when one is using a model to understand something real so they do not mistake the model for reality.
As I’ve mentioned, this is a problem in Scientology. For example, the reactive mind was always part of a model for the mind which was derived from a model in psycho-analysis. But later, Hubbard began to talk about the reality of the reactive mind and he started treating it as a real thing. Many Scientologists actually believe that they can see the reactive mind, and when this happens, you have the problem of reification, and all its attendant problems in critical thinking.
Al: “But later, Hubbard began to talk about the reality of the reactive mind and he started treating it as a real thing”
“Real” is always relative, Al. What was the context, the frame of reference? You don’t quote LRH but only give your own interpretation. Give us the reference for your claim so we can shoot you down properly. And with gusto. 😀
So is theta a model?
No, theta isn’t a model. It’s a word used to symbolize the existence of basic truth, Static.
Marildi wrote:
No, theta isn’t a model. It’s a word used to symbolize the existence of basic truth, Static.
I see.
Can you identify any models at all in Scientology for me? Can you list them out, or at least one or two?
How about mental constructs?
Can you list out a few examples of those from Scientology for me?
I never really thought about it. But off the top of my head I imagine that all of the Scn philosopy except theta would be considered to be in those categories if in fact there is no empirical evidence for the concepts, or only partly so, That would be true of much of science as well, right?
But you’ve apparently thought it out so instead of a cat and mouse game why don’t you just say what you are getting at?
Marildi wrote
I never really thought about it. But off the top of my head I imagine that all of the Scn philosopy except theta would be considered to be in those categories if in fact there is no empirical evidence for the concepts, or only partly so, That would be true of much of science as well, right?
These concepts of models and mental constructs are useful, right?
It is a useful classification of thought which allows a person to discern the difference between reality – that which we can touch see and feel – from ideas which are not reality, but whose only purpose is to aid in understanding a reality that we can’t see, touch or feel.
This classification of thought also teaches the limits of models and mental constructs, and allows a person to see the problems of getting too caught up in them. As Valkov has rightly pointed out in the past from Korzybski, “the map is not the territory”.
So what would happen if a person filled his mind with maps and thought they were real, that they WERE the territory?
But you’ve apparently thought it out so instead of a cat and mouse game why don’t you just say what you are getting at?
Way back at the beginning of this thread. I saw you “thinking with Scientology” with regard to the concept of “theta” and a person’s “volume of theta”.
You wrote this:
Now, the question is – do such environmental or bank influences, create a sudden or gradient (moving through all the intermediate tones) change in either the thetan tone or the thetan-plus-body tone. I think it might depend on how well the thetan can maintain a separateness from the masses and energies that appear in his space. And that ability would depend on the volume of his theta (his tone) compared to the volume of the tones exterior to him – as well as one other thing: his ability to postulate and make it stick. In which case he himself could determine his tone level.
You are looking for answers in the maps which can only be found in the territory.
Further, these maps contradict each other, and some of them are maps of territories which are only imagined to exist. And some of these maps have no corresponding territory that exists in the real world at all.
So maps can be wrong, distorted, partial and represent things that don’t exist at all. Recognize the difference between maps and territories and realize when you are looking at a map and not the territory. Treat maps differently than territories. Seek out more territories than maps. If you have a map, go find the territory with it. If the territory is proven to not exist, the map is worthless.
Let it go.
Al, you say: “Way back at the beginning of this thread. I saw you ‘thinking with Scientology’ with regard to the concept of “theta” and a person’s ‘volume of theta’. Let it go.”
Well, why shouldn’t I think with Scientology? Its models and constructs do exactly what you said – and I quote: “aid in understanding a reality that we can’t see, touch or feel.”
Earlier in this long exchange between us, you made an assertion about what you claimed to be LRH’s inconsistency regarding the term “theta”, and I quoted some references for you that showed how in fact there was no inconsistency. Your response was to say my answer was based on emotional reasons! (A truly weird, albeit typical, conclusion on your part, considering that my answer was simply to quote the relevant data that you were obviously missing.) I ignored that personal remark and again gave the references that showed you had an incorrect understanding. That time you gave no response at all and went on to something else.
That next subject started with a statement about LRH first treating the reactive mind as a model and then later started treating it as a real thing. I pointed out that without giving any references this was merely an interpretation and I asked for the reference. You ignored that and continued expounding on the subject of models and constructs, as well as making more assumptions about my thinking.
So Al, just like has occurred so often in the past, once again I don’t get that you are interested in an honest and true discussion. The above sequence of events is typically how it goes with you. Sorry to say, but you come off as being full of hot air, at best.
But actually, it seems to me that you yourself are the one who is the effect of fixed ideas – the thing you constantly accuse others of being, usually based on nothing more than your stereotype of “Scientologists”. Fixed ideas you are unable and/or unwilling to honestly look at, to the extent that you can’t even HEAR the answers offered in answer to such claims as “inconsistency” and “contradiction”, and you outright ignore queries regarding your other unsupported assertions.
I’ll use the term Geir used in a recent comment – “locked in logic”, meaning stuck in a logically justified viewpoint. And I must say you have gone out of your way to amass a ton of data for that justification, while refusing to look or listen to any data that doesn’t justify your locked-in convictions. The basic intent of your comments seems to be to sermonize on the fixed ideas you have about “Scientology” and “Scientologists”. Maybe you hate to give up your long-held “status” as what you may fancy to be the Paul Revere of the Anti-“Scientology”.Revolution.
I say all this not primarily for your benefit, because I don’t see that it will get through (although I would be very glad for you if any of it did that has truth to it). It’s mainly for the record, so that the various claims you make can be viewed from another perspective besides yours.
And by the way, that movie I have mentioned before by David Cronenberg, “A Dangerous Method” is a great movie about Freud, Jung and a patient of theirs. It shows people caught up in the maps and who no longer even consider the territory at all.
It really is a great movie to see for anyone who has ever been in Scientology.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1571222/
> “I miss a few emotions -like “irritated” – the dictionary is full of emotions and many are not on the scale. That’s the incompleteness.”
I never thought Ron tried to make a complete-complete tone scale, and I don’t think it would be optimum or practical, either.
If one really understands the tone scale, one can easily do a good approximation about where is whatever emotion which is not explicitly in the scale.
In order to have a complete-complete scale one should go over all the dictionaries of all the languages of the world, and write down all the emotions. Also, the professional linguistics people know how difficult is to synchronize subjective words in different languages. When I (self-)studied semantics (and linguistics) I was surprised about how difficult is to make thorough synchronization among different languages.
Also, as I mentioned, is the issue of the optimality. Whatever we are measuring, can be subdivide it more and more (*). How much is the optimum subdivision has to do with the goal of the measurement. So, in this case, the optimum information entropy is based on the time it takes to study the scale vs the benefits. The optimum information entropy, based on the scale subdivision, is reached as soon one is able to do a good approximation on the scale regarding an emotion which is not explicitly in the scale.
(*) Note: The latest theories about this MEST universe talk about a minimum plank measurement.
> “Also, I can feel more than one emotion at a time.”
The emotional scale is based on the KRC & ARC regarding an area.
A being has an emotional tone regarding life (life is also an area of our existence). However it has different tones regarding different areas. For example I’m in apathy (or lower) regarding going to Mars with my body in this lifetime; but at the same time, right now I’m in a high tone regarding this writing. So, I’m able to feel different emotions at the same time, because I’m able to put my attention on different areas at the same time.
Are you feeling more than one emotion at a time regarding one area? If so, are these emotions regarding different sub-areas of the same area? In the latter, from the emotion point of view, the sub-areas should be considered each one as an area in itself.
However, based on my understanding of the emotional tone being based on the KRC & ARC regarding an area: having more than one emotion regarding one area would mean having more than one KRC & ARC regarding one area. This looks like a being having simultaneously different viewpoints regarding an area, each viewpoint having its own KRC & ARC regarding the area, hence each viewpoint having its own emotional tone regarding the area; and the being not fully aware about the interplay of its own viewpoints.
> “I am also unsure if one actually has to go through all items and not jump on the scale. I’ve seen no real discussion or evidence on that point.”
This is a tough question. If there an instant change of emotion, how can one know if there was a jump on the scale, or a gradual change which was so fast that one could not perceive the gradual change?
Also, the emotional tone scale only works in universes which have the same kind of underlined more basic goals.
“This tone scale is a pattern of decay, beginning from a high point and sliding downwards. By its very nature it assumes the prior existence of things which can decay. The earlier series has a different scale.” … “This whole area is very much in need of further research.” Quoted from Ken Ogger aka The Pilot.
> “I am also unsure if one actually has to go through all items and not jump on the scale. I’ve seen no real discussion or evidence on that point.”
Reviewing Ken Ogger (aka The Pilot) works, I got to this conclusion:
The tone scale is an arbitrary, it is not inherent to Θ.
The tone scale is an emergent property of more basics implants and agreements regarding this universe, also based on implants and agreements previous to this universe.
So, while Θ is bound to these more basic implants and agreements, one is always going through all the items and not jumping on the scale; it may be done so fast that it looks like jumping.
However if Θ is not bound to these more basic implants and agreements, then Θ is not bound to the tone scale, so it is able to create whatever emotion wants without needing to go through all the items.
Ferenc Franciso. Well, what you say is really interesting. However, I may have a mu. What is that little circle with a mark in it? Q? thanks.
deLizabeth,
Θ is the Greek letter Theta.
Since you are using the word “mu”, I assume this explanation will suffice.
Thank you Ferenc. I know the word theta, I’m not familiar with that symbol on a keyboard and have seen it occasionally in posts. Now I’ll re read. Is there a way can be typed from standard keyboard?
deLizabeth,
I use Window’s Character Map. Since I use Θ sporadically, I didn’t try to figure out its keystroke for my keyboard.
Don’t have that map. Thanks for clearing that up for me 🙂
deLizabeth,
I assume you are using Window (you said “Don’t have that map”, you didn’t say “Don’t have Windows”).
The Character Map is a standard Windows Accessory. The following is for both Windows 7 and XP.
Programs Menu: All Programs → Accessories → System Tools → Character Map
File Name: charmap.exe
Folder path: %windir%\system32
Open the Character Map → Check: Advanced View → Search For: theta
I put a Character Map’s shortcut in my desktop.
I’m on Mac and don’t believe have windows. My mate was the computer whiz, not me and since the big mac died after he did, I’m using an old iMac with basic stuff. Had a PC with windows short time, but let it go, as more familiar with Mac. Thanks tho for all the info and caring. 🙂
Θ
Geir, Maria, Ferenc, and whoever else participated in the exchange on the missing emotions on the tone scale, I happened to come across something in SOS, first chapter, “The Tone Scale”. It seems to be directly related to that discussion:
“Column A on the chart is graduated as a Tone Scale. Actually,this scale has many more heights and levels than those we can now measure and use.”
Good point Miraldi,
Are you only reading the book or are you reading the chart.
It appears evident to me that most people in scn do not know that scale on the chart of human evaluation. It is a mind blowing, mind expanding, sobering chart.
That is one of the most important basics in scn. If you do not understand that chart completely, you cannot understand scn.
Especially those that scream and argue to defend standard tech, standard bridge, that to think for oneself and to try and improve the bridge, improve auditing technique is squirrel, blasphemy, heretic and what not, is a viewpoint and state of mind very low on the tone scale, it is at “not thinking” (which is 0.5) and “not wanting change”, which is similar.
Everyone should study that chart in full and know it.
Dio
Hi Dio,
You may have seen the comment I made earlier to Ferenc, in which I expressed that I had spotted one of my own still somewhat fixed ideas carried over from my experience with the CoS. But I don’t think being susceptible to getting fixed ideas is necessarily a matter of tone level or of
intelligence. It can happen to anybody (particularly those who have been connected very much with the CoS) – and they wouldn’t know it since that is the nature of the beast. You were lucky not to have been involved with the Church that long, but as you know this pitfall can be stumbled into anywhere. 😉
I am in total agreement with you about the value of Science of Survival and the Chart of Human Evaluation! I’ve read both, and parts of each multiple times.
Btw, you changed your moniker and I wouldn’t have recognized you if you hadn’t signed “Dio”. 😉
Hi Miraldi,
Your letter to me:
Hi Dio, You may have seen the comment I made earlier to Ferenc, in which I expressed that I had spotted one of my own still somewhat fixed ideas carried over from my experience with the CoS. But I don’t think being susceptible to getting fixed ideas is necessarily a matter of tone level or of intelligence. It can happen to anybody (particularly those who have been connected very much with the CoS) – and they wouldn’t know it since that is the nature of the beast. You were lucky not to have been involved with the Church that long, but as you know this pitfall can be stumbled into anywhere. 😉
D. You were operating robotically on false and limiting data.
It is also evident you did not apply the data from the article “How to Study a Science” from “A New Slant on Life”, to Scientology.
You cannot understand scientology unless you apply that data in the full spirit of it’s meaning.
I am in total agreement with you about the value of Science of Survival and the Chart of Human Evaluation! I’ve read both, and parts of each multiple times. Btw, you changed your moniker and I wouldn’t have recognized you if you hadn’t signed “Dio”. 😉
D. I did not change it. I think the problem is “WordPress”, They appear to be a bit schitzophrenic and it shows up their blog software.
They get information screwed up and confused between different accounts.
Dio
Dio: “You were operating robotically on false and limiting data. It is also evident you did not apply the data from the article “How to Study a Science” from “A New Slant on Life”, to Scientology.”
You know, Dio, I had already indicated that I realized my idea was false and even referred to it as a “fixed idea”, and by saying that much it was pretty obvious that I also wasn’t applying LRH’s “How to Study a Science”. Instead of re-phrasing it as you did in even harsher terms, but not really adding anything to the point, wouldn’t a simple TR 2 ack have been better? 😉
Dio: “You cannot understand scientology unless you apply that data in the full spirit of its meaning.”
Wholehearted agreement from me.
Btw, Although it didn’t quite come across as you intended, I did get that the post of yours from a couple weeks or so ago was sort of a “love letter” to Maria (I think it was her) and as such was kind of fun. JFYI 🙂
Miraldi,
I acknowledge and thank you for your reply.
I strive to only communicate, axioms and well researched and well reasoned data, to arrive at the most superior computation, the highest truth possible on any subject.
And often the truth ruffles feathers, tips apple carts over and even makes some people boil over or worse, want to crucify the messenger, when their false datums are threatened.
But so be it, because yours or others unfavourable reactions do not make what I said less true.
Only the truth will solve problems.
False and limiting data does not solve any problems.
The sincere and honest person does not mind his operating data and knowledge based scrutinized.
Have you ever learned anything from anyone who agreed with you?
Dio
Dio, thank you very much for the ack. It made me feel good and raised my ARC. 🙂
You ask, “Have you ever learned anything from anyone who agreed with you?”
Fair question. The whole purpose of discussing is to learn something you didn’t already know, or to get the other person to see something he hasn’t.
The other question we should ask is this: Do you think a person is more or less likely to learn from someone whose disagreement is expressed without regard for the ARC triangle?
I can’t imagine that you would arbitrarily disregard this very basic Scn principle, especially since it is the basis of a book you have especially high appreciation of, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL.
And yet, you also say that “the truth ruffles feathers, tips apple carts over and even makes some people boil over or worse, want to crucify the messenger” and then brush it off with, “so be it” – as though it should not be of any concern at all. This would be contradictory to your assertion of the basic truths of Scientology, would it not?
Miraldi,,
Dio, thank you very much for the ack. It made me feel good and raised my ARC. 🙂 You ask, “Have you ever learned anything from anyone who agreed with you?” Fair question. The whole purpose of discussing is to learn something you didn’t already know, or to get the other person to see something he hasn’t. The other question we should ask is this: Do you think a person is more or less likely to learn from someone whose disagreement is expressed without regard for the ARC triangle? I can’t imagine that you would arbitrarily disregard this very basic Scn principle, especially since it is the basis of a book you have especially high appreciation of, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL. And yet, you also say that “the truth ruffles feathers, tips apple carts over and even makes some people boil over or worse, want to crucify the messenger” and then brush it off with, “so be it” – as though it should not be of any concern at all. This would be contradictory to your assertion of the basic truths of Scientology, would it not?
Well, ARC is not absolute.
Calm seas do not a good sailor make.
This is also a side or in alignment to the datum that you cannot have freedom without barriers.
There is nothing wrong with sometimes ruffling feathers and tipping apple carts over if necessary.
It is good to rattle people’s cage or even throw a snake in it, once in a while.
As long as there is no serious harm or damage done.
There is a right way and wrong way to do everything.
And you can also say there is right time for everything and a wrong time for everything.
You see, Miraldi, knowledge without wisdom is dangerous.
That is why you are dangerous. No wisdom!
🙂
Those of you who lack wisdom, asketh of the Lord and you shall be given wisdom.
Or something to that effect.
Dio
I would like to offer this from the bulletin “Famous Scientology Justification”:
You can’t hurt a thetan
I was just being self-determined
It’s better than suppressing
He must have done something to deserve it
He was dragging it in
It’s not against my moral code
They couldn’t have it
They weren’t willing to experience it
I can’t help it if he reacts
It’s only a consideration anyhow
Codes are only considerations
It was my duty to tell the truth
Thanks for your input Geir.
I would like to read the entire bulletin on famous scn justification.
Please provide link.
Thank you.
Dio
It’s not online. It’s in the red vols, though.
Dio and Geir, here’s the whole list from an HCOB entitled “More Justifications” 8 JULY 1964. It’s not too long and I thought worth putting here for whoever else might be interested too.
You can actually download all the Tech and OEC Vols and many other Scn materials from this website: http://tep-online.info/ Scroll down a bit to see the list of links for Scn Materials (provided by Anonymous). This particular bulletin is from the Tech Vol II link on that list:
(Btw, another good website for Scn materials, including some that aren’t at the link above, can be found here: http://www.stss.nl )
.
MORE JUSTIFICATIONS
The following list of Scientology Justifications was compiled by Phyll Stevens
and several other Course Students and is issued to show how one can get around
getting off an overt and stay sick from it.
SOME FAMOUS JUSTIFICATIONS
It wasn’t really an overt because …..
It wasn’t me it was just my bank
You can’t hurt a thetan
He was asking for a motivator
He’s got overts on me
I’ve got a service fac on that
His overts are bigger than mine
My intentions were good
He’s a victim anyway
I had by-passed charge
I was just being self-determined
I’ve come up to being overt
It’s better than suppressing
I’ll straighten it out next lifetime
He must have done something to deserve it
He was dragging it in
I was in an ARC break
He needed a lesson
He’ll have another lifetime anyway
It’s only a consideration anyhow
It’s not against my moral code
Codes are only considerations
They couldn’t have it
They weren’t willing to experience it
I don’t see why I have to be the only one to take responsibility
It’s about time I was overt
They are only wogs anyhow
They are so way out they wouldn’t realize it
He’s such a victim already, one more motivator won’t make any difference
They just can’t have 8-C
I can’t help it if he reacts
He’s too critical
He must have missed W/Hs
Why should I limit my causativeness just because others can’t take it
It was my duty to tell the truth
He must have postulated it first
He never would have cognited if I hadn’t told him
I’ll run it out later
He’ll be getting more auditing
Miraldi,
Thank you for posting that.
But here are the facts:
That piece is so pathetically lame and deformed, it is utter nonsense. It is vomit.
Of which the only good parts of it are the unchewed peas and carrots.
It is easy to see right through that.
It is evidently the work of some feeble minded, low toned enthetan.
It comes across as someone wimping and uttering from the depths of the tone scale.
It means you are supposed to get into agreement and sympathize with him.
How that ever got into the policy books, is beyond me?
If Hubbard approved that, (which I doubt he did), but if he did, it surely was during a moment of weakness. He had a lot of those kinds of moments due to be overwhelmed by the sheer mass of the entheta.
In his last words to mankind; he said, if you try and help the insane, you will go insane.
Anyone who would use that data or support that data is of the same calibre as the author.
It reminds me of a few of the types I encountered through my brief sojourn through the asylum called the cos.
Hubbard’s advice in Dianetics came to my mind then, which said:
The client should always be aware of who should be on the the couch, the client or the therapist.
That advice saved my life, more than once.
Dio
Thank you for proving the point of that bulletin so thoroughly and emphatically and without a whiff of self awareness in the point it covers.
I’m afraid I agree with Geir, Dio, and have been trying to say the same in so many words. As I’ve said to you before, you have some very good things to contribute but they are often nullified by this attitude.
Btw, that HCOB – from way back in 1964, mind you – was never cancelled by LRH and it has always had his signature on it. It was on an LRH-approved Levels auditor checksheet for many years (don’t know if it is on the current CoS checksheet).
If I remember right, it was the checksheet for Level IV. Interestingly, that Level is about ser facs, which is all about computations people have to make themselves right and others wrong – and about why a ser fac ruins a person’s life and utterly holds him back from his true potential.
Also, I am almost positive that it was Grade 4 that LRH stated is where the pc goes from Homo sapiens to Homo novis – the latter is “someone possessed of new and desirable attributes, sane and rational, about a skyscraper higher than Homo sapiens”. (Ref: HCOB, 28 Jun 65)
Miraldi,
Why are you afraid that you agree with Geir?
Afraid of what?
Dio
Dio, when someone uses the expression “I’m afraid that…” it isn’t meant literally. It’s just a way of indicating that what you are about to say is negative in some way. And sometimes it has the added intention to express that you respect and/or like the person enough that you want to soften your words a bit.
This conversation we’ve been having reminded me of a comment you posted not that long ago, where you candidly told us about your start in life and how its impact affected you and still affects you to this day as regards how you feel about people. When I read that comment I couldn’t think how to say that I admired you for sharing something personal like that with us, but I guess I could have simply said that. Anyway, I was just now thinking about it again and wondering if you feel that the effect on you that occurred couldn’t be handled. I know that research has found certain effects on the body and brain do occur because of traumatic experiences, but I believe it has also been found that those effects can sometimes be reversed. The brain has been shown to be amazingly plastic its ability to change markedly.
I realize there are many Scientologists and former Scientologists who make Scientology look bad, but I am certain that this is because most of them are products of the Church of Scn, not the Scn in the books and other basic materials that both you and I appreciate. And their condition is also largely because they have not duplicated and understood those materials. Have you ever thought about getting some auditing on that issue you told us about, from an independent auditor?
Miraldi,
You posted this in reply to me:
Dio, when someone uses the expression “I’m afraid that…” it isn’t meant literally. It’s just a way of indicating that what you are about to say is negative in some way. And sometimes it has the added intention to express that you respect and/or like the person enough that you want to soften your words a bit. This conversation we’ve been having reminded me of a comment you posted not that long ago, where you candidly told us about your start in life and how its impact affected you and still affects you to this day as regards how you feel about people. When I read that comment I couldn’t think how to say that I admired you for sharing something personal like that with us, but I guess I could have simply said that. Anyway, I was just now thinking about it again and wondering if you feel that the effect on you that occurred couldn’t be handled. I know that research has found certain effects on the body and brain do occur because of traumatic experiences, but I believe it has also been found that those effects can sometimes be reversed. The brain has been shown to be amazingly plastic its ability to change markedly. I realize there are many Scientologists and former Scientologists who make Scientology look bad, but I am certain that this is because most of them are products of the Church of Scn, not the Scn in the books and other basic materials that both you and I appreciate. And their condition is also largely because they have not duplicated and understood those materials. Have you ever thought about getting some auditing on that issue you told us about, from an independent auditor?
Me:
Miraldi: While I am impressed at your attempt to carefully articulate a response to me, and not ruffle my feathers, I want you to know that I am accustomed to lots of abuse and criticism. It has not been an easy road, but it has made me tough and wise. I have learned that my critics are my best teachers. For that I am thankful.
I also know that most of my critics are only the devil’s dogs barking at me and others are not qualified to comment on anything. I know that everything they know is wrong. If they were intelligent enough to accept criticism I would tell them to shut their mouths and open their minds and take heed. But I know that if I told them that, they would really boil over, because they don’t really have a mind. Just a reactive mind. Mamma bears and pit bull terriers have reactive minds too.
Like I said before, they are not real human beings, they are only GEs. Human looking “animals”. They look and act like humans but are not real humans. They need a few thousand years of more evolution, and hopefully things don’t go to wrong for them. There is another option and that could be that they are imposters. Maybe their fathers masturbated on a hot rock and walked away and forgot about it.
I will try and remember to pray for them.
They make good slaves, though.
Now in regards to your suggestions for my repair, I can see that you do not really understand the in and outs and hows and whys of how we become what we are.
Therefore, you are talking through your hat. You have evidently also flunked scientology.
Plus LRH only got a few things right. He only blazed a rough trail through the jungle. He never had enough time to get it all right.
Filbert says that LRH only got less than one percent right. Based on my experience, I tend to agree with Filbert.
Based on Filbert’s resume as posted on his bridge “Excalibur Revisited” he has done a large amount of extra curricular research, which means he has applied the data in “How to Study a Science” extremely well and is of comparable magnitude to Hubbard and myself. So he is qualified to comment on the subject.
Now that does not mean the less than one percent is not extremely valuable data, it most certainly is, but it takes a highly learned person who has accumulated a body of knowledge of comparable magnitude to Hubbard, to figure out what the less than one percent is. There are only a small handful of such people on earth.
Sorting that less than one percent, the true data from scientology is kind of like panning for gold.
But I do appreciate your kindness, concern and suggestions for my repair. I know you have good intentions. And good intentions are always a prerequisite to any endeavour. So you are off to a good start. Now you just have to get the right knowledge to solve the problem or at least understand.
I just want to let you know where the cracks are in your dissertation:
1. When you say you “believe”, I know you don’t know, like I explained before and it is evident that you did not learn your lessons. I told you that believing is a confession of ignorance, amongst other things, I posted on one of these blogs. Did it all really go over your head?
That is a significant failure on your part.
I feel bad that my time was spent in vain.
2. Your statement that the “brain is amazingly plastic”. The brain is matter (MEST) like any other MEST. It has no power. You should remember that from Dianetics and early or basic scientology.
There are only two things in life and that is life and postulates. Hubbard only discovered a few types of postulates and a few causes of the malfunctions or dysfunctions of the body and spirit.
According to your words, I can see that you do not know how to fix such problems.
This is very similar to what Maria said about her exhusband a few weeks ago, that he was so cold that butter would not melt in his mouth.
When I read that, my heart cringed, with “Oh you foolish woman”.
I was so shocked with the way she said that. It was clearly evident that she flunked scientology and a lot more. Her ex’s demise was to a large degree her fault, because it is fundamentally a woman’s social responsibility to raise good husbands. That is what is meant by behind every successful man there is a successful woman. A woman who is successful in the raising of successful husbands. And having scn knowledge and training, she had better tools to help fix the troubled man, than anyone on earth.
I read her comment a while later that she cogged on some issues. I was busy and read it in a hurry, so I do not recall all what she said, but it looked like she at least got some insight into her husband’s problems. And it appeared that it was evidently due to what I told her, or at least it was initiated by what I said, and she did not even acknowledge that I put her on the right track to figuring out what she did, nor did she thank me for it. I wish I knew where to look and find it and reread it.
There is so much hype about wife abuse and that men are the problems in relationships, and the government agencies come down so heavy on men. That is so wrong. The problem is that woman have lost the art and science of raising good husbands.
Hubbard knew the real problems of life as he wrote in Science of survival. I will post it below in another post.
Scn does not have all the tech necessary to resolve or repair every defect, every form of insanity. But there is enough there, that if scn was done right and understood right, a person that could think for herself or himself and complete the cycle of learning, could figure out the answers to pretty well any other problem.
For one example: That is why most people who go into scn, who are assholes, come out as assholes, because scn does not have the cure for assholes. But there enough data to guide a competent person to the right answers elsewhere or and figure it out for themselves.
Dio
This has to be the most insane comment yet among the more than 20K on this blog.
Did you smoke crack just before you wrote this?
If you were the product of Scientology, then I fully understand anyone running away in horror.
Geir,
What is insane about my post?
Or what parts are insane?
Please explain in full detail.
I mean, just because you do not agree with what I said, does not mean that you are right.
How do you discern what is insane and sane?
Thanks.
Dio
I will quote only this:
I also know that most of my critics are only the devil’s dogs barking at me and others are not qualified to comment on anything. I know that everything they know is wrong. If they were intelligent enough to accept criticism I would tell them to shut their mouths and open their minds and take heed. But I know that if I told them that, they would really boil over, because they don’t really have a mind. Just a reactive mind. Mamma bears and pit bull terriers have reactive minds too.
Like I said before, they are not real human beings, they are only GEs. Human looking “animals”. They look and act like humans but are not real humans. They need a few thousand years of more evolution, and hopefully things don’t go to wrong for them. There is another option and that could be that they are imposters. Maybe their fathers masturbated on a hot rock and walked away and forgot about it.
I will try and remember to pray for them.
They make good slaves, though.
I do not expect you to see any wrong in what you wrote above, simply because you were the one who wrote it.
You are voicing opinions so damn close to the worst psychopaths in history (read Adolf Hitler) that it’s not even funny.
You are certainly entitled to your opinions and there is nothing wrong in harboring such. I only hope you restrain from acting on them.
Geir,
Thanks for posting that.
I work with a team of real experts.
That was one of my other me-s who wrote that. He was ruling the roost that time.
He is on a fishing trip now, so I am in charge now. I just read that and it let off line charge, so severe that I had to pick myself off the floor. It really made my day. It hasn’t happened for some time now.
I am really impressed with his genius. Very high theta stuff.
Like Einstein said: Great spirits have received violent opposition from mediocre minds.
I read Miraldi’s comment and get the idea that she is really climbing up the scale of intellectual and spiritual evolution in leaps and bounds.
People with high potential tend to do that in my sphere of influence.
I always try to bring out the best in people. (Few people want to admit it though. )
But too much theta fries some people’s minds, and they get their knickers in a knot and they really squeal, like I see it happens with you so often. Like 660 volts going through a 220 volt circuit.
But if you hang in there, the same thing will happen to you as with Miraldi.
Maybe I will try and come down the theta scale a few notches and make it easier for you.
Dio
You are either completely insane or you are simply a troll or you are OSA. I can see no other possibilities here.
In either case, I will ask you to stop posting here.
My guess now would be OSA. It occurred to me a while back that he could be a troll, because his comments have been just too outrageous and unreal. But I’ve been giving him the benefit of the doubt. Now I’m thinking not just a troll but an OSA troll. And not a staff member but an agent hired by them.
I commented one time that I thought OSA had their hands too full to bother with this blog, which isn’t as much obvious threat to the CoS as others. But in Dio’s case OSA looks very likely, considering the title of this blog post alone with the name Mark Shreffler in it. Mark having just become a huge target right when the post came out, the title would have attracted attention even if they had been paying no attention to the contents of posts up to then. That and the fact that Dio’s comments have been more outrageous than ever on this thread seem to make it all add up.
I thought back and can’t remember him posting, except for a couple of relatively mild comments on one thread, in all the months since you gave him the yellow card for stepping even more out of line than usual with regard to his nasty comments about other posters . But this blog post about Mark Shreffler would have been good reason for OSA to unleash him here again.
In fact, the issue with Mark would be worth sending Dio on a kamikaze mission this time. Up until the end, he was being careful not to offend you personally or go too far in general and get himself a red card. But when you called him out, he (or OSA) knew he no longer had much chance of being very effective here. So he tried to get in a few last blows to do as much damage as he could before you booted him, including a few intended to hit you personally (even if you didn’t post that last comment). That’s how it’s all looking to me now.
Wow, wasn’t I just saying how much I learn here?
And I was ready to conclude with utter insanity. But you may be right.
OSA troll doesn’t rule out insanity – it might even tend to indicate it. Especially with regard to agents who might have been hired precisely because of their insanity, at least in part . Their display of it would create the wanted effect of disruption.
On the Chart of Human Eval, fascism is at 1.5, which is also a level of psychotic. Dio’s remarks were clearly fascistic, and maybe too well presented to have been entirely mocked up.
Marildi you said “Wow, wasn’t I just saying how much I learn here?”
I guess the same as you and it makes the best sense from what I’ve seen. You are right on! 🙂
Thanks, deLizabeth. We’re both increasing our awareness!
Geir and deLizabeth, thinking about it some more I remembered the term “computing psychotic” and looked it up in the Tech Dictionary:
———————————————————–
1. a psychotic who from his reactivity figure-figures. He’s inconstant in his conduct, he’s computive. He figures it all out, he’s got explanations. His psychosis is derived because these are crazy explanations. He’s obsessively solving a problem that does not exist. (SH Spec 83, 6612C06)
2. the computing psychotic passes quite commonly for a normal. Here the individual is taking dictation solely from a facsimile of some past moment of pain and is acting upon the advice of the “circuit” and is calling it thought. The psychotic personality is distinguished by its irrationality and its perversion of values. The distinguishing characteristic of the computing psychotic is his utter inability to change his mind (AP&A)
————————————————————
Some of the phrases in those definitions really struck me, like “crazy explanations” and “perversion of values” and “inability to change his mind”. The extreme perversion of values is so obvious in Dio’s posts, and so shocking, but even when pointed out to him (as Geir did) he truly can’t see it.
There’s also the “circuit” he has about the word “believe”, which he launches into anytime someone uses the word. No matter how much it’s explained to him that there isn’t just the one definition he’s giving it, according to almost any dictionary, he insists that he’s the only one who knows the “right definition” and that the dictionaries are wrong. And no matter how thoroughly it’s explained to him that the meaning of words is nothing more than what has been agreed they mean and that the dictionaries are based on those agreements, none of it will get past that circuit. In other words: “utter inability to change his mind”.
So I’ve decided that it may just be a coincidence that he became even more outrageous than usual on this thread about Mark Shreffler, and he may not be an OSA agent after all. He may simply be suffering from the above condition.
I decided to post all this even though might still be reading the comments here, because I’m sure that if the above really does apply, he will not be able to see it and will simply conclude that I am completely ignorant, etc etc. Or if he has enough sanity to perceive any degree of truth to it, it might even persuade him to seek help.
Dio, since you think well of SOS, for the greatest part, why don’t you sit down with the Chart of Human Evaluation some time, and see where you think you fit. The Chart is totally based on the book, with each column having its own chapter, as you no doubt know. Just do this experiment by yourself so there won’t be any need or tendency to defend yourself to someone nearby, and explain it all away. There are some precise descriptions in those levels on the Chart that I see glaring in your posts.
Or you could compare yourself to the Christian ideal. Or any other philosophy, except, of course, things like fascism, for example.
Then, after you’ve done your assessment, decide whether some auditing might be a good thing to do to raise your tone level. And happiness level. You could even get the book SELF ANALYSIS, which is totally based on SOS and has processes that one can apply to oneself without the need of an auditor.
Thanks for noticing and acking my intentions on my last post. This is one last shot I thought I’d take at it. It’s my best shot. Good luck.
marildi; You may just be the nicest person I know.
And you, Geir, may be the most straight arrow and realistic person I know. Nice too, though. 🙂
Thank you for the super nice compliment! Actually, I’ve been practicing a couple of things you’ve written about. Your blog post about practice itself, and a comment about determining to be nice.
I really hope you believe me when I say how much I’ve gotten out of participating here. It blows my mind sometimes. Pretty often! Every time I think I should cut down on the time spent and get my dynamics in better balance, I have a big, or huge, win. The experience here is a process!
I am very happy to hear that – and very glad you continue to engage in this process of ours 🙂
Miraldi,
Thank you again for your suggestions.
Every time one of me wants to plot me on the chart, another one of me wants to do it too, then another me wants to do and next thing you know all my other me-s want to do too and then we all get in one heck of a scrap and nothing ever gets done.
I think a referee would help.
Do you want to come and be the referee?
Everyone of us is very high toned and very high theta, and very competitive to be in charge, and the competition is fierce.
Dio
Here is the part that I said I will post later:
Originally a quote from Science of Survival, which I had to edit a bit because Hubbard did not get it all correct, so I corrected him.
The whole future of the race (the role of women in society) depends upon it’s attitude toward
the housewife, mother hood, the family and children; and a race which specializes in women for “menial purposes”, or which thinks that the contest of the sexes in the sphere of business and politics is a worthier endeavor than the care of the home and creation of tomorrow’s generation, is a race which is dying. In the last few generations, have seen , in the woman who is an ambitious rival of the man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission she may have. It is her social responsibility. A society which looks down upon this mission and in which women are taught anything but, the care of men, being his help mate, and the creation of the future generation is a society, which is on the way out. The historian can peg the point where a society begins it’s sharpest decline at the instant when a woman begins to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this means that men are decadent and the women are no longer women. This is not a sermon on the role or position of women (this is not misogyny) : it is a sstatement of bald and basic fact. When the proper raising of children becomes unimportant to a society, that society has forfeited it’s future. Even beyond the parenting, bearing and rearing of children, a human being does not seem to be complete without a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. This relationship is the vessel where in is nurtured the life force of both individuals, whereby they create the future of the race in body and thought. If man is to rise to greater heights, than woman must rise with him, or even before him. But she must rise as a woman and not as today she is being misled into rising as a man. It is the hideous joke of misguided, frustrated, unvirile men to make women over into the travesty, which men have themselves become.
Men are difficult and troublesome creatures- but valuable. (But note that we are all products of an upbringing. We are only as good as we have been brought up. If you have a problem with the product you check the factory. Difficult and troublesome men are men who have not be brought up right. They have not had good mothers. )
The creative care and handling of men is an artful and beautiful task. Those who would cheat women out of their rightful place by making them into men should at least realize that by this action they are destroying not only the women but men and children as well. This is too great a price to pay for being “modern” or for someone’s petty anger or spite against the female sex. It is criminal negligence.
The traditional arts and skills of woman, (the arts and skills of husband care, home making and family raising, the creation and inspiration of which she is capable and which – here and there in isolated places in our culture- she still manages to effect in spite of the ruin and decay of man’s world (inspired and promoted by capitalism) which spreads around her, must be brought newly and fully into life. These arts, skills, creation and inspiration are her beauty, just as she is the beauty of mankind.
By L. Ron Hubbard, quote from the book; The Science of Survival
This is not misogyny.
This is about social responsibility.
This is for the love of women and the survival of the human race and civilization.
For a society is only as good, sane and stable as the home, which are the building blocks of society.
Society will deteriorate and die, relative to the number of women who leave home to compete in man’s world, and sacrifice the care of the home, family and men, to fulfill their own selfish goals.
Miraldi,
I have been wondering where that phrase “Homo novis” was? Thank you for posting it.
I have met many scientologists on many lists over the last 15 yrs, and I have only met one that I give a good pass mark on scientology, that I would classify as a “homo novis”.
A handful I would give a conditional pass to.
The rest I give a dismal failure and a disgrace to everything that is good.
Dio
The reference for the LRH data I gave about Homo novis is actually HISTORY OF MAN. I was looking at both references, which I was going to quote at first but then decided to just quote the more applicable one, and deleted the wrong reference notation. (Must have stayed up too late last night :))
p.s. I see my comment is awaiting moderation so I thought I would add that the above is actually the whole bulletin, in case that wasn’t clear.
Btw, Geir, there might be a pattern to comments that go in the moderation queue that wouldn’t ordinarily – they are the ones that contain internet links, from what I recall.
Sorry, people! I found out that when you go to the link I posted for the “More Justifications”
HCOB, it doesn’t take you directly to the Scn materials page. At the link I posted ( http://tep-online.info/ ) just beneath the large letters TEP (far left) is the German word “stichwortverzeichnis” (meaning “index”). Click on that and you will see a list with the choice of “Scientology”. Then on that page scroll down to see the list of Scn materials links. (The URL is still the same, surprisingly to me – but maybe not to “techies”.).
I originally found this page by googling for something and then I put it in my “Favorites”, so it comes up automatically at that page when I go to it from “Favorites”. Just letting you know in case you also want to be able to get the Scn materials page directly anytime.
Also, I wrote that the HCOB was in Vol II but it’s actually Vol V, and rather than the materials being provided by “Anonymous” with a capital A, they are provided by “anonymous”. (Must have been too late at night for me when I posted the comment :).)
θ
θ 🙂
Yes, Ferenc, I thought it was pretty theta that the observations and reasoning in the exchange were supported by that LRH reference.
Al, I would have predicted that you comment without having watched the video. Was I right? 😉
I would predict that he would skim through it. Al’s a perfectionist. I like his thoroughness.
LOL. Oh boy, are we gonna have fun with Al! 😀
p.s. I mean videos, plural, not just the last one.
I quoted from the last one to make it appear that I had studied all the videos thoroughly before coming to my considered conclusion.
Well, I did stop short of asking outright if that was the case. But your answer doesn’t tell me if you’re just being sarcastically funny, or you figure that it’s a good dodge. So no direct answer to the question doesn’t convince me 😉
It convinced me – that I was wrong in trusting that he actually did see them all. Sorry, my bad.
That’s okay, Geir. But you need to work on your cynicism. 😀
Oops, that was a bit ambiguous. I meant you need to work on being more cynical. (Joke.)
I dare you to look through my post and find the cognitive distortions in it.
Who said anything about distortions?
I was referring to the list of cognitive distortions found in Cognitive Behavorial Therapy. (in that email I sent to you, G. Playing the “find the cognitive distortions” game might be even more fun and productive than “find the logical fallacy” game!) (4.0 Enthusiasm!)
And yes, Valkov, unlike any Dianetic or Scientology procedure, CBT has been scientifically tested and proven effective. (3.0 Conservatism)
Notice that I go down tone slightly when I address Valkov. I don’t want to get too high-toned around him – he’ll become overwhelmed.
Can you point me to the scientific testing that was done on CBT and in particular cognitive distortion? Also, I thought cognitive distortion was an NLP concept. Has CBT now embraced NLP concepts? Not that it really matters but I’ve been studying both NLP and CBT in the last several months and haven’t found any supporting testing other than the usual case, statistical and anecdotal testing. Are we even talking about the same thing? Eg. Here’s a typical list of cognitive distortions: http://healthymind.com/s-distortions.html
I wrote up a post for Geir on the basics of CBT.
Sharpen your swords, and all your knives, and gird-up your loins, for we will dance at that time, fair lady.
(Been watching hours of “Game of Thrones”, sorry)
Just give the links to the scientific testing on CBT.You know it has been scientifically tested, so please show us the links.
Just give the links to the scientific testing on CBT.You know it has been scientifically tested, so please show us the links.
I would think that you would not want to go off-topic. Is that not the case G?
Just proved the links and we’ll all be fine – because that should indeed close the Off-Topic’ness. If you don’t this would be going on and on. So – no more dodging, just share your links. Failure to do so would be labelled as calling your bluff. You’re not bluffing, are you Al?
Actually Al, I have no interest in discussing it. I just want the information for my own edification. If there really is scientific testing that proves CBT then I want to read it. Its not a matter of proving CBT right or wrong, its a matter of having a bigger toolbox. To add things to my toolbox, I need to know WHAT EXACTLY out of the core CBT components they tested and for what conditions over what period of time. I’ve no doubt that CBT and NLP can produce results for specific individuals faced with specific problems in terms of shifting paradigms and sorting through disempowering ways of approaching problems. So what did they test and how did they test is the question. Just give me the references and you’re off the hook and the thread can stay on topic. BTW thanks Geir for telling Al that its okay to post the info and sorry about digressing.
Not bluffing, Geir.
I swear!
Don’t swear – smear the links on my blog instead.
I will get around to answer your e-mail, though.
I personally know someone for whom CBT did not “work” at all. I would like to know what the specific parameters are for CBT – what kind of conditions does it work for, what kind of conditions it does not work for, when is it appropriate to prescribe CBT as a therapy, etc.
Psychobabble aside.
V wrote:
I personally know someone for whom CBT did not “work” at all….
This person was probably on drugs or connected to a suppressive person. Or they probably had MUs or even overts against the subject.
CBT works when it is 100% standardly applied. People who are PTS are potential trouble sources for CBT and they should not receive any CBT until they are handled.
This was another joke.
I’m wondering how many true believing Scientologists get all of its many-faceted ironies and multi-layered textures, though.
Not everyone is as astute as you are, Al. But I guess you knew that. 😛
What in the heck is a “cognitive distortion”?
Are they (cognitive distortions) scientifically proven to exist?
Are they some kind of ideological yardstick, by which the purity of one’s thinking can supposedly be measured?
Can one perceive the “cognitive distortions” of others?
What gives, here? I need a glossary for this jargon!
Where is katageek when we need him?
I suspect Al is a member of some weird psychological cult! Call the deprogrammers!
In “Keeping CBT Working” our Founder, Dr. Shock Kreitzmann says that CBT works, but ONLY if it is applied correctly. There is an infinity of ways to misapply it, and only one way to apply it correctly. So you can see that ideological purity is essential to keep CBT working! (4.0 enthusiasm)
That pole vaulting didn’t really do it for ya?
It’s very low-toned to try to invalidate my gains in pole vaulting.
Cognitive distortion is academic head speak for “impaired judgment”.
Impaired judgement is equal to insanity.
Insanity is the inability to reason, a lack of discernment, the inability to the discern right frm wrong.
The causes of cognitive distortions are beliefs, false and lmiting data, implants, engrams, (traumatic incidents) gpms, suppression, and maybe there are other causes that I do not know of.
Beliefs are equal to “false and limiting data” .
Dio
A person is successful relative ( proportional) to the number of assholes in his life.
Diogenes wrote:
The causes of cognitive distortions are beliefs, false and lmiting data, implants, engrams, (traumatic incidents) gpms, suppression, and maybe there are other causes that I do not know of.
If these are causes for cognitive distortions, then why is it only necessary to learn to identify them in your own thinking and change your own explanatory style in order to get rid of them?
Al, you are not even doing any honest thinking. You are playing games. You are only in a blanket criticize scn mode. Or some mode to defend your position, game or what ever it is. Just firing away like a machine gun or a lose cannon.
In other words it appears that you are mentally unstable.
You have cognitive distortions.
Cognitive implies things like thinking or the mind and distortions means smething like unclear,
like if you are looking across a desert or down a highway through the heat of a hot day, causing a mirage, and the mirage causing distortions.
I have to explain it in detail in case you have not been out of your cave since birth and have not seen a mirage and not know it’s effect on reality.
That being said, in regards to your comment:
If these are causes for cognitive distortions, then why is it only necessary to learn to identify them in your own thinking and change your own explanatory style in order to get rid of them?
Have you tried to:
learn to identify them in your own thinking and change your own explanatory style in order to get rid of them?
And did some honest audting to compare the workability of the two methods?
You seem to think that the facts are determined by argument or by who wins an arguement or by playing mind games.
That is false. The facts are determined by how well an idea works,
or by how many problems it solves.
Dio
PS: Another cause of cognitive distortions is a lack of the right kind of education and experience.
In other words, garbage in and garbage out.
“mentally unstable”?
Hey! Chill, dude!
The first person to accuse the other of being mentally unstable wins the argument every time.
Well played, sir.
Well played.
Al, How else should I have called your game, (your bullshit) ?
What would you call it?
It was clearly evident that you were playing some kind of “game”.
What ever your game was, was not well accepted by myself and as I read, others as well.
I simply “as ised” it, to stop it.
I called a spade a spade.
That is what Hubbard meant by “as ising” something, tends to make it disappear.
If it is not exactly “as-ised” it tends to persist.
Whether I did or not remains to be seen.
When someone is throwing rocks at my house or dancing on the lawn naked, or shouting nonsense at my house, or the like, I call the police.
Dio
I understand that when you attack me personally, rather than addressing the issues under discussion, you are only applying Scientology to life and those around you.
Boy howdy, do I understand.
I love it that you two are pitted against each other. 😀
LOL, getting familiar with the humor on this thread…. still laughing. I’m so at effect of your humor it just sot me right up the scale. See it works. 🙂 Personally I got up to boredom on the first 1 1/2 vids and never got to the tone scale except for a quick listen today. Not that Mark is boring, just subject matter for me.
Diogenese: the response above was meant after reading this. “A person is successful relative ( proportional) to the number of assholes in his life.”
Delizabeth,
Thanks. I was wondering if anyone read that or and caught on.
Dio
Ha ha! I should have posted first. I’m sure you would easily have predicted I would have a positive response – just not sure whether you would have based that on tone or “bias”, LOL. (And if you say “bias”, I’m gonna say, “I predicted that!” :D)
Anyway, thanks for posting these videos! I just finished watching up to the end of the second video and wanted to say that I can see why he’s considered a great speaker. He does a beautiful job of making the tone scale real and even summing up Scientology in terms of it. That seminar would make a great introductory lecture.
Actually, I have summed up Scientology in almost the same way he does. He says that there are only two things you need in order to be happy and successful in life – ability and willingness to experience motion (which he points out is the totality of this universe), and the second is the ability to control motion. He then explains that auditing raises you on the tone scale so that you can accomplish the first – experience motion – and training is where you learn how to control the motion. My idea about the two sides of the Bridge has been only slightly different in that I’ve thought of the auditing side as raising ARC, but affinity in particular – which is tone level.
I also loved the importance he gives to misunderstood words, as any experienced word clearer would do. I really, truly have seen that clearing a word can change one’s universe, as Mark said. Especially a word that’s completely new to you – it opens up a whole new world, or at least another part of this one. Reminds me of the definition of a word – a whole package of thought.
Well;High on the Tone Scale = Yes!
Low on the Tone Scale = No!
Yeah, I would have predicted that;)
Al seems all fired up on this one. I’m reaching for the popcorn here.Seems he might have stepped into it though, with someone perhaps being better at riding his new hobby horse than him. Hi Maria.
Hi Geir. No hobby horse really, but I did just finish a whole study evolution on CBT and NLP. Its fascinating material really.
I like Mark Sheffler – to my way of thinking he has a good humored and compassionate approach, one that doesn’t foster fear and disgust. Nice!
Don’t worry, I don’t plan to get into it with Al — I was just really surprised to hear that CBT has been scientifically tested and PROVEN to work. I really would like to actually see that research instead of the continual assertion by CBT proponents that it is based on scientific testing. I can’t find the actual test, just the insistence that they have been done and CBT is based on test results. I am just a little baffled as to just how they do a double-blind so I’d really like to see the information on the actual testing and what criteria they are using to establish the effectiveness. So Al — do you have any links you can send me on this?
Not enough time right now to get into this. But when G fires up the post on CBT, I’d love to discuss it with you.
Al, I’m not really interested in discussing it — I just wanted the links for my library.
You are maintaining a CBT library?
OK, here are some from the website ScienceDaily.com.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110727161244.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111122113000.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120426104343.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020025423.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120127140011.htm
No not a CBT library. CBT is just one little section in it!
Thanks for the links!
Yes, maybe Al has taken on more than he can chew. He’s comm lagging and I suspect he is now boning up on answers to Maria’s questions. And maybe he is actually going to watch all the videos now. (He better – I might give him a pop quiz :D) Plus, Valkov is here! Watch out Al, all the big guns are aimed, including Geir and his humorous jabs.
You are a lot of fun sometimes – see how you’ve raised the tone level to Games? 🙂
I have much less time these days to play, although I do love it so.
If Geir gets around to a discussion on CBT, I’d love to play more. But for now, I have too many clients who are clinging to my every move.
This crusade is fading into my past. There is much less of a danger that Scientology will continue to harm people. The world is becoming inoculated to Scientology. And there are so many people now who are taking up the fight who are all much smarter, more equipped, and so much more energetic than I am any more that I am afraid it’s time that I drift on into the sunset to my next destination.
I just wanted to stop in here and say hi to everybody.
But you’re right, Marildi, my days of taking on whole message boards filled with Scientologists are over.
I won.
I would word it as there is much less danger of the CoS brand of Scientology continuing to harm people. Scientology itself will never go away, IMHO.
Now, as for cognitive therapy, as I commented on the previous thread, what I know about it makes sense. I read a book named “The Small Book” – as in contrast to “The Big Book” of AA. It’s techniques (“Rational Recovery Systems”) are considered a type of cognitive therapy. The interesting thing that I noticed is that virtually everything in it seemed to be aligned with Scientology principles! TIR too (Traumatic Incident Reduction), is basically Dianetics from what I know about it. I can’t help but wonder how much of the tech that is out there now has filtered out into the world from Scientology.
And Scientology itself is here to stay. 😉
marildi, TIR is dianetics. One of the leading practitioners of TIR is a woman who is Clear and OTIII and a Dianetic auditor. She had a mission here in Michigan until the “massacre”. I was there when th eS.O. came and took her keys away. She then left and hooked up with Sarge Gerbode and the TIR Association.
There was quite a network of “old-time” Scientologists here in Southeast Michigan and they were aware of the “trouble brewing” with the advent of the Sea Org and “heavy ethics” in the late ’60s and early ’70s. The network included people like Ruth Minshull. There were plenty of Clears and original OTs in the bunch. Enid Vien was another. She had a mission in the Flint, Michigan area at one time.
http://www.dynamism.org/bio.html
These people were really Clears and of course were very self-determined as a result. When the S.O. “ETHICS” bullshit came down the pipe, they basically did a Lisa Marie and said “see ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya” and all left. When it came to disconnecting, they stuck with their friends and family for the most part and disconnected from the CoS. Many were of course Declared.
I think of those days as comparable to early grassroots Christian days before the establishment of the “official” Christian churches, the Catholic and the Orthodox, when the Gnostic elements of Christianity were suppressed and excluded from the “scriptures”.
At least today the dissenting Scientologists are not overtly butchered as the early Christians were if they were declared to be “squirrels”. But DM comes close. I believe he would if he could. But given the society today, he has to be covert about it.
Good post, Valkov. And thanks for confirming my observation about TIR being basically Dianetics processing.
Interesting data about Ruth Minshull too. I have wondered what happened to her. Did you notice in the videos that Mark Shreffler used the expression “How to choose your people”? I’m sure you know that Ruth Minshull wrote a book of that title. I always assumed it was taken off the shelves in orgs and missions because it “wasn’t LRH”. Now I’m thinking otherwise.
Valkov, thanks for the data and the perspective on the larger picture.
Marildi – Ruth is very much alive and well and she has her own blog at: http://ruthminshull.com/ To our total dismay at our Mission, her books (along with Peter Gillham’s books) were taken off the shelves in Church organizations because they were not LRH written. There was no communication to the effect that she or Peter had been exed or had exited. The order came down one day — no books but those written by LRH and that was that. You could still get Peter’s books through direct orders for a while but Ruth’s books completely disappeared. Really a shame because like Mark’s lectures, they served a real need for a personal touch and lots of examples for newcomers.
Maria, thanks for filling in some gaps. While we’re on the subject of talks or writings that aren’t by LRH, maybe you can enlighten me on something else. Considering how the verbal tech policy is interpreted, I never understood why people aren’t prevented from giving talks of any kind in Scientology. Speakers usually do give quotes here and there, but they also give their understanding or interpretation (heaven forbid – unless it’s management doing it) of things LRH has written or said in lectures. Or is the policy – which refers to verbal TECH specifically – simply being given a very broad interpretation – which in that case would itself be verbal tech (admin tech). Any thoughts on this?
Toward the end of my stay in the church, there were efforts to stop me from giving talks to public that weren’t scripted. And me doing scripted talks? In someone’s dreams. They gave up on me at AOSH ANZO when I was doing my talks after finishing an OT level. The Captain would require me to write down my speech.I did. But then when I got onto the stage I said something entirely different.My writing down a speech became a joke -except with that very serious Captain. She got increasingly annoyed:)
That is a funny story. But that’a the direction I figured things were going in. And I wouldn’t be surprised if by now the graduation speeches are all done that way, at least in the upper orgs.
Especially Flag, the Mecca of Technical Perfection. 😀
Speaking of “censorship”, does that have anything remotely to do with why you no longer have a wordpress site? Besides the fact that “isene.me” is very cool. 🙂
I don’t know exactly why Ruth’s books were pulled. I heard hearsay that LRH approved of them and didn’t mind them in orgs, or at least in missions. That may or may not have been true. Or maybe he changed his mind about it. Or,or,or.
Ruth still lives in Ann Arbor Michigan as far as I know. She would have to be getting up in years. I believe Marian Volkmann the TIR lady lives in Ann Arbor also.
“Ruth Minshull keeps a low profile these days. She is still alive and very well living in Ann Arbor.”
Quoted from http://www.goldcenturypress.com/authors.php?id=5
Also, here are free pdf download of her books.
Marildi – In 1980 our Mission received orders that the only permitted lectures were those that were READ verbatim from LRH books, and so the successful lecture on ARC that the Mission had been using was canceled. It was based on the verbal tech PL. That lecture included the exercise on looking at a cat/who is looking at the cat and others similar to that. It was a short version of the lecture that Mark Shreffler offers, covering ARC, ARC breaks, confront and the communication formula. It led directly to the original Comm Course as the first step for someone to do and they understood from the lecture WHY it was the first step to do.
After the order for no more ad hoc lectures, we would put together a lecture from assorted quotes strung together to make sense, reproducing that lecture as best we could. We added dictionary definitions and asked people for examples. The lecturer would take all the books up to the podium, all bookmarked and would read from the books. If someone asked a question at the end of the lecture or outside of the lecture, we found a reference in a book and read it to them. I sold a lot of books that way because I practically had the books memorized and could quickly locate a particular reference in the basic books. But this was never as effective as that lecture for there was a “fun” and “personal” element missing.
As to whether it was a sweeping and incorrect application of the verbal tech materials, all I remember is being horrified to learn that we had been committing continuous overt acts on the point of verbal tech at our Mission. It introverted our staff because you had to be so careful about what you said and how you answered questions. It violated the PL “answer people’s questions” because new people didn’t really want to wait while you looked up an answer — that is, if you could even find a quote that directly answered a particular question.
This order was one of several that ultimately led to the failure of that Mission — after that it limped along and I do mean limped, never to recover.
My personal opinion is that it was unnecessary to apply it to communication outside of the academy course room and the HGC/Qual tech areas and my observation was that it was never as successful as the earlier well-crafted lecture we had offered.
I can also tell you that I was completely pissed off when the new book What is Scientology, the Volunteer Minister’s Handbook and the Div 6 courses came down the line, for they were definitely re-writes. I should note that NONE of them were as effective as that original lecture and its next step the original comm course. It was then that I learned that it wasn’t anything to do with verbal tech or altering LRH materials, it was all about WHO was allowed to do that. In later years, WISE took this to the nth degree and ALL of their materials are re-writes. No exceptions. WISE students didn’t even see the original materials, at least not until they were well along in their studies.
What I didn’t know then was that the original lecture was crafted by someone at the Davis-Sacramento Missions chain where there were mass exoduses in the early 1980s. Piecing it together now, that lecture probably got canceled for the same reason that the movie Larry Anderson starred in is now a laughingstock.
Also, keep in mind that Ron’s Journal 1968 disappeared off the face of the earth for several decades, only resurfacing as people released original LRH materials onto the Internet. That journal gave a VERY different perspective on the subject of verbal tech.
Thanks for all the first-hand data, Maria. Talk about stifling the individual and any personal creativity. Utterly insane. And we bought it! Great lessons there, at least.
Marildi; on isene.me:That is just a redirecting address to isene.wordpress.com.Easier to remember.I upgraded my account to get rid of the ads and to be able to cooler design sruff in the future.
As for Flag; The had also given up on me – so that when I was to do my OT 7 speech, the others had to practice reading their speeches. The guy in charge looked at me, smiled and said “we both know you gonna say whatever you feel like anyway, right?”. I smiled back and, “Right”.
The only place I couldn’t do it was on the ship. They were wery SERIOUS about OT 8’s speeches. They had me write a speech and practice it and Stick to it. So, I finally got to practice that way of doing it as well.
Btw, when I first saw your name on Marty’s blog I recognized it from when I was was at Flag. Didn’t know anything else about you, but that the name was familiar. (It must have been bandied about. :)) I think I left not long before you completed OT VII and gave your speech. Too bad – I’m sure I would have remembered it. 🙂
Oops, correction – I had gotten to the end of the third video, not the second.
And I meant to add that my idea of the training side of the Bridge is that it also increases ARC, particularly R and C, whereas auditing especially increases the A. (There, that’s my full 2 cents for now :))
Wanted to step in at this past discussion. Ruth’s book was my favorite and was easy to use, common sense.
Peter still has a small vitamin store in a restaurant, sharing space in downtown Clearwater.
My mate was a TIR counsellor under a psychologists umbrella for many years. Worked excellently and people got helped in a short time.
Isene, that’s hilarious about your speeches and I’m sure you were popular. The graduation, or any speeches by selected people are all read from a tele-prompter at Flag. When I would go to lectures at AO or Flag, they all read, it seemed from a script. Occasionally one would talk, a pleasure! This was last year when I gave them a year’s look see.
Al,
Your words:
I understand that when you attack me personally, rather than addressing the issues under discussion, you are only applying Scientology to life and those around you.
Boy howdy, do I understand.
End.
You did not bring anything to the table worthy of any meaningful discussion. In fact it was a like being a public nuisance.
The messenger was the problem, not the message.
So I had to shoot the messenger.
Dio
If the message was not the problem, why didn’t you address it?
Question on the tone scale:
In relation to survival, is the emotion of apathy really less valuable than the emotion of enthusiasm?
That question is fully answered by LRH, beginning with Book One, Dianetics. He differentiates between analytical emotion, appropriate to survival, and reactive.
I see Marildi.
So there one emotion is NOT more valuable than another related to survival, as long as it is an “analytical emotion”?
Therefore the tone scale only applies to “reactive emotion”?
No Al, the tone scale doesn’t apply to just reactive emotion. There’s acute (brief) emotion that can be appropriate for a given situation or it can be reactive, and then there’s a person’s chronic (habitual) tone level – which is based on both reactive (irrational) and appropriate emotion.
A person whose best friend just died would likely and appropriately be in a tone level below 2.0. However, he might be reactively in cheerfulness or enthusiasm or even boredom, but just because those are higher tones doesn’t mean they are always more sane.
Emotions are not “appropriate” or “inappropriate”.
They just are.
Isn’t that a bit contrary to the principles of cognitive therapy?
No.
It is a fact which exists without regard to the “principles” of L Ron Hubbard’s Tone Scale.
Al, here’s a quote from Wikipedia:
“…If, as a result, the patient escapes the negative thought patterns and dysfunctional behaviors, the negative feelings may be relieved over time.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_therapy
“Dysfunctional“ is not too far from “inappropriate”, is it?. And “negative feelings” sounds just as negative as “inappropriate”. And just as much implies a polarity like “high” and “low” tone levels, which you objected to on another post.
Anyway, that’s the kind of thing I meant when I said your remark that emotions “just are” was “a bit contrary to the principles of cognitive therapy”. Or would you also say – feelings aren’t negative, they just are?
You know, sometimes I get the idea that you just want to criticize anything of LRH merely for the sake of criticizing it. Strange, huh? That would just undermine your credibility, even though you’re pretty sharp in some ways… And very funny! So I know you can’t be all that bad. 😀
Marildi wrote:
You know, sometimes I get the idea that you just want to criticize anything of LRH merely for the sake of criticizing it. Strange, huh? That would just undermine your credibility, even though you’re pretty sharp in some ways… And very funny! So I know you can’t be all that bad.
Yes, but you desperately need my credibility as a critic – and all critics – to be undermined, or your worldview as a Scientologist would begin coming apart. So you try, once again, to undermine it.
Read the following ideas carefully, please, and address them if you can:
LRH’s tone scale – as LRH taught it – contains too much false data about emotions to be constructive for a person. Adopting the tone scale to evaluate his own and others’ emotions can cause a person to develop a synthetic personality and to suppress emotions that the tone scale labels as “low toned”. This can be bad for a person’s mental health.
In addition, the tone scale is used in Scientology – both inside and outside the Church – as a political and ideological tool for information control and manipulation.
That is why I criticize LRH’s tone scale.
If you want to know why I criticize some other parts of LRH’s Scientology, there are other, different, reasons for those.
Real therapies like CBT do not encourage a person to label his emotions as less valuable or “low-toned”. In most of my studies of the works of CBT, therapists encourage a person to mindfully experience their emotions without value judgement, and to use them for greater self-awareness. This is not the case in Scientology.
If you want to see me destroy my credibility, Marildi, defending something in Scientology, go to the Village Voice post today and read my defense of the Emeter in light of the Inside Edition report that Tony posted.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/07/scientology_xenu_whole_track.php#lf_comment=32358486
That so-called debunking of the e-meter was pretty lame with one glaring logical fallacy; The fact that you can influence the e-meter with grip and sweat does not conclude that those are the only ways an e-meter can be influenced.
Al, I couldn’t find your comment but from what Geir said, I will reiterate that if you want to have credibility, do not speaketh of that which thou knoweth little about. (New commandment just for you.)
I read your posts and agree with you. Excellent and nicely done. I tried to “like” them and sometimes it didn’t work. The new system has been a big challenge for all, but good.
I thought was funny too — an indie? hehe 🙂
Marildi –
Stick to ideas. Don’t target people personally.
OK?
Sorry, Al. I thought I was doing that. I was referring to the statements you make sometimes that are obviously not factual and thus show you have either missing or incorrect data – i.e. you don’t really know the subject.
Al,
I agree with Miraldi.
The source of the ideas is the problem, not the idea.
Like I mentioned before.
If there is someone outside standing on my lawn and shouting obscenities (his ideas) at my house. I will not address the ideas, I will call the police and have them address the source of the ideas.
Dio
Geir –
True, it was a very lame piece on the Emeter. The “electronics engineer” was even wearing a white lab coat!
I’m still waiting for an independent evaluation of the emeter which includes the emeter drills and a thorough testing of the various skills and applications during a session. I have never been able to discount or explain away what I have seen and experienced with the emeter, and that it is all just imagination.
So I said that on the Village Voice blog today. Someone even called me in independent Scientologist! LOL!!
Al, it’s all relative. I am at times quite enthusiastic about you being in apathy.
V wrote:
Al, it’s all relative. I am at times quite enthusiastic about you being in apathy.
LOL!! And I am sometimes quite apathetic about you being in enthusiasm!
Al, I can dig it. Being confronted by an enthusiastic Feral White Russian from Manchuria can be a pretty depressing experience!
I know. I grew up with some of them.
But doesn’t putting these emotions on a scale, with one emotion more valuable than another, make one less valuable than another, and thus over time cause you to favor some emotions more than others?
I think that a person would even try to ignore some emotions over others because of this. And that’s not good mental health, is it?
Shouldn’t all emotions be embraced equally?
“Shouldn’t all emotions be embraced equally?”
No. Even in CBT and NLP, particular emotions, stemming from distortions and traumas are found to be crippling and disempowering. The few tests I have seen on CBT components are to do with clinical depression, phobias and anxiety. The last thing on earth you want a person in severe depression or extreme anxiety to do is to embrace tone levels like fear, grief and apathy — the whole point of CBT is to intervene in ways that assist the individual to reframe their personal paradigms so they don’t continually produce and embrace these debilitating emotions.
As to value, most of the tests I have seen rate patient satisfaction — i.e. has the debilitating condition and its associated emotional responses been lessened? Even the patients do not find these emotions to be valuable, quite the contrary — they are crippling.
Yes, Maria, you are correct.
Operating on emotions is a function of those low on the tone scale and theta scale.
Being emotional is irractional behavior. (That is the emotions on the lower part of the tone scale.)
The more educated and intelligent a person is the more theta units he has and the less irrational emtional he is.
And yes behavior education and modification can be very helpful.
This builds a valence a social veneer which suppress or bury the aberrations.
But the aberrations will surface under enough stress. The education, the modified behavior, the valences, the social veneer, will wear thin and fall apart given enough bad roads and bad weather.
(But with the right kind of education, emotion becomes a choice.
People get angry, upset or what ever because they do not have the knowledge to solve the problem at hand. Or have better ways of solving the problem at hand. )
This is where scn clearing is the only truely effective methodical method of ridding these aberrations, the cause of these unwanted emotions, that I have found and I have searched for over 40 yrs of everything I could get my hands on.
If there is anything as effective as scn or more effective than scn, I certainly want to see it.
I have an on going contention with a friend on exactly that issue.
He does not want to look at scn, or any therapy of any kind, and yet he condemns scn and says there has to be something else that exists somewhere that does the same thing as scn.
I say there isn’t. It does not exist. He gets upset.
Dio
All good points!
Dio – can you post the link to your website again? I’ve lost the link.
I don’t recall posting my website on this blog.
In any event:
My website is :
http://www.freewebs.com/freezone3001
(it is quite outdated, my last update was quite sometime ago and I lost the manager address to it)
my blog is:
http://highthetaorg.wordpress.com/
Dio
Dio – no I don’t think you did post it on this blog. I can’t even remember where I originally found the link — I definitely remember the website though! The blog link is new for me, thanks for that.
Auditing is quite useful, but a Clear is quite abberrated… So are OT VII’s…
So it seems to me there there is a problem with the claims of effectiveness that Scios love to make about the tech.
The State of Clear – “no longer has his own reactive mind” – is a lie. I’m not exactly sure what this state is, but it sure isn’t as claimed. And yes, in case you were wondering, I am a Clear 🙂
Freebeing,
Thanks for your comment.
I agree fully with you.
Scn by it self does not work. I helps, it is part of the answer.
Scn does not have the cure for “asshole”.
Based on my experience, scn only works with the bible and other such books of comparable magnitude.
To me the bible did not begin to work until I did scn, then I began to make headway.
The two together and other stuff works very well.
Dio
Good point, Maria.
I was referring to the practice of mindfulness to identify an emotion as it is, without evaluating it as “high” or “low” or any other apparatus or consideration, and just looking at it and allowing one’s self to experience it. I have found that one learns a great deal about what is going on with one’s self when one does this.
Anything else produces alter-isness, and not-isness, on those emotions, in my experience.
Your experience may differ.
If so, all the more power to you.
Yes, I agree. Bear with me. I see these tones as measures of vitality, responsiveness and resilience. The question really is, higher in terms of what? Lower in terms of what? Chronic anger, for example, can give a short term boost in “vitality” seen as a burst of energy to overcome something, but it is so stressful and so taxing on human systems that it has no long term value. As I see it, reducing the vitality, responsiveness and resilience of another by depressing that vitality even further may also be seen to be a short term advantage, but again, over the long term is disastrous. It is short sighted. Another example — apathy will reduce vitality completely and in the short term is probably needful to induce enough rest for recuperation from the ravages of some kind of stress, illness, etc. On the long term it is totally debilitating.
Good points, maria.
Maria, I lean towards what Al said, to a certain extent. Not to say I endorse endlessly wallowing in depresssion, sadness, self-pity etc etc but even LRH said “The way out is the way through.” That is pretty much the same principle that Buddha stated, about facing experience in order to achieve a greater freedom.
One can try to escape a “dark night of the soul” by drugs, drinking, and various other ways of alter-ising and denying it, but in the end the only lasting way to get past it is to actually experience it inn an unblinking way. Then it as-ises. At least that’s the theory. And it seems like a pretty valid theory.
Otherwise, I differ with Al only in that he seems to see the Tone Scale or the concept of SP,as being ONLY ideological. It is true that these ideas can and have been (mis)used for ideological purposes – but that is a misuse and an abuse of them in my view.
I see both the Tone Scale and the concept of SP as clinical observations. That is their proper sphere. They ought not be used for purely ideological purposes. I do not disagree with Al about that.
I do agree with you, Maria, that promoting a happier ethic rather than glorifying depravity is a good thing. That I see as a kind of ‘rising scale processing’, and I think Buddha fully supports that also.
Wow, Val.
Are you sure you want to be seen in public largely agreeing with me? What will Marty and Mike say? :>
In my experience, the tone scale, at first, seems to clarify a person’s emotional life. But then LRH uses it to make people wrong almost immediately – like 1.1s in Science of Survival (which he even says very bad things about – as we’ve discussed ad infinitum) By 1951, the tone scale had become ideological and political, and peoples’ tone levels and accused tone levels, were used against them to discredit what they say, what they think, how they feel etc.
Because of a scale of “high” and “low” with respect to emotions, the practical application of the tone scale in a human group becomes a way to make others, as well as parts of one’s self, wrong. It creates synthetic personalities and walls-off one’s true emotions.
The work of others, such as the authors of Emotional Intelligence and others, has not resulted in these kinds of problems. Thus, in my opinion, these others’ ideas are much more workable than LRH’s tone scale.
Sorry for speaking my mind again about LRH and the Tone Scale, Val. I know you don’t like that and it makes you mad at me.
But what can I say?
I gotta be me, Val.
I gotta be me.
You gotta be such a dope about some things?
You are imagining an anger I am not feeling.
I won’t bother responding to your massive generalities beginning with “By1951” etc etc.
Why?
Because they do not represent how I viewed or even today view or use those concepts. That fact alone disproves what you posted. You may consider me to be “the exception that proves the rule.” But to do so, you would have to admit there are exceptions to your blanket conclusions.
“Does your pole hang low, does it wobble to and fro….”
Not equally in all settings. Context is the key. Being able to freely move on all emotions is valuable, methinks.
I would agree with you. But labeling some emotions as “low” and others as “high” produces a resistance to the ones labeled low. And if practiced long enough, can suppress them.
If you are in the middle of a war and fighting to save your own and everyone else’s life, this is a workable way to proceed. But living a normal life this way, and doing this only because your ideology says some emotions are “high” on the scale and others are “low” on the scale can have adverse mental and emotional effects.
No one wants to be considered “low-toned” by others. That is only reserved for your enemies and those who disagree with your ideology.
Al, it is wrong if it is an arbitrary labeling. But what some of us mean is these are clinical observations, to the point of being observable, measurable energy phenomena in physics.
Or, if you are looking for a more mystical or humanistic slant, there are Gurdjieff’s teachings about the “Ray of Creation” and how it degrades as it enters into and passes through the physical universe.
Like it or not, scales exist in Nature, not just in our minds for political reasons. Hot and cold, dark and light, solid, liquid, gas, these are scales at work in Nature. It’s OK to notice and expose evaluative, political uses of these, but don’t forget the existence of wider spheres of understanding. The apparently same words/ideas can be describing different realities.
True.
And this is why I am, and always have been, a mystic.
I believe that human groups inevitably corrupt spiritual truths. The only way to seek spiritual truth is away from human groups, and away from things like the Church of Scientology, The Catholic Church, Buddhist Temples, etc.
I am Quai Chaing Kane, walking the sand drifts bare-footed with flute music playing in the background. I only get in fights when others do not realize what a bad-ass I am, and then I knock them senseless with my mystic-fu.
Peace be unto you, Brother.
And with thy spirit.
Al and Valkov, see my post above which you probably didn’t see before you made these posts. You both have made excellent points which round out this discussion.
Thanks Maria. I’m not sure which post of yours you mean? But I still believe there is some hope for Al to become well-rounded! 🙂
Valkov — what I meant was that before I could make another post you and Al made posts that covered the points I was going to cover along with my own post so no need for me to post anything else although than acknowledging your comments.
Al, I think the problem is not with “putting the emotions on a scale”. I think they naturally fall into a scale.
I think considering that some are more valuable than others is the problem. Doing so prevents free motion and leads to all kinds of unnecessary complexities. Freezing motion leads to all kinds of problems. For example, an “engram” is frozen motion.
Al asks,
“Question on the tone scale:
In relation to survival, is the emotion of apathy really less valuable than the emotion of enthusiasm?”
Al, I went and asked the senior possum in my neighbor, and he told me displaying apathy can be quite the survival action when it is done causitively and in a self-determined way.
Totally.
Apathy rocks.
Although most of us who have been Scientologists for any length of time have likely seen or experienced several ‘intro’ lectures that touched on the tone scale, this was the first I’d seen delivered by Mark. Impressive! So much so that I’ve provided links to this page for a couple of friends and one relative. ( I actually Googled him and watched his, “Sales Management,” YouTube videos as well.)
I can certainly understand now the admiration you’ve offered him in this and prior posts. I hope to see more videos from him in the future.
G.
I really enjoyed the videos by Mark.
I did not know of him before.
I did some search on him and learned that he was one of the most ardent promoters for the cos, mostly via WISE, I gather.
The science of survival book is one of my favorite and most useful books.
I give Mark a full “C'” on his videos on the tone scale.
Dio
Dio, in case you didn’t know he no longer is an ardent promoter of the CoS. He announced his defection on Marty Rathbun’s blog just recently, having recognized that the CoS has strayed far from actual Scientology.
p.s. Why just a “C” on his videos?
Why just a “C”?
Because like almost everyone else in scn ( cos and fz ) he is only mostly parroting Hubbard and not doing much evaluating, if any, of what Hubbard said.
And Hubbard said that parroting is a slight aberration.
I gave him only a “C” for at least a couple of reasons, of which I only remember one now.
First: That was in alignment with his comments on I think the first or second video, where he gave the example of a person going through school and only getting “Cs”. Meaning he only learned half of what he was supposed to learn.
Now>>>>
The point I remember is:
He was telling people that what is true for you— is true for you.
That is only half the truth. The other half is:
What is true for you is true for you, but it may not be the truth.
To expand upon that:
There may be my truth and there may be your truth, but our truths may not be the real truth.
Example:
Along the train of thought and example Hubbard uses in Dianetics (if you have read the book) .
If there is a cat on the lawn and a person looking at it sees an elephant ( or what ever exact example he uses) than that person is aberrated ( psychotic) (delusional) (or has severely impaired judgement).
(This person is not in agreement with common reality and this is the kind of people that society has agreed to take out of society and institutionalize to protect public safety.
Expand that and put yourself in that position, and I will put myself in a position next to you.
You see an elephant and I see a horse.
Now yes, it could be reason that what you see is true for you and what I see is true for me, but what we see is not the truth. The rest of society will not agree with us.
Both of us are wrong and both of us are delusional or what ever ever you want to call it. Call it cognitive distortion. Call it perceptual distortion.
Call it perceptual dishonesty. Call it psychosis. Call it insanity. Call it being chronically low on the tone scale. Call it being aberrated. Insanity by any other name is still insanity.
There is a popular operating datum or it is a product of mass consciousness that what is true for you is true for you.
And everybody sees the same thing differently. That is a lie or false datum.
(It happens to be true and real in society, because most of society is low on the tone scale. What did Hubbard say the average was in the USA at his time? 2.0 or something?) Probably lower now, evidently.)
If two people see the same thing differently, then there are two possibilities:
Either one is right (sane) and the other is wrong ( the wrong one is aberrated or cognitively delusional, insane, etc.) ,
or
both are wrong. (Both aberated, insane or etc. )
Because it is not genuinely or bona fidely, or sanely possible for two people to look at the same thing and both not see the same thing, if both are totally sane.
If both are totally sane and both properly educated they will both see the same thing.
The amount of honest looking we do is relative to our degree of sanity and I guess you can say; having acquired the right knowledge, the right education and even experience. (that is one reason or the reason for the training side of the bridge)
(Another point) There is a problem ( or a belief) ( or operating datum, albeit a false one) in human thought that
you must “interpret” what you see. Then the interpretation is done through colored glasses, or preconcieved ideas.
This is an aberration. In order to see the truth, you have to “as is” it, call a spade a spade, see things as they are.
In other words take an honest impartial look, free of preconcieved ideas or beliefs.
So that was one point and a main one as to why I gave Mark a “C”.
He is not thinking, not applying the datum:…… any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated>
He is only parroting Hubbard and perpetuating an insanity.
Dio
PS: That is the same point I posted a while back,
where a well known scngist was teaching a class on perception or something.
He was teaching that if there were four people, each on a different corner of an intersection and an accident happened in the intersection and all were watching and all saw the accident happen. He said each person would see something different and report to the police something different. He said this was normal.
I said this is not normal. Something is seriously wrong if four people look at the same thing and see something diferent.
There are only two possibilities in this case;
1. they are all insane, all have impaired judgement, all are cognitively deranged,
or 2
one is sane and one is right and all the others are insane, etc.
If they were all sane, they certainly can explain it differently, but they would all be explaining the same thing and their explanations would coincide or match or be in alignment.
PS 2 . Yes, I also saw the posting on Marty’s blog by Mark.
Okay, got it. To me, Mark’s intention was to describe LRH’s discovery (and his reality) and to ask the audience to look and see if it was true for them. And he also indicated that it was true for him, which would mean that his talk was something quite different from just parroting – i.e. the reality of the tone scale has become his own through comparing it to the real world as he himself sees it.
Also Dio, you make some good points but often they are half-truths, IMO. I don’t see things as black and white as you seem to – as in two-valued logic. For me, that type of thinking is not “truth”. I go for the infinity-valued logic and the kind of thinking that bears in mind the context and frame of reference. Just calling a spade a spade. 😉
Maria,
The truth is not determined by what Mark thinks, by what you think, or what I think or what Hubbard said or thought or what Geir thinks or what anyone thinks.
The truth is not determined by thinking. (or thoughts) (this does not mean that the truth of a matter (at least in part) cannot be arrived at by thinking-evaluating)
The truth is determined by how many problems a data solves and how well it solves them, how well it has been evaluated, tested, how well it works.
The truth is closer to black and white than you as well as others may think.
The grey areas are just gaps in understanding, gaps in evaluation, gaps in knowledge, gaps in experience.
Similar to “miracles”. Miracles are mysterious becuase people do not understand how they happened.
There is a scientific reason, a methodology, a cause for everything.
This universe only operates on cause and effect, postulate and effect.
And no other reason.
Even random events are controlled by certain physical laws.
I came a cross a few words of wisdom from the amazing book “Urantia” a few days ago, which is very pertinent here.
(http://www.urantia.org/)
Quote from Urantia: “In knowledge alone there can never be absolute certainty, only increasing probability of approximation, but the religious soul of spiritual illumination knows and knows now.”
End of quote.
In my words, I would say: once you have a spiritual experience, or a relgious experience, ( that could be the same or similar to a release, and sufficient knowledge and life experience, and mental training, you know things with increasing certainty.
I digress to make a note of a couple of datums of comparable magnitude to “How to study a science”.
This is from Urantia:
“While your religion is a matter of personal experience, it is most important that you should be exposed to the knowledge of a vast number of other religious experiences … to the end that you may prevent your religious life from becoming egocentric-circumscribed, selfish, and unsocial.”
(This is quite similar to having many tools in one’s tool box.)
(1130.2) 103:1.3
And to another point, a few words of wisdom, especially the second paragraph below:
I quote the pertinent sentences: ( boy if these words could be drilled and implanted into every mind in the world)
(I also agree with everything said here except with the use of the word “believe(s)”. I would say the channeler and scribes made a mistake by using the word, because they did not know any better. The word “believe” means (conveys) ambiguity and uncertainty at best and ignorance at the worst. “Know” means (succinctly) you have certainty. )
You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one’s belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor’s attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes.
(that should read “wholeheartedly knows”)
3. The Stop at Ramah
(1641.3) 146:3.1 At Ramah Jesus had the memorable discussion with the aged Greek philosopher who taught that science and philosophy were sufficient to satisfy the needs of human experience. Jesus listened with patience and sympathy to this Greek teacher, allowing the truth of many things he said but pointing out that, when he was through, he had failed in his discussion of human existence to explain “whence, why, and whither,” and added: “Where you leave off, we begin. Religion is a revelation to man’s soul dealing with spiritual realities which the mind alone could never discover or fully fathom. Intellectual strivings may reveal the facts of life, but the gospel of the kingdom unfolds the truths of being. You have discussed the material shadows of truth; will you now listen while I tell you about the eternal and spiritual realities which cast these transient time shadows of the material facts of mortal existence?” For more than an hour Jesus taught this Greek the saving truths of the gospel of the kingdom. The old philosopher was susceptible to the Master’s mode of approach, and being sincerely honest of heart, he quickly believed this gospel of salvation.
(1641.4) 146:3.2 The apostles were a bit disconcerted by the open manner of Jesus’ assent to many of the Greek’s propositions, but Jesus afterward privately said to them: “My children, marvel not that I was tolerant of the Greek’s philosophy. True and genuine inward certainty does not in the least fear outward analysis, nor does truth resent honest criticism. You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one’s belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor’s attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes. Courage is the confidence of thoroughgoing honesty about those things which one professes to believe. Sincere men are unafraid of the critical examination of their true convictions and noble ideals.”
end of quotes
Dio
Dio, not that I mind the particular mix-up but you just called me Maria again :). But thanks for the great quotes. I like this one of Jesus’:
“,,,You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one’s belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor’s attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes.”
And I can’t resist asking , don’t Jesus’ words make you want to be more tolerant? 😀
I also wanted to note that you still seem to have MUs on both “think” and “believe”. (And I thought we went over this! LOL)
Seriously though, let me try again: Usually when people use the word “think” they mean the definition “to regard as true; consider”, rather than the one you are assuming they mean: “to have an opinion”, which you seem to think is the only definition. And with “believe” they mean “to have confidence in the truth of”, rather than “to hold as an opinion”. In other words, they view their ideas just the way you regard yours – as truth. Your correcting of even Jesus’ use of the word “believe” is because of this MU. 😉
Miraldi,
Dio, not that I mind the particular mix-up but you just called me Maria again :).
It is beyond me how I got your names mixed. I must be losing my mind. Maybe, too much scientology, or it could be something I ate.
But thanks for the great quotes.
You are welcome. ………………………
I like this one of Jesus’: “,,,You should never forget that intolerance is the mask covering up the entertainment of secret doubts as to the trueness of one’s belief. No man is at any time disturbed by his neighbor’s attitude when he has perfect confidence in the truth of that which he wholeheartedly believes.” And I can’t resist asking , don’t Jesus’ words make you want to be more tolerant? 😀 …………………………..
I was pretty sure that would come back to me. ………………
I thought that made sense at first, but now I have to teach Jesus a few things and correct him and tell him that there is a limit to everything. I don’t think he never met up with the likes of people like Alonzo. If I am wrong, I only wish he was here to help me with this one. Father, let your will be done. ……………………
I also wanted to note that you still seem to have MUs on both “think” and “believe”. (And I thought we went over this! LOL) Seriously though, let me try again: Usually when people use the word “think” they mean the definition “to regard as true; consider”, rather than the one you are assuming they mean: “to have an opinion”, which you seem to think is the only definition. And with “believe” they mean “to have confidence in the truth of”, rather than “to hold as an opinion”. In other words, they view their ideas just the way you regard yours – as truth. Your correcting of even Jesus’ use of the word “believe” is because of this MU. ;)………………….
Miraldi: Your dissertation is full of ambiguity, assumptions and big leaps over large gaps in accuracy, clarity, and lack of good logic and good reason. This kind of inept thinking causes the world to be full of the grey areas for you, as you (or who ever it was) mentioned before………………
Here is how to properly evaluate (word clear) the words believe and know (including the tech of logic, reason and ipso facto ([Latin, By the fact itself; by the mere fact.]) :…………………..
Hubbard said: Scientology is the study of knowledge and the science of knowing how to know.
I have never heard any one ask the question: Know what?
The only plausible right answer is: Knowing how to know the truth about anything.
What is truth? The truth is nothing more than the right answer to any problem.
To know means to perceive or understand as fact or truth; to apprehend clearly and with certainty.
Think: 1. to have a conscious mind, to some extent of reasoning, remembering experiences, making rational decisions, etc.
2. to employ one’s mind rationally and objectively in evaluating or dealing with a given situation: Think carefully before you begin.
Believing is the function of raising an opinion or fabrication to the level of a fact without proof.
(This is intellectual dishonesty.)
All other definitions of the word believe are wrong. A whole bunch of wrongs do not make a right either.
Believing is what people revert to in the absence of facts (sufficient quality education) and good reasoning and analytical abilities. No other good reason.
Believing is intellectual dishonesty, in other words, a form of lying.
Believing is an indication of a lack of knowledge.
Believing is a confession of ignorance.
Believing means not knowing, or not having certainty.
Believing means you do not know.
Believing in something, means you do not know what you are talking about.
It also means you do not know how to think, use logic, reason, critical and analytical thinking.
People unwittingly and inadvertently use the word “believe” because they never thought to think of or are to lazy to think of a better more accurate word to use. “Believe” has eroded or diluted or nebulated to mean or substitute for a lot of other words, a blanket word to mean any number of other otherwise accurate words. To know what I mean, just carefully and thoroughly evaluate what a person really means when they use the word. There are many.
It also means you have not done your homework, you have not completed the cycle of learning on the subject in order to have certainty on the subject and know.
It also means that you have not done your homework to have certainty of accurate (succinct) vocabulary.
It also follows that believing means you do not know the difference between right and wrong.
In order to know the difference between right and wrong, you have to be able to reason and reason well.
There is good reasoning and there is bad reasoning.
You have to reason based on facts and not on hearsay, speculations, beliefs, fabrications, thoughts pulled out of the air, opinions and the like.
Insanity is the inability to reason, the inability to discern right from wrong, impaired judgment.
Therefore believing is insanity.
The function of believing is intellectual ineptness or grammatic laziness at the least, intellectual dishonesty in the midst and insanity at the worst.
If you KNOW, you have no reason to believe.
If you believe, you don’t KNOW.
Believing is the worst word in a language.
Beliefs are the cause of all conflicts in the world.
Beliefs are traps.
Beliefs cause every believer to be in an endless cycle of confusion (cognitive distortion) and conflict.
Or like a dog chasing his tail instead of chasing rabbits. The owner of this kind of dog would have no recourse but to euthanize this dog. ……………………..(I get the feeling that is what the ETs are going to do to this world pretty soon if we don’t wake up soon. In the bilbe it alludes to this idea, by in the end times there will be two standing in the field and one will be taken and the other will be left for the barbeque and the worms. )……………………
A soon as people wake up and figure this out, this world would become a sane, safe and peaceful place to live. Then we can pursue and accomplish more meaningful, more intelligent pursuits. …………………….
The word and function of believing is the key datum to handle in using the tech of how to bring order and sanity in an area (this world) of chaos and insanity.
Never comment on anything you are not qualified to comment on (do not know) (haven’t done your thorough homework on) (impartially, pan determinedly looked at all points of view) (cannot prove).
If you have done Scientology, and still believe, you do not understand Scientology.
In other words if you still believe after doing Scientology, you missed the point, you do not understand what Scientology is all about and therefore you flunked Scientology. You are not qualified to talk about Scientology. And not about anything else for that matter.
End of evaluation.
🙂
If this is not clear enough, it is not because I do not know what I am talking about, it because I did not get enough sleep last night.
Dio
Dio: “…now I have to teach Jesus a few things and correct him and tell him that there is a limit to everything.”
A limit to everything except Dio’s audacity, that is. 😀
Dio: “Miraldi (sic): Your dissertation is full of ambiguity, assumptions and big leaps over large gaps in accuracy, clarity, and lack of good logic and good reason. This kind of inept thinking causes the world to be full of the grey areas for you.”
And yours is full of generalizations. (Actually, nothing but. :P)
As for your so-called word clearing, realize it is not the same process as evaluation. The ability to differentiate, btw, is requisite for sanity (oops – I know how to hurt a guy), not to mention logic (oops again!). And you obviously are ignorant about the different ways a person can have an MU sometimes even a “Crashing MU” that will crash his dynamics. (Did I say “ignorant”? OMG – your pet peeve 😦 .)
Now, on the word “think” the category of your MU is – Inappropriate Definition. Just for starters – the definitions you chose are intransitive verbs, whereas the appropriate definition (the one that fits the context) is transitive. On the word “believe” you have an – Invented Definition. Otherwise, though, your dissertation wasn’t too bad (albeit dogmatic and belligerent ;)). Except for the last, somewhat arrogant sentence, I especially liked the concluding paragraph:
“In other words if you still believe after doing Scientology, you missed the point, you do not understand what Scientology is all about and therefore you flunked Scientology. You are not qualified to talk about Scientology. And not about anything else for that matter.”
Overall, your harangue was pure Diogenes, pontificating at his best. 😀
(Father, let your will be done… )
Miraldi,
I am glad you enjoyed my posts.
I learned a new word from you: harangue.
Never hear of it before.
That is good.
As long as you didn’t call it a diatribe, I am ok.
Harangues and pontificating are good.
That post of mine was processing in my mind this morning and i was thinking it through.
And I had a cognition:
The word belief or believe always is indicative of either a lack of knowledge, or a lack of certainty, or a lack of complete understanding, or poor vocabulary, where it is used as a substitue for another word, an accurate word.
One example that comes to mind now is:
When you say: I can’t believe that happened?
You actually mean and should use the word “imagine” .
I just filled out a tax form and on the bottom it says:
Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have examined the information on this form and to the best of my knowledge and belief it is true and correct and complete.
That word “belief” is an ambiguous and slippery word. It is very poor grammer.
Because it can’t be nailed down or clearly defined. It is like a bone of contention.
When you understand the problem with “belief” it becomes clear.
The word “understanding” would be the best word to use. At least understanding is easier to assess or examine than “belief”.
Because understand has a direct or somewhat direct opposite which is misunderstand, or misunderstood, concept in the mind.
Beliefs do not.
We have been taught that you have to “believe” in something.
And what you believe is true for you.
That is really stupid, it is nonsense.
Beliefs will not set you free.
The truth will set you free.
Seek the truth in all things and the truth shall set you free.
It should also be said: honesty will set you free.
It is safer to question someone;s understanding than it is to question someone’s “beliefs”.
People think that if they believe something that that beleif is true for them.
This deduces to the example Hubbard uses in Dianetics, of the person who sees an elephant where there is actually a cat.
He believes he sees an elephant.
So then what he believes is true for him.
Now does not the saner part of society, think he is insane?
The kind of people’s beliefs are insane.
Like the guy who just did the shooting in the theatre in Colorado.
Is it ok to agree with him that he “believed” that the best solution to his problems is to go and shoot up a full theatre.
That is what I mean is the problem with the word belief and believe.
They are signs (indications) of various degrees of various defects in thinking and knowledge.
Dio.
Dio, very good points about the potential problems with the words “belief” and “believe”.
So now if you can just reconcile yourself to the fact that people do use these words in the same ways they are defined in the dictionary – your brilliance will be matched only by your charming bedside manner. And it isn’t any more difficult to know which definition they intend than it was for you with Jesus himself! You can tell by the context. The only other thing you need to do is to put aside the fact of your superior understanding, thinking and knowledge about such things – and humor us. 😉
Btw, I literally had to skim over and arrange your post into about half a dozen paragraphs so as not to have to struggle to get the flow of it. When you don’t use paragraphs, it’s tough for the reader because with every sentence we have to consider whether that thought ties in with the idea in the previous sentence, etc. A new paragraph communicates that you’ve started a new train of thought or sub thought and helps us organize the ideas and make sense of the whole post. Without paragraphs, we have to constantly be clearing the MU we’ve been given – i.e. in addition to a misunderstood word you can have a Misunderstood Status. In other words, with paragraphs you immediately get an idea of the status of each sentence.
I do believe more people would read your posts if you used more paragraphs – they are long enough without every sentence being whole a new paragraph, stretching the post out to look even longer. Short paragraphs are the most appealing, IMO (yes, it’s just an opinion). Another way you could shorten up your posts would be by eliminating the lectures about how so-and-so is wrong to “believe” and “think” (often a misinterpretation of what they meant) and get onto other points that you haven’t already made umpteen times. Just some friendly advice for you. 🙂
Of course, I do know that every sentence of yours deserves to be highlighted in its very own paragraph. But there again – humor us. 😀
Marildi; Brilliant dissertation on paragraphs. And; Misunderstood Status. Wow.An addition to the Study Tech -. you caught something missing in that tech.
Shucks, I can’t claim it – its from an HCOB but I haven’t been able to recall the title. But I know that LRH talks about 4 or 5 types of misunderstoods – a word, a symbol, a concept, and a status are the ones I rememember. The concept one is really enlightening too. It’s amazing how often students are stymied by concept and status MUs. I got good at spotting these as a word clearer. 😉
How about a misunderstood purpose? Mine or the teacher’s?
You mean purpose for study? Give me more data or context or an example.
Yes – not only lack of purpose but misunderstood purpose?
Off the top of my head, I recall a study tape where LRH did talk about how to study something according to your purpose – even if it was just for a grade when the instructor was useless or if there were only certain aspects of the material you were interested in (had a purpose for).
A purpose that is misunderstood might be handled with false data stripping (tech on the Student Hat Course for some years now). But you probably mean the student doesn’t understand the teacher’s purpose. That would soon be evident – and in Scientology, when it did it would probably be handled in Qual. It would probably show up under the heading of “not there on own determinism”.
Whoa! That’s poignant! 🙂 Yes!
A word clearer, no wonder you’re so good at writing and with such neat humor.
Paragraphs, you put it so plain for understanding. don’t remember learning that. thanks for the lesson 🙂
p.s. Thanks for the really nice compliment on my “dissertation” on paragraphs. Just to let you know, I learned it by doing it. Self-taught by winging it, you could say. 🙂
I remembered the reference for a Misunderstood Status. I thought it would be in a different one but it’s the same bulletin that lists the 10 ways a word or symbol can be misunderstood. HCOB “The Misunderstood Word Defined” 17 Jul 79:
“‘MIS-UNDERSTOOD’ or ‘NOT-UNDERSTOOD’ are terms used to define any error or omission in comprehension of a word, concept, symbol or status.”
Another possibility is that you need to do a bit more exploring of this. Each person’s universe is unique to the person. Your definition of “sanity” is merely agreement. That is a very narrow and restrictive definition – quite human centric.
I give you a C 🙂
I didn’t realize my comment would be so far away from the post I was commenting on, it was the one Dio talked about 4 people all reporting a different version of a car accident.
Now this statement by Dio: “Never comment on anything you are not qualified to comment on (do not know) (haven’t done your thorough homework on) (impartially, pan determinedly looked at all points of view) (cannot prove).”
If this is true, then you shouldn’t have made the post at all, for it is just your belief! All this stuff you are saying are your beliefs Dio, not things you “KNOW”.
Freebeeing, you’ve made some insightful comments and I wanted to acknowledge that, even though I don’t agree with everything you say. It seems that we are quicker to come back with our disagreements (LOL) than a simple ack at least. Anyway, it’s good that you can hold your position in space.
And it’s good to have another unique point of view added to those of this motley crew. 🙂
p.s. Thanks for the link to Mark’s blog! I personally know that he has helped a lot of people in very real ways in the many, many years he has been working — he has developed very practical and effective ways to communicate and employ the beneficial principles of Scientology. There is a reason why he is well loved by so many of those he has come into contact with.
BTW
why visiting a seminar ? During 25 years SCN. I had Tone scale drills drills drills hours and hours, Observation or doing myself in the courseroom.
I had theoretical lessons lectures and lectures on and on held by hubbard who looked at it from every appliclable view giving practical examples. ???!!!!
Me too.
I have read Science of Survival 5 times, memorized and recited the tone scale in full with no comm lag, done tone scale drills for at least 150 hours, as well as tone scale spotting drills for almost that long. I have displayed and spotted every emotional tone scale tone to a supervisor pass many many times.
That’s why I could not bear to watch these videos for 3 more hours.
Been there. Done that.
And on top of that the Church decided everyone needed a repeat! ARGGH!
Mark still manages to bring interest and humor to it.
So what have you observed about chronic emotion of Tom Cruise or David Miscavige. Or L. Ron Hubbard?
The only observations I’ve ever been able to make is in a public venue. it’s not really possible to tell anything from that.
However, based on reported behavior over time, LRH was a work-horse, described as friendly, charismatic and positive most of the time in the early days. In later years he was described as having prolonged bouts of anger and hostility. Many reports of him as being very volatile. He changed over time.
David Miscavige favors an enforced and abusive style of management by all reports. The number one report about him is that he is verbally abusive, condescending and cruel. That would peg him at the anger band. I don’t see any reports about him being charismatic, friendly or positive.
Interviews with people who have worked with Tom Cruise report that he is a very hard worker, follows direction well and without complaint, doesn’t throw his weight around and is helpful to the people working on the movie. They also say he is a perfectionist. They like his professionalism and work ethic.
DM; When I met him:Charismatic – Yes. friendly or positive – no. He was funny, though.
Have you ever thought about how knowledge of the Tone Scale, and auditing which is supposed to bring people “up” the tone scale, did nothing to avoid cure these things in these Scientologists?
Did Ron just get squirrel auditing which made him go down tone over the years? Why did Ron spot that the auditing he was getting was squirrel?
Did Ron not know where David Miscavige was on the Tone Scale, and so make a mistake of putting a low toned person in charge of such important things in Scientology?
What do you make of these omissions?
Not just you, Maria, but anyone.
Why wasn’t the application of Scientology Ethics, Tech and Admin able to avoid the catastrophic consequences Scientology and Scientologists are facing worldwide right now?
I’ve had to break your questions down to answer them. If they can even be answered, that is.
“Have you ever thought about how knowledge of the Tone Scale,which is supposed to bring people “up” the tone scale, did nothing to avoid these things in these Scientologists?”
No, I have to say I never thought about that as I never thought that knowledge of the tone scale would “avoid” tone levels. I have never thought of this as a method of “avoiding” “these things.” Thinking about it now, Its an odd way of looking at it — kind of like having some kind of cloak or spell or incantation that will somehow slip by a tone level magically and effortlessly.
Have you ever thought about how knowledge of the Tone Scale,which is supposed to bring people “up” the tone scale, did nothing to cure these things in these Scientologists?
Cure tone levels? What??? Cure “these things?” I guess you mean curing the behavior? I don’t think knowledge of the tone scale could cure tone levels. I don’t even think knowledge of the tone scale is supposed to bring people up the tone scale. Its knowledge. After knowledge comes action.
I guess you could say that the knowledge of the tone scale could be used to drive people down or assist them to move up for the moment or even for a long period of time. This is not curing. Curing implies having a disease gone. Is a tone level a disease? I guess that you could run away from certain tone levels thus avoiding them? Like staying away from someone with a cold so you won’t catch a cold?
Have you ever thought about how auditing which is supposed to bring people “up” the tone scale, did nothing to avoid these things in these Scientologists?
Avoid? Avoid? I can’t think with the way this is worded. It sounds like you get auditing and then you are up the tone scale and somehow this avoids tone levels? Magical.
Have you ever thought about how auditing which is supposed to bring people “up” the tone scale, did nothing to cure these things in these Scientologists?
So if someone is cured then they never again display any tone level? Never again do something stupid or wrong? I guess wrongness and stupidity and ignorance and so on are diseases? And perfect behavior is evidence of being cured? Cured of what? This doesn’t seem very likely.
Did Ron just get squirrel auditing which made him go down tone over the years?
Oh I don’t know. Based on what I’ve already written, if auditing “cures” tone levels then he must have because “standard tech” “works” all of the time either curing tone levels and bad behavior or avoiding tone levels and bad behavior. Like a magic pill. Have some auditing. Cure your bad behavior and tone levels. What???? I sure never thought of that way.
Why did Ron spot that the auditing he was getting was squirrel?
He did? Well, maybe he did. Maybe that’s what all that grumpy behavior was about.
Did Ron not know where David Miscavige was on the Tone Scale, and so make a mistake of putting a low toned person in charge of such important things in Scientology?
Certainly looks that way. But more likely DM got stats one way or another and therefore was EFFECTIVE. Probably false reported his stats. Or they were the wrong stats. Or maybe David was 1.1, a perfect and shining example of a high toned effective guy and a sneaky liar behind the scenes. I married one of those. Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth and everyone (and I do mean everyone) thought he was a wonderful positive charming sweet and so on man right up until the day they weren’t important to him. Then kawham! He’d nail them and then they’d find out what he really thought of them and what his actual behavior was. I loved his public persona. Really hated his private persona. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
What do you make of these omissions?
I make that they are carefully selected list of omissions designed to raise questions in a certain way, along the lines of a certain paradigm and agenda. But it looked like a most interesting exercise to look from this point of view even if I have a lot of trouble with making sense of it.
Do you think this is a common way for people to look at all this? Really?!??
Not just you, Maria, but anyone.
I hope somebody else answers. I really am interested to see what others make of all this.
Why wasn’t the application of Scientology Ethics, Tech and Admin able to avoid the catastrophic consequences Scientology and Scientologists are facing worldwide right now?
Because of the CYA factor?
Well it has been very challenging to answer these questions. I wish I had two or three sentences to answer them fully and with complete and absolute conviction and truth. I really do.
That’s a rockin’ good answer, Maria. I’d give it the Check Mate medal of honor.
Gee, Miraldi,
A couple of things:
1. Your post in response to AL, is so screwed up, it looks like you are becomeing effect of him. 🙂 OMG! Be careful. You are on a slippery slope.
2. I had great success with the tone scale. I only did it on home study course and did it two or more times. That was 15 yrs ago. It was one of the most valuable things I ever learned. It was one of the things that saved my life.
2a. There is a right way and a wrong way to do everything and everything can be screwed up by a person low enough on the tone and theta scale with no good intentions.
2b. same goes for the emeter. Certaintly it can be manipulated. Again anything can be screwed up and screwed up by someone low enough on the tone scale and theta scale with no good intentions.
But if the pc does not play games, the emeter can be used with great value.
It helped me a heck of a lot.
3. I had a cognition, about coming with people:
You can comm proprtionately successfully with a person the higher up the tone scale and theta scale he is, according to his degree of good intentions. Comming with people on this wavelenght is or can be an exhilarating and illuminating experience.
But the opposite is true when comming with a person going (pulling) in the other direction on the tone scale, ( make wrong at any and all cost) who does not operate on the postulate or intention of learning the highest truth on the subject, but the opposite. This is how you will go insane with certain kinds of people. There is a point on that scale where you do not want to go past and comm if you value your sanity.
4. Re: the man you married who was so cold, butter would not melt in his mouth. (That is a good one.)
I can’t imagine how you do not understand what is wrong after doing scn.
I am not quite that bad, but I have had my share of problems in that area. I am actually afraid of people. I am afraid enough of relationships with men, but when it comes to intimate relations with women I go catatonic. if a woman hits on me, I go catatonic. I have really pissed a lot of women off. I neve rknew what was wrong until recently. I only wish, all those women could understand the problem. Their thoughts ranged from; there is something wrong. to are you gay. I could only stare in numb pain.
It is called schitzotypal personality disorder and catatonia and cataplexy, and social veneer (or valences).
In my case, at least, it begins with the case state, the tone level, the emotional state- a couple of months before conception, and at the time of conception.
(Because everything going on in the minds and emotional body at the time of conception is the first postulate on this life time, not counting genetically inherited postulates. It is the new layer of postulates on the being on top of gene postulates.
So if mom and dad did not love each other at the time of conception and they were not in love, and were both in the act, as a matter of routine or sexual and emotional need, in other words, bothcold and numb, then the product of that conception will be cold and numb.
Sex is quantum physics. Thought determines/creates product.
Then if the condition continues throughout gestation and birth and on and on to adult hood, compounded with additional conflict, lack of love and lack of emotional nourishment, lack of nurturing, lack of caressing, invalidation, suppression, abuse, abandonment, then you will have a product like your husband.
(Caressing and hugging and kissing the child, and playing with the child, is physically applying love. The child is being molded there. )
When ever you see a person that you think is screwed up, or something wrong, just be aware tha he /she is a product of that kind of a conception, gestation, birth, and upbringing.
We are all products of such..
We are only (basically) as good as we have bred and brought up.
It is not always as easy or simple or cut and dried as that.
There is a lot of genetic inheritance also.
And recessive genes could become dominant in this life too. That is what is meant by the saying in the bible: The sins of the fathers are passed on to the third and fourth generation.
Everything our ancsestors did, good and bad are recorded in our genes. Genes are coagulated emotion and all other information. Then they manifest in future generations.
Then body thetans can compound the problem.
And if reincarnation is true, then that also comounds the problem.
But the more I study and research and evaluate this, the more I think reincarnation is a false concpept and clever deception.
I think what is considered reincarnation is actually very clever lying and deceiving body thetans or entities.
Now your ex’s case may be somewhat different, but the mechanics are similar.
There are only two things in life. Life and postulates. Nothing just happens. Everything has a cause, every cause is a postulate. A postulate is a causitive consideration of some sort. It could be anything, a feeling, an intention, a causitive state (intentional or unintentional), an emotion, a thought, a word a consideration.
If a couple is in truely in love and on an upward ascending spiritual growth path, then the child will be one grade higher ( better or more advanced than the parents). It is a matter of grades or degrees.
If the parents are on a degenerating, declining, descending spiritual growth path, then the child will be one grade or degree worse than the parents.
If you need to know what happens when one parent is descending and one person is ascending then it gets to be pretty complex and you will have to figure it out for yourself.
It comes down to combinations of various postulates of different intensities. Kind of algorithymetic.
That could be one reason why you can get quite complex and difficult people.
With this data, you should be able to figure it out.
Dio
I’m sorry Maria.
I know you worked hard on your reply, but I see you avoiding each of the points I made in favor of semantic dodges.
My questions were asked in the context of statements you made in your post:
Maria wrote:
The only observations I’ve ever been able to make is in a public venue. it’s not really possible to tell anything from that.
However, based on reported behavior over time, LRH was a work-horse, described as friendly, charismatic and positive most of the time in the early days. In later years he was described as having prolonged bouts of anger and hostility. Many reports of him as being very volatile. He changed over time.
David Miscavige favors an enforced and abusive style of management by all reports. The number one report about him is that he is verbally abusive, condescending and cruel. That would peg him at the anger band. I don’t see any reports about him being charismatic, friendly or positive.
Auditing, knowledge and use of the tone scale, and many other “tools” and “technologies” in Scientology are all supposed to ensure that these things that happened to Hubbard as you described, do not happen. And they are suppose to avoid people like Miscavige becoming the inextractable dictator of Scientology.
Yet they still happened.
Would it really be unreasonable to conclude that Scientology did not work in these very crucial areas?
Dio –
I’m sorry dude. But your answer shows an almost complete dysfunction as a human being. We all have troubles and none of us are perfect. But when you apply whole packages of rationalizations for your dysfunctions, then you are not likely to ever get over them.
If Scientology is supplying these rationalizations for you, then you need to drop Scientology as it has become a roadblock to your own improvement.
I know. Totally ironic, isn’t it?
Gee, Dio,
A couple of things:
My name is Maria, not Marildi but I’ll let it go because it is a compliment to be confused with Marildi!
Oh, those dangerous slippery slopes! I like to ski on them.
Thank you so much for sharing what happens to you in your relationships and what you have learned about how these behaviors come to be. Very helpful.
As regards butter in the mouth — upon reading your information, I can see as a very real possibility that he was authentically one way in one situation and just as authentically another way in a different situation, shifting beingness so thoroughly that he was actually being truthful when he said in one being state that he didn’t do that and vice versa. Two different “he” beings present at two different times. And therefore an onlooker in one situation would never detect any insincerity. Because there was no insincerity. A little phrase pops into my mind: “will the real [name] please stand up?”
Wow.
Sorry Maria,
For not getting the names right. It’s because of my speed reading, getting as far as the M and making an assumption, then taking a leap.
Then too in a hurry to get typing and respond.
I need more practice on speed reading. ( and less things to do) : )
Yes, I duplicate you on what you said.
And it would take a considerable more than scn to figure it out and fix the being if he wants to.
But I was on the general right track in describing.
I also know at least one person who I used to say, in describing him, ( and not when talking to him, but in discussions about him with others, you have to realize that there are more than one being there, when talking to him.
He was not a bad guy by any means. He was extremely caring and loving man. Very generous. Quite financially successful in business, ( actually lucky, in a sense or to a degree) and gave a good amount of his money away.
That was quite a few yrs ago, when I knew him.
But, now, I think I understand how these people are, and why they are the way they are.
It takes an extreme amount of knowledge from many different sources to understand, and a heck of an open mind and a determination to find the answers.
To me ( in short) now it is all cause and effect. If you have the education and training,it can be taken apart like a machine and put back together. But that takes some know how. And a lot of patience and willingness and effort on the part the PC.
And there are very few people on earth qualified to do that.
Scn by itself will likely fail miserably in cases like this. But it is a necessary tool in one’s tool box. One of many.
Dio
One more thing Maria,
I get the idea that Hubbard was similar.
Dio
Thanks, Maria, but the compliment is mine! 🙂
Would it really be unreasonable to conclude that Scientology did not work in these very crucial areas?
The answer is yes and the answer is no.
Can some of the principles be used to improve things? Yes.
Can those same principles be used in the reverse? Yes.
Can one learn from the polarities in it? Yes.
Can one use it to reverse polarities? Yes.
Can there be faulty principles that were not noticed? Yes.
So I think it would be reasonable to conclude that certain elements of Scientology that were supposed to ensure that these kinds of things didn’t happen either didn’t work or were faulty or were incomplete or downright wrong. But that doesn’t mean that all elements do not work in all situations.
“I’m sorry Maria.”
Oh, don’t be sorry. Skiing is great fun.
Yes Dio. Tools. I have a great fondness for tools.
Hmmm… that sounded really funny! tricky mind… loves those puns! 🙂
Maria:
*************************************************************************************************************************
Maria commented on Mark Shreffler: Tone Scale seminar.
in response to Alanzo:
Have you ever thought about how knowledge of the Tone Scale, and auditing which is supposed to bring people “up” the tone scale, did nothing to avoid cure these things in these Scientologists? Did Ron just get squirrel auditing which made him go down tone over the years? Why did Ron spot that the auditing […]
Yes Dio. Tools. I have a great fondness for tools. Hmmm… that sounded really funny! tricky mind… loves those puns! 🙂
*****************************************************************************************************************8
First, how do you people italicize quotes on this blog? I see other posts with italicized quotes and can’t figure out how it done.
Now to respond to your post to me, as quoted above:
Now I am confused, Maria. You quote Al and address me……………….
Oh God forbid, did you get me confused or mistaken for Al? Or address me in the same breath.
That I can’t handle.
That is classic cognitive distortion.
Either your valence has wore through or your sanity has certainly failed and you have slid down the slippery slope and not on your skis.
It has evidently all been ass over tea kettle.
The result is, in the wake, you caused so much damage to my self worth.
I will now have to go for some expert behavior modification therapy.
I hope I can find a competent therapist.
Dio
AL: “I’m sorry dude. But your answer shows an almost complete dysfunction as a human being”
That’s crossing the line.
Dio, you have quoted what Alanzo said to me:
Alanzo says: “Have you ever thought about how knowledge of the Tone Scale, and auditing which is supposed to bring people “up” the tone scale, did nothing to avoid cure these things in these Scientologists? Did Ron just get squirrel auditing which made him go down tone over the years? Why did Ron spot that the auditing […]”
**************************************************
Regarding the tools, I was responding to your comment:”Scn by itself will likely fail miserably in cases like this. But it is a necessary tool in one’s tool box. One of many.”
My response to that was: “Yes Dio. Tools. I have a great fondness for tools. Hmmm… that sounded really funny! tricky mind… loves those puns! :)”
Hopefully this will obviate the need for therapy! LOL!
G wrote:
AL: “I’m sorry dude. But your answer shows an almost complete dysfunction as a human being”
That’s crossing the line.
All right. Dio and I are even.
He takes a chunk out of my hide and I take a chunk out of his.
That’s how it works, right?
You’re both done in crossing the line here. Now; hug each other and keep on discussing in a civilized manner.
Miraldi, thanks for your acknowledgement of my superiority, audacity, etc.. Someone has to do it and I humbly do so.
Great Statics have always encountered violent opposition and persecuation from mediocre minds.
Reword of Einstein.
There are two ways to establish a reputation, one is to be praised by noble men, and the other is to be accused by rogues. It is however best to secure the first, because it will always be accompanied by the latter. Author unknown.
Dictionaries are indeed the problem. I have seven dictionaries and they are all laced with an abundance of mistakes. They are made by humans and humans are full of mistakes.
Just because people use the words belief and believe as they are in the dictionary, does not mean they are right. Dictioinaries are indeed an authority.
But like Hubbard said: the truth is not determined by authority.
The value of any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated.
So I evaluated. I also evaluate Scientology and everything else, before it goes into my head. That is also called critical thinking and scientific thinking. Anyone who does not do so is a fool.
Word clearing tech and study tech also has to be evaluated. I am not a parrot. I have my own brain and I use it. I evaluate and glean everything and hang on what is good and I chuck the rest up to experience.
I simply applied Scientology- the science of knowing how to know the truth about something, the tech of how to bring order to chaos, to identify the key datum (if you know that tech) and applied it to life to come up with what I wrote.
Beliefs are the root cause of every problem on earth.
🙂
Dio
Like I say, Dio, you are really strong on knowledge. Now if you want to be able to communicate about it and have your communications get through, then the agreements about words (right or wrong) will have to be acknowledged in comm cycles (pontificate on words all you want, otherwise). That’s the R in the ARC triangle. I guess I shouldn’t even touch the subject if A, should I…? 😀
Hey, much better on the paragraphing! It was pretty smooth reading. 🙂
Marildi –
You are extremely intelligent. Stop smothering your intellect with the tight cognitive helmet of Scientology.
Let it loose.
Breathe free.
Al honey, that’s really not the way it is. But thanks for the very nice “flow”. I see your many good points too. (Just don’t tell anyone. :D)
Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about when I talk about the smothering effects of “thinking with Scientology”.
A couple of weeks ago over on Marty’s blog, a few people were talking about the SO#1 line, and how disappointed they were, after they joined the SO, to find out that Hubbard never wrote or even saw any of the letters they thought they were receiving from him personally over the years.
An indie gets on that thread and says that when he found out the truth about the SO #1 line, he realized “how much work it took to keep everything going”. Then later, after more discussion by others on the topic, he wrote a comment asking what policy Ron was applying, was it “What an Executive Wants on His Lines”?
No one answered him, of course.
This is “thinking with Scientology”. It is a kind of trapped logic that requires you to hop from LRH reference to LRH reference in order to “understand” something that you are looking at.
See, without any LRH references to get in the way, a normal person could simply look at all that data and say that the SO #1 line was a lie, and a very needless lie at that. But a Scientologist is stuck with having to think with Scientology. And for that reason they can not see the simple truth right there in front of them.
It is a trap, Marildi. You can break free of it.
I respect you and I care about you.
That’s why I am telling you this.
And before your attention goes on to my conclusion that the SO #1 line was a lie, and you shut down all thinking on the other points I raised, here is why I say it was a lie:
The SO #1 line was a sign with a box underneath it, placed mandatory in every org and mission on the planet. The sign said the same thing in all orgs:
“YOU CAN ALWAYS WRITE TO RON
“All mail addressed to me shall be received by me.
“I am always willing to help. By my own creed, a being is only as valuable as he can serve others.
“Any message addressed to me and sent to the address of the nearest Scientology Church will be forwarded to me directly.
“L. RON HUBBARD”
The definition of “lie” is:
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
So that’s why I say the SO#1 line was a lie.
For more information on the purpose of the lie, see this write up by Chris Owen.
http://www.solitarytrees.net/cowen/misc/so1.htm
So see how that guy on Marty’s blog was never going to be able to actually understand what he was looking at, as long as he was thinking with LRH references?
Al, I see it the way Geir does. It hasn’t eluded me either that you never seem to be willing to honestly look at data from Scientology references or from people such as auditors who have studied and practiced it for years, whenever their data conflicts with the false and/or misguided negative statements of a minority.
But in return here’s a link for you. I’ll be out until later today so you have plenty of time to consider it.
https://isene.me/2012/07/10/my-current-stance-on-scientology/?replytocom=21154#respond
p.s. Where I said “a minority” I meant a minority of those “who have studied and practiced for years”.
If you mean Geir’s write up, I’ve read it and considered it.
It’s just that I see you hop from one LRH reference to another in an attempt to “understand” something you are looking at way more than I see Geir doing that. In fact, I don’t know when the last time was that I’ve seen Geir even quote Hubbard at all in response to a statement made by anyone.
You can see a person using Scientology logic. You can see them using LRH references to understand something.
It’s not a good way to operate.
It’s a trap.
No, I mean the comment on that link I gave.
Sorry, here’s the right link:
https://isene.me/2012/07/10/my-current-stance-on-scientology#comment-21154
I agree that any such crutch is a trap.
I don’t use them as a crutch. It’s just a matter of going to the horse’s mouth when you’re talking about the horse.
And btw, I didn’t get that the comment I linked was directed at you, except for the very beginning. I know that it wasn’t clear when he used the word “you” but I clearly got that he meant the general “you” (as in “one”).
I was generally agreeing with Alanzo regarding “crutching” -not targeting you whom I think is less and less locked in logic (we all are to certain degrees, btw & IMO)
Geir, what do you mean by “locked in logic”?
It should have been “locked-in logic”. Stuck in a logically justified viewpoint.
I read the correct link now.
I understand this guy’s viewpoint. It worked for him and he is grateful for it. He doesn’t understand all these people for whom it didn’t work. He sees “such bitching and moaning about how it doesn’t fit this or that standard, or doesn’t fit into ‘normal’ scientific practice”. He tells people who felt betrayed to “get over it”, and says that maybe nothing will work for them, etc.
Should Karen De Carriere just get over it?
Should Lisa McPherson’s family just get over it?
Should Ellie Perkins, or Raul Lopez or John McMaster or Paulette Cooper, or Helen OBrien or Joseph Winter, or Don Purcell, or all the people for whom Scientology not only did not work, but for whom Scientology caused immense destruction – should they just get over it, too?
And should no one warn anyone else about the destruction Scientology has ALSO caused, and just let the Church PR and Marty PR go on and on and on so people can not make informed decisions about their involvement?
Because why?
Because it worked for you?
What should be done about Scientology’s abuse and destruction, Marildi?
Should people know about that part of Scientology, too?
If so, then how will you be able to do the ethical thing and make sure people have ALL the information they need to make informed decisions about their own involvement in Scientology?
Al, the problem I still have in our discussions is that you cannot or simply will not differentiate between the CoS and the Scn philosophy/tech itself. And you go on and on about things that NO ONE has any argument about except possibly people still in the CoS – and none of those people are here.
So when you do this kind of thing it comes across as a disingenuous debate tactic. If you would comment without such we might be able to have a productive conversation.
Well, Al, I think that the perpetrators should be hunted down and punished and punished and punished and then they should be locked up for eternity. All the books should be burned and all the buildings torn down and any and all mentions of the vicious and dangerous ideas from Scientology should be wiped from any mind that ever encountered them. All behavioral sciences should be purged of all materials ever mentioned by the arch enemy of mankind L Ron Hubbard. But even that won’t do. We have to be thorough. We must find the threads of knowledge that led to this atrocity called Scientology and purge those too. And even then we cannot call it a day. We must must must find a way to undo the very woof and warp of it all so it can never ever happen again.
Any suggestions for how to do that?
Maria wrote:
Well, Al, I think that the perpetrators should be hunted down and punished and punished and punished and then they should be locked up for eternity. All the books should be burned and all the buildings torn down and any and all mentions of the vicious and dangerous ideas from Scientology should be wiped from any mind that ever encountered them. All behavioral sciences should be purged of all materials ever mentioned by the arch enemy of mankind L Ron Hubbard. But even that won’t do. We have to be thorough. We must find the threads of knowledge that led to this atrocity called Scientology and purge those too. And even then we cannot call it a day. We must must must find a way to undo the very woof and warp of it all so it can never ever happen again.
Any suggestions for how to do that?
And this is called a “straw man”. It’s a tactic often employed in Scientology to avoid looking at the factual information under discussion and to try to make it all seem ridiculous, insane, suppressive, etc.
Come on, Maria.
I have a lot of respect for you and your good sense. As well as your extreme intelligence and good heart.
Try again.
OMG!!! I’ve lost Alanzo’s respect!! Horrors!! I must hurry and come up with answers he can respect!! I must act in perfect accordance with all the laws of logic and reason and blah blah blah at all times so I can please Alanzo or win some kind of battle or something.
Right. I’ll get right on it. NOT!
Maria,
You stop it right now! Get away from that monster, that demon, that cognitive distorted, intellectual vampire named Al.
Do not communicate with him!
Didn’t your mother warn you about those kind?
He is not what you think he is!
He is no where near sane enough nor intelligent enough to have a meaningful constructive argument with.
He will suck your sanity and brains too, right out of your head, right through the computer and internet.
He feeds of sane people.
You will land up stripping naked and run out side screaming down the street, screaming, shouting obscenities, and pulling your hair out.
Then the authorities will be called and institutionalize you.
And then no therapy of any kind will ever get you fixed up, again.
You will be a hopeless, mindless wreck!
Do you want that to happen to you?
I don’t think so, so you better stop it right now!
Shut the computer off, rest a while, go outside, take a few deep breaths, have some cookies and milk or camomile tea, and go to bed.
I am going to do the same, because I am almost there myself.
Dio
Almost?
You could have fooled me.
I am glad I caught this before I went on vacation. With this diatribe running on my blog, God knows what scene I would return to… And, I have had a similar communication with you back-channel, only somewhat weirder. So, for the sake of tranquillity, and despite the (unintended) humour this provides for the blog, I will have to put you on hold/moderation until I get back from holidays. My advice for you: Vacation.
It was intended.
It wasn’t a diatribe.
It was a love letter.
Have a great vacation.
I will hopefully now get more work done.
Tell everyone I still love them.
Love Dio
I let this one through before I leave.
.Marildi; That is why Alanzo is telling you this ..in a such a condescending way.
wow.
Woops — accidentally hit submit. Ignore that wow.
“…A world without war, crime or insanity, where honest beings can have rights and where Man is free to rise to greater heights. These are the Aims of Scientology.”
In 62 years of delivery of Dianetics and Scientology, with thousands and thousands of people studying the different “technologies” like the Emotional Tone Scale, why was Scientology never able to achieve its aims – especially in the areas under its complete control like the Int Base?
Have you ever asked yourself this question?
If your answer was, “Because it was never standardly applied!” then please examine that answer and ask these questions:
If L Ron Hubbard could not sufficiently apply Scientology standardly enough to bring about the aims of Scientology at Int Base – an area under his complete control – or even pick juniors at Int level who were high on the tone scale, then how could anyone else do it?
Could the answer ever be that Scientology, with all its technology, does not do what it supposedly aims to do?
Could it be that the aims of Scientology ARE being achieved at Int Base, but they are not the aims that Hubbard told you they were?
Could it be that David Miscavige is a product of Scientology, having gotten involved at 6 years old and growing up in Scientology and studying directly under L Ron Hubbard all his life?
I think it is possible that this is the case.
If it was not, I think we would be seeing something very different here 62 years later.
Alanzo
Well, all speculation aside we clearly are not yet living in a Utopia.
So at year 62, that’s a FAIL!!
What do you think would be a reasonable length of time to achieve Utopia?
10 years? 100? 1,000?
I propose we allow at least 3,000 years.
And load up our tool boxes and get to work as citizens of the universe.
Because I don’t think any one ology or group is going to get us there.
Are you saying that it’s just a matter of time to get the job done?
Alanzo isn’t talking about Utopia, he’s just talking about running an org “on source”.
Clearly there is a problem with the “tool-box” or at a minimum the “how to use” manuals for these tools.
This is called “moving the goal posts”.
I talked very specifically about achieving the aims of Scientology in an area completely under Scientology’s control – Int Base with respect to 2 very specific and very crucial items: No crime at Int Base, and applying the tone scale to picking the leaders of Scientology itself.
In 62 years this has not been able to be achieved.
And you moved the goal posts to “achieving Utopia”.
This is a cognitive dissonance reduction technique: you are confronted with facts that cause dissonance, and so you move the goal posts way back to avoid having to look at the facts.
It’s very human, and very forgivable to do this.
But let’s try not to, if we are ever going to really achieve a higher level of truth.
Okay?
Do you two have trouble reading?
I said:
“Well, all speculation aside we clearly are not yet living in a Utopia. So at year 62, that’s a FAIL!!”
And I don’t think that “answer” is going to be found in any specific ology or group.
OKAY. READ THAT LINE AGAIN. WHAT AM I SAYING??????
Here it is again:
So at year 62, that’s a FAIL!!”
And I don’t think that answer is going to be found in any specific ology or group.
Goal posts and straw men aside, at year 62, that’s a FAIL!! I don’t think that “answer” is going to be found in any specific ology or group.
And I repeat:
I propose we allow at least 3,000 years.
And load up our tool boxes and get to work as citizens of the universe.
Because I don’t think any one ology or group is going to get us there.
Who said anything about Scientology doing this?
Sorry. I was not looking at a utopia. So you entering in a utopia as a goal confused me.
When you said “Because I don’t think any one ology or group is going to get us there.” I finally understood you.
Carry on. You have my respect again. Keep dancing diligently to keep it because I can be a whimsical and capricious taskmaster. :>
Al, that’s the fallacy of reification right there – “…..why was Scientology never able to achieve its aims – especially in the areas under its complete control like the Int Base?”
The Int Base was never “under the control of Scientology”. You are setting up “Scientology” as a causitive being. This is purely and completely wrong and fallacious reasoning. Or what you try to pass off as reasoning. The Int Base is and was controlled by men and women, volitional human beings.
Dude.you are so confused.
Semantics, Val.
Men and women whose volition was to apply Scientology as standardly as they could to every aspect of existence at Int Base. They even had the Founder living there for a long while, writing up special issues on how to handle things standardly within this area under their total control.
There were no city councils or wog policemen or any other power to make them apply anything other than the ethics, tech, and policy of L Ron Hubbard. Thery trained in it and applied it 24/7 to that area under their own control.
And look what has happened there. If Scientology really did what it said it did, then the area of Int Base would be a reflection of the Aims of Scientology, right? If you want to see how well Scientology works, you have to go to where it is mostly being applied. That would be Int Base.
Right?
Come on, this isn’t hard. And it’s not unreasonable to to say that if Scientology was going to work anywhere, it should have worked at Int Base.
Right?
So what do we have at Int Base?
The aims of Scientology as Hubbard told us?
Or something else?
I am watching this video now.
I love it. His mind is almost as good as mine.
A cut from the same cloth.
Watch it.
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/quantum-physics/mike-adams-the-god-within.html
Dio
Marildi wrote:
Al, the problem I still have in our discussions is that you cannot or simply will not differentiate between the CoS and the Scn philosophy/tech itself. And you go on and on about things that NO ONE has any argument about except possibly people still in the CoS – and none of those people are here.
So when you do this kind of thing it comes across as a disingenuous debate tactic. If you would comment without such we might be able to have a productive conversation.
The post you are responding to was a post I wrote to the guy who hated all the whining that people did about Scn when it worked out just fine for him. You had agreed with him – remember?
So I asked you about the people for whom Scn did not work out well, and in fact caused catastrophes in their lives, or they ended up dead – dating as far back to 1950. While you say above that NO ONE has any argument that these are catastrophes – this guy who you agree with says that people who talk about them are just whining and they basically should just STFU.
So I asked you about these catastrophes – which I have never once seen you decry anywhere – and asked you how you were going to do the ethical thing and see to it that those who have scientology promoted to them are given ALL the information they need to make informed decisions about their own involvement.
So how will you do that if you are agreeing with the guy who thinks all these critics are just whining haters and they need to STFU because it worked just fine for you?
It’s not a debate tactic – it’s a question put to you about your own ethics and your own responsibility to people in your society to be accurate about the dangers of Scientology.
How are you going to handle this ethically?
Al, you say: “The post you are responding to was a post I wrote to the guy who hated all the whining that people did about Scn when it worked out just fine for him.”
The definition of “when” in your sentence is “considering that”, which you follow with “it worked out just fine for him” – a slyly twisted interpretation of what he was saying that completely alters it. And the whining people he was talking about had nothing to do with such people as you listed. This is yet another Straw Man.
But giving you the benefit of the doubt about intentional misinterpretation or willful use of Straw Man, it would seem that his point was simply too subtle for you and you just didn’t duplicate it. Either way, here again is the type of thing that causes your righteous indignation to lose credibility. Sorry, kid-o. 😦
Marildi –
If Scientologists truly took responsibility for the dangers of Scientology, there would be no need for critics like me. Your dodge of my direct question to you shows that, at least you as a Scientologist and in my experience so many other Scientologists, have not yet learned to take responsibility for the impact of Scientology upon the world, as expressed in the Code of a Scientologist.
Thus, critics are still needed to protect the public from the dangers of Scientology, because Scientologists are not going to do it.
Your response, or lack thereof, shows that the questions I asked indeed need to continue to be asked until Scientologists can live up to their own code.
You have your finger right on the arbitrary here.
You see, when you decide you are going to do a service in a Church of Scientology, the first thing that happens is that you are REQUIRED to sign up on a six-month free membership. This is not a choice. This is a mandatory requirement. When that six months is up, you are REQUIRED to buy at least an annual membership as a condition of doing any services in the Church of Scientology. And then you are told that it would be far more economical to buy a lifetime membership because you MUST have a membership anyway to do any services in that Church. If you buy that membership you are so screwed because then to not be a member you must resign. and they will want to know WHY you are resigning. And then you air your grievances. And you are then accused of nattering and of being anti-Church and anti-Scientology and you need to be `handled`which really means that you have to shut up or be excommunicated. At no point does anyone give you a list of the codes and creed so you can decide if you want to agree to them. But regardless, as a member you must adhere to the creed and codes of Scientology. Of course, if you resign, you are now `publicly resigning` and now you are an SP. Catch 22. Damned if you do. Damned if you don`t.
That`s just one of the many reasons why I am no longer a member of that group.
Exactly!
“Thus, critics are still needed to protect the public from the dangers of Scientology, because Scientologists are not going to do it.”
Which “Scientologists” are you directing your comments to? Certainly not the EX-Scientologists who are now critics. And certainly not the CoS Scientologists. I guess you mean those who have left but still consider themselves Scientologists. Like Marty? Steve Hall? David St Lawrence? Those guys and others like them, including many of their posters, have done much more than merely continue to rant and rave about obvious outpoints. And in so doing they have been much more effective than all the caustic critics combined in “protecting the public from the dangers of Scientology.”
As for me, my leaning has been to protect the public, when I can, from the A=A of Scientology and the CoS. I will say again that the basic problem with trying to have a comm cycle with you, as exemplified in the above sentence of yours, is that you continue to insist upon doing that particular A=A and using the word “Scientology” in an ambiguous way.
And on your direct question, I’ve already made it very clear that I am not in favor of what the CoS has done and is doing, including much less blatant outpoints than the type you love to drone on about – which obviously should be investigated if they haven’t been already. There. Is that literal enough for you now? Come on, Al baby, let’s not fight. Or find something worth fighting about. 😀
Indeed.
I’m not fighting you.
I’m asking you questions and listening to your answers.
I can see you coming up-tone on the subject of taking responsibility for the impact of Scientology on the world already. Even though it may feel like an overt, given the scientology conditioning to always follow orders, it’s not.
As for Marty and Steve Hall, I think you are forgetting about all the decades they spent committing the abuses on the public from Int Base.
David St Lawrence, however, has always been one of the good guys in my experience. A very good guy.
So yes, a Scientologist’s production record with regard to that part of the Code of a Scientologist does matter.
What else have you done to take responsbility for the impact of Scientology on the world?
Al: “What else have you done to take responsbility for the impact of Scientology on the world?”
Just an inordinate amount time spent on you. 😀 But I’m coming up-tone on that. Your humor one me over.
The condescending flow above, on the other hand, just doesn’t do it for me. Nonetheless, it speaks for itself. And my work seems to be done for the day. 😛
I meant “won” me over.
By the way, again I want to agree with you about David St. Lawrence. I’ve known him since the early 90’s, and as a mission holder and auditor, he was always out helping people. And he has helped people I know very much.
But guys from Int Base? Sea Org Management, RTC and “Financial Dictator” types who ran around in fake navy uniforms, getting mad because it gave them “ethics presence” and who have never worked in any mission or service org to make Scientoloy actually work for people? The guys who all they did was scream for more and more money for LRH and SO reserves?
Very rare that one of those guys are one of the good guys who take responsibility for anything regarding the impact of Scientology on the world per the code of a Scientologist.
Marty has done a lot to turn things around in the last 2.5 years. In fact, in some ways he is one of the most effective critics – in the last couple of years. But Anonymous was here before him and people like Gerry Armstrong, Tory Christman, Arnie Lerma, Stacy Brooks, Robin Scott, Vaughn Young, Caroline Leiktemann, Jesse Prince – these were people that Marty and Mike tried to destroy while following DM’s orders. For decades.
And all these earlier critics were doing was what Marty and Mike are doing now.
Do you understand that?
Do you realize that Marty and Mike are just the latest in a long string of critics who have woken up and gotten out and blown the whistle on the abuses in Scientology? Do you realize that if it weren;t for the people who came before Marty and Mike, and for the Internet, Marty and Mike would be fair-gamed to death just like Vaughn Young was – by Marty and Mike?
Marty and Mike are definitely doing their part now to take responsibility for the impact of Scientology on the world, but they have a long way to go to clean up the damage they themselves caused by dramatizing Scientology on others. They’re doing good – now.
They need to keep it up.
And so you, Marildi, with all your intelligence and brightness and good sense, can do more to inoculate the society from Scientology’s dangers and to ensure that people who get involved in Scientology from now on have the information they need to make informed decisions about their own involvement, and to ensure that the abuses of your religion never happen again to anyone else.
Only then will your “critic problem” ever go away.
So good luck, young whippersnapper. Here’s your whistle and your critic’s cap, and your critic’s hat pack.
START! :>
I hear you Alonzo… you seem to be one around for awhile and see the big picture…. 🙂 Good!.
Re Marildi part, not familiar enough to comment.
deLizabeth –
I don’t really know your story, but if you haven’t been out for very long, there is a LOT of history that has been withheld from you in the Church (if you were ever in the Church). It’s so ironic that Church members, no matter their training or experience, actually know very little about Scientology!
Google those names I listed off, each with the word “Scientology” after them. There are some great, heroic stories there, all demonstrations of the integrity and courage and idealistic values that we all had which attracted us to Scientology in the first place. Those names will lead you to other names, and other stories.
There is a long and proud history of people taking responsibility for the abuses in Scientology, and trying their best to do something about it for the sake of others.
WAY before Marty and Mike!
I’m still with you… I have some history which I’m working on to release, maybe, nothing very big or damaging, just am in midst of seeing what’s best to do, not easy and takes time. I’m more familiar with the 70’s and 80’s but left in mid 80’s, married and buried it all pretty much and my mate and I enjoyed our new life. Had ex for mate, very experienced, and we kept updated somewhat of the happenings, but not at all active in or out. After he passed over, the subject piqued my interest and saw with own eyes what was happening in the so called church, then officially left. I have done very extensive research for last 7 months, so understand what you are saying. Thank you much 🙂
The mid-80’s was when I got in – a couple of years after the Mission Holders Conference with the Financial Dictators. I joined staff at the oldest continual mission on the planet, Peoria, IL mission, became ED, and vowed to figure out why our mission had tons of reserves and students and everything else, and then it all was gone.
I didn’t find out the answers to that, despite years of digging, until I left the Church 16 years later!
Were you part of the David Mayo exodus?
I left ’84 then found Mayo with tapes listened too. I went to the first convention of Metapychology in Frisco in ’86. Met mate who had been somewhat part of that exodus. Wow,16 years, it’s amazing how we didn’t know what was going on around us while we were in, huh and with digging? They kept us stupid and controlled. Thanks to our better, higher selves we started looking further. Education of the subject has been my best friend.
I think it is entirely because of the Internet. You get the good, the bad and downright ugly on the Internet but one thing is for sure, it is nearly impossible to shut people up and its very hard to track down an Anon so you can go after him especially if that Anon knows his way around the Internet.
Dirty laundry abounds and even the biggest and most powerful multinational corporations are finding out that they can be found out too. And once something is on the Internet, it is pretty much there for good for all to see courtesty of google and the wayback machine.
Yeah!!
Many people agree with you about the Internet, Maria.
I can tell you that in the late 90’s, after the Church had sued TIME Magazine over and over – and lost every appeal but were STILL able to get TIME to lose its liability insurance, the Church (Marty Mike and Dave) had pretty much intimidated all news organizations who needed to make a profit to stay in business.
And so people like Dennis Ehrlich, Arnie Lerma, Stacy Brooks, Mark Bunker, Larry Wallershiem, and many others were able to use the Internet for the purposes that news organizations were afraid to try. Like you said, an individual could publish documents that could spread worldwide instantly.
And so the target back then was to write and tell stories, get docs on the internet, and yell and scream as loudly as possible to ensure that the stories got told and the docs were spread. Marty and Mike and Dave did all they could to silence those people, but they were not able to do it.
And now look at them.
What’s happened in the last few years, beginning with Anonymous, has all gone in the right direction, finally. I really do believe that the cult is being dismantled from its present form. They certainly are having the hardest time ever getting away with anything right now.
There are so many smart and energetic and motivated people joining the fight now that I really don’t see how the cult has a chance of ever going back to the way they were. But who knows? Scientology teaches people to dramatize its teachings newly and in a new unit of time, and that a thetan can do anything forever.
So I am not counting my chickens until my eggs are hatched.
When they are, would you like scrambled or fried?
Over easy!
Delizabeth wrote:
I left ’84 then found Mayo with tapes listened too. I went to the first convention of Metapychology in Frisco in ’86. Met mate who had been somewhat part of that exodus. Wow,16 years, it’s amazing how we didn’t know what was going on around us while we were in, huh and with digging? They kept us stupid and controlled. Thanks to our better, higher selves we started looking further. Education of the subject has been my best friend.
I’ve learned a lot of valuable lessons from the mistakes I made under the social coercion of the Scientology environment. I’ve learned that human beings have vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and those vulnerabilities stem from deep emotional needs. A person will accept any lie, and indeed continue to lie to himself, as long as these needs are being met.
For those who stayed and became Scientologists, Scientology fulfilled deep emotional needs we all had. For those who are still Scientologists, despite all the information that is available about it, they are still Scientologists because a deep emotional need is being met by it.
For some reason, when my mother died, I no longer needed Scientology. It was like a light turning on for me, or a house of cards collapsing. I just woke right up and within a few months i had walked away. To this day I am still not positive what the exact need was for me that was somehow connected to my mom. But I have some ideas – and they have nothing to do with “Going OT” or “Total Freedom”, although if you had asked me at the time I would have said they did.
Most Scientologists don’t know why they remain Scientologists until after they get fully out and look back on all of it. And even then it takes a lot of thinking with a lot of information from other sources, and time away from Scientology to figure it all out.
I agree with what you say Alanzo. Sorry about your mom, but maybe she as a static helped you in some way. 🙂 I can say it took me years too and I was public.
Al, your only flaw is that you still divide the world up into good guys and bad guys.
Is that my only flaw?
Are you sure?
This is Valkov, right?
Wow, Alanzo, I was going to write a reply to your last post directed at me, and say that we obviously see the current scene very differently. In fact, I was going to say almost exactly what you wrote in the later post where you said this:
“What’s happened in the last few years, beginning with Anonymous, has all gone in the right direction, finally. I really do believe that the cult is being dismantled from its present form. They certainly are having the hardest time ever getting away with anything right now.
“There are so many smart and energetic and motivated people joining the fight now that I really don’t see how the cult has a chance of ever going back to the way they were…”
I was then going to add to the above idea, that you seem to be behind the times. But after reading the above I was on the verge of changing my mind… until I read on, where you added this:
“But who knows? Scientology teaches people to dramatize its teachings newly and in a new unit of time, and that a thetan can do anything forever.”
What can I say except that you that you apparently have so liked the fight you’ve been engaged in for so long that you just can’t give it up, in spite your ability to see that the tipping point has been reached. Either that or it’s just the fact that you don’t actually know what Scientology as a philosophy and the tech really are. And that is much more unfortunate, IMO. 😦
But one other thing I was also going to note, with regard to your parting line:
“So good luck, young whippersnapper. Here’s your whistle and your critic’s cap, and your critic’s hat pack. START! :>”
You are funny! 😀
Marildi –
If 16 years in Scientology wasn’t enough for me to learn it, and if L Ron Hubbard didn’t even know the tone scale well enough to not appoint David Miscavige to be his personal liaison between he and the rest of the church while he was on the run from the law, then how do you know that you know Scientology well enough to tell me that I don’t know it?
If Ron went down tone, even with decades of auditing, so much so that he was actually in hiding at the end of his life and lying about running the Church to avoid prosecution, and he never spotted the obvious out-tech on his case that caused all this, then how can you be so eagle-eyed and sure about what I don’t know about Scientology?
Most independents believe that most everyone in the Church is a squirrel, right? And most everyone in the Church believes that all independents are squirrels – so you are the one who knows what Scientology is all about – and I don’t?
OK. That’s fine.
Someday you’ll look back on all this and laugh.
Let me put it this way: 16 years “in Scientology” wasn’t enough.
You give away your MU’s all the time!
But I literally laughed out loud on this one: “Someday you’ll look back on all this and laugh.”
You are not only funny but hilariously melodramatic. And most of the time you even intend to be. 😀
Why just have drama when you can have melodrama?
Oh, had to look that up… YES! “The Merchant of Venice” by Shakespeare. Don’t believe I saw it but I have imagination and have experienced. 🙂
I think Alanzo is well aware of the philosophy and “tech”. But “Scientology” is more than that – it is a “religion” based on ALL of Hubbard’s writings and lectures. And what so many scios fail to understand is that Hubbard’s actual agenda was quite different from his publicly presented agenda. Scientology is the way it is today because of the actual agenda.
Alanzo is pointing out the fact that the tech didn’t handle LRH’s case. Why is that? Well, you could say it was because LRH’s ethics were so totally out that there was no way in hell he was going to make case-gain. Is that an acceptable reason? Or is that blasphemy? How dare you say he was out-ethics? If so, need I point out the destruction of the missions, the millions he was skimming from the coffers of the church monthly, evading due legal process, claiming what he did in Clear to Eternity when he knew he could not deliver such things? Or do you want to argue about LRH’s state of case in his last years and deny his extreme paranoia, irrational tirades, ill-health?
The facts are pretty hard to confront when one has been beguiled into believing quite a different picture. It’s very hard to allow oneself to admit that LRH was a liar, a conman, a bigamist, ordered young children into chain lockers, etc. So hard because there is all that wonderful tech he has given us. The wins we’ve had.
Yes, wins. For some life-changing wins. But Scientology promises far more than mere wins. It promises “Total Freedom”. And that is quite another thing entirely. It promises states in which nothing can strike you down. Cause over life. Freedom from overwhelm, Cause over MEST itself.
Can it deliver? Does it deliver? Could it ever deliver? An OT?
It’s pretty clear that LRH did not have the rest of the OT Levels mapped out. A recent poster on ESMB who worked with LRH in the final years just added to what others have said, there is no mapped out route in OT X – XIV (I leave out OT IX, becasue I have heard that what was supposed to be OT VIII was cut in half, so there may be such a level, but the fact that there have been 3 different versions of VIII delivered makes me wonder.) Yes, the “church” may put together something and call them OT levels. But LRH never did them. They are not part of any “bridge” in terms of having a well laid out path to a destination.
I suppose if one like to have a “religion” just like their neighbors do and likes the philosophy of scientology better than the others, then you can take the bits of the philosophy and tech that you like and use it in your daily life, give an assist, apply conditions, etc.
That doesn’t interest me in the slightest. I didn’t buy into Scientology so I could have a religion.
Now we have an interesting development. We have Elizabeth Hambre. A solo auditor that has taken the most basic aspects of auditing tech and audited herself to a state I’ve never in 35 years heard anyone even coming close to attaining. What is the reaction to this miracle? Varied: ho-hum, yeah right! koo-koo, no comment, and from some amazing!
It’s amazing because it shows that the massive pile of verbiage called “the tech” is not required to make it. Oh but Ron said that training is 50% of the gains… blah blah blah, See that for what it is – Marketing Hype. He just wanted to sell you something. He sure was good at selling things, I’ll give him that.
I’ve a mind to start a new church…
Freebeeing & Maria,
> “It’s pretty clear that LRH did not have the rest of the OT Levels mapped out”
Quote from Pierre Either (Class XII):
“In 1977, in broadly released issues LRH announced that at least 15 new Levels were fully researched and merely awaiting final write-up. Also the Class X, XI and XII materials make repeated and specific references to these Rundowns coming from “research on OT VIII-XV”.
I have also confirmed from private discussions with a number of individuals, some of which I have known for decades, and whom I consider to be honest and reliable that they even saw the materials themselves.”
http://pierreethier.wordpress.com/ot-viii-and-beyond-what-lies-ahead-of-us
> “Now we have an interesting development. We have Elizabeth Hambre. A solo auditor that has taken the most basic aspects of auditing tech and audited herself to a state I’ve never in 35 years heard anyone even coming close to attaining.”
It looks like you need to do more (internet) research.
Wow! That is amazing data – and from reliable sources, you say. Pierre Ethier definitely seems to be a credible source, from what I know of him.
As for others obtaining awesome states, we recently had some posts from a guy named James “doc” Whittaker. Check out this one about his own experiences: https://isene.me/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes#comment-21062 . He made some other very interesting comments too on various topics, including some posts on Geir’s “Free Will” blog post thread.
Ferenc, you are such a welcome presence. You’ve obviously done your homework and have already made some great contributions. 🙂
Thanks for the link Ferenc! I was repeatedly going back to Pierre’s old website last year hoping to hear more about the upper OT levels and hoping he would continue writing. I didn’t realize he had set up a new blog late last year. I’m glad to see he did, so now I can catch up on all that!
And Marildi — I never saw those posts in the thread you linked to — I come and go a lot from this blog and various Scientology blogs and have trouble keeping up! Now I have some catching up to do again!
For the record, I was remarking on the character of response to Elizabeth’s posts as she speaks of her experiences using even the simplest processes over time.
Maria and Ferenc, here’s another great post of doc’s about his state, in answer to a direct question put to him by Chris: https://isene.me/2011/05/05/a-radical-new-view-of-the-upper-scientology-levels-ok-here-goes#comment-21099
The other recent posts on that thread are dated either 7-21 or 7-22 and if you’re interested you can find all of them by typing each of those days (one at a time) in the “Edit/Find on this page” feature (on Windows) There’s probably a more correct way of wording that but I don’t know much computer terminology. Anyway, this a tip (if you need it, but probably neither of you does) to find what you’re looking for quickly, because that “Radical new view…” blog thread is so long it’s beyond unwieldy, at least on my Windows XP.
FreeBeing said:
Now we have an interesting development. We have Elizabeth Hambre. A solo auditor that has taken the most basic aspects of auditing tech and audited herself to a state I’ve never in 35 years heard anyone even coming close to attaining. What is the reaction to this miracle? Varied: ho-hum, yeah right! koo-koo, no comment, and from some amazing!
*******************************************************
Yes, it is a surprising reaction or lack of reaction.
And I agree, she has demonstrated the simplicity of the process.
But if someone has a particular purpose in mind which that simplicity does not serve then it won`t be picked up on and used.
Her purpose is freedom. And I love that she speaks of the freedom she lives.
Once, when I was on staff, a man came in to the mission and began speaking to me in a kind of breathless desperation about a spiritual experience he had that was related to Scientology. I had never seen him in the mission before, yet he was saying that he was an OT and he explained many many OT phenomena that he had been living with. We discussed this for at least 2 hours.
I was thoroughly electrified. He kept asking to see the mission holder as the mission holder, being OT, would surely understand even more of his experiences that he could not talk to me about. I was really excited when the mission holder got in and I introduced the man to him and he went in to his office and closed the door.
About 10 minutes later, the door opened and the man left. I went into the mission holder’s office and sat down to discuss what this man had experienced. The mission holder did not want to talk about him and he intimated that the man was insane. This shocked me because he seemed to be talking about experiencing OT phenomena right out of Scientology lectures and texts.
I found out many years later that this man was a former pc of the mission holder’s who had a psychotic break after the auditing he had received.
Another time, at another mission I was working in, another younger man came in and breathlessly told me about OT phenomena he had experienced. This man had never had any Scientology, he only knew that a Scientologist would understand. So I listened and became excited over the prospects of this man’s OT experiences.
Again, the mission holder of this mission came in and immediately threw the guy out on the street. The man, apparently, was a homeless schizophrenic who had stopped into the mission often in the past. At one time he had even become violent with a former staff member.
I look back on these incidents and realize that when I was a Scientologist, I wanted to believe in OT so badly that I was willing to overlook clear signs of insanity in order to grab on to evidence of the possibility of OT. My ability to evaluate people and their ideas was precisely nil because of this deep emotional need I had to escape the limits of being human.
I don’t disbelieve in the supernatural, nor do I consider all thinking about it as crazy. But it is important to know that mental illness often results in extreme magical thinking, and an extreme desire to believe in the possibilities of escaping the limitations of being human can lead us to follow and believe people who are actually insane.
Last night I followed some links on this blog and read some posts by some people who remind me very clearly of my earlier self and these situations. I realized that the prospect of escaping the human condition is very strong in some people here, so strong that they can not tell the sane from the insane any more.
This experience has taught me that I do not belong here. I have fully graduated from Scientology and its desperation to escape the limits of being human. I do not believe that any other person could have taught me this. And so what I thought I was doing here, I see is almost impossible.
I thought this was a group of people I could contribute something valuable to, but I now see that I am only holding myself back if I stay too long and keep trying to contribute to a group of people who are too distracted to listen. The need to fulfill their distraction is too strong to ever listen to anyone or anything but their own deep emotional need to escape being human. They are willing to go to the brink of insanity, even, in pursuit of it.
I am so over this.
Good luck everyone.
And Bon Voyage.
Bon Voyage Al
Just a song before you go:
For a whole different perspective, be sure to see my reply to you under your last comment above: https://isene.me/2012/07/18/mark-shreffler-tone-scale-seminar#comment-21359
(You didn’t really think you were going to get in a few last blows and then scurry off in a clean get-away, did you, Al? :D)
I hear you Alan, but I assure you I am not willing to go insane to find out. It seems you have resigned yourself to mortaldom. I haven’t given up on the possibility for spiritual enhancement.
Freebeeing, did you see no spiritual enhancement from your start in Scientology up to the State of Clear? 😦
In the main, I am very happy with the auditing I have received, esp grades and L11. I’m not saying I have had no spiritual enhancement. I believe there is far more to be had.
Got it. Well, I’m glad about that! 🙂
And I fully concur that there is more to be had after Scientology. It seems to me now that at least for most people, Scn simply prepares you to move forward from that particular spiritual path, on to further advance. I believe it gives an individual enough self-determinism (as opposed to the other-determinisms of other individuals and of the bank) and enough ability to be Cause to carry forward – which doesn’t even have to involve doing the whole Bridge. It might be much less, depending on the individual.
And as I’ve indicated, the ability to move forward is very much enhanced by training as well as auditing, since one has to understand the basics of the physical universe and of life if one is going to play the game and play it well enough to continue the spiritual journey.
But when I talk about the merits of “training” I don’t think of it as simply knowing the tech of auditing but as having a good understanding of the underlying principles of the tech – which in my experience seems most likely to come about with lots of hours in the chair. That kind of experience acts as a sort of test of your grasp of basic principles and you learn from your mistakes what you missed in the underlying theory, the philosophy.
After I read Marty Rathbun’s book recently, I made the observation that his simple, clearly-stated description of Scientology and the Bridge would be beneficial for many, if not most, Scientologists (this is based in part on many hours’ experience I’ve had as a word clearer), and I’ve since seen comments on Marty’s blog to that effect – from others who read his book and realized they didn’t actually have much understanding of Scn at all, even after being involved for years and getting lots of auditing.
But getting back to your point about Scn not being a Be-All-End-All, LRH himself did not consider OT VIII to be the end of the journey, just the first real OT level rather than what he called the pre-OT levels from OT I through VII – all of which are negative gain levels. OT VIII is not the point at which “nothing can strike you down” but it’s the start of positive gain and OT ability. I guess you saw Ferenc’s post above as regards LRH’s research up through OT XV? https://isene.me/2012/07/18/mark-shreffler-tone-scale-seminar#comment-21338? And as for people moving forward from their Scn journey, did you see the two links I posted below Ferenc’s post?
Alonzo, don’t leave, maybe just cut back. Hopefully will catch you elsewhere. I spread myself thinly lately with the time available.
marildi, there is conflicting data. Mayo says LRH went up to OT XI after completing Solo NOTs. He was living with LRH. Pierre seems to be a competent CL XII but he was not trained by LRH nor did he work with him. So I wonder how it is he can say what these levels are about, since I have never heard a description of them as he presents anywhere. It also appears he is delivering OT IX, which is another out-point. He says OT VIII was a very large level so how is he able to deliver either VIII or IX when the LRH materials have never been available to him?
One only needs look at the reports of many that were there to understand that LRH was not in a good state in his later years. This is another serious outpoint.
Many many outpoints. I think Pierre is right about one thing, the Co$ will not release these levels in our lifetime. I for one do not believe they are really there, maybe auditing worksheets and some notes on things, but certainly nothing that is releasable.
It matters not. Others have and will blaze new trails.
If I remember it right, either Marty or Dan Koon stated that he, or they, knew for a fact that LRH worksheets for OT IX existed (at one time, at least) but that Ray Mithoff had no idea how to compile them into a rundown. Who knows – maybe Pierre got access somehow to the data on those worksheets and was in fact able to compile it into a rundown.
But I agree – there’s so much conflicting data, and so much speculation. About LRH, the tech, and the history of how it all went down – with specific evidence for both sides of the various issues. And I agree too that it doesn’t really matter! That’s why I haven’t spent a lot of time poring over the huge amount of “data” that exists. You figure that new trails will be blazed and I do too. I would add that I also see the core of Scientology as something immensely valuable, and I don’t believe it’s going to just fade away – it’s too comprehensive and systematic and highly workable, majorly so, even if not perfectly so.
I can’t think why you don’t like Marty Rathbun, unless it’s the viewpoint that because of the similar overts of his own he has no right to take his current stand – a very un-Scientological viewpoint, don’t you think?. Anyway, I’m curious – why don’t you sum it up, just briefly. I’ve seen him be kind of a hothead with some posters at times but that’s about it, and I do believe he’s done a lot of good – quite a lot.
How would Pierre gain access to such data? He was never on those lines. If Ray can’t make sense of how to make a level from the materials then it isn’t likely anyone else will. This was one of Mayo’s concerns as well. I’ve left a comment on Pierre’s blog, but so far it is still awaiting moderation. He’s got an OT IX success story in the post. That raises questions in my universe.
As I said, I’m not going to go into a rank on Rathbun. I’ll just say, I think the man has an agenda, that his 27 year history in support of DM speaks loudly of who/what he is. Non-scientological? How so?
What I had in mind as to how Pierre may have gained access to those materials was that, in addition to what he said about references to those upper OT levels that were in the Class X-XII materials, he said: “I have also confirmed from private discussions with a number of individuals, some of which I have known for decades, and whom I consider to be honest and reliable, that they even saw the materials themselves”.
But that’s great about leaving a comment on Pierre’s blog – be sure to let me know what he said! 🙂
What I believe the Scientological viewpoint about Marty would be relates to the ethics tech and the principle that there is a way back up the chute – people can and do sometimes repent their sins (to coin a phrase – LOL). And yes, he did have a long history in support of DM but from what I’ve learned, not only from Marty but others who were there and from my own less dramatic (but dramatic enough) experience in the SO, is that there is an insidious type brainwashing into a cult mentality that takes place – and some people never break free of it, including both SO members and public.
If you think his agenda is to take over the CoS, I don’t believe that’s true. In many blog posts he has expressed not only that he isn’t interested in that role but that he doesn’t even feel there should be that type of monopoly of Scientology.
“They even saw the materials themselves” is a far cry from having the data required to deliver such a level. I’ll let you know if he responds.
I’ll be a lot happier with Marty when he stops laying all the blame on DM and really takes a hard look at LRH’s role and stops whitewashing/ignoring the actual history. He may never be able to do so, but one can hope.
You must not be a regular reader of Marty’s blog (LOL). He has made comments about LRH’s role in Scn history and doesn’t let him completely off the hook at all. I can’t recall which blog posts included such comments (where is Valkov when we need him? :)) but here’s an excerpt from Marty’s recently published book, What is Wrong with Scientology?, the chapter “Reversal”:
“In short, human beings are full of contradictions and L. Ron Hubbard was not immune from imperfections. For better or worse, during the 60’s when Hubbard and Scientology were continually facing attacks intended to bring about their demise, Hubbard issued quite a bit of policy in response which changed the character of the movement. This ‘wartime’ left an indelible imprint on Scientology. It was a dark ages of sorts for the movement. It was a time when the group, as a matter of survival needed to circle the wagons and know who was with it and who was against it. This was the era when security checks became routine. This was the period when ‘disconnection’ from suppressive persons was dictated and enforced by the organizations. This was when policy called for the overt and covert destruction of alleged forces of evil. This was the period when Hubbard created a monster to achieve that end – an ogre that would later play an important role in his own demise. That was the Guardian’s Office – a legal and public relations organization with its own intelligence network.
“The Guardian’s Office’s intelligence system was once described by a government official in the know as rivaling that of Israel’s state intelligence service (the storied Mossad). Hubbard wrote volumes of material for the Guardian’s Office on how to smash and obliterate the ‘enemy’. David Miscavige seized on this material during the early ‘80s, when the collective crimes of a decade and a half of unfettered Guardian’s Office operations had come back to haunt Hubbard. Miscavige would rise, live and die by that wartime policy.”
p.s. Yes, of course just seeing the materials isn’t enough, but my point was really that there is a possibility he got “the data” via others as well – and had the ability to work out a rundown from it. Just because Ray Mithoff had the post of Snr C/S Int is likewise not enough to assume he would have the intelligence and grasp of principles needed to develop a rundown from LRH’s notes. But again, your query to Pierre himself about the whole subject was a great idea!
marildi & freebeing,
Re: Pierre Either’s OT IX
Quote from Pierre Either:
“it might be possible for someone who has sufficiently freed himself from the constraints of his case, and who possesses a conceptual and thorough understanding of the entirety of Scientology Tech to be able to continue in LRH footsteps beyond OT VIII.”
Source: http://www.upperbridge.org
Quote from Patricia Krenik:
“Pierre is on my friends list” … “his attempting to create OT IX”
Source: http://www.eticaeverita.org/sites/default/files/images/patricia-krenik-post-20120209.jpg
Patricia Krenik info: OT VIII, C/S in FreeZone Academy: http://community.freezone-tech.info/elma
Quote from somebody with user name OT VIII | September 19, 2010 at 8:47 am | in Marty’s blog:
“Class XII Pierre Ethier is working on his own OT levels beyond VIII, probably hewing closely to the LRH research track.”
Isene,
I posted in this thread, to marildi & freebeing, some non confidential info about Pierre Either’s OT IX.
I have not been under moderation, but the post went under moderation, and then it disappeared.
Any problem with WordPress software? Or you deleted it?
Geir, since you haven’t responded one way or the other to Ferenc’s question, I thought maybe you didn’t see the above post while you were on vacation, and I was interested in the info he had found. So if it’s not confidential but has disappeared for some reason, maybe Ferenc will post it again if you give the go-ahead.
marildi,
Some time after I posted the question (2012-08-04 at 23:25) to Isene, my previous post appeared: it is my 2012-08-04 at 21:27 post. (Maybe Isene applied his magic wand).
We – you (2012-08-02 at 07:39), freebeeing (2012-08-02 at 06:27) and me – wanted to know how Pierre got the OT IX because his web page (http://www.quickurl.info/PierreBeyondOT8) shows 2 OT IX success stories.
freebeeing (2012-08-02 at 06:27) left a comment on Pierre’s blog, but it was awaiting moderation. You (2012-08-02 at 07:39) asked freebeeing for Pierre’s answer, but freebeeing did not report back on that subject, and freebeeing’s comment is not showing in Pierre’s web page (http://www.quickurl.info/PierreBeyondOT8) .
So, I spent some time researching the internet to see I could find some relevant information. And, then I posted it (2012-08-04 at 21:27).
Thanks, Ferenc. Somehow I missed the previous post that appeared later.
You did a very good job of research once again, and it went along with my thinking that to develop the rundown for OT IX would take someone, to quote Pierre, “who possesses a conceptual and thorough understanding of the entirety of Scientology Tech”.
You know, in the past, I would have ridged at the idea that someone other than LRH had developed an OT level – especially without having LRH’s notes – or that someone other than LRH would even be able to do so. And to be honest, I was still thinking that LRH’s notes (or others’ data as to what was in them) would have been necessary for Pierre to be in possession of – until I considered the data you found in your research. So with that and this exchange with you, I’ve freed up a bit more in the area of unexamined, fixed ideas. Thanks much for your contribution to that. It was θ. 🙂
I don’t like Marty Rathbun. I won’t go into a rant about the man here. I’ll leave it at that.
Marildi – I have two more video series that I think you (and anyone reading here) would really gain a great deal of insight from:
The Century of Self
http://archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_TheCenturyOfTheSelf
The Trap
http://archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_TheTrap
These two series are mind-boggling, as they reveal essential elements of history that have been hidden from view regarding mental health, economics, propaganda and public relations. I feel like I have been given an factual history lesson for the first time in my life, a lesson that shows exactly how ideas mark the forward progress or deterioration of the human race in very real ways, ways that we really need to be fully aware of.
And Geir, I believe that you will find a great deal of information to do with the consequences of using fixed systems.
Strange – this got stuck in mod queue.
Geir, the other strange thing is that even after you released her post there was no email notification – just one for your reply to it.
Oddity
Sorry if this is a duplicate posting but my post didn’t show up!
Marildi – I have two more video series that I think you (and anyone reading here) would really gain a great deal of insight from:
The Century of Self
http://archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_TheCenturyOfTheSelf
The Trap
http://archive.org/details/AdamCurtis_TheTrap
These two series are mind-boggling, as they reveal essential elements of history that have been hidden from view regarding mental health, economics, propaganda and public relations. I feel like I have been given an factual history lesson for the first time in my life, a lesson that shows exactly how ideas mark the forward progress or deterioration of the human race in very real ways, ways that we really need to be fully aware of.
And Geir, I believe that you will find a great deal of information to do with the consequences of using fixed systems.
Yes, it’s there, a few posts up. And I already noted it down. Thanks again!
Seeing that this is a post about the tone scale. Let me ask: Do you think Marty Rathbun would be a good replacement for DM?
No I don’t. I think an excellent replacement for DM would be NO ONE. No more dictatorships — they don’t work and they tend to corruption no matter how good the dictator is. I don’t know what form the future of Scientology would take in the independent field but surely a way can be found that doesn’t re-produce the disastrous direction the Church of Scientology headed into and is perpetuating.
Freebeeing and Maria, according to the website http://www.savescientology.com LRH left a whole different organizational structure than the one that exists – no such dictatorship, it had multiple checks and balances. What do you know or think about the data on that website?
I like the viewpoint that there should be some type of “central” organization – or more than one – so that auditors can get certified if they choose to and public interested in such could be better assured of “credentials”. As well, there should be a place where auditors and pcs could go for correction and repair. Thus reputation and word of mouth would still be the determining factor for success and survival of Scn practitioners.
The best thing that could happen to the co$ and Scientology in general is that to let it collapse and let the chips fall where they may, and let individuals pick up the pieces and let them do what they think is best. There can’t be a better solution or workable option.
Yes, I think there should be associations, like there are in industry, such as the manufacturers associations and the corn growers association, etc.
The age of large religious organizations is coming to an end.
I think the same is going to happen soon to large companies too.
These large organizations have within them the seeds of their own destruction.
The seeds are people who think for themselves.
That idea is put forward in the Oahspe, a book that was channelled by angels, in 1870.
The predictions that were written then and being fulfilled are amazing.
The data in that book is mind blowing.
Find an ecopy on line and read it, it will be one of the best things you will haver done.
It will open your eyes to understanding what is going on in the world and why, like you can’t imagine.
That book answers almost every question man has ever asked. It is a book of knowledge of incredible magnitude.
Everything is going according to plan.
Read it and decide for yourself.
Dio
Good post, Dio.
And I won’t even mention all the single-sentence paragraphs. 😀
I have read all of the information on that website. It is still a method of enforcement, still a method of institutionalizing authority. It might serve to mitigate violence, might serve to prevent all out abuse, but it is still bureaucracy which stifles initiative.
As well the structure that LRH proposes cannot survive financially without exacting payment from groups that fall under its auspices. The Sea Org is an example of such a group. It had to make its way by delivering “management” to non Sea Org groups or by delivering upper level materials, “higher quality” services or by producing materials for consumption. In its efforts to fund its own existence, the Sea Org has practically stripped every network of resources and finances, has third partied its own non Sea Org groups (come to mecca of technical perfection) and is now on its last legs having bypassed and pushed into non-existence the very groups it is supposed to support, coming at last to directly hit up the public for straight donations. There should not be a “mecca” of technical perfection promoting that their auditors are much better than the auditors of the groups they are supposed to be training and supporting. If they are all trained properly there shouldn’t be a management unit that is “so much better” than all the others. It defeats the whole purpose of standard training. It is either standard or it is not. And this business of stripping the smaller groups of their “best” people for the good of all is a horrendous violation of the rights and freedoms of those groups.
Far better for these independent groups to fashion their own co-operatives based on their full participation in selecting leadership, choosing and revamping group agreements based on current scenes and current needs. Let them choose their best people to act on their behalf, let them form their own alliances, but not through legally imposed authoritarian groups intent on enforcement. If their purpose is enforcement, they will enforce one way or another.
Maria, I can see what you mean when you say that the organizational structure LRH left is still a bureaucracy and, if it were strictly adhered to, would stifle initiative (i.e. if there were no incorporation of more modern ideas of organization like the ones Geir describes in his various articles – which could be argued are provided for in LRH policy). But you use the Sea Org as it evolved as your example of bureaucracy! That is quite the extreme example, and I don’t know that it’s true that such an extreme could have come about under the structure LRH intended. Not that your description of the SO isn’t completely accurate, but I don’t think it would have or could have gone that whole route if in fact it had not been under a dictatorship like that of DM.
The SO may have “had to make its way” by management services, and by delivering upper levels and producing materials – all valid and needed services. But the tactic of promoting “higher quality” services as an excuse for ripping off public from orgs is at best a stupidly literal interpretation of LRH’s praise of Flag (praise in an earlier era, mind you). In actual fact, there are very clear-cut LRH policies that are being bald-facedly violated with the type of promotion going on – not just openly ripping off lower org public (for both services and staff) but blatantly promoting quickie grades and other technical degrades in the name of “higher quality” at the so-called Mecca.
Now that I have that off my chest :), the main thing I wanted to say is that your point about having independent groups was the kind of thing I had in mind too when I said there could be more than one “central organization”. And after reading both yours and Ferenc’s posts, I’m inclined to think not just “could be” but “should be”.
As sort of a side note, it’s interesting that your description of independent groups as “choosing and revamping group agreements based on current scenes and current needs” – reminded me of LRH PLs regarding his basic theory of organization where he states exactly that idea as the senior admin policy! But there again, literal interpretation (and/or ulterior motives) of admin tech is what came about.
Your last sentence, “If their purpose is enforcement, they will enforce one way or another”, goes back to the most important principle of all, IMHO, which is INTENTION.
All good points, but I really think the Sea Org and all of its associated policies/directives must go. It was put in place to control, not to serve and its policies are to do with control and authority. I think it may be that there was a need for certain aspects of it for a time, but honestly, I really think that LRH messed up on that one.
I understand that there are aspects to policy that can be seen to be valuable, but as far as I am concerned most of it can be completely ignored in favor of common sense and initiative. I say this because the Mission networks were EXTREMELY successful and they did not use LRH policies as they grew. It was definitely NOT LRH policy that built those hugely successful Missions. And even LRH refused to acknowledge that. He wanted everyone on the same policies. For us newbies at the time, we had no idea — we thought that LRH knew better than the Mission Holders on how to build up a successful Mission, we thought they had learned from him. But I think its pretty clear now that no matter what policies were of value, LRH DID NOT KNOW how to build hugely successful Missions and neither did anyone in a Class 4 org. They thought they did. They didn’t. And I guess you could say LRH violated his own policy on that, and the man certainly is entitled to make mistakes, but he should not be given credit in this arena when he did not build the Mission networks in the first place. Those Mission Holders did. And the Sea Org came and took what they had built in the name of policy. You want to know how they built them up? Then ask the people who were there, who built them up. Not LRH.
From what I saw, the Mission networks downfall begins with the implementation of LRH policy that canceled and replaced the successful actions of the Mission holders. Then it is compounded by the DM insanities in 1981/82. Its downhill from there. I was there. I saw it. Autonomy, loyalty, initiative, respect, and concern for individuals went out the window in favor of infinite expansion, protection from enemies and the aims of the Sea Org. Also out the window went the regard for auditors, as they were busted down to the level of a section clerk on the org board and reduced to a pittance of earnings on proportionate pay, under the gun more often than being rewarded for their priceless gift of freed beings.
I think that at one time there indeed were some good purposes for the Sea Org that involved the same needs as any organized group, basically uniting and coordinating and thereby strengthening its members, in this case the orgs and missions. The production of publications was a valuable service too since not every group would have had that capability. And the purpose of having orgs for the training and delivering of the higher levels was and still is a needed aspect of any type of organized Scientology.
If the “Church” does survive in some viable form, perhaps a “clergy” with those purposes could be part of a workable system. Possibly even the use of LRH admin tech (dare I say :)) by leaders with good intention and conceptual understanding of it would be quite workable. LRH policy itself allows for discarding policies that are no longer relevant and actually calls for the continual development of policy that fits the current scene and promotes viability. What more leeway could we ask?
And the above type of management of an organized “Church” might suit and appeal to some public – people differ on their needs and wants. Of course, the independent groups would appeal to others and the Church would have to “compete” with them – which would be a healthy state of affairs for the general public.
As you can see, while I don’t disagree that LRH made mistakes, some of them big ones, I don’t think future choices should be based on the bad taste left in our mouths because of those mistakes. And we shouldn’t too rashly toss out any of his tech (ethics and admin as well as “tech tech”) because of any travesties they were turned into. But I’m also open to what actually turns out to be feasible and workable, even if it does eliminate parts of LRH tech wholesale.
But it’s good to get the viewpoint on the mission experience from someone like you who was there. And If I remember right, at least some of what you say was Dennis’ take on it too. Presumably Marty will include data about the history of missions in his forthcoming, more thorough book and I expect he will give time,place, form and event. It seems we still need more group engram running and “de-conditioning” (or “de-programing” LOL).
Coming from you especially, I loved your last line about auditors’ “priceless gift of freed beings” :).
I agree that there is a needful function of unity and coordination for groups. But that must not be a top down authoritarian model, and it must include methods of choosing representation from the groups being coordinated with a real voice in coordination to be done. Those representatives must be accountable to their groups and to the other groups, not the other way around. And they must not be in those positions of coordination by any other means that at the service of their groups. As an example of how not to do this, our Mission would get these incredibly complex programs to implement, programs that had no slightest reality on the existing scene and working methods of the Mission. These programs were supposedly based on skilled evaluations and real whys and frankly they were worse than useless because all they did was distract and penalize.
Our Mission would have welcomed a publications unit that helped us to produce magazines and brochures for at the time there was no such thing as desktop publishing software, inkjet printers, blogs and email. Publications had to be laboriously hand type-set, and then printed on an off-set press. That was after you managed to get your materials through issue authority, if you could. Towards the end of my stint, this publications function became “canned” magazines utterly de-personalized and devoid of any local flavor, full of ridiculous advertisements based on positioning. YAWN. SNORE. We would read the wins section and the LRH article if it wasn’t a repeat (and they repeated a lot!) The rest was all bombastic infomercials, full of Scientologese and pretty much useless to front line Missions. But you had to get your magazines out, minor, then major, every month and that’s what you had to use. Before all that, our Mission put out a newsletter. It was NEWSY, it talked about the people we knew. It was our community’s newsletter not the advertising mouthpiece of “standard” Scientology.
And books. Well I remember discussing the ridiculous price of books produced by our oh so helpful publications org. The prices were inflated well beyond the prices of a normal bookstore. New people would practically shriek at the prices of the books. We could get Ruth Minshull and Peter Gilham’s books for a reasonable price and sell them for a reasonable price, but of course, they weren’t “standard’ and we were ordered to stop selling them. Later on I’m told, the Missions and orgs were just ordered to buy a quota of books and had huge stocks just sitting around, and now the public has them sitting in their garages.
Should I go on?
Its not about a bad taste in one’s mouth Marildi. Its about policies that stifle the life out of real, living groups, communities of people who have real connection and real concerns. Its about being bypassed over and over and over again in the name of “standard” admin. It’s about having Flag reges show up on a mandatory world tour and reg all your public by telling them that they should come to the mecca of technical perfection. Don’t give your money to the Mission or the Org. Get the best. Never mind that the Mission auditors were trained at those perfect orgs. They’re not good enough for a truly discerning public. It’s about spending thousands of dollars to send a Mission staff member for training at ASHO and having that staff member recruited for the Sea Org before they ever finish. Not only did you get to pay for that staff member being trained, you got no benefit from it whatsoever and had to start all over again amidst the shrill demands of senior networks and investigations as to why your stats are not up. They didn’t do these things because they were bad people. They did apply the policies correctly. It was the policies themselves that were stifling and depersonalized. If you don’t believe me, read the Magazine policies. Read the policies on recruitment pools. Consider the implications of fast flow hiring. We were the ones who got those broken and upset ex staff members back into our field, staff members who had been brutalized by the policy on ethics conditions. You can’t even put them on course because they are out ethics, SP, PTS and so on. Think about what LRH said: he doesn’t get a comm department there? BAM. He’s in lowers and then he’s out. Tough ethics, fast flow, loyalty to the cause, but no loyalty to the individual in turn and nothing but disrespect for the groups from which those individuals came, their Missions, their families, their jobs, their clubs, etc.
I swear to you Marildi, I could go through the OEC volumes one policy at a time and demonstrate how those policies create an absolute nightmare when coupled with an authoritarian structure of any kind.
So no. It is not a bad taste. it is a bad reality and paradigm, deliberately written to consolidate power and authority in a hierarchy. No two ways about it. That’s what it did. That’s what it was intended to do, and you can see it easily by reading the checks and balances on savescientology. Its still consolidation and power and authority held by a hierarchical authoritarian system built from the tears and sweat of the people on the front lines of Missions and groups.
I felt the same way about program targets (just to name one of the many things you listed) when I was staff at an org. And I still felt that way about the targets I myself was later “convinced” to issue from a management post! I had been urgent directed onto that post and wasn’t able to get off it for about a year. From the beginning I knew it was a farce and never changed my mind about that, while I struggled to do what good I could (which wasn’t much) and naively waited for senior managment to finally get it all sorted out . Then I became part of an evolution to build up the ratio of tech staff – anyone who had some tech training got named, and to my relief and delight that included me. I was so happy to again be doing something actually helpful to people.
So I’m in total agreement about how things should NOT be run. And no, there’s no need to go on – the things you listed have been listed out over and over by others too. You can give me more credit than that if you think I’m in any kind of agreement with or haven’t observed those gross outpoints. The only difference is that I wouldn’t say it was just the missions and groups that had to cope with those things with their sweat and tears – orgs did too. And I wasn’t saying that an authoritarian type structure might be workable, only that structure of some sort is needed. One higher on the scale then the zone of domination and nullification – obviously.
At least with you, unlike the truly one-sided critics, I know that you also see the incredible pluses of the tech and have written compellingly about those too. And I believe that will be, more and more, the central issue as time goes on.
Ah Marildi, I know that you see the outpoints, very clearly, and I also understand the concern that some very hard-won and beneficial knowledge will be lost with too wide a sweep of the broom. I don’t really think that will happen, what with anonymous busily publishing the materials far and wide! But I can’t deny my own sense of relief as I stepped outside of the sphere of influence of the authoritarian and highly depersonalized world of corporate Scientology.
Oddly enough, it is my recent viewing of the video series, The Century of Self, that has helped me to pinpoint my concerns and understand the source of the more destructive aspects of the Church since about 1963. LRH didn’t live in a bubble and the policy and the Church that grew out of those times is very much of those times and some fundamentally flawed ideas, sadly enough.
My hope lies with the Independents. I hope they will integrate and question and choose values that will facilitate them working as valuable and insightful citizens of the universe, not just another group trying desperately to maintain identity and power at all costs.
Maria, thank you for precisely duplicating my point about “too wide a sweep of the broom”. I do see that kind of thing going on, and it bothers me. And yet I basically agree with you that it doesn’t look likely that it will be a problem, so it’s good that you reminded me. I should calm down!!! (LOL :D) Neither am I too worried that the Independents, enough of them at least, will have learned from the mistakes we all made. I’m sure you would agree that there are some very enlightened individuals in that group.
Also, just knowing what you said about the video series and how it relates to LRH as the context that that he operated in, I imagine will be a very helpful flow in a direction away from either extreme viewpoint of him – both of which unfortunately carry over far too much into the evaluation of what he accomplished, whether good or bad.
Thanks again for a very well received ack. You are a communicator par excellence, my dear. 🙂
Btw, speaking of acks, Jim Logan posted a wonderful dissertation, based on some LRH lectures, on the mechanics involved in duplication and acknowledgement, which I thought might directly relate to Gregg Braden’s Divine Matrix and the experiments that he refers to. But when I went to find Jim’s post again I couldn’t remember which thread it was on – one of Marty’s recent ones but the threads are pretty long and my computer isn’t that fast in even pulling them up. Do you happen to recall the comment and the thread? I tried putting the website and key words into a google search but no go.
Marildi — I copied Jim’s post and put it under the Hunches thread for you — I didn’t think it fit particularly well under this thread. Hopefully Jim will be okay with that!
Thanks so much for going to the trouble – I already had a good win, one I didn’t expect and that is fine!
I think we can be pretty sure from what we know about JIm by his posts that he won’t have any problem at all with you posting a comment of his here. (He’s one of my favorite posters, actually.)
Re: Non mandatory certification
Quotes from APIS (Association of Professional Independent Scientologists):
“The Association of Professional Independent Scientologists stands alone and is one of many groups in the freezone. Examples of other groups include ICAUSE, Life Improvement Centre, Davis Group to name but a few.
Each have their own purpose, adherents and agenda.
Each has the right to their own tenets, rules and regulations. To impose the rules, regulations and tenets of one upon another would be incorrect. The APIS does not impose it’s tenets upon other groups, only it’s own members.
It does not, likewise, expect it’s members to impose regulations from other groups upon itself.”
“Any professional association may set out guidelines and rules for certification of its members. This is quite common in associations. One of the activities of the association therefore includes certification of its practitioning members to ensure they meet the standards required of the association.”
“The purpose of the certification process, as described on the association website is to, “… uphold and substantiate a specific standard of application and delivery of standard technology of the original working philosophy of Lafayette Ron Hubbard to the level attained by the individual as originally instituted by Lafayette Ron Hubbard.””
“the certification process is not mandatory but is a purely voluntary process.”
http://internationalfreezone.net/whatistheifa.shtml
Good post, Ferenc. I especially appreciated the data about certification and having spelled-out standards.
And, of course, anybody who wants to do something different than standard LRH tech is free to do so and to have their own organizations – or not. 🙂
Boy, the comm sanity level of this blog has sure risen since Vinnay and Al left. It went from painfully stupid to pleasant and sensible.
I would think that a high-toned OT could see the beauty in the painfully stupid and would be pleasant and sensible about it.
Wouldn’t you?
Alanzo
I see an inconsistency too.
.