What culture does it foster?

ITIL is lacking in people-focus. PRINCE2 is lacking in creativity, LEAN is missing out on innovation, and Scientology management philosophy (LRH admin tech) is lacking in compassion.

Objection! ITIL talks about people, and that people are a core asset to any organization. PRINCE2 certainly inspires creative projects to be more successful. LEAN is stressing innovation through continual improvement. And L. Ron Hubbard covers the concept of affinity and also compassion in several places like the policy on “the model hat of an executive”.

All true. But a grape in an apple pie does not make it grape pie. And a mention of love does not make Anders Behring Breivik a loving person.

Because it is not what a subject happens to cover. It is what it predominantly covers. One has to look at the whole picture and see what the major portions are dealing with. The major parts of a subject marginalizes the parts that happens to be included. The intentions behind a subject is made evident by the major focuses of that subject. And that is the culture it fosters.

Scientology management philosophy fosters robotic and militant obedience to policy. LEAN fosters blinders and a squeezed organization, PRINCE2 fosters bureaucracy and ITIL fosters red tape through process compliance. None of them makes for an inspiring, creative and people-focused organization. Because even though these concepts are mentioned, they are dwarfed by the major parts that focus on hard and cold values of yestercentury.

It seems that most organizational frameworks are created as a substitute for more directly handling the problems of responsibility and communication between people.

This is not say that all such frameworks are useless. They may very well contain useful tools. But organizational frameworks will always be inferior to human attention, a warm heart and a hug.

In the spirit of strict policy:

In the spirit of strict policy

341 thoughts on “What culture does it foster?

  1. Brilliant post!

    I just had one thing I would add to your statement that “The intentions behind a subject is made evident by the major focuses of that subject” as regards LRH admin tech.

    First, I would agree with that as the intention of admin tech itself, which was to basically force participation in Scientology – and to do so by all means possible – i.e. eliminate self-determinism as “needed”. But there was also a more basic intention behind that admin tech intention, which was that LRH intended that everyone be benefited by Scn and that nothing be allowed to get in the way of that. Big mistake, I know. But that was the actual “intention behind the subject”. And that shouldn’t be left out as part of the picture and part of what we learned from the whole experience. IMHO

      1. As I have described in other comments, it was an alteration of the original basic principles. I keep trying to get across that what “Scientology” became is not what I am defending. And it’s primarily the tech of auditing and training that I’m defendint (“tech tech”), but even admin tech in it’s orginal form was flexible and workable and did not have the intention LRH later took on – which was to get, by means of force (basically), everyone up the Bridge as soon as possible. That was in gross violation of his own principles, the philosophical principles of Scientology. And it’s really neither here nor there whether he was making a desperate gesture to salvage the movement or not, the fact remains that it didn’t work and it wasn’t Scientology and I don’t condone it.

        Damn, Chris, you are like a person ridden with false data for whom nothing will go in. Either that or some other ridge that prevents you from duplicating the many posts I’ve written no matter how repetitious, and probably the posts of many other people too.

        1. Right Marildi, we are back rideing that same old neg…

          Chris, “I meant it negatively if unraveling the ego was one of the goals of Scientology.”
          Unravel :undo untie, loosen unknot, disentangle untangle [ i am learning some words here]
          Now if we do that with the personality: that is the bank itself yes that is or was the goal of scientology.. One can’t start to confront if one not takes up end of that entangled mass and start from there.. When one opens up the bank it is not very pretty thing.. well, all the goons rise: the heavy stuff gets lose at first…..huge troubles surfaces

        2. Now take it easy … Nobody get a heart attack. We’re just talking here. Just because I have an opinion doesn’t make me or you right or wrong, etc.

          1. Chris, there’s no problem with you having an opinion. The problem is that we have both given our opinions ad nauseum.

            I don’t understand why you dropped the exchange we had going, which I thought was a good and sincere one, and thought we were finally going to get to what we factually disagree about.. My last reply to you was to nicely ask you to give me some specifics for that numbered list of viewpoints you had just posted, so that we could in fact discuss the only thing we are in disagreement about – the core basics of Scn philosophy and tech. It was really frustrating that you didn’t bother to respond to that but ignored it and instead made several more comments expressing more of your opinion. Can you please explain…?

            1. p.s. Also, in your original comment above, you asked me a question that I had already answered right in this blog thread. But the main thing, again, is that I wrote my reply to you last night and today you took the time, effort and interest to make several comments – almost all of them going back to the usual of expressing how bad the organization is, basically – instead of replying to my post and picking up at the place where we left off, which was finally going in a constructive direction. Do I have anything wrong there?

            2. Mar: “Do I have anything wrong there?”
              I think you have the mistaken idea that it is possible to herd cats. Nnnrowwww! 😉

            3. What a coincidence. I was just pondering about learning how to communicate with cats through telepathy… 😉

            4. @Mar re telepathy and cats.

              It can be done with cat singular when somebody is home and has been proven handier than a sheperds hook, but a plurality of pussycats precludes positive permeation of psi.

              Furthermore, cats like big Thoms get all squinty eyed and snarly when you corner them. Dealing with the tough old cat is requires knowing how to play your cards.

              Kenny said it best:

            5. LOL! You are a both wisecracker and a wise man. 🙂

              I know I must be doing something wrong. I do know the principle you suggest – as a reply to someone not long ago I even posted the same video!. 😀

              But I hope Chris doesn’t feel “cornered” – I just meant to 8-C him with the correct estimation of effort. My estimation may have been off (ya think?). But I have enough respect and confidence that he will come through yet, with one of his thoughtful and straightforward replies. 😉

            6. All right. You can finesse it with that 8C up your sleeve. Clubs trump.

            7. I was just wrapping up the day and saw this. I spent quite a bit of time on that. I think we understand one another but I will specifically answer your specific questions if you ask.

              Simple general answer? I think we just see the world in our own way and when challenged to say why then we each of us have a little bit different twist to answering why we do. We can both be right about this.

              There is a root reason why people who normally can or do agree on lots of things can never precisely agree on anything subjective. I think that’s just the way it is. Until we are One with an autotune voice, we can try to experience what the other does but we never exactly will.

              Back to our discussion, you express the value that you see in Scientology and I respect that and I respect you for being so firm.

              Analogies are often drawn that our lives are linear and moving through both time and space. What I’ve come to believe is that our lives iterate by-moment-by-moment not so simply as a film strip runs in a straight line, but more like a tree grows or the way chain lightning flashes across the sky. Like lovers say on their Facebook relationship status: “It’s Complicated!” The expanding universe in which we exist just now has at its core a mechanism and an iteration that, to use your computer analogies, tries every moment to “fill up the hard drive.” Through Auditing and various practices we attempt to defragment it, to put its data in order, to smooth it out. My opinion is that this has been and is routinely being done throughout the ages of Man. I think it’s various methods have been written up, read, studied, and promptly shelved.

              Maybe a human only needs to confront their own mortality and Kubler-Ross’ “Five Stages of Grief” in order to attain enlightenment? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model) A Scientologist would not agree with my sentiment and say that I was settling for an “apathy” as a cop-out to OT abilities. But I don’t agree. There is nothing in the field of Scientology superior to this technology of accepting one’s death. I even think this tech is appropriate for children.

              A human being’s ego helps give him delusions of grandeur, helps make him think he’s a real world-shaker. But as I wrote earlier, I no longer think of mastering the universe as a sensible goal. I do think that mastering one’s own mind is a sensible goal – maybe a relatively necessary goal if I am going to live well and happily.

              When I try to explain this to anyone, my explanation seems to bog and you might think it would be frustrating for me but on the contrary, it truly seems to me that the gods are in their heavens and all’s right with the world.

              And religion? I might be completely over that — finally. So now I’m done with the rant that I said I wouldn’t write which would bore everybody. Sorry.

            8. Chris says : “Like lovers say on their Facebook relationship status: “It’s Complicated!”

              TIN says : “Hmm, isn’t it always … ?”

  2. While I share your antipathy towards the organizational model that Scientology became through the enforcement of the worst of the LRH policies, running my own business has made me appreciate certain primary concepts of Scientology admin.

    The main eye-openers for me – in relation to hiring and training employees – was the incredible lack of initiative and lack of responsibility-for-hat that I’d encounter. Right down at the bottom line would be the use and care for the tools of the job. Then would come cleanliness-of-quarters and work space; then duplication of methods and orders. The outpoints were common to “trained” and “un-trained” alike.

    The epiphany for me was to see how many of the PLs that I’d studied as a staff member did, in fact, apply to even the small organization that I have, and I could see how LRH would have come to the point of writing PLs such as how to shine shoes, and how he came to write a bulletin on roboticism. This does not mean I endorse all Scientology admin. It’s simply a statement that I can see the need for policy and quite a number of Scientology policies would be appropriate to be applied. Even more, I can see the benefits of certain Scientology basics such as the comm course and simple objectives processing.

    My own model is to be very,very light on ethics – as I consider that to be a personal thing – as long as an employee will accept and benefit from corrective instruction. I will be insistent on method and when I see incorrect method I will jump on it, find out why it was being done and get it corrected by bypass and corrective hatting. I can be harsh, but primarily at the error. Handlings have a lot in common with TR4 – the outpoint must be understood before an appropriate handling can be implemented. But, where applicable, the employee must come up to the point of recognizing responsibility for action and be willing to take responsibility for the hat. In any particular instance I will continue to ratchet up my intention until that takes place

    One fundamental Scientology admin point I have no use for is the concept that stats must continually rise from any arbitrary post regardless of impediment to the post or lack of improvement of process. My organization is small enough that I can manage by observation and process improvement. Keeping a stat of one’s product is a good idea and can show when something needs to be handled, but that “something” is rarely an ethics “why” of an individual. Generally – i.e. when hats are being worn – it’s the process that needs the handling and improvement in order to get an increase in the stat. A worker CAN be held responsible for a stat if management keeps the flow lines smooth. It’s definitely a two-way street. I know my job as a manager and I know all the sub tasks. As to how to get personnel to get the sub tasks done, personally I think a hug is far less valuable than the hatting that allows the employee to get high morale as a consequence of production. External validation has its place, even in the form of a “well done!” acknowledgement on a well done task. However, the personal satisfaction that comes from competence-demonstrated trumps external validation (as long as there isn’t external INvalidation to nullify it).

    Getting back to the subject of organizational framework, I think I’d summarize by saying that certain organizational basics must be in place and policy is the mechanism for that. This includes the lines, flows and organizational hats. There must be a way of seeing that hats are worn and correction of the outpoints where a hat isn’t being or can’t be worn. However, while policy can give structure it must also be fluid enough to allow change and must be able to be adapted to changing conditions.

    One friend who is very fond of the data series says that what I do is a constant why-finding and handling. Not having fully studied the data series I wouldn’t claim that. The Japanese have a word and a method that does appeal to me – “kaizen”
    which may be summarized as a method of continuous improvement. This can span both the administrative and technical sides of a business. It gets rid of the make-wrong aspect so common in Scientology handlings and promotes individual and group responsibility.

    Now, in the spirit of correcting dickhead policy, let’s interview the typist and find out why there’s no “S” on “RESERVE”. 🙂

    1. Wow, great post! And super comprehensive!

      While we both agree with Geir’s main point about the organizational model that the CoS evolved into, I too have felt that the admin tech has much to say for itself. The general outpoint I’ve observed since way back was the failure to apply basic policy with conceptual understanding – if at all. Now I see more clearly another reason that came about as time went on, which was that the underlying intention changed. Intention is always the most important thing, IMO

      Your own model for ethics being very light is LRH’s “lightest touch” policy, and is also covered by the levels or gradients of ethics actions to be taken, which has been violated consistently. And ethics being a personal thing was the whole idea of the original ethics tech. LRH also stressed hatting and staff personal enhancement, both also not applied in large part. Possibly your best point, though, had to do with flexibility of “the process” and I believe that if basic theory of admin had been applied – which essentially demands flexibillity above all else – admin tech would never have become a doomed “set process”.

      Loved your last sentence – “Now, in the spirit of correcting dickhead policy, let’s interview the typist and find out why there’s no ‘S’ on ‘RESERVE’” – funny!

    2. An organization that uses policy to enforce behavior will foster a culture where people need policy to behave correctly.

      The alternative is personally caring for each individual’s need and help each one take better responsibility for his or her deliveries.

      Policy is a shoddy substitute for real causative leadership through care and affinity and inspiration.

      1. You are so right about that, and that is the major point about admin tech as it turned out, and the major point of your post. LRH would also have agreed with you in the early days at least as far back as 1951, when he wrote that “function monitors structure”. That was in SOS, where he also said that the major components of theta were A-R-C. Years after that he also wrote:

        “A thetan is good. He invented a bank to keep others good. That mechanism went wrong. And that’s why we’re here.” (HCO PL “Administering Justice” 17 Mar 65)

        Then it seems he made essentially the same mistake when he decided to use mechanics to force everyone into the promised land. I myself tend to believe that because of the circumstances at the time, where the Scn movement was in danger of being wiped out by the powers that be, LRH decided that this approach was the only hope he/we had. That was probably his biggest mistake.

        1. Not the only hope. I think he turned Captain Bill loose to go off and start the “Free Zone”, which became the Ron’s Orgs. Interestingly enough, this also parallels the early history of Christianity in some ways, with the East and West going their separate ways. See my post about Pagels’ book “Beyond Belief”, in this thread.

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

        1. Ah Vakov, thank you! I’ve been looking for that reference. It’s one of the best that speak to LRH’s basic theory of admin, the ones that counter the interpretation of a mechanical application of policy, which keeps getting asserted as “admin tech”. It’s only admin tech in the sense that it was applied that way – even if LRH himself began to apply it that way – ignoring policy that says otherwise.

            1. Yes, “curious” is a mild word for it, considering the essence and bulk of his work. The only thing that has made some sense to me, as I’ve said, is that it may be that under the circumstances of the times, with real attempts to squash Scn, he figured – “all or nothing at all”, “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”, “the means justify the ends”, etc.

            2. Because I think the threats to early Scientology were part imaginary, part contrived to bolster support, and part real and created by LRH’s neverending dodging of taxes, creditors, local authorities, and also his shore stories and attempts to “take over” whole areas as the test of an OT and also for those areas “own good,” I consider your valid observations to describe LRH as a high functioning psychotic. Thus was fostered a culture of madness.

            3. To go down all the scales to better achieve the intended result. That seems even curiousier.

            4. It would be something like what a person who fully believed in allowing self-determinism to others suddenly sees the others about to be blown to smithereens in some sense, so what he does is to forcefully shove them into a safer place – with no time or option to do otherwise.

              In other words, not at all a matter of “better achieving” the intended result but a matter of immediate necessity. LRH’s perception of the necessity may or may not have been correct, but obviously his way of handling it was not.

            5. He should then have realized he did something wrong to get himself into that position and then correct that rather than descend down the scales, don’t you think? Certainly, according to basic Scientology philosophy, more communication, more ARC would be the answer.

            6. Geir, he didn’t believe he had done something wrong to get himself in that position – he saw it as sheer counter-intention to the aims of Scn. And again, the idea of using basic Scn apparently didn’t seem to him to fit the circumstances, but less “basic” parts did, i.e. how to handle suppression. But this is just conjecture on my part, without more data than I have

              If we look at Marty’s data and conclusions on all this, we come to a different way of viewing it from that of others. He’s the most reliable source I know on the matter because of his experiential track and training and it makes sense from my own experience too, which is why I find his speculations plausible.

            7. Me too. I also zero’d in on this exact point for a particular reason having to do with the futures created by the mechanics of fractal iterations. There is something worth understanding about this and what it is seems to be following a pattern.

            8. Marildi; “Geir, he didn’t believe he had done something wrong to get himself in that position…”

              My point is that he should have. He was of course fully responsible for the position he got himself into.

            9. I don’t disagree that a person is responsible for his own condition, but I think again of the example I gave of needing to take fast action when time doesn’t allow for anything else.

            10. If he had the powers he claimed, he would have known that he was responsible for the condition he got himself and his subject into – and if he had the wisdom he served, he would be wise enough to see that he should have corrected that situation with more communication, more ARC rather than going down the scales into more mechanics, more solidity, more force. Here is where the spirituality of the Dalai Lama shines in contrast.

            11. Not just to keep arguing with you but LRH also said that force is sometimes needed and that OTs to win out over “MEST beings” would need not just intelligence but force as well.

            12. But force that gets one more into the ditch resulting in more mechanics (policy)? You can’t be defending that.

              Certainly the right thing for LRH would have to use his wisdom to not get himself into any such real or imaginary situation of opposition – and if his wisdom failed him, at least muster enough of his own medicine to use the universal solvent (communication – ARC – Understanding) to solve the situation. It amazes me that he would turn his nose downwards and resort to more and more mechanics to solve a situation that had only to do with people (theta).

            13. I don’t defend what he did and have already said it was a big mistake. I was just looking at his possible (incorrect) reasoning.

              Maybe it’s easy to say what he should have done and should have known to do. With that, it seems you are saying that he should have been infallible.

            14. I think Marty addresses that in his Chapter 13, “Reversal”. Al addressed it in his formulation of the “Two scientologies”, pre- and post 1968 or so. Some theorize that LRH was vanished somehow about then, and a look-alike “ringer” was substituted.

              In any case, many have noticed the “reversal” as Marty calls it.

              I think if ya’ll read a book titled “Beyond Belief” by Elaine Pagels it might help understanding what happened. The book is about the early history of Christianity and the establishment of the “official” Christian church, with the concomitant suppression of the diverse Gnostic groups that were the original basis of Christianity. It was a very similar “reversal”. Pagels discusses some of the pressures that may have caused it.
              What has happened in Scientology in the past 60 years is very parallel to what happened then, 1,600 to 2,000 years ago.

            15. Valkov, thanks for the synopsis of that book describing a very similar reversal in Christianity to what occurred in Scn, both of them under pressures that may very well have caused their reversal. And there is some hard evidence indicating that was the case for Scn, including public records of attempts by governments and others to suppress it.

            16. Marildi: “Maybe it’s easy to say what he should have done and should have known to do. With that, it seems you are saying that he should have been infallible.”

              Not getting it really wrong does not equate to infallibility.

            1. Geir, I was thinking about this discussion and for me the actual point, the one I started with, is this – what were LRH’s intentions in taking the tack he took.
              Whether he contradicted himself or was stupid or whatever else can always be defended either way by looking at it from different viewpoints, different frames of reference.

              Based on LRH’s life’s work and positive contributions, not on anybody’s say-so or on popular opinion, I for one can see how his intentions could have been good and most probably were. Do you believe he had good intentions or do you doubt that?

            2. I don’t think it’s that clear-cut. I believe his intentions were mostly good and his products were mostly good. His intentions regarding tech was the most good with the products the best. I believe he was not a good leader or administrator. He was a researcher, not a leader. I think he was prone to conspiracy fantasies and acted irrationally because of it. I think he had to grand thoughts about himself. i believe he had problemse trusting others and this made him unable to cooperate with others regarding research or to freely share his work with others and it made him loose his friends or boot them. If he had kept to what he did the best – tech research – I think he would have gone down in history as a great man. But he did way to many blunders in other fields, and that has soiled his reputation to the point where he will never reach historic heights.

            3. Thanks for telling me your thoughts. I appreciate it. 🙂

              I guess I wasn’t clear on my question about intentions. I meant his intentions as regards evolving toward mechanics, considering the time period.

            4. I think he started doubting many of his original good intentions when he started on the way down from theta to mechanics – possibly due to conspiracy fantasies. It is sad that he never saw himself traveling this wrong path and thus was unable to correct it.

            5. “started doubting many of his original good intentions”

              Can you elaborate?

            6. Original intentions = Theta = hight ARC = good = will prevail = trust theta = communication is the universal solvent
              Then doubt, resulting in:
              Later intentions = Can’t trust people = they are broken straw = they need policy, more & more & more policy = we need force = we are under attack = we need to get them before they get us = never defend, always attack.

            7. It sounds like you are saying he started doubted his own philosophic principles (which is really hard for me to fathom his doing). Be that as it may, what were the intentions behind his actions?

            8. What I get from what you said is that he changed his ideas about basic truths (and again, I find that a real stretch to imagine). His ideas about the basic truths in life would of course influence the type of action he took, but the rationale behind choice of actions isn’t the same as the intentions for those actions, is it?

            9. Okay, but analytical or reactive what was the intended result? What he was trying to achieve?

            10. I think his main underlying intentions (create a positive global impact) remained the same – but the reactive intentions of “always attack, never defend”/”we must use the Force, Luke” started creeping reactively in and acting as his own counter-intentions and created what we see today.

            11. Well, I just wouldn’t call his intended use of force an ultimate “intention” but I see now that you really don’t either. And whether or not the use of force was in itself a mistake, or the mistake was more like the way he carried it out as time went by, is still open to debate in my mind. But I can’t argue much with the view that somewhere along the line his choices were a mistake – but then again, we may in some very distant future see it all differently and see a method to his madness. That’s a hell of a stretch too, I know! But we did learn from experience some invaluable lessons…

              At least you and I are in agreement about his basic intentions and I’m glad about that. 🙂

            12. My 1 cent
              it is easy to become a critic when one allready seeing what is working and what is not working from the view points of thousands and can come to conclusions from that

              See it from the distance or just have little experience sampling that product is not the same as creating that product: not walking in the shoes of the creator makes one only a critic…

            13. one more 1 cent

              ” I have realised sometimes back this: I have weighed the values of scientology and I have realized the bad effects the side effects of scientology belonging in or in any group can be audited out and the true effects which can be attained in sessions is timeless and has valuable beyond understanding “

            14. Yes, what were his intentions? You cannot see his evil purposes but you can see the fruit of his labor.

              Maybe the job was just too big.

              Or maybe LRH’s major premises are false. Maybe man is not good and maybe he is not bad. Maybe none of his assertions about the bank are in fact true, maybe they are, but they don’t yield easily to objective inspection.

              Or maybe whiny little whipper-snappers like me are just too powerful and won’t let his will be done on earth as it is in heaven on earth in hemet.

            15. What were his intentions? I base my idea about that on what I know about what he discovered and developed as the Scn philosophy and tech. That would describe a man with a huge viewpoint and beingness, and says all I need to know to not be stuck in too much of a “maybe this, maybe that”.

              On this subject, my dear sparring partner, over the last couple years I’ve read posts of yours that praise Scn highly and others that condemn it highly. The seeming rollercoaster or indecisiveness makes me think there might be some sort of PTSness. If not, then possibly a false PTSness, which could indicate any one of the things listed in the following excerpt from HCOB “False PTSness”: “unhattedness, ignorance of Scientology basics for handling life, past bad auditing uncorrected, as well as unhandled bad intentions and personal out-ethics can be mistaken for PTSness and won’t resolve as PTSness.” JFYI, in case anything indicates.

            16. Marildi, You are one hell of a smart “librarian”. There are some of your viewpoints I don’t agree with but those viewpoints really don’t matter since they are mine looking from my reality and I don’t say I am right because I have them… love you kid..
              After the O/W’s are pulled I mean all of them to the last than no natter remains, not one little a complaint, not a smidgen of unhappiness discontentment anger, disapproval condemnation criticism or blame.
              When those are gone one can take responsibility for ones own action…

            17. Thanks, E!
              Don’t forget that natter can also come from MU’s, or false data from Black PR, or false data from other natterers. But it can also come from true data that critics point out – natter can be justified sometimes. I leave it up to Chris to sort it out for himself. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to badger him to look at basic Scn itself, not the CoS. ;))

            18. Marildi
              ” Thanks, E! Don’t forget that natter can also come from MU’s, or false data from Black PR, or false data from other natterers. But it can also come from true data that critics point out – natter can be justified sometimes. I leave it up to Chris to sort it out for himself. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to badger him to look at basic Scn itself, not the CoS. ;))

              What is MU? What is black PR? where is their origin, what caused them at the first place?
              Why the other natteres natter, and why our natterer agrees to their natter?
              What has he in common with those natteres, what are their earlier similar incident could be?
              True origin? that never could cause natter. Having ARCb’x can cause MU’s since they are just that, break in one of these: affinity, reality communication : therefore break in understanding..
              Critics point of view, what possibly a critics view point could be?
              Example: critic- picking up a apple; a perfectly beautiful apple which as a creation its self has nothing wrong with.: this is sour, not crispy enough, its testure is too dense, not enough juice… not cruches right, its sugar content is to low, it is too flat, its skin is rough…etc… a total down grade.
              What was he doing? he was simply compaired that perfact creation to another perfact creation and one of that wonderful fruit “””stimulated””””him the right way which he considered ”good” and the other have restimulated him into some other part of his bank which he considered ””bad”’.
              Critics, well they act on their own reality, but that is not the basic truth.
              And do you know why the World Needs Critics? Simply beasuse people no longer trust their own knowledge so they go to on “””EXPERT”’ because that expert can be trusted: because he is on Expert? Why he is on expert? he know his material better than on avaedge person… by compering …. in the hamster cage we are back again runnung full speed nowhere..
              And Marildi i been told I dont know the TECH…. well, those were the assumption of the critics… hehehe. i am good, bloody good. 🙂

            19. Yes, you are bloody good. Good post.:)

              I have no reason to disagree with your general idea that anything and everything consists of layer upon layer that ultimately goes back down to the underlying “basic basic”. The only problem is that it is not a workable way for most people to handle what is occurring in PT – unless the person has the capability of zooming down to those bottom basics. You may be right that it eventually must done, and eventually they should be able to do so, but most people are going to have to handle the top layer (or topmost layers) for the time being. Even if they learned to solo audit or if they went in session with an auditor, they are not in such a position case wise as you to be able to go all the way down.

            20. Marildi… you are right my dear.
              So let’s look at it this way…. This blog the readers commenters represents all the layers=those achieved states which was done by study or and by auditing.
              I represent that singular state which is wanted and were desired by so many but never have attained that level: that elusive coveted desired above all whatever that is the NATIVE STATE.
              So it is natural for now to write, how I see what it is now behind me, that Path and what it has contained , how it was structured.
              Having such a knowledge with that I do not put down any other concepts, why should I do that? I don’t have a motive to do.
              But It has to be understood sooner or later that view points on anything about MEST no matter what they may have been if erased new reality -different views will come in. Not necessarily; like mine, but very very similar.
              But at the bottom or on the top [these are words are just that one needs them in order to communicate] all realities-understanding knowledge what is MEST will be the same by everyone who will erase the MEST and achieve that Native State.
              You see the basic IS that same for everyone: Regardless how that path lead and what was confronted while one has walked that Path.
              I think I should write what is native sate means in my reality. I have not written this before but I have told you in person that few months back I have run out of ARCB’x… None existent.. no such a thing as not having affinity, not having any reality on MEST or not being communicating with something or someone therefore no brake of any kind… Understanding comes in a instant soon as I experience…
              PS if you want to know how I know there is no other beside me who has attained that Native State, TRUST ME: THAT PERSON WOULD BE DOING THE SAME AS I, BE OUT IN THE OPEN AND TELL IT ALL… not one would hold that knowledge back. here, there is nothing to hide, we all share, I am what you are..

            21. Well said again, and clearly written too. 🙂

              One point I would make is that I think it’s a good question as to whether another thetan would think and do the same as you. Or the same as anybody else, for that matter. LRH said that thetans have different viewpoints as beings. You, and I believe others too in certain philosophies, don’t believe that, probably because you don’t believe there really is an individual “I”.

              What you have written so far about native state gave me the idea that you felt One with all others but still retained the sense of yourself, or of “I”< as well. Did I get that right or wrong?

            22. individuality only exist in the MEST universe since MEST was created by segregation.
              But I can be the “I” if I considered it as I am that creator or I could say we all are the creators.. Or I can say Joe has created it but knowing very well since I to has completaly experienced that creation therefore I to has created it because I experience it at the same time. all this might sound confusing but it is not. I think taking responsibility for ones experience can give on answer to that.
              By the way i was going to add to my post before this, That no person in Scientology would withold such on achievent since that would be unthinkable because at this stage all we have is that we share no matter what that is [as above what i said.]
              And each scientologist when post something, thoughts ideas, no matter what is that that is their comment or in their blog that is their best put forward, their best thinking no matter how and what that is..

    3. p.s. On the other hand, it might just be a good out for the dickhead-policy writer to claim it was “an error in transcription”. 😀

      But the other thing I wanted to say is that I don’t recall anybody else ever agreeing with my comments about the merits of admin tech when applied with understanding and intelligence and the right intention (excluding the policies that came out after the intention for them changed).

      Finally I got an ack on that viewpoint! Ah, discussion is good. 🙂

      1. Yes, we’ve seen how the good or bad can come from mostly sensible and well meaning policy. Sensible interpretation of policy is another argueable point that will require considerable beer to come to no resolution on as it is not a universally resolvable subject. One can only do what one thinks is the best interpretation of a guideline (a guideline or policy is maybe best described as a strategic device). Ultimately the point and time of application of the guideline (policy) is a tactical decision.

        Having total controlling policy and no policy are equally extreme views, neither being a solution to getting a job done. No matter how you phrase it, there must be guidelines that express how the quality of a product is to be attained and maintained. That structure becomes “policy” – no matter how you do or don’t phrase it.

            1. No – policy is dictations by management and enforced upon the rest. It is enforced agreement.

              An alternative is to have only the Goals set by the owners of the game and agreements continually crafted on how to best reach those goals. That would be far more agile.

            2. Just looking at the index in OEC 0 I see so many references to policy virtually equaling agreement. Here are a couple:

              “But ALL policy exists solely to establish points of agreement that permit flows of traffic.” (HCO PL 19 Jul 65)


              But of course you are right if policy is just a matter of dictation from the top, and that is what occurred in the CoS. So this has to be the primary point to be clarified and handled – or, like what you did, the individual should resign.

            3. All policies in Scientology were set by or approved by LRH and intended for others to agree with. This is enforced agreement and fully in accordance with the business sentiments of mid last century. Modern explosive expansions as with Google, Facebook, Wikipedia and other such organizations uses the much more liquid approach.

            4. LRH policy could have resulted in nothing but enforced agreement, and at times I’m sure it did. But with many of us it was basically agreeable and turned out to be quite workable when applied. as he had based it on practical experience.

              Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any provision that was made for others to contribute to policy making, but there may have been some. In any case, I must say the way you would focus (the operative word in your blog post :)) on that concept, with your idea of “liquid”, sounds very right. And I gather you have put it to the test enough to know how workable the philosophy is. 🙂

            5. I do not know of an example where LRH wondered about or sought out another’s agreement. And I wonder why you have ramped up your defense of Scientology Administration “technology.” — Seriously curious because you are apologizing for this huge melee of rules to mostly old-time very well grooved in and trained Scientologists — not an intro to Scientology class. The train already left in the minds of each of us so your appeals to agree with the usefulness of these heavy handed policies using heavy handed ethics are falling on deaf ears, at least mine. What is it about this conglomeration of rules that has you promoting it to us (me)? If you could have your way on this subject, what would that turnaround look like?

            6. Chris: “And I wonder why you have ramped up your defense of Scientology administration ‘technology’”.

              Well, probably because I got some clear-cut agreement about its good points for the first time ever on this blog – and it was agreement from a (your wording) “very well grooved in and trained Scientologist” (2ndxmr) who, in addition to his staff experience continues to find admin tech to be more than workable in his own business as well. But if you had read my posts without any ridges or emotions 🙂 you would already know all that.

              Besides, I wasn’t the one who had just stated only minutes before (i.e. your comment on the next thread over) that I was “weary of commenting on the Church of Scientology” ;).

              What you refer to as my “appeals to agree with the usefulness of these heavy-handed policies using heavy-handed ethics” amounts to Ad Hom, my friend. I was not in any way advocating ALL admin tech (or even the use of the “huge melee of rules”. In fact, right on this blog thread I explicitly disagreed strongly with the way admin tech evolved, and in my post above was only “advocating”, if you wish to call it that, the basic framework set forth in the early years especially. And I specifically referred to the “original’ ethics tech. On the “Hunch” thread, I even commented on how ethics tech had become utterly twisted and perverted, more and more over so over the years. Don’t you remember that post?

              Be all that as it may, tell me this: How can two people who generally like each other a lot manage to rub each other the wrong way as much as we often seem to do on these blog discussions? I’m reminded of one of my all-time favorite LRH quotes. From DMSMH: “Beneath the dirty cloth of aberration, they loved each other well”. 🙂

            7. I agree that we love each other very well . . . but just like family members who iterate apart we just seem to be going along a little bit different directions from our experiences in Scientology.

              I don’t have an ad hom thought about you and don’t express one either – your defense of Scientology is not because of something wrong with you. I only asked why you do it? To be clear, I get the impression that you scramble to salvage and consolidate the broken pieces of your Scientology experience. I say that to give a better idea of how I interpret your very hard work in this direction.

              For myself, with equally broken experiences, failures to stay on post AND properly raise my oldest daughter were sore points to me. But now I’ve moved on because the toothpaste won’t go back into the tube for me. Regardless, I’ve resurrected and met every personal spiritual goal I held at the time of them being blunted after becoming a Scientologist and working for the “greater good.” Now I am whole once more and working on my next goals of understanding my existence. Civically I am having fun working to get my favorite candidate elected Mayor. My biggest personal problem at the moment seems to involve “selling” my oldest daughter, the one in the SO with me, on relocating back home to Phoenix to do her residency in medicine.

              Once a couple years back when I stated that I was the same unchanged thetan (in the static sense) that I had always been, Vinaire challenged me with “are you sure?” Now looking back my mind has changed on that. My mind has changed about lots of things concerning my spiritual status.

              My post has gotten too long and a little all over the place but the OP was “what culture did it foster?” and the corollary could be ” how has our culture changed?” Mine has changed a lot.

            8. Oh sheesh, I said Ad Hom when I meant Straw Man.

              Thanks for all you wrote – too much for me to reply to now but I will do so later. Be ready! 😀

            9. Would that be a agreement among the workers or an agreement amongst management and workers?

              I have no problem with reaching an agreement with my workers – if it’s a better way to get the job done.

            10. Marildi, Yes, LRH declares that policies derive more or less from group experience which more or less add up to group agreement. Elsewhere In KSW LRH declares group agreement to be bank. This is an irreconcilable inconsistency.

              Elsewhere LRH declares that “policy means the principle evolved and issued by top management for a specific activity to guide planning and programming and authorize the issuance of projects by executives which in turn permit the issuance and enforcement of orders that direct the activity of personnel in achieving production and viability.”

              I don’t think that I can manage people trying to use a run-on sentence like that.

              Overall, LRH wrote some pretty good rules but way too many rules for management which he then in turn promptly forgot and never applied himself. He wrote and wrote and wrote rules and more rules then he wrote and wrote and wrote orders and more orders trying to write up a complete hat which when applied is so inconsistent that his people simply fell back to operating on orders alone. Hungry for a solution, upper SO management rather scours constantly for LRH “advices” such as how to “dust with a feather duster” his dusty car rather than wash it with water. I assure you that upper management used to be on a never ending search for silver bullets to resolve the inconsistencies or to achieve greater consistency rather than simply follow or dump policy. Then there is the problem of Source, so no executive in their right mind is going to be “shot” for dumping Source even if Scientology clearly states to dump unworkable policy, which it doesn’t — always in conflict and developing the same knee jerk reactions that LRH pretended to despise in Pavlov’s dog.

              No one operating on their own initiative with or near LRH lasted. Actually I can broaden that to say that no one operating with or near LRH lasted. The same can now be said of his successor.

            11. Well, Chris, your comment has some inaccuracies and over-generalizations, to name a couple outpoints, but I’ll just pick on the one I like the best, the Error of Fact as regards the supposed “run-on sentence, and see if I can more or less “diagram” the sentence you quoted, as best I can, by listing the major phrases and clauses and showing what modifies or refers to what, and I think you will see it is not a run-on at all but a perfectly proper sentence, albeit a little long to necessarily grasp quickly (like this one you’re reading, LOL). If I have it right, here’s the breakdown (caps are mine):

              1) “Policy means the principle evolved and ISSUED by top management for a specific activity…
              2) “…to guide planning and programming and authorize the issuance of projects by executives… “ [this whole phrase most basically modifies “ISSUED” in the previous clause (#1 above), and “issued” itself is modified by “for a specific activity” as well as “by top management”]
              3) “…WHICH in turn permit the issuance and enforcement of orders…” [“which” here refers back to and basically means “projects” in the previous phrase (#2 above)]
              4) “…THAT direct the activity of personnel in achieving production and viability.” [“that” simply stands for the word “orders” just preceding it, i.e. at the end of the previous clause (#3 above)]

              Now, wasn’t that fun? Seriously, though, here we have what LRH called a “status” misunderstood, which is different from an MU on a word or symbol as such. Not understanding the grammar, which is one type of status, of particular words and groups of words is a misunderstood like any other and can result in criticism, as in 2nd phenomenon. Even criticism of the whole subject area, no exaggeration on that.

              But in any case, if this was your misunderstood, I hope the above helped. 🙂

            12. Well thanks for all that! Your idea that I needed it explained to me so that I could understand it and ultimately finally agree with it if only I understood it is funny! You are cracking me up today! 😀

            13. No-no, never said anything about you agreeing. I only pointed out that you had an MU on “run-on sentence” and that you were critical of the sentence and simply stated what “can result” from an MU. At the most I was implying that clearing up the MU should handle your criticism of the sentence being a run-on. Maybe you have an invented definition of “run-on sentence” but this is the one in the dictionary:

              “a written sequence of two or more main clauses that are not separated by a period or semicolon or joined by a conjunction.”

              I fail to see more than one main clauses (i.e. independent clause) although there is more than one dependent clause.

            14. Marildi, Please point out the inconsistency in my statement that, “No one operating on their own initiative with or near LRH lasted. Actually I can broaden that to say that no one operating with or near LRH lasted. The same can now be said of his successor.”

              From 1950-1986, who lasted? I say that LRH’s megalomania resulted in each and every person working for him being thrown under the bus in blame for the various problems and failures of LRH’s Personal Administration of His organization. This was a chronic cycle throughout his life. Is this in dispute?

              If a culture comprised of thousands of people willingly giving up their middle-class lifestyles in favor of billion year contracts, no wages, no personal life, no family life, and shit living conditions cannot make LRH’s Administrative Technology work then what do you propose would be an improvement? What culture did it foster?

            15. Off the top of my head, the ones I know of who lasted through LRH’s time are the Broekers, Marty, Mike, Steve Hall, Jeff Hawkins, Dan Koon, Jim Logan and Sarge (a frequent poster on Marty’s blog), and of course Miscavige – all of whom operated on their own initiative under LRH and none of whom were thrown under the bus by him as far as I know. It was Miscavige who effectively chased away these and others. And where you say NO ONE lasted, you seem to be forgetting Miscavige himself. Funny how the string keeps getting pulled back to him. 😛

            16. Back to Miscavige? Not at all. You’ve gone surface deep in the years preceding LRH’s death. You have minimum of thousands of SO members who came and went. They did musical chairs from the start and continued. LRH had no friends that I am aware and by his own words “couldn’t have any.”

            17. I forgot about this post too. I am curious about the context of LRH’s words that he “couldn’t have any” friends. Where did you come across that?

            18. LRH complained about the culture of corruption within the government but it seems that it is rarely pointed out that LRH had another solution to his “government persecution” and that was to pay his taxes as the rest of us do.

              I suspect the culture of corruption resided in his own heart since that was his perception of the world around him. Once again I find myself speaking up to what I consider your over the top defense of Scientology but I think we are still on topic of what culture did it foster?

            19. Great, Chris, some time ago Geir asked for inconsistencies in the written LRH materials, so this is a stellar example.

  3. Before I read what anyone says. I must tell you how much I enjoyed this post and the excellent humor you display and the laughs I’ve gotten. (laughs always good) Plus makes so much sense. I LOVE IT!

  4. These people and tools are amazing. Dickheads typically hate ToPs and ICA methodologies. Why? Because a high group IQ is not as dependent upon a dickhead’s IQ. Dickheads crave emergencies where they can be the hero over adversity rather than create a group with the mind of a jewel.

    The issue is not “How smart is your leader, but how smart are your people TOGETHER?”

    ToPs certification is only $ 500.00 US. So as you can see, these folks aren’t in it for the money.

    And while I am here, Geir I have a small favor:

    “IYHO, what are the best small business accounting packages for Ubuntu (or any other flavor)?”

    1. Never mind. I’m going through a change in operating systems and wanted an opinion based on decades of experience.

      So I’ll just go with GNUcash and hope for the best.

      Not fun so far though. I have an HP laptop and it’s like herding cats to get it to work. Lucky me, HPs are one of the hardest laptops to get Ubuntu to run on. But I’m committed after Apple just won a victory for squelching innovation through patent abuse … yet … one … more … stinking … time.

      1. Sorry – didn’t register that part of your comment. I have no real experience in the arena of accounting software. GBUcash is the one I know – and Lodo (norwegian web accounting package).

        1. Thx. Guess I’m going to have to get all “command-line-commando” with this Ubuntu-hating laptop. Ubuntu Advantage here I come. . .

    2. Hi, William how are you? i feel neglete,, is this the way to tread your girl?

      1. Hi dear Erzsebet (and Marildi too),

        I just recalled something about the “Dreamwalking” that i haven’t told
        you about.

        One is supposed to be able to move in spirit to some place in space that might be important enough if you are able concentrate enough on a very dire need.

        Say there is a common problem at hand that one needs to solve to save the world/universe/etc, one could focus on this need and might move to or see a necessary on some hidden place in the universe.

        And of course, the more important or “clean” the need is, the higher the presedence for actually finding what is needed.

        1. Tor, Marildi just put my attantion on your post. I need to re-read it few times.. to collects some of my own thought on this… I got it my dear, but i will give my answer in the morning…Good one, thanks mighty god!

        2. TOR…
           One is supposed to be able to move in spirit to some place in space that might be important enough if you are able concentrate enough on a very dire need. Say there is a common problem at hand that one needs to solve to save the world/universe/etc, one could focus on this need and might move to or see a necessary on some hidden place in the universe. And of course, the more important or “clean” the need is, the higher the precedence for actually finding what is needed.
           You have tackled more than one problem, reality…
           One can only hide solid objects.
           As spiritual being one can hide by changing identity and that has been done thousands of times.
           Example you are looking for me, and you know me as the great warrior Otax all I need to do is destroy that picture-mock –up of that warrior, move into a delectable female body and sashay front of you would never know you just fallen in love with your greatest enemy. Hehehe.[ why do you think marriages sometimes resemble battle fields?] or be a snake and slider away quietly.
           There has been great ‘’dire needs’’ in the past to save ones universe
           Hidden places were: invisible shield created which were shimmering energy which could and was reflecting any outside attention- interest. So living and hiding behind that invisible wall all was well, everything was safe and life went on..
           Now there , the spiritual beings did not worry about their own as safety spiritual entity but they wanted to preserve what they were doing, their game the fun they were having what they have created and wanted to keep from others..
           Way back when :those shields between Worlds, Planets were like picket fences between houses here and they were commonly used as here those hedges, low stone walls etc… ‘’ hay man this is my territory, that is your side and this here is mine, if I see your dog here I cut his….off!]
           Tor, those shield did corrode after eons and those energies now free floating has become part of the SPACE since they were just regular energy. Those shield were like in the hotel on the doors “DO not disturbed.” Signs.
           The wars have come when some had an idea because they no longer could create their own game mock-up and they went after what others have owned-created: yours looks much better than mine so I will take it away from you by force!! [the grass grows greener on the others side of the fence’]
           The Mock-up had the value in it itself, the creation that game those wonderful powerful entities were making-playing, not the beings..
           Other way of hiding place was created: front of what was to be hidden a totally different picture of a different planet was projected, this picture looked so real, so solid to the outside observer- the onlooker that they believed it was real: and again behind this projected holograph life went on as usual.
           Invisibility, being invisible , becoming invisible always have been part of the universal culture. So in the olden days to vanish disappear was no problem since dropping bodies, moving out of bodies was easy as changing ones outfit….
           Tor, the problem has arisen for beings when they went into agreement and believed that they were that body that they were solid meat, than they needed to hide in order to keep that body safe –intact because if they did not have the body they no longer were alive…. which is nonsense..
           You must be thinking of ‘’’’ And of course, the more important or “clean” the need is, the higher the precedence for actually finding what is needed’’’’’’
           To me that simply boils down to when there is no confusion , no conflicting ideas are in existence in one’s universe.: just want it or not want it —-black and white—-yes or no.—-do or don’t do— have or not have—-be or not to be…
           PS: Tor thanks for your post, since I don’t have opportunity write of this things…
           Only in the human society the bodies have value , but out here where I am projecting my communication to you; entity-spiritual being has no value so one needs not to hide, how could intangible invisible hide? I wonder if what I have written here to you is what it was needed, or in fact answer or comment was not wanted at all.. If you have a question PLEASE DO WRITE I would love to look for the answer and explore the universe further. Much love to you my friend.

  5. Good post Geir! I like these punch lines you put at the end of your posts! It’s good to laugh!

    While these are all fine models, they are models. The problem with models is that they are models. Models always require simplification or omission of one or more elements to make them work and the addition of some kind of “glue” or patterning element that doesn’t really exist either.

    They are so well… pretty! You have to admire those beautiful, straight lines and smooth flowing logic! Wow.

    Now, if we could just get you to occupy your correct space in a correct manner in the model, then we would have the most beautiful, harmonious working model in the whole world!

    Or maybe you are a line? An arrow? And by the way, just what is in that space that model is living in? Space?

  6. Good post Maria. Taking lines and arrows out the context of an overall consolidation of understanding of what the entire working model works like seems to produce the same degree of degradation to the working of that model. Even LRH taught this.

    Not to intentionally belittle the human race, but maybe ants in an ant-hill is not the best model for beings who think for themselves. Possibly individuation is not good for the organizational model?

  7. Pingback: Vega « Geir Isene
  8. Organizational Frameworks are better established with complete and realistic hats and hating ( intensive drilling ), letting thus, enough space for human compassion after the appropiate competence, imo. Competence and compassion can co-exist in a productive organization.

  9. Miraldi: “Off the top of my head, the ones I know of who lasted through LRH’s time are the Broekers, Marty, Mike, Steve Hall, Jeff Hawkins, Dan Koon, Jim Logan and Sarge (a frequent poster on Marty’s blog), and of course Miscavige”

    None of these were old timers. Marty never worked with LRH, neither did Steve afaik or Jeff or Jim. Dan for a very short while, Mike for a brief period iirc. Miscavige from 77(?)-86. No one really lasted. No good old buddies from the 50’s or 60’s made it all the way – again afaik. There wer plenty of under-the-bus throwing with guys like Ken Urqhart, Alan Walters, Reg Sharpe…

    1. Agree.
      I’m looking forward to reading Ken Urqhart’s book when available.

    2. John McMasters, Kima Douglas, David Mayo, Nancy Many, Quentin Hubbard and the obvious Mary Sue Hubbard just to wet-my-whistle. I can get started now on a long list if anybody would be interested or if it matters.

      I think that I am being fair when I say that I can include each person with whom LRH was intimate on such a list of rejected comrades. Thus is the legacy and culture that LRH fostered.

        1. oh! you were simply addressing me as Chris and adding LRH Jr to the list and not saying I belonged on that list… my misunderstanding cleared up now… Right! Nibs is a “too obvious” addition to the list. How does one write and write on the subject of dynamic existence and getting along with one’s fellows and alienate one’s eldest son so firmly that he leaves you and changes his name? Do you suppose there is goldenrod on Nibs? That would be a good application of Scn Admin and Ethics Technology.

          1. That’s the importance of even a little symbol like a comma!

            I rest my case. 🙂

          2. Chris, yes I was just addressing you, not adding you to the list of course. L.Ronald Hubbard jr. was not just an unloved relative for hubbard, he was in fact the phoenix HASI executive in the time of the OT research and discovery period at the original phoenix org and a close assistant to L. Ronald Hubbard senior in the clearing course congress. About the golden rod, it is out PR so it will never be shown as is the case with many high profile members and ex-members of the church. But you can be sure that the disconnection policy applies the same.

      1. Not that I´m trying to kiss any ass here Dude, that would be beside the point, but you are not trying to enforce agreement in other people, and that is why I would have no problem in trusting my soul to you… I trusted it to LRH and it vanished in front of my eyes!! ha ha ha!! I spent many years in the limbo but thanks to people like you…well yes, and LRH too…. I´ve learned some valuable lessons ha ha ha!!!

        1. HI Rafael! Likewise me to you — I have enjoyed and learned much from your posts. But trusting me? I don’t know if you can trust me not to evaluate which I consider a sin of magnitude in the context of philosophy.

          Tell me, did you pick up the NEW KIND OF SCIENCE and read any of it? What did you think? I have become constantly mindful of fractals and cellular automata which affect and smooth the way I perceive my world. From understanding plant life, to clusters of galaxies, and even to understanding the derailment of a psychotic mind such as Anders Behring Breivik, I find peace and harmony and understanding in considering the fractal construct of the world. 2nd transformer called me “Flogger of Fractals” which my wife and I found immensely funny! So much so that I might that tattooed on my forehead! Only your comment complimenting me with “greatness” for my earlier error factor in a calculation of “quadrillions of years” made me smile as much.

          For me, I have stalled in studying my books this summer because of being busy with work and tired when I have a few minutes to read… I want to take a sabbatical and just study for months and months. I see so many bright and interesting people and ideas out there. My mind has never been more stimulated in my life and I will be 59 years old in January. Life is Beautiful.

          1. I started reading the NEW KIND OF SCIENCE and it went to the top of my list of things to learn, but like you, I´m stalled, I also need a sabbatical! I mentioned it to my son who is studying Biological Engineering, and he tells me they use Wolfram at school, the celular automata and all the rest of it is great! I just hope I can find the time and the clearness of mind to learn all that great stuff, I´m 58 since april and life is beautiful here too!

          2. Chris:”I don’t know if you can trust me not to evaluate which I consider a sin of magnitude in the context of philosophy.”

            I don´t know what would be a sin really….my agreement with the Old Man was like signing a contract with the devil, he saved my soul and then took ownership of It,…. but eventually I recovered It and learned a lesson or two.

            Were the lessons worth the part of my life which I spent in Scientology´s Hell?
            Well, In my case I guess the answer is…. yes.

            1. Yet I don’t regret nor ask “what might have been?” I built a good and happy life but just not a specific one. Things could have turned up worse or better but generally I meant my life to go in a direction and it seems to have “went.” Sometimes it was like herding a pig down the road armed only with a stick. So my life jumped off into a few ditches but has generally ended up where I imagined.

              I have dwelt on some extreme examples in history as well as including infamous current events such as the killer who was just sent to jail in Norway and find a peace and an understanding to believe that I have an intention, I can act, I can have an effect, and yet something done the same way twice the result may be different because of the apparent randomity built into the scope of the universe.

              I have to admit to myself that all the knowledge and all of the culture and all of the civilizations and all of the wars and all of the births and deaths of the entirety of mankind make almost no impression on this planet, this biosphere alone. And if I can get to a point of view to see and acknowledge that, then I must surely be humbled by the scope and grandeur of the microscopic and macroscopic universes. I must understand and grow to accept that I have more in common with a fruit-fly and a lifespan of a similar length when compared to longer longer more geological durations.

              The things that I’ve seen and experienced, and the special-nesses that I have felt were and are mostly special to me alone and any pleasure or pain that I have taken from these experiences were for me and experienced by me alone. Was it, has it been for a higher purpose? As an offshoot or as part of some greater experience of reality? Maybe, probably, certainly! All of these. Today I only know that I feel the full richness of a fabulously unfathomable universe of which I am a part.

              And as Masters of the Universe? hahahaha! No. I am satisfied that snake-oil was and is the sales gimmick of charlatans. But “Master Of My Own Experience?” Now there is a view and a possibility and maybe just maybe there is a purpose that I can fulfill yet within a single life-span. If that somehow dove-tails into a higher and as yet unknown purpose then so much better still. But regardless, I have found meaning for my life and thusly I have found happiness — that happiness that I wanted when I went stumbling into Scientology in 1977.

            2. Chris, I missed this yesterday. This is a wonderful piece about your life. Style and substance, both! I hope you’re saving it and adding it to the collection for your memoirs.

              One fun and really descriptive line was this one: “Sometimes it was like herding a pig down the road armed only with a stick.”

              Seriously, it’s a great line. But as your future editor, I must note that without a comma after “road” it could be misunderstood as to who was armed with the stick – you or the pig. (hahahaha, couldn’t resist :D.)

            3. Me too pardner, me too. My path has been my path and I would have to answer yes if my path had been any other path as well… ! Only I have picked up my feet and stepped them back down so it would be illogical for me to resent myself! hahahaha !

            4. That is so true my friend,
              Whatever meaning our life has is our own creation.

        2. Et tu, Rafael? 😀

          Actually, I’ll take you back in any form ;). Glad you are at least touching bases now and again!

          1. I´m kind of overrun on philosophyzing, at present don´t have much to contribute but can´t stop taking a peek now and then 🙂
            And a big hug for you:-))

            1. I know. We’re still in your blood, blood brother.

              Big hug back. 🙂

            2. An even bigger hug to the little mouse, El Ratón Rafa. 🙂

            3. Mr. Mandelbrot, to strangers. That’s funny!

              But in case you weren’t just being funny – Rafael IS the little mouse. It’s his avatar and a term of endearment coined after our minds met another time, another thread.

              And forget your pet mouse, YOU are “Mr. Mandelbrot”. 🙂

              (Now stop pulling me back here with your wit and charm. Besides, that’s not the tone I need when I get back to you later with fire and brimstone!)

            4. Rafael since you are not in the mood for heavy philosophy try something different, I am sure in Mexico city you could find a good Hungarian restaurant , have their Chicken Paprikas with Dumpling and Cucumber salad, and Palacsinta after… much lighter than philosophy
              [ I just talked on the phone with Marildi she invited me back, she said i should say hello since you have shown up again! Good to see you old soul..]

            5. Rafael look out for the duplings, to much of it will expand the middle part of that body.. But of course if you have my theta cooking, than well, my dear no gain in weight ever!
              I never told you but I have gone did Cordon Blue theta cooking school, first in my class. hehehe… I was the only one in that class… 🙂

            6. Rafael I opened a little restaurant just off to Crab-Nebula, do stop by on your travels and have my specialty, my creation: Stardust Pudding… its fantastic, out of this world.
              Every Philosopher should have my pudding in order to fortify those little gray cells which have nothing to do with anything…

            7. Eliz, I surely need some of the star-dust pudding, so putting my order in now and will pick up soon… only you can make it so…. thanks love, put it on my credit cloud. 🙂

            8. No charge dear…. It is given free ,. to all the travelers who stop by….

    3. Actually, my dear Geir, Chris said from 1950-1986, not just the 50’s and 60’s, and he said operating with “or near” LRH, and stated that “no one” in that “with or near” category lasted. He then further broadened it to “no one” lasted period. Then he made another huge generality by saying “each and every” person working for LRH was thrown under the bus. And he doesn’t even stop there but further adds, “This was a chronic cycle throughout his life”. No specifics at all to even partially support any of these gross generalaities and exaggerations.

      But let me ask you a question, in all good will :). Why is it that you will comment on what you see as my particular goof-ups on data or logic but with Chris in this instance (for just one example) you had nothing to say about the glaring logical fallacies in several of his posts? I can’t believe you haven’t seen any of that. Or is it just that I’m special? 🙂

      1. You are special.

        I just happen to comment on whatever tickles my fancy, really. However, there are some posters’ comments I tend to read more carefully.

        As for the “no one lasted”, I think that Chris is right – at least to some 99% degree. The ones you mentioned all came in late in his life and they only lasted because LRH happened to die before they had worn out their stay with him. There may be a few exceptions, but I bet they are far less than 1% of the overall picture. Actually, I know of no other person in history with that abysmal track record regarding keeping friends I am sure there are examples, but I don’t know of any yet.

          1. All got the boot by LRH, which I believe was Chris’ point. Do we find anyone that survived as a close associate of LRH for more than 20 years? Anyone?

            1. I don’t think Bill Robertson ever “got the boot” from LRH.

              In fact, I think the whole issue of who got the boot from LRH is a red herring. It is nothing more than an attempt to place LRH at “perpetual cause” and everyone else as “perpetual effect”, ie, painting them all as “victims”. I don’t buy it. Re-read the Code of Honor please.

              That’s not to say LRH was not a driven man with a big ego.

            2. You are missing Chris’ point. It is about whether LRH was able to keep friends – and if not, then what influence that had on the culture in Scientology or how that could perhaps be a symptom of other causes for the cut-throat culture that we have seen in the CoS since the mid 60’s.

            3. I don’t think LRH was not “able” to keep friends. Based on his writings (ARC, etc) and some reports of people close to him, my educated guess is that he was more than “able” to keep friends.

              I think the more likely scenario is that he thought that the goal of keeping Scn for the posterity (KSP) (*1) was so important that he sacrificed (*2) his friends for the goal. Whether sacrificing his friend was needed or not, or to what degree was needed, is another matter: optimum force.

              Regarding the optimum force needed for KSP, I think there is an important factor still not covered in this thread: at LRH’s time the cold war was going on and there was a high probability of global nuclear war (*3) (LRH talks about this).

              However this emphasis (*1) on KSP generated the Co$’s culture (*2) where more than optimum force was and is used (*4). This more than optimum force coupled with O/Ws generated a descendent vicious circle.

              (*1) Regarding the importance of KSP, I think LRH got it right: As far as I know (I have been researching from my childhood), Scn (and its derivatives) is the only workable Tech (on this planet) capable of going through, or at least opening a hole in, the “matrix”. IMO, it’s workable (like LRH said), it’s not the best, and it’s incomplete.

              (*2) I already posted something about LRH sacrifice, and some other factors causing this culture: [2012-09-03 at 12:54] https://isene.me/2012/08/25/culture/#comment-22526

              (*3) After the cold war ended, we learned from secret government files that we were very close to a global nuclear war. Also, the Doomsday Clock reflects more than the probability of global nuclear war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock

              (*4) As far as I know, per LRH, if needed, a great (but optimum) force can be used, but as soon as it is not needed anymore, it should be stop and the damage should be made up. (Another example of good “policy” not followed by the Co$).

            4. Ferenc, thanks for another excellent and well-written post. Yes, LRH did talk about the “race” between Scn and nuclear disaster, and although his pointing at that could be looked at as just a control gimmick of some kind, it was a fact of life at the time even according to official records. I think this point has been specified on other threads but it’s good you included it here where pretty much all the other possibilities have been brought up. I especially liked your mention of “optimum force”. That was the crux of the situation, it seems to me too.

        1. You are special too. 🙂

          But you’re wrong! wrong! wrong!

          I’m kidding. I know neither you nor Chris would be making such an extreme statement based on nothing. But like I’ve said before, we all look through our own unique tint of glasses.

          My own tint tells me it wouldn’t be the first time a conclusion was reached about LRH by means of the Post Hoc fallacy: If X follows Y, then X is caused by Y. In other words, claiming that the sequence of things proves cause.

          I know, I’m incorrigible. (Never say die! :D)

  10. Okay, brother Chris, here we go :).

    Why do I defend Scientology? Only because I consider it to be something worth defending, just like any of us does with regard to whatever we feel strongly about and spend time and energy on to try and forward. It’s no different from what you yourself do, is it? Of course, as regards Scn, you do it from the opposite overall viewpoint to mine.

    But it seems to me that you are the one who far more often initiates challenges to my views, even those I’ve stated in an exchange with someone else, rather than vice versa. As well, it’s actually you who keep adding fuel to the fire by bringing up new subjects one after the other. And, again from my perspective, you are also more vehement about your views than I am.

    You say you get the impression that I “scramble to consolidate the broken pieces of [my] Scientology experience”. It actually wasn’t necessary for you to tell me that – this interpretation of yours has been abundantly clear to me for some time, and I’ve said as much. But that, among other things, doesn’t seem to stick with you. And it’s just not the case – I’m not hung up in my Scn experience – in contrast with you yourself who very much appear to be, although you say you’ve moved on. For me, whatever happened is water under the bridge. When it comes to Scn I am primarily interested in its present and future and my own place in it.

    One thing I could say, which I’ve also expressed before, is that for the time being my “place” in Scn seems to be pretty much limited to making an attempt to clear up what appear to be obvious MU’s or false data or some other held down seven that I surmise from the things someone might be saying, on or off the internet. In addition to that, I really don’t like the idea of somebody’s insidious false data being spread around, and I try to shed light on such when I can.

    You actually seem to have a similar impulse toward me as the one I have toward – i.e. rather than the virtues of Scientology itself, the subject, you are always trying to get me to see the evils of the CoS, even though I’ve stated numerous times that it was never the CoS that I was trying to defend . You keep writing posts as if you need to convince me. I’ve also said that LRH’s personal flaws don’t mean a lot to me. Basically, I really would rather not drone on about LRH’s mistakes but concentrate on what he did right. By now, we know enough about the mistakes he made to learn from them, without going on and on with criticism that never ends. Which some people never seem to tire of doing.

    Actually (and this brings in my indicators :)), I do sometimes get the idea that you have become “whole once more” and are working on your “next goals of understanding [your] existence”. And I’m genuinely happy for you. So I guess I could ask a similar question of your ”over-the-top” attacks (rather than defense, like I do) on Scn and LRH and the “very hard work” you too do on the subject: That question precise being – why do you do it? 😉

      1. Ah, Ferenc to the rescue. Thanks for reminding me of the Doc.

        Θ back to you, compadre.:)

    1. Yes our friction seems limited to this discussion of Scientology. Why do I do it?
      1. Because in my past history with Scientology trusting philosophical assertions beyond what seemed right or correct to me at the time was a mistake of mine.
      2. Experience, research, and practice has shown me that Scientology is a true religion masking itself as science.
      3. Twisting the tenets of religion around using faith to make it consistent for me is a mistake that doesn’t help me progress toward finer levels of understanding my existence.
      4. I think that Scientology fails because of its own philosophical errors rather than because of extant management. For me, the new bosses of Scientology seem the same to me as the old bosses of Scientology.
      5. I think the subject is too broad — it attempts to be a complete subject and the more it tries to be complete the more inconsistent it becomes.
      6. I think it contains major personal fantasies together with a psychotic level of control mechanisms which are not only not needed, they ensure that free-thinking men and women will not only not participate but will abandon the subject utterly in favor of other paths of self discovery.
      7. I guess I am still tender on the subject of Scientology seeing as my “path of discovery” walked me through a dangerous and unfeeling cult which ripped my family apart. Chastised, berated, condemned, and excommunicated me for disagreeing with this. Left my oldest daughter motherless though her mother lives within a 3 hour car drive from my house right this moment.
      8. Scientology for me is inverted and its philosophy of “making the able more able” is a beautiful sounding slogan which is more rooted public relations than in OT phenomena.
      9. L Ron Hubbard’s personal philosophy as described in the works of Scientology and as explained in his thinly veiled parody of himself in BATTLEFIELD EARTH and in MISSION EARTH is that perceptions of reality are reality. In other words, the ideas that individuals can become and need to become so able that physical universe law bends to their will. At this point in my research, this is completely a personal fantasy of LRH’s. No amount of explanations or justifications of of OT levels, EP’s of OT levels, or the like actually results in violations of physical laws. There are many assertions and no shred of proof for LRH’s assertions that one does Scientology OT levels and becomes cause over MEST. None. Zip. The true believers say this has to be kept a secret and in HISTORY OF MAN, LRH admonishes OT’s to “let Homo Sapiens sleep yet a while in the bulk” because it would be bad for OT’s if regular men and women knew of their powers. All of this seems weak and infantile to me and without verve and insubstantial.
      10. So these are a few reasons why I do it. Plus I guess it’s stimulating to argue. Plus in the whole of existence, our own seems so very tiny and insubstantial to me that I feel we should stick together and when we perceive each other making “mistakes” I guess we feel compelled to say something about it…

      1. Chris, thanks for this full answer to my question. I really like it that we can level with each other. 😉

        Once again your comment will take me a little longer to respond to (some of my kids just require more attention than others :)). My “other life” is distracting me too much lately (hahaha) but I shall return.

        1. Marildi, you are very remiss to spend time with your family when you could be blogging (sigh) fortunately this has not been a chronic problem so you don’t get the yellow card yet! Please get these family matters cleared up so they are not so distracting from the importance of blogging! See you soon. 😀 haha

          1. LOL!

            But I was referring to this family, and the fact that you are a child that is requiring a lot of attention these days. 🙂

            I’ll try to get my ethics in and return as soon as possible from these other “so-called” dynamics. 😀

            We come back. 😛

      2. Chris, I’ve been thinking more about your post and realized that I would need some specifics for what you say on each of the numbered points. Or at least start with one or a couple of them, for now. I do get what you’re saying on each but am interested in the basis for your saying it.

        No need to further explain the one to do with why you’re still tender on the subject of “Scientology” (that one I have no trouble understanding at all), unless you yourself would like to give further specifics.

        I also understand the last point that “we should stick together and when we perceive each other making ‘mistakes’…say something about it”. I basically said the same thing to you in my comment above. 🙂

        With regard to arguing being stimulating, I grew up in a family where my dad loved to debate (argue, in plain English) and I was the only one who would argue back and give him that satisfaction. We had a special comm line too. 😉

        But on the rest of your post, here’s our chance to do what I wrote you not long ago, where I said: Anytime you would like, let’s look at Scientology itself, its core philosophy and/or tech, and I’m sure that one or both of us, probably both, will gain something.

  11. I know there are many schools on types of Mgmt Philosophies and methods and so on, and I think this culture approach is a sound and clever one.

    A quote on this might be the famous one from Hamsun that “Progress – that is the wellbeing of human beings” which I think really is to the point whatever Hamsun was or was not.

    Marildi mention intention above, and yes, I think that is important as well. For some reason ones real intentions usually show through in anything you do, no matter how hard you try to mask it.

    People will tend to see the intention and follow that and the person, not the written word of it … … and no, the end doesn’t justify the means, not ever …

    Usually any Mgmt method will have some tracking methods, to measure performance, and intention usually shows through here as well. You get what you measure, and the problem is that you only measure what you KNOW how to measure.

    One of the few things I still keep in honor from my “Org & Mgmt”-classes is the saying that goes something like “The bottom line of organizational theory is that there is NO optimal way of organizing”.

    So yes, look at the people and how they work. Do they look calm and relaxed or tense and worried. and thete should be room for a smile and joke and a warm heart and a hug.

    1. Nice post, Tor Ivar. I liked every point you made. Your last one I’ve seen in children too. You can observe a child and see a lot about the love (or lack of it) in the home. And the level of communication, for that matter. Or,you could say – the intention that shows through. 🙂

      Hey, if anything I’m going to be harping (Chris loves to use that word on me :)) harping even more on intention. You’ve inspired me! Speaking of hugs, I’m sending you one. 🙂

  12. Agreed Tor, Marildi is spot on to harp on intention as the tipping point for evaluating the actions of people. Her intentions are always good and I love so much how thorough is her research. It would be hard to find anyone who has cracked a dictionary more than Marildi!

    1. I read it daily as part of my religious devotion. 🙂

      Actually, intention is more than the tipping point. It’s practically the whole kit and caboodle, the whole shebang, the hotdog and the works. 😉

        1. AND the whole enchilada.

          That’s what I love about you. A kindred soul, our minds mesh. At least on the deep-down things. 🙂

          (We’ll argue about Scn and LRH another time, though. ;))

          1. We are willing to see beyond the enchilada, and that lies above agreements or disagreements my friend 🙂

            1. Yes! 🙂

              Btw, if I ever write a book I might title it “Beyond the Enchilada”. 😉

            2. Don’t worry, Rafael. I’ll clear it up immediately – on the cover – with an asterisk and a footnote for it at the bottom. 😀

              I was actually hoping you would make me an offer, so I would let you use that title for your own book. The one I hope you’re writing ;).

            3. Hilarious! 😀 You did an English play on words as if you were a gringo.

              I actually meant to tell you that your English has gotten to be like you almost are a gringo. Have you been reading a lot lately or what?

            4. yes, i do the same and look how far it gotten me in 15 months, i am still here in the same blog.. hehehe. [in 4 more]

        1. Right. I’ve gotten better over the years at seeing through what is on the surface. Mostly, I learned it from my experience in Scientology in applying the “tech” to another person (something like counseling, or like teaching), I learned to really look at them and perceive what’s under the social presentation, or you could say the “mask”. It got easy. For starters, you have to “be there”, really “there”.

          Btw, weren’t you reading some Scn or Dianetics book or something, a while back? Don’t let these disgruntled old-timers intimidate you, or “tint your glasses”. Everybody should do their own tinting. I think you know that, though. 😉

          1. Hehe, trying to indoctrinate again now are you ? 😀

            Well, I read that “Dianetics in Limbo” which to me seemed reasonably balanced, and I must I say I liked the description of that “return to my birth”-experience. I’ve been thinking that if I could be sure to reach that and get the same effects, then it might be worth it, but it might not be that simple.

            Else you’ve sent a few names of books but I’ve never gotten there.

            For myself I basically learnt in some other type of training to get an idea if people are “true”, whether they are “credible”, which is quite useful. It doesn’t necessary lead me to what is behind it all but at least to see if somebody is walking what they’re talking …

            1. Indoctrinate you? Who me? 🙂

              I should have known my telling you that I was doing that would come back to haunt me. Kidding aside, though, if I know of something (not just Scientology) that I think would benefit someone I usually do try to “indoctrinate” them. But I can tell you this too – I honestly no longer feel that everyone needs to do Scn. Not even that everyone should. It’s not everyone’s path, although it may some distant day be so, as I believe it to be based on true principles of the mind and spirit.

              Anyway, you do seem like a person who is always trying to expand his knowledge about important things in life (which is why you fit in so well here :)). Good on reading that book “Dianetics in Limbo”. I read a good bit of it online one time and the author is pretty straightforward and positive about Dianetics as it was in the early years. You may not be able to run your birth incident right away, but I’m sure you will have some wild experiences of one kind or another – likely some that are pre-birth ;).

            2. Of course, you’d never dreaeaeaeaeaeaeam of indoctrinating me … ;-D

              Some wild experience I’m sure I would have, I guess that’s what freaks out those who do freak out (and are NOT lead through it to sufficiently process the experience).

              No I’m more of the assumption that some of the causes for my “humble” problem(s) might lie before and through my birth, but of course I might be wrong …

            3. Well now, I see you really got the principle that an auditor should “get the pc (preclear) through it”, or “the way out is the way THROUGH” (famous quote in auditor training). Or, as you put it, “lead through it to sufficiently process the experience”. And I believe you are right as well that before birth is the area for the more likely causes of a person’s “humble” problems.

              I say you start your training as an auditor right away! (Not trying to indoctrinate you or anything. :D)

  13. Marildi, I’m in a mood to sail into a long-winded and off-topic dissertation about what I see when I look around me but I guess I won’t do that here and bore everyone.

    Something more on topic and more important is the culture being established here on Geir Isene’s blog. There is being established here for years now a culture of mental exploration which grants beingness to each person who participates. There is a kind of honesty perpetrated from Geir who lets us post almost carte blanche without censorship and with the only caveat being that we treat one another with civility and respect. This blog has been pivotal to me changing and changing my own mind about my reality and though its not an organization with a tangible product, it is an organization with a thoughtful or spiritual product. Geir’s blog is my talking out loud to myself place to come. It is a true internet cafe to dredge up an old www word. A place to sip coffee or tea and visit with old friends.

    With only a very few people near enough to me with similar realities to bounce things off of, I found myself coming back here again and again. You and the others provide the surface on which my mental reactions and gyrations can take place. You all are the screen on which I can see the effect of my wave collapse. This mental leveling that I’ve been able to accomplish to myself and for myself have been exactly what I’ve needed in this place and at this time.

    I owe you all a lot. You have my gratitude, Thank you.

      1. Thank you Elizabeth. You as much as anyone have my gratitude. Each time I pull off a layer, my vision improves and I am reminded of your description of your improvement in your eyesight after cataract removal. It feels like that.

        1. Chris we are all learning… it is wonderful that we can…I been here posting in this blog for 15 months… and look at me now…. hehehe …what a wonderful trip it has been… I love the communication, the ups and down. I love my cat fights with Marildi… I truly enjoy shaking Maria’s universe up and that is not easy….[ Maria i am getting ready for the next round:look out girl!] it has been grand experience..
          You and I, we have had our own exchange on many levels… But i am on the mission and I wont rest till i find the answers on LRH’s unmantionables , if was any.. good Night, it is after 2am at your house, why are you still up? To hot? cant sleep? But again how could particles sleep? how could something which is mostly water Sleep? That is Mystery, what do you think?

    1. “You and the others provide the surface on which my mental reactions and gyrations can take place. You all are the screen on which I can see the effect of my wave collapse”

      Same here Dude

    2. I agree with Elizabeth and Rafael. Very nice, and same here, dude. 🙂

      It’s true that Geir lets us post almost carte blanche. And as you know, he doesn’t seem to mind at all when we go off topic, especially after the blog post has already been out a while. So I hope the above isn’t your whole response to my last reply to you! I mean the one I made about our finally getting around to discussing Scientology itself and not how it’s been altered, whether by LRH himself on the the admin tech, or by DM.

      Plus, I see you and others are still posting Ad Hom comments about Scientology. Those are beside the point too, as is the very last comment you posted just this morning about Scientology fostering a culture of ego, Or if it is indeed a comment alluding to the basic principles, and not alterations of those, then I say again – let’s have some specifics.

      We’ve both said that we’re interested in countering the mistakes the other (or our own self) may be making about Scientology. I meant it and I hope you did! And if we get down to specifics, it will stop being an argument involving accusations about logic and opinion (yours and mine and others’) as well as Ad Hom. It may be a big subject but we can at least get it started on this thread, while the iron is hot. 😉

      1. I would like to correct myself about the ‘ego’ of Attila and Victoria. That is not correct, there was no ego as let’s say I am behaving this way or that.. No, it was ” the way of life” one behaved in certain way when one was in those conditions, or any other different conditions one went with the flow..
        That person was educated by tutors or life experiences
        I think ego self-image was developed by circumstances conditions environments situations, the survival… how to live and those believes were applied later in similar circumstances. They become rules and those rules governed the behavior.
        I am a movie star: lean, beautiful, I make lots of money, I am popular, have big boobs, I behave accordingly : spoiled, demanding… etc.
        Or, a punk on the street: they all were similar clothing, talk walk etc.. the same way.
        Now is there an ego – a different motivation or just a front-behavior I do this because I am a punk…..
        In my reality anything put up front to be seen is a mock-up…. I will look at this further.
        AS Attila or kid in this life everything was done because that’s the way it was.
        No education existed about the MIND- BANK- the reasons for this or that…
        I think the same applies now…. one is taken-moved by the flow…… the bank that is…

      2. Marildi, Chris,
        OK, I finally understand Chris’s statement :” unraveling the ego was one of the goals of Scientology.”
        I don’t think anything special or different is involved which the church that ego bit.
        . All one has to do is observe the surrounding behavior of every living thing on this planet which should include self..and see that unraveling whatever… Behavior, how it has come about developed..
        Behavior is thought through demonstration also inbreeded [ DNA bit ]or verbally transported how to do what to do at all times.
        So the church drills its members how to behave, and parents do the same with their children, Soldier get that in the barrack how to behave as a soldier…. and Kittens get it from mama….
        Finally I have beaten it to death, the nag is dead.

  14. Scientology has fostered a culture of expanding ego.

    Maybe there is a dark energy which causing it to fly apart?*


    1. “Fostering culture of ego”
      “Fostering”: development promotion change increase encourage a “culture”: philosophy principals belief values of “ego”: personality character self-image self-esteem, individuality
      I can see that in through those terms contents- and meanings of the words.
      I don’t see any negative in that, since auditing demolishes, erase barriers-walls with that opens the person universe up and a little mouse now can roar and dare to roar thunder since that little mouse was just a valance a façade to cover ones identity and also that tiny mask was there to cover ones power. But again I might not understood the content well how Chris has meant it.

      1. I meant it negatively if unraveling the ego was one of the goals of Scientology. Scientology judiciously avoids using this psychiatric word of Freud’s and says Freud got it all wrong, nothing to see there.

        Other’s paths are different, but my path has taken me on a journey of discovery of “what is my ego?” For me, the ego is what I have been unwinding for about two lifetimes now. I seem to have identified with a lot of things. Become very many things. When I have a cognition, it seems to come just at the end of stripping some of these identifications which I had thought were myself and which I refer to as ego. So for me, less ego is better. Most people agree that Chris with less ego is better.

        The enlightened Scientologist would use language like less valences equals closer to native state. But that person is not who I am referring to when I wrote about the culture of Scientology’s expanding ego.

        1. than tell me how scientology expanding ego… please use simple concepts and you know why i need that… like bad cat ass I have been like Attila? Did I have ego than and that is what you mean. My way or you are sitting on the stake? Or being Victoria and I am above all of you little shits and my word counts only? has that been a bad ego?

          1. hehe well I don’t know about Victoria and I don’t know if there is good and bad ego… But there does seem to exist inflated sense of self. Without auditing, the ego continues to expand, becomes bloated and full of itself. Thought processes grind down to dead slow or stop.

            My path is to let the air out, deflate the sense of self, the ego.

            When I say expanding ego, I mean that Scientology would do better to celebrate is full of very important people and they are getting more important all the time.

            1. “When I say expanding ego, I mean that Scientology would do better to celebrate is full of very important people and they are getting more important all the time.”

              **..Scratch that whole piece of a paragraph thoughts, I didn’t mean to send that…**

            2. Chris I only see what is bank… I dont have any other reality no matter what it is named.. To me by now all is the same.. Energy-creation- mass-bank-attitude-personality- behavier, ego– have it? confront it.. as-is it.. have a rip-roaring cog.. over and done with. My universe no longer has complication… I only can recomend sessions.. Even if I could give you what i have i would not.. That would be crime commited by me… Since You are the only one who really know your universe and what you need…

        2. This seems to me like a legitimate comment about basic Scientology.

          First, LRH stated that the reason he didn’t use terms from other sources was because they didn’t totally equate to his own constructs and would only be confusing. “Ego” may actually have meant something like the analytical mind that creates and mocks up various identities or identifications, but in any case “ego” wouldn’t totally equate to “analytical mind” or any other term in Scientology, And I’m sure. LRH didn’t think Freud got it all right, but he did think Freud got some things right – there are numerous references to that effect.

          Your path and progress on it is commendable, and is essentially the path I myself am on, as are others who feel they have been enlightened by Scientology.

          If by “the culture of Scientology’s expanding ego” you are talking about the change in underlying intention of management that came about, I will say again – let’s not discuss what we already agree on. Let’s not Q&A and instead get back to the thing we do disagree about – the core philosophy and tech.

        3. Freud’s view was that the “ego” as he defined it, needed to be strengthened, not “unraveled”. To Freud, the “ego” was analogous to LRH’s “analytical mind”.

    2. Chris ” dark energy?” =BANK that is = pure undiluted bank: agreements galore… cant get any darker that that.
      Or you are thinking of on evil witch waving a wand over scientology?

    3. In any case I would venture it is the other way arround:
      That the beings fixation on expanding Ego creates the dark energy which in turn manifests as the expansion and solidification of the Universe.
      Self-determinism: The ability to create space and time in which to create and locate energy and matter. The imposition of time and space upon energy flows.
      Self-determinism exerted in other beings universes as Ego would manifest as enforced agreement with each iteration growing into solidity, fixed ideas, enslavement, vanishment of creativity of self and others

      The process of expanding Ego would then be the process of creativity consuming itself, creativity trying to capture a solid, fixed, picture of itself

      People trying to grow into beautiful, big Egos, collapse into fixed structures.

      People trying to know themselves iterate into solid forms. Energy becomes matter.

      So, let´s not give in to the Dark side Buddy!!

  15. Chris you ask questions but you do not answer when you are asked.. one way communication is well, what is?

      1. Yes your answer completed my life, my energy flows with that lifted me out of the gutter, to the heights I never experienced before. Your attention =answer has been on aphrodisiac made my life worth living. Not a bad bunch of lies at all…

          1. it did not meant to do that but if you feel that way… go for the honor..

  16. 2nd Transformer – maybe you could say more about the type of business you run using LRH Admin Technology and do you use it exclusively or bits or lots and which lots?

    1. @Chris
      I never said I used LRH admin technology to run my business. I said I could see how quite a number of policies could apply, but not the whole of the technology. What I did say was that I hat and correct and keep ethics very, very light.

      Business-wise it is a continuous process producing a novel, proprietary product.

  17. @Geir

    Perhaps it is not so much that a framework produces a particular culture, but that the culture shapes the way the particular framework is used i.e. the framework can be worked within in such a way as to continually enable the culture. As well, it could be that individuals are attracted to and stay with frameworks and cultures that support their particular culture.

    For example, let’s take two women of differing cultures. Susan was raised in an agnostic alcoholic household where everyone tiptoed around Dad, hid the awful quality of their life from others, and learned to be very careful and pleasing to stay out of trouble. Yet she had little in the way of direct supervision. Deborah was raised in a fundamental religious household where the family aired their distaste and hostility towards non-members, demanded strict obedience and rewarded frugality.

    Give these two the same framework and watch what happens. Assume that each one becomes successful in their own businesses using this framework. Each will attract and retain employees that reflect and agree with their cultures, regardless of what the framework says the process should be. Elements of the framework that enable the culture will get the focus and elements that don’t enable the culture will be given a brush-off Both will insist that they are using the “X” framework. In fact, the framework is usurped by an unstated culture that is fostered outside the framework, and is directly influencing / shaping the input on a continuous basis.

    So regardless of what framework is chosen, what has to be addressed is the very real, underlying and unstated culture of that group and its resistance to elements of the framework that don’t enable the culture. i.e. the owner gives lip service to making change but he has surrounded himself with people who do not dare to question his choices and should they do so, the owner will select only those changes that will not impact or change his power, position or “style” very much.

    1. i.e. to add just a small clarification, there can be no accurate comparison of a frameworks capacity to foster culture because the comparison starts with the flawed assumption that individuals in the comparison come to the framework with same framework or no framework that will influence the use / disuse / abuse of the framework. So perhaps there would need to be an reviewing / reworking process to disclose / reduce that factor before the framework can be considered to be in use at all.

    2. When I talk about a framework in the OP, I am talking about a set of guidelines or policies or advices – not a family or cultural background. And advices shapes attitudes which shapes behavior which, in sum, is the culture. So, set framework do tend to shape certain cultures. And it is hard to envision Nazism fostering a very different culture than what we saw in Germany back then. It is likewise hard to envision that the adoption of ITIL will foster a culture not centered around processes and continual improvement. Or an organization based on LRH Admin Tecg that does not foster bureaucracy. To cherry-pick or straight out rape the framework and misuse it and say that one can get benefits out of parts of it – well, that’s OK, but then one is not implementing The Framework.

      1. “To cherry-pick or straight out rape the framework and misuse it and say that one can get benefits out of parts of it – well, that’s OK, but then one is not implementing The Framework.”

        My point exactly.

        Individuals do bring their family and cultural background to the process though and this must be addressed and accounted for., they will do exactly what you say — cherry pick and rape the framework.

        As regards Nazism, historically the Germanic culture was warrior based, ego-driven, authoritarian, and very patriarchal. It was also characterized by might is right, seize power, and the the winner takes all. Pride, power, esteem, and a belief that God is with us as we drive to victory.

        You can read about this culture in this dissertation on the Destruction of Poland, dated 1924, which clearly describes the behavior of Nazi Germany without all the fanfare. http://archive.org/stream/cu31924027887078/cu31924027887078_djvu.txt

        Nazism IS a culture. It is NOT a framework. I would really hate to see what the Nazi culture would make out of LRH policy! OMG.

        As it is right now, the LRH framework has been cherry picked, even by LRH himself, as he brought his culture to it. And that culture attracted individuals that enabled his culture/vision and ejected / rejected those that did not. It repelled those that did not align.

        The confusion comes in when one reads the materials, starting from one’s own culture and gets a particular “take” on it and then learns that there is a completely different culture imposed over the top of that structure, one that is unspoken and deeply entrenched through successive rejections and ejections of any dissenting voice.

        So yes, a framework can foster, but that framework can also be used to foster. And unless both elements are addressed one way or another, the one will most likely overwhelm the other and shift the focus to enabling the predominating culture, passed verbally and by example.

        1. Of course. But let’s bring it one step back. I would offer a conjecture: That LRH Admin Tech implemented to the letter and the dot must bring about a mess with utter bureaucracy.

          Come to think of it… that’s exactly what we have in the CoS… a mess with utter bureaucracy.

          1. “…implemented to the letter and the dot” sounds like a rote implementation.

            1. The underlying tone of LRH Admin Tech is indeed that it should be followed precisely – no deviation. It doesn’t matter that LRH alludes to or says otherwise in a few places. The underlying tone is still “Do this exactly like it says – or you get in trouble!”

              The underlying intention fosters a culture. If LRH wanted free thinking employees, he would have much, much less policy and the policy would have been advices instead and they would carry the intention of help and advice rather than command.

            2. My understanding of what happened was that he found he was “building the world with broken straws” and that the staff he had needed lots of policy. This is again the point you and Maria were talking about – the fact that individuals bring their own personal culture to the framework.

            3. His lack of trust in others is obvious (also shows in that he couldn’t retain friendship). But that his method was to go down the scale instead of using his own proclaimed universal solvent to solve the situation seems hypocritical to me.

            4. In Dn 55, he says that even bullets are a communication. Communication and ARC go all up and down the scale.

        2. Nicely written. This brings me right on to what I have been thinking to add to my own post, namely what is taken for granted by someone. At least that seems to me to be the ultimate kind of framework, well built but invisible.

          One of fav saying is “What you teach is not what you preach but what you take for granted”

          So when I read about Scn from my standpoint with the things I take for granted I see one thing, but other who have experienced LRH see something else. and when he went ahead “preaching” he did it with another set of “granteds” than all of us …

          … and I think I see your point about Scn and Nazis …

          1. @Tor “At least that seems to me to be the ultimate kind of framework, well built but invisible.”

            This may be exactly what auditing, cognitive and all transformation type processes are addressing. The hidden framework.

        3. “If people’s attitudes are in the right place, they will make bad processes work. ” https://flipchartfairytales.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/culture-eats-strategy-and-it-will-eat-your-new-processes-too/

          No Geir, you are too kind. What you would get if you robotically and literally applied EVERY policy and strategy laid out in the OEC/FEBC to the letter would be so much confusion that there would be no organization. And that is what we are seeing now.

          I suspect that would be true of any set of policies / strategies and/or processes. In fact, this is a routine and debilitating problem in IT organizations and I’ve seen it myself many times:

          But consider what would happen if Marildi’s attitudes, assumptions and ambience was the underlying culture. Would she not make the process work in a good way by cherry picking the policies and would she not see this as a proper application of the policies? Even when presented with a black and white policy statement that she MUST apply all policies to the letter, she would still refuse to do it until she was driven out of the organization.

          This is why I say one cannot implement process changes and methods without implementing culture changes and methods of managing culture.

          1. As I said; My article on Hard Core to Soft Core.

            My point in the OP is that any advice will move people’s attitudes – and attitude -> behavior -> culture. So, be careful what you “advice for” 🙂

            And the users will tend to adopt the general sentiments of a framework – rather than make the best of it. And then… the OP.

            1. Agreed.

              Yes, so there must be guidelines for laying out guidelines, and there is a need for guidelines that intersect / clarify every point in the process in an overarching manner, inserting the general sentiment with which the process must be interpreted for the process to be maximally effective.

            2. 🙂

              I would rather opt for common sense.

              And remember: An army of telepathic geniuses need no command.

            3. “An army of telepathic geniuses need no command.”

              Are you sure about that?

              1. To direct with authority; give orders to.
              2. To have control or authority over; rule: a general who commands an army.
              3. To have at one’s disposal: a person who commands seven languages.
              4. To deserve and receive as due; exact: The troops’ bravery commanded respect.
              5. a. To exercise dominating, authoritative influence over: “He commands any room he enters” (Stephen Schiff). b. To dominate by physical position; overlook: a mountain commanding the valley below.

            4. Right on that one. Intention is the commanding flow.

      1. Yes, I see your point. And yes, I realize that you know this. BUT I am not so sure about the real power of a process to shift a culture much without directly addressing the underlying culture. I believe you are right that certain processes enable certain cultures i.e. they have a natural affinity and tend in particular directions. But case in point, the current C of S routinely IGNORES the Way to Happiness and yet it too is “scripture.” I would place WTH at the top of the process as the culture maker and have all policy interpreted against that. It appears that DM places Simon Bolivar at the top of the process as the culture maker and interprets all policy against that. There is no process in either Simon Bolivar or WTH — these are culture makers.

        1. My article tackles your point and the OP – everything on that scale influences everything else.

          As for TWTH – it is not Green on White and thus is not seen as a dictation from LRH.

          1. And that is one of the truly bizarre aspects of the current Church of Scientology.

        2. That’s a good observation, I can see what you mean. I looked at your links and that helped bring me closer to speed on culture v. structure.

  18. @ Chris, in reply to https://isene.me/2012/08/25/culture#comment-22372

    “Sorry”, you say? Don’t be silly, my friend. That was no “rant” but an admirable willingness and capability to express some of your innermost views and your overall worldview. And not boring at all. It was really well said, where you excel as usual.

    Much if it I happen to agree with. In some basic respects, though, my own view is very different. I don’t take the viewpoint that we have a small, small place in the universe and that the thing to do is to accept our insignificance as a fact well beyond any power to do otherwise. The basic under these two views of ours I see as this: you consider the physical universe as senior and I see it the other way around.

    In essence, I am in agreement with the philosophical idea that what we “put there” is what then IS there. And not because I would “like it to be that way” or because I’ve bought someone else’s notion to that effect. It’s because I SEE that it is that way from my own experience – not experiences in any grand “OT” sense but in the ordinary experiences in life. Even if the physical universe turns out to be an objective one after all, I would venture to say that it is “objective” to the current occupants but that its creation ultimately was/is caused by the bigger, all inclusive, “us”.

    The analogy I’ve used lately of the unique “tint” of glasses we each view through goes even further – i.e. without “glasses” period, we wouldn’t see the universe at all as those glasses are in fact what create it (at least ultimately so as per what I was saying in the above paragraph). Each of us has our own unique “tint”, in great part as a result of what has been and is imposed on us (as I believe you would contend) but I say – not entirely so. There is as well the factor of free will / free choice / creative ability, which is in the end the factor determining all others.

    And ultimately, I believe that Scientology can lead in a direction where we have as much choice, as much free will, as we desire. (Did you notice how “quickly” I brought the subject back to the topic we were on? Longest TR 4 in history. :D)

    You said, “I do think that mastering one’s own mind is a sensible goal – maybe a relatively necessary goal if I am going to live well and happily”. And it seems clear to me that on that level of reality we do agree, and I believe that the mastering would apply to the physical universe itself as well as to the significances, the meanings laid on top.

    So now, speaking of mastering one’s own mind – to be honest, Chris, you seem to vacillate between quite positive statements about the workability of the tech and just the opposite of that. But more to the point, the “specific questions” of mine you asked for would come into play with regard to the mastering. The question is, what (specifically, now ;)) do you find unworkable about the tech, as well as what specifically do you find untenable about the philosophy, besides your disagreement about the ultimate goal of OT? Note – this is not to trade subjective viewpoints, but to look at Scn from a level of reason. Okay, buddy? 🙂

    1. p.s. Reading that over, I want to add that the first part of my post wasn’t just a TR 4 but a response in kind to your open communication. And I wanted to say thanks for that, and for going to the trouble for me. 🙂

      1. I’ve started and stopped this answer a couple times, couldn’t express to my own satisfaction what I wanted to say. A few of these things that I find myself unable to communicate are:
        1. That we all seem to share this labyrinth and none of us are in precisely the same space-time, which is a quantitative quality of the universe.
        2. This deep yearning for understanding for me is rooted in a type of gravity that has mapped onto our personalities until it seems like a personal quality rather than a physical property.
        3. Vacillation: We all do this. It is as much a part of existence as any other thing. Not to vacillate is to rigor, to stiffen. It has its uses but seems to have to be overcome – the stiffness needs to be dissolved in order to be more fluid. Is being more fluid good? That’s all the language I could come up with just then.
        4. Holding One’s Position In Space: A clever delusion. One can no more “hold” their position in space than they can “move.”
        5. Explaining to another how THEY are; what THEY are like; what they THINK is the heart of religion and is useful because it gives insight into the evaluator’s mind rather than the subject of the evaluator’s evaluation.
        6. The effort to categorize people for me seems to be an effort to keep track of everything, and effort to create stiffness in the world so that things don’t change so fast. I’m currently working on why we all seem to be operating at approximately the same mental-speed. By this I mean that there is so very very much faster and slower speeds to operate at that I wonder if there is a grander purpose behind this? The speed of light maintains or tries to maintain a constant velocity and I think that we do too. Is it in this way that we are synchronous? So that we are real to one another? We are all wow’d! by the athlete who runs fast or jumps high and yet mathematically, he is “moving” at practically almost exactly the same speed as everyone else. When we describe “slow as molasses in January” we are really describing ourselves.
        7. Chris “thinks he is a meat-body” or acts like an old alley cat is not clever and stops way short of covering it. I have many more queer aspects that can be mocked with better humor than that!
        8…For instance, I am thinking of a new dating system (not for lovers but for “time”). Even as a true believer, I never liked the “after dianetics” dating system, so I thought if I start at the Big Bang and taking the first 13.75 billion years for granted and begin writing the date, what would be the date? Should I use the word years at all or find a physical constant such as the nuclear decay of Cesium133?
        9. Which brings up “date locate” in Dianetics. Was this of value to you? I mean was it important? One date that I pulled out of my head (or ass, I forget!) seemed to correlate with possibly matching historical events happening at that time but I’m not sure how the date was important to me. I was being ripped and kidnapped from the ones I loved and that seemed significant but forcing me to locate the date, I dunno about that.

        So I went on too long. Again.

      2. You are never trouble. Your posts are welcome relief from the usual mindless fodder we deal with in our working lives: politics, sexiness, eatingness, symbols, sacrifice, and TGIF.

        By the way, I am going camping tomorrow so may not be present until Tuesday . . .

        1. You probably need a vacation (so many ways you could interpret that! :D).

          Btw, was “sexiness” a typo, an unintentional alter-is, or some sort of deliberate comment? LOL)

          Have fun tomorrow!

    2. 🙂 well said old girl.. Chris have not made up his mind ore have clear reality which he is.. human meat body or spiritual entety… he leans toward meat body since meat body is very real… solid water that is…hehehe and it is a present time experience, Not a spiritual entety because there is the lack of missing experiences.
      Only experiences as in recall make one understand that one is the creator not the created..
      Chris is what i understand you are writting of and Marildi is pointing out. this is your own evaluation..so dont take offense please..

    3. Marildi: “and I believe that the mastering would apply to the physical universe itself as well as to the significances, the meanings laid on top.”

      Chris: One of my points is that while keeping my mind open, I don’t particular agree with this cavalier attitude toward the physical universe. I feel that many have accomplished anything spiritually that Scientologists have accomplished, but I see no reason to believe that there are OT’s mastering and subjugating the laws of this physical universe in which we live. Mouses can roar and butterflies can flap their wings anywhere they like, but neither they nor countless waring civilizations are being noticed around the universe or making changes such as “clearing the planet.” Bloated ego is responsible for thoughts, then attitudes, then cultures that hold these grandiose thoughts dear. I don’t expect to get much agreement with this but I was only trying to express an opinion which has reformed at the end of a long life lived.

      I would more nearly believe that there are universes aware of our own and sitting all-but-in the exact space-time as we now occupy. There is plenty of room and all we need to synchronize with them are small movements of the clock-speed adjustment knob to make them appear. No travelling to far away planets needed. Space-time is tricky.

      1. Well, there are more and more research studies that show some pretty esoteric psi (paranormal) abilities that materialists can’t explain.

        But as for other universes and different space-times, I agree that we should be open-minded to other realities than this particular physical universe reality that LRH limited his research to.

        1. Actually LRH spoke quite a bit about the concept Chris posted about, in some Congress lectures, that there are other universes running just out of synch with “ours”, and that a slight change of speed would shift one right into another universe. LRH sounded like this was quite real to him.

      2. Chris “”but I see no reason to believe that there are OT’s mastering and subjugating the laws of this physical universe in which we live. Mousses can roar and butterflies can flap their wings anywhere they like, but neither they nor countless warring civilizations are being noticed around the universe or making changes such as “clearing the planet.” Bloated ego is responsible for thoughts, then attitudes, then cultures that hold these grandiose thoughts dear. I don’t expect to get much agreement with this but I was only trying to express an opinion which has reformed at the end of a long life lived.””
        You blowing hot air in the form of Opinions, Assumption, You want to see with eyes those changes, you want warriors here to enforce, you want solidity to change if and that would happen that would be real to you.. Chris to have and to see changes you need to change first..
        Without you being transformed by your own need and let go of your narrow view point your assumptions opinions you never can and never will see the different realities around you which is there and real.

        1. Understanding that each person walks their own path means just that. I’ve never challenged what is real to you because I understand this datum.

          But if you say that you can put 10 lbs. of potatoes in a 5lb. bag, I might ask you to show me.

          I thought you agreed that a person can’t have a wrong point of view, but here you are telling me both “what I think” and “what I ought to think.” You may be thinking this is a valid thing to do but I think it is a mistake.

          This is an example of a culture fostered by Scientology where there is plenty of authority, rightnesses and wrongnesses, and judgement toward the opinions of people. So much so that in the hardcore COS the billion year executives cannot even convince Miscavige that they are on his side. This is a culture where there infinite numbers of ways of doing things wrongly and only one way of doing things rightly. I don’t think this is an anomaly, I think this is Scientology. So in this context, whose viewpoint is narrow?

          For Marildi, does this shed more of the light you were asking for regarding my basic disagreements with core Scientology, or did I miss your mark?

          1. Chris i am challenging your thoughts, your reality, as the same way as you do. One cant read something but not evaluating it the same time.. You put your opinions in a international blog which is read by many.. Marildi not long back has read me the right act how to debate and what are the rules.. She was right. If I say i am right those are my view point and no other beings. mine oply. you right yours so I ask to give a example or band your view, put it under different light.

            ‘ Chris “‘but I see no reason to believe that there are OT’s mastering and subjugating the laws of this physical universe in which we live. Mousses can roar and butterflies can flap their wings anywhere they like, but neither they nor countless warring civilizations are being noticed around the universe or making changes such as “clearing the planet.”

            as I said the above those thought are assmptions and if you were willing to stand outside OF THAT NARROW VIEW, you might see different. Having one view point on one subject is “””ONE VIEW POINT ONLY””cant get any narrower than that.
            So just how many view points could exist on the same assumption-idea-thought- consideration?

            Chris:”’This is an example of a culture fostered by Scientology where there is plenty of authority, rightnesses and wrongnesses, and judgement toward the opinions of people””” Y

            You are talking about me how I expressed my reality my views , and there you go You express YOUR REALITY ABOUT EVERBODY UNDER ONE HAT..
            Are you so different? So go by the rules of debating as Marildy outlined it. We do contenualy evaluate as we receive information, if that would be not true than you would not be pissed off, right? saints we are not,not on this planet..

            1. I was referring to your comments about what I think, how I think it, and what I ought to think. I’ve been brow-beaten by the best and I am not “pissed off.” I am writing what’s on my mind.

            2. communication-debating is all about ; “””what I think, how I think it, and what I ought to think. “””
              If there is other way to debate thoughts -items, point me toward that different debate form and i be heading that way to open my narrow way of knowing how to debate..
              you were not pissed off? well I wonder who was the dragon whos hot fiery breath singed hairs of of my cheast..

            3. Elizabeth, I think Chris was trying to say that you were commenting on what HE thinks and how he thinks and what he ought to think. He didn’t mean that you (or anybody) shouldn’t say what you think. That’s what I understood anyway.

            4. If he say so he must be right, I make lots of mistake reading into things.

          2. In the culture of the CoS as it exists today, there is no way of doing anything rightly. That is the defining characteristic of today’s CoS. No matter what you do, you are wrong.

  19. Chris, I’ll reply here (more room) to your comment at https://isene.me/2012/08/25/culture#comment-22428

    Chris, thanks for all the interesting originations. And I always find your writing in itself to be very entertaining, as you know, including the humor whenever you throw some in. Like this time – mocking our mocking with: “I have many more queer aspects that can be mocked with better humor than that!” 😀

    I’ll comment on the points of disagreement with Scientology that I recognized as being such. First I’ll say that on technical points especially, I may or may not be trained well enough, or recall my training well enough, to do real justice to your questions. But I’ll do my best in relaying the concepts I have and maybe someone else will chime in too when needed.

    On your point about “date locate”, I am certain of this much – if you felt you were being “forced”, then it was simply out-tech, specifically out TRs. Your experience is a good example of how pcs are left with BPC, huge amounts sometimes. A good field auditor would be able to clean up all such BPC coming from sessions.

    A philosophical point you mentioned: “The effort to categorize people for me seems to be an effort to keep track of everything, and effort to create stiffness in the world so that things don’t change so fast.”

    Like any effort to categorize, I think it’s an effort to put all the bits and pieces of existence into some sort of organized pattern so as to be able to grasp them better mentally and thereby have some sort of control over them, and also in order to be able to communicate about them with others – a very necessary part of existence in a shared universe. No one and no system is without “categorizing”. Without doing such, it would be like your TV screen experiments – nothing but snow to perceive. This was what I meant in my comment above when I referred to the added significances laid over the purely physical, without which life would have no “meaning” in every sense of the word. It would be nothing but a meaningless confusion.

    The above would also apply to what you said here: “5. Explaining to another how THEY are; what THEY are like; what they THINK is the heart of religion and is useful because it gives insight into the evaluator’s mind rather than the subject of the evaluator’s evaluation”. All systems of thought have their constructs and metaphors.

    Another disagreement you stated was this: “Holding One’s Position In Space: A clever delusion. One can no more “hold” their position in space than they can ‘move’.”

    You may be looking at that in the wrong frame of reference. One thing I could say is that this phrase is often used metaphorically. But more literally, in relation to the physical particles all around one – including those MEST particles in one’s own and others’ minds – the phrase implies that one has the power to be self-determined and not just a “leaf in the wind” effect point.

    So I too went on too long. Again. 😉

  20. @ Maria (2012-08-30 AT 18:31): “But consider what would happen if Marildi’s attitudes, assumptions and ambience was the underlying culture. Would she not make the process work in a good way by cherry picking the policies and would she not see this as a proper application of the policies? Even when presented with a black and white policy statement that she MUST apply all policies to the letter, she would still refuse to do it until she was driven out of the organization.”

    Thanks for the compliment, Maria!

    I think I’ve basically expressed the idea of underlying culture when I’ve said it’s a matter of intention as to how LRH policy is applied. But, as discussed between you and Geir, the framework itself has a bearing on the matter. And by emphasizing the importance of intention in applying admin tech, I don’t mean to say that the tech itself doesn’t have within it provisions for a flexible interpretation of any given policy whatsoever. LRH states specifically that policy is to be interpreted against expansion and actual situations. (“The Structure of Organization, What is Policy?” HCO PL 13 Mar 65)

    Even with KSW 1, the “strict interpretation” that has been done with it, has been a misinterpretation, IMO.

    1. p.s. The quote Valkov posted above where LRH said that “sheer policy is poor stuff, as it seeks to make a datum stand where a being should be” makes it clear that one has to THINK with policy – which takes us back to the individuals involved and their culture, and thus how they think. I believe that is why policy states that execs need to be auditor trained and processed (which was majorly not the case and still isn’t). A culture of training and processing would certainly have been one that would have worked, IMO.

      1. Sorry, but there are so many inconsistencies in the Admin Tech, it’s not even funny. That quote against Making Admin Work or that quote against the Ethics Tech absolutist policies or the ones where he writes in big letters and exclamation marks, etc. That body of knowledge – as a body of knowledge – is indefensible. Cherry picking is the only way to go. And if one does not Really think with the Admin Tech, one is bound to screw up. It is scattered with mines.

        1. I basically don’t disagree with your viewpoint. I’ve only said that policy COULD be applied sanely, in spite of any reverse of it that LRH added to it in later years. There’s also the viewpoint that some people have expressed that has to do with such policies as “Making Admin Work” very possibly not having been written by LRH. Likewise with the Ethics Tech that has in large part been grossly alter-ised by others, at least in application and even in some re-writing. Anyway, the bottom line is that none of us has the full story. I’m trying to leave my mind open.

          1. p.s. You referred to “Making Admin Work” policy and I wrote the same, but in my comment about it I had in mind the PL “Keeping Admin Working”. You may have meant that one too.

            1. I would like to add some information/viewpoints still not covered in this thread.

              • According to some sources LRH’s “reversal” started after LRH discovered the BTs.

              He found out that no matter how good a person is, s/he could be influenced by BTs & entities. So, even is somebody is cleaned from evil intentions, it could be influenced by BTs/entities’ evil intentions. So, he started to behave and write policies accordingly.

              • Another source of LRH’s “reversal” was his own case.

              Otto Roos was, during some time, in charge of LRH’s auditing. According to Otto Roos:
              LRH has more Out Tech on his case than ten people combined. He gave us a technology towards Immortality, but he denied himself the only thing which could have saved him: Auditing.

              ★ IMO, we might enjoy LRH’s awesome Scn tech, we thank LRH for the tech, and we curse because of LRH’s “mistakes”; however, we have the opportunity to benefit ourselves with LRH’s tech because he sacrificed himself for our benefit.

              • Another probably source of LRH’s “reversal” was governmental parapsychological warfare (PW).

              Parapsychological mind control (PMC), as covered by Maria, is only a part of PW.
              According to a guy who use to work on PW research & development (R&D) in the USA, he had permission to write only about remote viewing; he is not allowed to talk about the rest, which is 99%.
              PW R&D was started in the Soviet Union, before the USA started its own R&D. If you are outrage by the USA experiments, IMO, you will be more outraged by the Soviets experiments, if the public is ever going to know something about it. PW R&D is alive in both USA & Russia right now, and they have a limited collaborative R&D program. IMO, there are more countries doing this kind of secret R&D.
              Parapsychological attack (PA), a part of PW, can make somebody sick, physically and mentally. Also, it can be used as a booster when applying PMC. PA is an old art belonging to the so called black magic and nowadays black parapsychology.

            2. Makes me think of what DM needs and that’s auditing, sec checking or even ethics and find out who he really is.

            3. Yes, Ferenc. This was a big part of what the Soviets and the CIA were working on throughout the cold war, it was called MK ULTRA by the CIA. Its particular emphasis was on psi abilities that they wanted to use for warfare — surveillance, thought manipulation, psychic invasion, telepathy, etc. God only knows what these highly classified programs are called now.

              They made considerable progress with psychic tampering through the use of developed psi abilities, by the use of electronic wave frequencies (microwave, low frequency, etc.) to disrupt and re-pattern thought and psychic energy, and de-patterning through the use of invasive drugs, pain, shock to break the individual down into dissociated entities that could be individually programmed and controlled. They used the information from the OT levels to further their programs, they probably in possession of these materials as early as the mid 1960s, perhaps even earlier.

              Their disinformation campaign was heavily used to discredit anyone who attempted to work in this field making them a laughingstock or using the black techniques so far developed so as to clear the field. Example: the army is currently working on electrode helmets to replace radio transmission with thought transmission — its not not sci-fi — its a millions of dollars project that is well on its way to reality.

            4. Maria,

              > “Example: the army is currently working on electrode helmets to replace radio transmission with thought transmission — its not not sci-fi — its a millions of dollars project that is well on its way to reality.”

              This is done with pattern recognition (*) of the landscape of small electrical brain’s activity. So the telepathic reception itself is done on an unconscious level, and the helmet-computer would be the interface between unconscious and conscious levels.

              Unfortunately, a similar technique is currently used in the propaganda, advertising and movie industries. They show different perceptics (images & sounds) & plots to experimental subjects and through the helmet a computer (with targeted pattern recognition software) picks up the perceptics & plots with maximum unconscious impact.

              This is another way of mind control.

              It adds to the unsustainable consumer society (which you pointed out in Marty’s blog).

              It also adds to the current society degradation. All this sadistics and bloodthirsty movies, etc., are having big success because they are tested at an unconcious level, and we know what is in the unconsciousness (ours & associated entities’s implants, engrams, etc).

              (*) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pattern_recognition

            5. I should add that there are some bright spots on the horizon as well, coming from the military’s efforts to ensure the vitality of their soldiers. They called it 1st Earth Battalion.

              Here is the field manual they used for 1st Earth Battalion

              Click to access field_manual.pdf

              And the website: http://www.firstearthbattalion.org/

              It seems clear to me that they are not involved in the extremely degraded experimentation and methods of MK ULTRA.

            6. @Ferenc, 2ndxmr and Maria: These are fabulous, informative posts. Very much appreciated.

              @Geir and everybody: I won’t be doing much posting for a while because of a family matter I need to attend to, but in the meantime I’ll keep up with reading the comments here and there. Back with you all soon. 🙂

            7. Please hurry back as I will miss reading you as other I’m sure. 🙂

          2. I think it is a shade of bad form to discredit policies and tech that one doesn’t like or that seems inconsistent as “not written by LRH”. With some, this goes as far as claiming that LRH was replaced by a “doppelganger” from the time they cease to agree with what he writes. It seems clear enough that LRH was in almost absolute control of the Scientology operations up until close to his death. That he wouldn’t have noticed significant changes published under his name is quite unlikely. That he wouldn’t approve of the direction of the church in the late 70’s and early 80’s is likewise unlikely. I believe this tendency to discredit writings not to one’s liking is borne out of a glorification of LRH the man and that anything that seems “unsaintly” must obviously not have come from him.

            1. If you’re directing all that at me, or even most of it, I think it’s more than a shade unfair of you. My stance has not been to generally discredit policies and tech I don’t like. In fact, I’ve said quite a bit about the “reverse” that occurred in admin tech and, in case that was missed, I remind you that I went on even longer about the possible reasons for such a reverse that LRH may have had.

              Other than ethics tech policies that were altered after his death (and I believe this has been well documented by both wiseoldgoat and Steve Hall), I mentioned only HCO PL “Keeping Admin Working” as possibly not written by LRH – that one because it was issued in June 1986, months after his death, and also because I personally don’t think the writing is like LRH’s. None of that proves anything, I know, just as almost none of the reasoning of critics proves anything, from what I have observed.

              For example, it’s not at all as clear to me as it is to you that LRH was “in almost absolute control of the Scientology operations up until close to his death”. Perhaps – only perhaps – I would take your viewpoint if I had read all that you have. But on the other hand, I would wonder that you as much as I are looking at data through your own prior convictions.

              The most unfair thing, if you are doing this, is to make nothing of my admiration of the most brilliant body of work I know of and my use of that viewpoint as the basis of my thinking, by placing it in the light of mere glorification of LRH as a saint.

              Do you know of any body of work that compares to core Scn philosophy and tech?

            2. Marildi
              “Do you know of any body of work that compares to core Scn philosophy and tech?”
              You are right, on the true point of the debate is the above question.
              The rest don’t make much difference in the long run whatever LRH has done how he conducted his life public or private it do not matter if he braided his eyebrows or not.
              Is the Tech works?…. Yes.. yes… definitely do… if it would not than how come so many are ARCB’ken because they can’t continue-or believe that they cant?

            3. Well – the main points of my comment was not directed at you – only the point of the “Keeping Admin Working”-policy. And I have seen plenty of examples in discussions on the Net where people throw the “not written by LRH”-card in a debate. Mostly to ditch the other’s argument without much of evidence.

            4. And no, I don’t have any comparisons for Scientology, really. But that is rather beside the point.

            5. I’m sure it’s true that the “not written by LRH” card has been played just to ditch another’s basic argument. But my comment on “Keeping Admin Working” wasn’t really my main point in our discussion. I was replying to your remark rejecting the quote of LRH’s that Valkov posted by comparing it to that PL. The not unlikely possibility that it wasn’t LRH or, for that matter, that LRH was not in control of management in the later years I base
              on several things – including the fact that DM was the via for comm between LRH and management, as well as the other significant point that plenty of policy has been bald-facedly altered or blatantly ignored after his death – including even “Technical Degrades”. What would stop DM from putting LRH’s name on a PL that would put him in even more control?

              On this last reply of yours – the fact that there are no comparisons for Scientology should not be beside the point, IMO. It’s a matter of evaluating importances, as I see it. This fact of no comparison has been a big part of my evaluation of where LRH was coming from – it tells me what kind of person he was and what his ongoing basic intentions undoubtedly were. This isn’t the first time I’ve stressed core Scn as the main thing I would like to discuss, especially with those who criticize “Scientology” where they include the core of it.

              And playing different cards just to ditch the other’s argument goes for both sides, I’m sure you would agree. 🙂

            6. In one of the exposes on scientology-cult.com, it was divulged that many issues were compiled by staff members, even in the pre 70s period. This is a form of cherry picking.

              The events that lead to the obvious change of attitude of LRH from 1963 forward are as clear as mud and the facts surrounding the change may very well have been very carefully “adjusted” along the way by the Guardian’s Office, the government agencies wishing to cover up their own actions and subsequent agencies both government and Church.

              Over the past year I have been researching information regarding government and defense projects related to mind control. It is a truly ugly past. As best I have been able to tell, Scientology definitely got caught up in this miserable scenario. It is impossible to tell if it was done with or without LRH’s knowledge or consent, whether he was a rogue intelligence operative, driven crazy by CIA mind control methods, simply a formidable opponent, an operative himself, etc. There is no way of knowing at all.

              What is clear is that Hal Puthoff ( who worked for Naval Intelligence and NSA) somehow was able to do all of the Scientology services through to original OT 7, starting in the mid 60s and finishing in 1971, whereupon he headed up PSI experiments at SRI with CIA involvement. The CIA came to be in possession of the original OT materials, using them without permission from the copyright holder. In 1979, the original OT levels were withdrawn, and have never been re-introduced. They were to do with developing psi faculties.

              It has now been established and documented that the CIA had been involved in the most vicious human experiments ever conceived under the umbrella MK-ULTRA. They destroyed most of their documentation when they came under investigation for their atrocities and they have been hard at work hiding their activities of the past. They do have the resources and the motivation to thoroughly obscure what went on and they have been caught red-handed doing just that. They have also been caught producing and spreading disinformation wherever they are engaged in cover-ups.

              Having studied a wide array of materials on this subject, and being a dedicated anti-conspiracy person, I have been shocked beyond all reason by what I have learned. There may not a conspiracy but there sure as hell is atrocity and cover-up.

              Even if all of this is just coincidence that CIA was heavily involved in mind control experimentation and PSI studies, it is clear that the fundamental approach of Scientology shifted radically during that mid 1960s period, culminating in the most outrageous reversals over the next 40 years, with the Church of Scientology itself administering processes that are chillingly similar to the CIA methods from MK ULTRA, although much, much less abusive in nature in that drugs and ECT are not used in the C of S. However, deprivation, dehumanization, isolation and other physically invasive means are used in the RPF’s hole according to people who have been there. And those are key elements of CIA mind control methods that long predate any RPF of the Church.

              Here is a summary that is largely accurate based on my own research: https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/2003-federal-cover-up-of-scientology-in-military-intel.44393/

              So… cherry picking is definitely in order because it is impossible to tell what the hell happened, whether the entire organization was subverted by subverting LRH or LRH simply went sideways or was always sideways. The more time that passes, the harder it will be to even find out until eventually the entire history is re-written!

              Does this excuse LRH? Maybe. Maybe not. I don’t think I’ll ever know and I’m pretty done with trying to pin all this down.

            7. Excellent answer.

              I will add that I don’t believe in excusing people. I believe in getting the truth out – whatever it may be. And it certainly doesn’t have to align with what I happen to believe in at the moment.

            8. Geir: “I believe in getting the truth out – whatever it may be.”

              Me too. And if it turns out that LRH was not the formidable opponent I lean towards believing but a dupe or even some sort of anti-hero, you can rest assured that I will accept it too.

            9. I lean toward it not being black or white at all – I think this is more complex than that with several colors and lots of shades. He wasn’t just good or just bad or just good, then just bad or some such. I believe he was a complex individual – very able and sane in some areas and time periods, less sane and able in other areas/time periods.

            10. Wow, awesome work, Maria. I gave up trying to pin it all down early on, way before others did – and way, way before you did. You deserve a ton of credit. Thanks for the tip on a link you feel is accurate based on your research. That’s one thing I’m going to have to read now.

              And I think you’re right that it will take the entire history re-written to know the truth, if that can ever be done. But it might be, since so many people are so interested in all things Scientology.

            11. Marildi – perhaps there are a few left from the mid 1960s who actually know and have documentation, but that really isn’t very likely. These events happened 30 to 40 years ago under a veil of threat and secrecy. As it is, the CIA and the offending organizations have gone to a lot of trouble to make it impossible to establish the truth and have already re-written history by spreading disinformation and destroying documents, starting in the late 60s / early 1970s. What documents remain will only be released long after anyone in current government can be implicated or damaged. It was only accidental that a number of MK ULTRA documents were not destroyed in their 1970 purges when they came under investigation for the first time. They thought they had destroyed all of them. Just look up MK Ultra on wikipedia for a quick summary.

              I think the best we can do is retrieve what we can from the wreckage with a VERY critical attitude.

              I am very much a proponent at this time of a complete sort out of the materials in an open source way. LRH can be credited but ONLY if his earlier sources and co-workers on research are also credited, good and bad. I would not put it in the realm of science however, because science has invariably becomes a tool of those who would enslave and destroy. Had I not done my studies of grievous and heinous actions of government agencies using science for the most extreme and vicious atrocities possible and had I not studied the mechanics of the amorality of multi-national corporations, I would not say this. But I have, and it tells me that however it is done it must be done so that abusive entities cannot seize the information and hold it for their own twisted purposes. If they can, they will and they will until there comes a day when this black miasma of hidden vicious intent is dissolved. This at least explains to me why LRH insisted on taking the religious route. It kept the likes of NSA and CIA and their cohorts out of the picture long enough at least to get some progress accomplished without it becoming the secret, and classified eyes-only property of the Department of Defense,

              Have you watched A Century of Self yet?

            12. Ah, I see my misunderstanding where you wrote, “The more time that passes, the harder it will be to even find out until eventually the entire history is re-written!” Now I see what you meant by “re-written” – i.e. alter-is’ed from what actually took place (the usual meaning of “to re-write history”, duh), rather than meaning written again but correctly this time. Silly me, I should have known you would not be that overly-optimistic, or naïve. I too was thinking that it would be pretty impossible to do.

              What you mention about having an open-source sort-out of the materials (love that idea!) is much more realistic – and needed, especially with the tech. And I agree with your comments on the pitfalls of science, although I’m not at all as in the know about it you are (but who is? :)). Agree as well that the only failsafe safeguard is “the day when this black miasma of hidden vicious intent is dissolved”.

              I’ve read a bit about MK Ultra (having known someone who had a friend in high school who evidently was taught something about its methods by her ex-military father). And I have thought that MK Ultra must be the source of what LRH was running into when he came across an amazing number of pcs who had been PDH’d. That data was in SOS, 1951 – along with the statement that only auditing could detect it. If the CIA wasn’t after him by then they undoubtedly were so after that book was published.

              I did start the “Century of Self” series but didn’t get too far yet. You must think it’s really vital to know that data.

            13. @Maria. Terrifically accurate comments and assessments but as more of a “conspiracy-agnostic” I am not so quick to find fault with science as a whole. While you’ve pointed out one entirely despicable program, in my own background the scientists and researchers I studied with were typically far more honest and ethical than the greatest percentage of Scientologists I later became aquainted with.

              Part of that goes to the “culture” Geir was talking about, and I was reluctant to comment on my own take on the culture of Scientologists as it is rather negative and easily passed off as “high-brow”. The fact is, what I saw when I entered Scientology was a group of well meaning but largely uneducated individuals, few of whom were successful in the outside world. That was especially true of the staff. Over time I came to the conclusion that the general characteristic of the lasting Scientologist was an eagerness to “find out” and that the general characteristic of the worst that would call themselves Scientologists was the desire for the opportunity of power.

              To be succinct about one point, what I generally saw as the distinguishing point between the types was the ablity to read policy and read between the lines of actions and pick the wheat from the chaff. This is in accordance with what Marildi has also noted.

              In the case of some staff and public it was the self-empowering chaff that they were prone to collect. What’s more, public and staff that stuck to the chaff (pardon the rhyme) were often the most trouble causing and retaliatory when they thought they’d been wronged. So, I would have to say, the observation that there was a propensity towards empowerment by being able to use policy as a righteous put-down (essentially a ser-fac in operation) created an unsafe climate that was visible within days of entering the org system.

              On the other hand, already being sold on Dianetics as being a quasi-scientific route out, and being very pleased when I saw the codification of the grade chart that ended with OT, I was willing to work with the org system of that time while maintaining my own measurement of individuals on an individual basis.

              My point here is that I was able to contrast the activities of a non-academic group against an academic group and make a valid comparison of veracity and capability. On the one hand, the capability of scientists was substantially greater and the veracity level was equivalent to the best of staff, but on the other hand, the scientists of that time had no interest in Dianetics and only the fringe were speculating on the spiritual nature of man.

              Further to the point of an argument against “bad science”, while I knew too little about Dianetics and Scientology at that early time to create a convincing argument for the scientific study of Scientology, years of training – and sufficient processing to relieve me of a significant portion of my bank – led me to see how Scientology could be introduced to the academic and scientific worlds and how it might thrive there and benefit all by becoming “scientifically acceptable”.

              As to what “dark science” might do with the data, there is one safeguard in the whole subject that precludes extensive misuse: the commission of an overt shrinks the space and ability of the being committing the overt, so it is unlikely that the creation of a formidable “dark side” force is possible. This aspect is probably what caused MK Ultra to fail.

              Bearing that in mind, if the approach of science is grounded in the ethical study and use of Scientology, I expect considerable progress could be made in the validation of the data. Towards the defense of that statement, I have seen many pronouncements over the years by scientists where the data was exactly what LRH had found years earlier, so I expect that the theses (thesis, plural) of these studies could well have come from unreferenced, unacknowledged Scientology.

              I see no reason that science cannot co-exist with at least the independent field. Definitley a good set of ground rules would be necessary but I believe we’ve learned enough over the years to establish those rules. Conversely, to rule out science forever as a candidate for cooperative advance will mean Scientologists will continue to be looked on as unevolving, irrational cultists practicing a myth-worship. In the long term that will be completely fatal as the transfer of knowledge from those who have it to those who don’t is just not happening. (How many new Cl XIIs are being made?) We may have slowed down the staggering death rate by cancer – almost assuredly due to black-Scientology – by distancing ourselves from corporate-Scientology, but full or partial amnesia awaits most everyone who will be “enjoying” a rebirth and that’s only going to get worse as the mechanisms to clean them up disappear with the aging field.

              I would say that it’s clearly time to consider a new paradigm and that paradigm must consider science as a partner, not a foe.

            14. @2ndxmr: These are all excellent points and I feel that you have made an accurate description of conditions in Scientology. I have noticed a number of principles found in Scientology surfacing in the sciences over the last 20 years, and most particularly in the last several years.

              The paradigm problem that I am seeing is not really to do with science itself, it is to do with the commercialization of science in terms of patents, trademarks and copyrights.

              I have learned that the judicial system has allowed that living tissue, processes, and research can be patented. So now we have the unlovely situation of corporations suing farmers for holding back seed for their next year’s crops — the corporations hold the patents to the seeds and they do not grant permission to use the seeds for more than one season. Or suing farmers who are found to have their “breed” of plant in their fields even though the plants themselves propagated into those fields and cross bred with existing plants. Same with stem cells, genome, etc. The patent grab situation is exacerbated by the grant and funding process. From the government side, the constant political and war machine maneuvering results in the subordination of scientific research to defense and population control efforts. And on and on it goes.

              Perhaps it is a simple matter of creating a non-profit entity with an open source mandate BUT even then there are those who will rush to the patent office or attempt to seize ownership of that which should never be owned and that is the core truths that can serve to liberate the spirit of man. Currently the only protection from this process is in the arena of religion. I see nothing wrong with applying scientific principles to religious matters. Why not? After all, it is a methodology when you strip out the “scientism” and materialistic assumptions. But it would have to be on the basis that the materials are available to ALL regardless of race, creed, religion, etc., not just the property and right of one particular religion. If you leave this type of material in the realm of science, then it becomes the property of the medical / psychology machine and they will immediately attempt to control every aspect of it, the education, the licensing and so on! And once again, it is not available to people except on a controlled basis. Arggh!

              There does seem to be a growing body of people who understand this dilemma and perhaps out of that there will come a paradigm that can serve instead of enslave and exclude and be put to use for the profit making, political control or war machine.

            15. @Maria “Currently the only protection from this process is in the arena of religion”

              The problem with that solution is that like a marriage-of-convenience it enters in a lie, the sham of which is easier to see than a false marriage.

              Secretly (or not) we view Scientology as a philosophical construct while putting on a public pretense that it is a religion. While I think it is very arguable that it is a religion, the closer truth is that it is beyond religion as religion is inherently faith-based, truth-dictated, while Scientology as a philosophy is action-based, truth-recoverable.

              The regrettable thing about Scientology becoming a religion was the inevitable dictatorial priesthood that emerged. That, we have found out, is more dangerous than a corporate patent grabber. Why? Because the arena of the courts is closed to us entirely. We have absolutely no legal means of challenging a DM. The internet gives us a voice but not one we can use to seek legal recourse. So that is what I see as a consequence of hiding behind the facade of a religion in order to protect the work: a dictatorial priesthood with self-serving interests. However, in opening it up I certainly agree that ownership and control must not be ceded to either the corporate or medical/psychiatric realms – but that is just another facet to address in this whole process.

              Can it be done? Yes, if there is enough grass-roots agreement and motivation. I expect it will be necessary to codify and address many points relating to the open-sourcing of Scientology, and I believe there are minds bright enough to accomplish that.

              That done, we will be able to operate outside the veil, the lie, and say – in truth – that this is a methodological philosophy that seeks the truth about existence.

            16. Again, 2ndxmr, all good points, particularly your point that what Scientology sought to address is beyond the scope of priesthood. This is what the Italian Supreme Court recognized for classifying it as a religion, “the liberation of the human spirit through the knowledge of the divine spirit residing within each human being.”

              As far as the religious cloaking aspect — that came from IRS tax codes governing Church status for the purpose of tax law. The IRS maintains a 14 point checklist of attributes of Churches, including things like: operates a Sunday School, has established places of worship, ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies, and so on. This criteria list is highly discriminatory against non-Christian religions. Thirty years ago, it was either conform to this criteria or be slammed out of existence, patented and absorbed by industry or government.

              IMO, there is no particular reason to interfere with that body of work called Scientology — it can and should be left intact, good and bad, and those that wish to use it as such in an independent fashion should be able to do that if they wish as their religious right. I wouldn’t even attempt a reform of the Church of Scientology at this point for I don’t think that is possible — I believe that what future it has is in the hands of the independents.

              The category that it fits into best is really metaphysics, a category that is no longer recognized by any government, relegated by re-definition to the same dumpster philosophy got thrown into in the interests of power, profit and politics.

              The etymology of Metaphysics: 1560s, plural of M.E. metaphisik, methaphesik (late 14c.), “branch of speculation which deals with the first causes of things,” from M.L. metaphysica, neuter plural of Medieval Gk. (ta) metaphysika, from Gk. ta meta ta physika “the (works) after the Physics,” title of the 13 treatises which traditionally were arranged after those on physics and natural sciences in Aristotle’s writings. The name was given c.70 B.C.E. by Andronicus of Rhodes, and was a reference to the customary ordering of the books, but it was misinterpreted by Latin writers as meaning “the science of what is beyond the physical.” See meta- + physics. The word originally was used in English in the singular; plural form predominated after 17c., but singular made a comeback late 19c. in certain usages under German influence.

              Meta: from Gk. meta (prep.) “in the midst of, in common with, by means of, in pursuit or quest of.”

              Wikipedia has an excellent article on this, covering as well what happened to the subject of metaphysics over time.

              At this time, most metaphysical studies are classified in the religion bin, a casualty of the “religion vs. science” polarity devolution.

              As regards Scientology, the weinie is the practice of auditing that was developed, which is an application of its metaphysical and spiritual principles and that is what industry, religion and politicals all wanted to grab, each for their own vested interests. So perhaps an educational and ongoing research facilities (and I do mean plural) would serve just fine and let people construct whatever religion, holistic, scientific, technological or psychological practice they want to from what they have learned. As I see it, that is already happening anyway. Consider the subject of integral science, for example. But I would add to the studies the underlying materials of Scientology itself — I believe LRH did a disservice by not clearly identifying and honoring the source materials he worked from.

            17. @ Maria “As regards Scientology, the weinie is the practice of auditing that was developed, which is an application of its metaphysical and spiritual principles and that is what industry, religion and politicals all wanted to grab, each for their own vested interests.”

              I’m actually suprised by that statement. I had no idea that these other entities considered the technology of auditing as valuable. However, considering how difficult it is to make a good auditor and considering how quickly a case degenerates when subjected to bad programming, bad C/S’ing and bad auditing, I seriously doubt any external organization (one with an ulterior motive) would have had much success in attempting to mis-use the technology.

              That said, if the future of the application of Scientology comes down to a categorization of the work, or the desired outcome of the work (OT) so as to make it distinct from the things it isn’t (it isn’t a religion in any similar context to any Judeo-Christian-Islamic sect, and I could argue that it isn’t metaphysics) then we have some interesting work to do. Considering, though, that corporate Scientology has a legal hold on the bulk of the works – effectively stopping medical / psychiatric / industrial-corporate encroachment – and yet seems incapable of shutting down a non-franchised field practice (ostensibly as the field auditor is just “practicing his religion”), we at least seem to have a comfort zone of time to work it all out, out here in the shadow of the big lie.

            18. I think saying that LRH was “in almost complete control” of the organizations of scientology is giving him far more omnipotence and omniscience than is warranted. No matter
              how bright, able, and “thetan-ish” he was, he was not all-knowing and all-seeing, much less “all-controlling”, any more than the President or CEO of any large entity comprising thousands of people in organizations all over the world. In fact, it appears to me the organizations were originally designed to be operated by intelligent, able, and self-determined people, and the accumulation of and increasing rigidity of “policies” were attempts to undercut the tendency of folks who had not duplicated the philosophy very well, to drive things sideways.

              This is in fact consistent with earlier views and practices of “designers of religious institutions and paths of self-development”, who always had an “esoteric” plan in mind when creating the “exoteric” forms. Rituals, forms, rules and morals were developed for those who were not yet “enlightened” to follow, on faith. But even these forms embodied “esoteric” or inner meanings. This is true of Christianity and Buddhism as well as Islam and other practices and philosophies.

              It was assumed that not everyone is ready to all at once be enlightened and grasp the true “inner” meanings of the philosophy, and that for this reason a persisting outer form or temporal “church”-like institution needed to be established to preserve the knowledge so folks could access it as they became ready. This necessarily involves alter-is, as it is the 2nd postulate that persists.

              Thus most of this discussion, interesting as it is, seems to me to revolve and revolve around an empty center, which is the lack of any statement about what was LRH actually trying to do, in establishing the CoS and the Sea Org etc.

              Unless we understand what he was trying to do, we can talk and debate all we want about was LRH perfect, imperfect, limited, unlimited, crazy, omniscient, etc etc to no avail, really. If we don’t know what he was trying to do, how can we judge whether he succeeded or not, made mistakes or not, etc?

              In fact, in about 30 years, LRH established the equivalent of a worldwide “Catholic Church of Scientology” and a bunch of associated organizations.
              In about 30 years, he did that. That’s the bottom line at this time.

              Anyone else stepping up to the plate to do something of similar magnitude?

    Marildi: “Even with KSW 1, the “strict interpretation” that has been done with it, has been a misinterpretation, IMO.”

    Chris: Marildi, You have weak certainty. Your namby-pamby, panty-waist, dilettante attitude represents all that is wrong with Scientology today. If you are a True Scientologist, you will go back and study 7, 8, 9, and 10, and clear up your mis-u’s. Clay demo each point of KSW to a supervisor pass. Then write up your OW’s. Meter check to FN. Then apply Liability, actually no, start with Treason unless you feel that is not low enough.

    1. I am reminded what a deadly serious activity that Scientology is. Coming into Scientology, I was a simple wog with a sense of humor, however, I learned quickly to modify that humor, to whittle it down and to only use it when disparaging the government, psychiatry, IRS, ex-scn’sts, and the like. I learned that there was an appropriate time for happiness and that moment was a window 1 millisecond long (quite lone in quantum terms) when I handed my up-statistics to the MAA on Thursday at 2:00 PM. By 2:01, I better have wiped that smirk off my face and be working on my battle plan for the coming week.

      Today, I have allowed my joking and degrading to consume me. Oh! My poor little clinker of a soul.

      1. You are to wipe that smirk off your face and report to Qual for a lengthy cram on HCO PL “Jokers and Degraders”. And then go immediately to Ethics to get started on your 16 intensives of sec checking.

        S-T-A-R-T !

    2. Chris: “For Marildi, does this shed more of the light you were asking for regarding my basic disagreements with core Scientology, or did I miss your mark?”

      I’m afraid you missed my mark widely. Here again you talk about the culture of the CoS, and then say “this is Scientology”, still not differentiating the philosophy from the organization/management. This is one of the points I haven’t been able to get across, obviously, no matter how many times I say it.

      In addition, you call it “core Scientology”. Where in the basic materials do you find a reference for that? This is a good example of the main objection relating to the request I’ve had to directly address the materials themselves. The above comment of yours is strictly your opinion without a reference given to back it up. We were going to move away from opinions, weren’t we?

      1. To be sure you know what I was referring to, here’s the part of your post above that my comment above was a reply to:
        – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
        “I thought you agreed that a person can’t have a wrong point of view, but here you are telling me both “what I think” and “what I ought to think.” You may be thinking this is a valid thing to do but I think it is a mistake.

        “This is an example of a culture fostered by Scientology where there is plenty of authority, rightnesses and wrongnesses, and judgement toward the opinions of people. So much so that in the hardcore COS the billion year executives cannot even convince Miscavige that they are on his side. This is a culture where there infinite numbers of ways of doing things wrongly and only one way of doing things rightly. I don’t think this is an anomaly, I think this is Scientology. So in this context, whose viewpoint is narrow?”

  22. “So therefore when we go to investigate we shouldn’t predecide what it is we’re looking for only to find out more about it.” – Richard Feynman

  23. Nice work Maria : ) The rabbit hole goes even deeper though I’m afraid….but really what is done is done. All one can do is to collect information and stay alert.

    1. @Larry — Oh yes, that rabbit hole is VERY deep indeed. Maybe it should be thought of as a black hole instead. Elizabeth likes to remind us that it is deeper than any of us ever imagined. But, you have to start somewhere I guess.

  24. @Maria ….I do not know Elizabeth but I do not disagree with her. I have a pretty wild imagination and have uttered these very words ‘out loud’ myself…and at times I know I have been thought a fool, if not a down right lunatic. Maybe I am, but perhaps I am not….. : P

    1. At the moment I have a headache because I had a glass of wine last night and I dont drink so I am its effect. I was brave stepped over into on unknown terretory.. yak…
      other wise top of the universe..if you really care to know how do i do… go to my blog and read for a while… have a lovely evenimng where ever you are, mind you, here in BC is only 4:20 in the afternoon..

      1. Oh the wonderful effects of a little alcohol now and then. Tonight I’m celebrating with some vodka and peach tea. Just enough to calm the body and relax happily at effect by cause over…. 🙂

        1. Dee, I did not have a good effect, after one glass of vine she had double face 4 eyes and i thoight the aliens have arrived, than that violent headaches. No that did not relax me one bit.. a glass of water is more relaxing, pour water into water that is my body… that has harmony….

          1. Oh dear Eliz, not good to have bad effect. Water is the best but ice tea is good too, make it green with honey and it’s even better, at least for me. Ah but harmony forgot that. Hope your eyes are back to two with a clear head and no aliens. I will think about you doing well now. You are the best. Dam the torpedoes (wine) …

      2. Thank you Elizabeth,
        I read some of your blog. ….and the experiences you have are quite amazing. You write beautifully : )

        1. In 73 by ‘’accident’’ I have found a field auditor, and from that day on I was on a journey, on incredible adventure where through self-discovery I have come to see and understand what is the Universe about….
          Now dear Larry, what could be more exhilarating more thrilling than such on flight and top of that that I have learned how express with words how I felt and what I have perceived while being on this adventure.

        2. Larry i been just thinking…. why should not be truly amusing, wild, out of this world, incradible.. fantastic. ones journey of self-discovery? After all we are amusing, wild, incradible fantastic, powerful, creative beings… yes?

    1. You just looked into the mirror now? I have seen you looking like that eversince I met you in this blog ! 🙂 and If you think I am going to fall in love with you because of your good looks…. forget it… 🙂 after all i do have taste [bought 2 pd just last week]

    1. Thank You…. I just had to know… that has great importance without such a fact my journey of would not be complite. 🙂

  25. Misconception: Many seeking to become ‘tigers’ or ‘lions’ interpret it as potential hostility, no sympathy, no compassion,enforcement etc. Where in KSW1 was that written?

    That while it was defined that ‘greatness’ means to love despite the reasons why one shouldn’t, and hostile tone levels were seen as ‘negative’ in red scn.

    I think that “scn made me do it” is mere justification. Probably based on misunderstanding or not, but to harm others -in the name of scn or not- is not good. It’s overt.

    1. …and too much logic in the world of SCN. It is actually a trap. You go to your cos staff and you tell him, you know, “you guys are suppressive”. He replies “Who is suppressive?” You know, don’t use generalities etc. So you have to experience yourself some outstanding suppression by specific person’s so you can report it and get ignored or declared a suppressive or something. So you pretend you don’t know. Because if you say you know, then…

      I said ‘many’ or ‘cos’ or other generalities. I mean it. When groups agree over overts, they make that ‘bank agreement’. When it’s obvious, then it is. You don’t need to be suppressive as 1st dynamic to notice that. But you can become, if you compromise with it. You may later on adopt it yourself –get dominated by it. Compromise is near apathy.

      I use generalities when I perceive them. When I talk about popular SCN ideas, I say what I perceive or perceived in some past. I think that “Hubbard did it” doesn’t solve it for me, as by reading Hubbard I could point out the inconsistencies. One can say that I did it. It’s truth for me. But define what “I” means. There are 8 dynamics…

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s