Scientology – does it work?

I stepped back, took a couple of breaths and then a good hard look… at the thousands of discussions on Scientology I have witnessed during the last three decades. Some in person, most online. I have come to the conclusion that discussing the content of Scientology, the processes, the policies, the cosmology, Hubbard’s life and possible intentions, Xenu, the rationale behind Dianetics, the E-meter and the rest of it is pretty useless. It is only really worthwhile to look at the actual results produced. The results is the key – the only aspect really worthy of discussion.

So, it really only boils down to: “Does it work?

Does it work for you? Does it work for Average Joe? Does it work for the society? What are the actual results produced by the church? What are the actual results produced by the individuals and groups applying it? Is it beneficial? And does it produce the advertised results? What in Scientology works? What does not?

I believe there are different answers to each of these questions. I will list some of my conclusions here:

  1. Did Scientology work for me?
    Yes. Everything I did in the church gave me valuable results. The service I did outside of the church (L 11) was fantastic.
  2. Did Scientology work for my friends?
    About 50%. Some of my friends had excellent gains from their auditing and training, others had little, no or even negative results. Some crashed. In this category I have little experience with friends doing Scientology in the independent field.
  3. Does it work for Average Joe?
    Well… something like 95% of the people that get into Scientology bounce off like a tennis ball off a wall.
  4. Does Scientology benefit society?
    Insignificant. It’s irrelevant to the world at large – from its inception to present time.
  5. Does auditing work?
    To a large extent: Yes. Almost all the people I know that have gotten Scientology counseling inside or outside of the church are very happy with the gains they have gotten. They do however tend to worry more about their own issues after having started getting Scientology auditing – they tend to introspect more.
  6. Does Scientology training work?
    Usually. The training is lacking the component of an instructor that help bring the material to life. Thus, the training tends to be more “dry” than other comparable training in society.
  7. Does Hubbard’s administrative technology work?
    No. It’s a disaster. This is the single most dominant factor why people shun Scientology and why people leave it in droves – despite the gains that can be had through auditing and training. In this body of knowledge you find horrendous policies on how to handle enemies, policies on disconnection, volumes of details resulting in over-bureacuracy, micromanagement and stripping of employees creativity, etc. It’s perfect for creating and managing an organization of robots. I suspect that a group delivering Scientology auditing and training without the Admin Tech as a yoke would do quite well and get a large percentage of happy clients.
  8. Does Scientology produce the advertised results?
    As a whole: No. There are no OTs produced as advertised by Hubbard. Neither are there any Clears by the original definition in Diantecs. But certain training courses and auditing levels does produce the advertised results most of the time.

These are my current conclusions, subject to future revisions.

Update: With more than 1500 comments on this blog post – I hope to carry the discussions over to a new blog post, titled “Scientology – does it work? (cont.)“.

1,519 thoughts on “Scientology – does it work?

  1. Geir,

    I like the idea of your honesty, impartiality and objectivity of your last blog topic and this one.

    That is the way I wish everyone would look at everything, especially scntology. That is called being perceptually honest and intellectually honest.

    I suppose in scientologeze it is called “as-ising”.

    Very, very few people are intellectually and perceptually honest, especially in scientology.

    What I have to say about this topic, about whether or not scn works?

    You have a MU on the word “works”.

    You have to use the word “work” in relation to Hubbard’s goal for scn.

    Hubbard’s goal for scn was to make a homo novus.

    Homo novus has to be properly defined too.

    The tech dic has a def. and I don’t feel like typing it out.

    Those who need to know it, should look it up.

    Also be aware that the tech dic is full of mistakes too.

    The tech dic def is good as far as it goes, but needs to go further.

    I would define homo novus by example and the only example I could come up with is the alleged person Jesus.

    Which we are told or taught that he was a perfect human being and the ultimate role model for humans.

    Whether this is true or not, is not an issue here. The value of this datum is how well it works.

    My experience is that the people who follow that operating data properly are the best people I have met.

    Keep in mind that there is a right way and wrong way to do everything, and some people screw up the best of things.

    I would put quality of homos on a scale from “asshole” at the bottom end to Homo Novus or homo illuminus at the top end.

    (Qualifier: I use the word “asshole” because I do not know a non vulgar word that describes the class or category. The word barbarian or neanderthal comes close, but not exact.)

    The average good person non scientologist is somewhere in around tone level three and half to four and up.

    It can only be honestly and objectively said
    they are the people who make good things happen in society.

    They are the true movers and shakers of society.

    The ones whose backs society depends upon for positive evolution and keeping it together.

    From my perspective and evaluation they have a strong spiritual or religious core operating data such as being Christian. But these high grade types exist to some degree in all faiths that I have examined.

    They have noble characters too.

    They have a strong, comforting and stabilizing presence and an “air” about them.

    They tend to glow a bit too. Some glow quite a bit.

    There is something very unique and special about them.

    Every scientologist I ever met was still a pure asshole or near an asshole, or an asshole with a nice guy social veneer that was very shallow and fragile or at best still had some serious defects.

    Now back to my original point.

    It can only be honestly and objectively said that scn helps on some issues, some aberrations that other personal or spiritual improvement techniques outside of scientology do not resolve.

    The best that can be said about scn is that it “helps” but does not work.

    Your MU and that MU applies to every other scngist or ex scngist that I have met, is that you actually need to do a thorough word clearing on the word “work” relative to Hubbard’s goal for scn which is to make someone a homo novus.

    I have seen no evidence that that has been done.

    I have seen no evidence that scntology works.

    Dio

  2. “I have come to the conclusion that DISCUSSING THE CONTENT OF SCIENTOLOGY, the processes, the policies, the cosmology, Hubbard’s life and possible intentions, Xenu, the rationale behind Dianetics, the E-meter and the rest of it IS PRETTY USELESS. It is only really worthwhile to look at the actual results produced.”

    ((KATAGEEK PUTS ON HIS BEST YODA VOICE.))

    “USELESS? USELESS? HMMPH! Geir, How much of this USELESS online discussion it took to get you to LOOK AT the results. Hmm? Katageek remembers how you freaked when he posted LRH’s claim about IQ increases being measurable. How looking at the “always” statements of LRH yield interesting issues. Remember how VICIOUS your trashing of Alanzo was? Mean you were. ((POKES WITH YODA STICK)), How much data given over and over? Hmm? Have you read lately the OLDER posts of Geir Isene. Hmm? The ones when he first came out on SCIFORUM?”

    “Re-read your thoughts and your manners then and now arrogant one. Humble you it will. Others have watched you change. Others have helped you see to drop the lenses. And trash them you do to this day. To this day you snark. Hmm? Yes. Or perhaps you think that you did it all yourself you did. Hmm?”

    “People change people Geir. Jedi make Jedi. Strong people come from strong people. Even people of small stature like me? Judge me by my size do you?”

      1. 🙂

        I think for many people both here and at Sciforum, a safe place was found with no censorship.

        A fucking brutal place sometimes. But safe for thoughts. Safe for honesty. Safe for integrity.

        It helped many. You have changed a lot Mr. Isene. Perhaps labeling the fruits of the discussions “useless” may be harsh on those for whom help was found.

        Now certainly, you bore the brunt of a large workload for these venues. That was a huge cost in time. Perhaps “useless” could be substituted for “Monster Time Eater of Doom?”

        Yeah, I’d go with “Monster Time Eater of Doom.”

        And you have gotten a LOT nicer.

      1. The key is, as you said, LIVE communication. That means in present time or call it “NOW” if you wish. Not speaking from “the mind” or “the past”.

        And what I would say gets “higher and higher, that is a pure tone” can also be described as a higher (lighter) tone level. Different words, different metaphors, same truths. Do you agree?

        You are one person who doesn’t ridge and doesn’t have a problem if things are said in Scientology ways, so I wanted to ask you which things you consider cannot be expressed in Scn terms or concepts. (If you don’t mind saying…I like how you often add something like that :)).

        1. Marildi
          The background of why I don’t ridge: 1. I did cognitive semantics in its depth. My first action before my very first course was that I took the tech dictionary and studied some words. The SUP got “shocked” when he saw that. And I kept this habit of mine all along. Especially doing the Student Hat, when I realized that “clearing a word” should go deeper than conceptual understanding. In the promos it says that you will get a conceptual understanding of what you study. It’s not enough – to use a concept as a “free tool”, you must go down to the
          “live flow” that created the concept. I did so. If you don’t do that, you are “chained” to the concept – mind, that is! 2. Many years ago I went to some retreats with an enlightened being. There I had experiences which were “beyond” the mind. 3. The first books I read were 88008 and Dianetics 55. Based on my spiritual experiences I started to “argue” with Ron – like ” you will know it, it’s not true etc.” It was funny! I got interested in the mind, so I started theTR-s with curiosity and love. These two were guiding me all along until I got to “see” THAT which the Bridge is “standing in”. Don’t know a word for that. So that is the “first thing” as you ask me which I cannot express in scio terms. Also, there are experiences, like “cosmic love”, “merging”, “Higgs field”, “dimensions” etc. which I didn’t experience while auditing.
          As I didn’t do the OT levels, I have only some information of experiences OT-s told me about or I read about. My conclusion based on them is ( I may be wrong) that scio gets to the edge of the mind but doesn’t go beyond it, that is deeper, to the Heart. Also, “ego”, the “I” stay there, though in weeker forms. I can mention only two OT8-s whom I met personally earlier for a short time with whom I didn’t experience that…well, maybe a little. Spirituality to me is not only the mind.
          Rather, shifts of conciousness…can’t find a better word for it. I feel that Tibetian “buddhism” with its many simple practices has it all…but it’s my personal view of it. As I “change” with the “flow”, it may change too….you see, the mind wants to “know”, “agree”, verify”, “prove” etc.
          while “in change” even “certainty” is just a “concept”. Some “mind” can still be there but gets handled, basically by dissolving the energy that sticks a consideration to “me” or “another”. I was a little long, did
          I answer your question?

            1. Kata
              Q: Do you do mandala practice Marianne?
              A: No but I like mandalas. Do / did you? Or something else?
              Kata. What is your “deepest-deepest-most profound” experience? Only if you want to share it!

            2. No I don’t do mandalas. A friend of mine does at the KTC center in Dallas under Lama DeDorje. I didn’t realize some were three dimensional “worlds” drawn in first angle projection. Certainly is an incredible practice for the imagination to unfold these two dimensional renderings into three dimensional realms.

              I’ve had a lot of “woo-boo” moments, but mostly I discount them. My imagination allows for some amazing experiences.

              My most profound moment? I would have to go with me reading the chapter “Enlightenment is for Sissies” in Brad Warner’s book “Sit Down and Shut Up.”

              It helped me see what I suspected all along but had no other confirmation to align to. There were no thunder claps, but it really was a great beginning.

            3. Kata
              “Sit down and shut up” – LIKE it! Just laughing! Thanks for answering, talk to you later, it’s getting late here. Have a nice day!

          1. Marianne, I would really like to learn more about cognitive semantics. Can you suggest some study materials?

            1. Maria
              Start with George Lakoff Metaphors We Live By, Raymond Gibbs The Poetics of Mind, Mark Johnson The Body in the Mind. As you probably have little time, just google cognitive linguistics, conceptual metaphors….you will find your way, but I can give you more titles if you like. I published a little in Hungarian, in English only co-authored A Picture Dictionary of English Idioms. I mentioned this because that was one of the best two years of my life when I could work with one of the top linguists of the world.

          2. Thanks, Marianne! First I want to say that what makes you such a rare soul is that you are always willing to say things like “to me” or “I may be wrong” or “this is my experience”, etc. And yes, you answered my question. 🙂

            The basic idea I got from most of what you wrote is that in the physical universe and with language there is only and always RELATIVITY. And as for the meaning of “THAT which the Bridge is ‘standing in’, does the following excerpt from Creation of Human Ability describe it at all? (Note: I’ve substituted caps for the words in the excerpt that are in italics.)
            —————————————————

            “Knowingness condenses. Trying to know becomes the first level of communication. This ‘looking to know’ condenses into ‘emoting to know’, which condenses into ‘effort to know’, which in turn becomes ‘thinking to know’, which then condenses into ‘symbols to know’ which, and this is the astonishing thing, becomes ‘eating to know’, which becomes ‘sexual activity to know’, which then turns into oblivion of knowing or ‘mystery’.

            “An energy particle is a condensed knowingness. Trying to discover or move one is an action with the goal of knowingness.

            “Gravity, grim thought, becomes in the mind, and is, the effort to know, to pull in knowingness.

            “Other-determinism is only other knowingness.

            “The aspects of know are the common denominators of any scale in Scientology. When knowingness is done by communication, we get emotion and effort particles changing position.

            “This struggle to know is not just me and thee working on Scientology and gone mad in the process. It IS life and all its manifestations including space, energy, matter and time. Each is only a barrier to knowingness. A barrier is a barrier only in that it impedes knowingness. Barriers do not exist for complete knowingness.

            “And what is there to know? Only that knowingness can vary. One has to INVENT things to know for there is only knowingness, and knowingness has no data since a datum is an invented, not a true, knowingness. The motto of any particle below knowingness is ‘Only energy can tell you’.”
            —————————————————-

            One other LRH reference came to mind also, from The Factors:

            “27 There is beingness, but man believes there is only becomingness.”

            1. Marildi
              Great job!
              THAT is THAT! Can’t find a word for that. Knowingness to me is the borderline between THAT and the MIND: “Beyond” knowingness…hm.
              living, perceiving, creating (all are “abilities”)…there looks to be “beyond-beyond”….can’t describe it now. Maybe later. Sorry.
              27 is completely true. All in the excerpts can be experienced. Thanks for your care in favour of other bloggers too so that they can read them!

            2. Marianne, thanks again! On this word “knowingness” – I can’t help but wonder if you and I and LRH are running into the limitations and difficulties of language itself. In the context of the references I quoted, it’s clear to me that it denotes something completely outside of the physical universe.

  3. Geir wrote:

    5. Does auditing work?
    To a large extent: Yes. Almost all the people I know that have gotten Scientology counseling inside or outside of the church are very happy with the gains they have gotten. They do however tend to worry more about their own issues after having started getting Scientology auditing – they tend to introspect more.

    Are you counting the misses as well as the hits here?

    In my experience on staff in a mission with two Class 8 auditors and a Class 6, – judging by re-signs and people being introduced and ending up self-identifying as a Scientologist over a 5 year period – auditing “worked” (as above) in about 1% of cases. The VAST majority of people who bought auditing never re-signed, and the rest who did only re-signed once or twice and, then never came back – ever.

    So few people ended up being Scientologists that I can count them on one hand, and only one is still a Scientologist 20 years later. One of the ones who I know left did so specifically because the auditing he received sucked so bad he said he would never waste his money on auditing ever again.

    His main point was that the cause is not in the past for most of the things he wanted handled and he realized that continuing to look, over and over, at his time track was a complete waste of time if he wanted to improve.

    If you have been on staff and dealt with lots and lots of public, then you know that this story I tell is VERY COMMON with regard to Scientology auditing. The main block to evaluating the effectiveness of auditing is that a Scientologist can not do any kind of follow up with people after they have left Scientology for 2 reasons: Speaking to people who have left Scientology is “entheta” and in most cases considered “out-etjics” for a Scientologist to do, and the person who has left does not want to tell the Scientologists “entheta” for all kinds of reasons, including the fact that they might be declared, disconnected, and fair-gamed.

    So I have to ask again – are you counting the misses along with the hits here?

    Alanzo

      1. Even though there was so much more to do, and the whole game of Scientology was to “Clear the planet”, or to “Create an OT civilization” – and they just left?

        What did they get? Life Repair? Did they go “clear” and then leave?

        Let me ask you this: After they left, and they told you they were happy with everything, did they know you were still a Scientologist?

        The most stark reality that I had about this area was when I was an exec at a Scientologist-owned marketing company in LA. For 5 years, everyone knew I was a Scientologist and 95 % of the employees there were not Scientologists. When I was a Scientologist there, everyone at the company seemed perfectly happy with Scientology. And if you asked one, you would be assured at how awesome they thought Scientology was. They never wanted to go in there, but it was awesome.

        The day I left Scn I told one non-scientology employee that I was out, Then the data people allowed me to have changed drastically. I heard all kinds of stories about the unfairnesses non-Scientologists perceived (some rightly and some wrongly) from having been passed over because they weren’t scientologists etc. Articles in magazines and newspapers were passed to me on an underground kind of railroad that existed in the company.

        A very very different scene than I was ever allowed to see as a Scientolgist.

        Most people at that company HATED Scientology and if you were a Scientologist, you would have never known it.

        I’ve done a lot of marketing research in my career, and the amount of data you are going to get about Scientology very definitely has to do with your position with regard to Scientology.

        So that’s why I ask.

        They just left and they were perfectly happy with what they got?

        Alanzo

      2. Geir – Your Number 2 and your Number 5 seem to contradict, or maybe not quite fit together.

        Can you explain?

        With more than one word, I mean.

        Alanzo

        1. Al, “my friends” and “people I know” are not necessarily the exact same sets of people….

          1. Also – #2 is the experience as a whole – ethics, tech, admin in the church. #5 i the subset of auditing specifically.

  4. Hello, it depends on what Scientology means. If it is what the Church and Church-minded people think it is, it should better vanish (actually, it is). It is addressed to wealthy people only, and even to them it doesn’t fully deliver what it promises (Theta Clear, and Cleared Theta Clear that I mentioned yesterday). The rest just work their asses out to get a PTS/SP course and become more effect than ever (consider the irony of a group that is ruled by SPs, delivering the PTS/SP course) and hope for the following decades…

    I love Ron’s texts. Scientology as a group mostly gives it a bad name. I don’t mean everybody, so I say ‘mostly’. So, if you (plural) don’t give it a bad name, don’t feel invalidated by me.

    I suppose the workability depends on the level of squirreling that is applied. For me, both study and processing worked, some times more some other times less. But study at home worked much better than anything else, because there was no squirreling involved. It was just me reading Ron’s stuff, and also the stuff that I liked. Personal study got me out of the Church. Also, some services I received by groups had a reversed effect on me than they should (lowering, not increasing awareness). I’m not telling you by what and by whom, but I’m telling you, that if it’s not in full agreement with you and with what you know SCN is about, don’t do it. Scientology services should be pleasant in my opinion, not something one has to do because ‘the world is dying’ and so on. I have read KSW 1 too, and I don’t think Ron ever said to play tyrrant over people’s heads to save the planet. I think that’s some gross verbal datum. Yes, I know he threw a man into the sea, but the man was going to sink a ship.

    My suggestion to all: Study early 50s tapes (not just them, but they are my favourite). Don’t apply the SCN you see others to apply. Don’t even think or adopt other people’s point of view. And like Ron said “depend on nobody –depend on yourself”.

    1. Spyros: “And like Ron said “depend on nobody –depend on yourself”.”

      Fully agree.

      1. Yes 🙂 I think the COS should ban some stuff –they’re really dangerous for tdisciples. How about a Golden Age of Knowledge #2?

          1. Come on, just the OT materials –like the PDC. They are so restimulative. Some people think they can actually determine their lives without needing an ‘ethics’ officer to tell them who to put in their bed and who to have as a friend etc. Horrible…

          1. Nah, they look happy. If I had posted a smiley in my +1 response it would have been at least as high as enthusiasm. 🙂

            1. Haha thanks. Yes, if they are 4.0 for you, then 4.0 they are 😉 Now, I think I can get out of being out-valence and change my mind about them too 😉

            2. The winks are even better. 😉

              Here’s a happy grin for you too: 😀 (Now I’m up around Games!)

            3. Do you do it like this? 😀

              Does this one work? ^_^

              We agree over our emotional state, who postulated that first?

            4. Geir if you don’t like flood of random comments in your blog, I understand and I can quit it :p

            5. I think we’ve covered all the emoticons that work on this blog, except this one that I usually save for Chris and Alanzo: 😛

              I don’t know for sure whose postulate came first but I think it was you. 🙂

            6. p.s. Don’t worry about Geir. He let’s us get away with just about anything. 😉

            7. Heyyy the tongue-out one is my fav 😛 Of course the postulate question (who made it first) was a joke, and I dont want to make it serious, as there is no time for static.

            8. Aw, Spyros, your joke went over my head! You mean like first and second postulate…? Well, I guess I could do worse than batting zero (get it? ;)).

              I do get “no time for static” 😛 (just cuz that’s your fav :)).

            9. Now, I got confused too 😛 Mmm I mentioned ‘who made the postulate first’, and then you said that I did it first. so, then I said that nobody did it first, because first and second and third are sequences that need time –that’s why I mentioned that ‘static has no time’ –I meant it has no position in time.

            10. LOL I’m full of MUs but still laughing, it must be your postulate.

              Next time keep in ‘mind’ that this body is located in Athens, Greece and I’m not totally used to 50’s New Yorkish accent 😛 But thanks a lot 😀

            11. I figured from the name Spyros you were Greek but I assumed Greek-American – you must have grown up speaking English. Anyway, that Abbott and Costello routine is one all Americans have seen many times. Kind of a stupid level of comedy compared to yours. 😉

              Btw, I really did get your “no time for static” joke!

            12. If, it wasn’t stupid, why would anybody laugh at it? That’s why I laugh at my cognitions some times –I laugh at how stupid I used to be 😛

              The frustrating wordclearing of Ron’s stuff (we didnt have much translated in greek at that time) made me better at the language. Also the fact I have some american friends, and have worked with tourists, and that we don’t dub greek voices over our hollywood movies –just add subtitles 😉

              Glad you got the joke 🙂

            13. Okay, that explains it about your English. And I like how you show in your various posts a good duplication of Scn principles. Even in the jokes. 😉

    2. Spyros
      Great! I would add – clear the Axioms! They were my “favourites” when I started, used them as reference with every single course and they remained my favourites when Ieft.

      1. Oh now I got what you said. You were reffering to my original message. Yes, the axioms are so basic, and beautiful when understood 🙂

          1. 🙂
            I agree it’s very basic to learn the basics, before one learns the rest. You can’t imagine how happy I got and how right and justified I felt while -still in the Church- I read that self-determinism is more important than ethics, and you cannot have ethics without self-determinism 😀 I felt like shoving it to my enemy’s face 😛

  5. The question: “does Scientology work?” will never produce any useful answers.

    This is like asking: “does medicine work?” If I am trying to have perfect health, and never get sick again, ever, then medicine does not work. If I have a bacterial infection, and antibiotic medicine is used, then medicine works most of the time, but not all of the time and not on everyone. Some people will not respond, some people will have an allergic reaction.

    A more useful question would be something along the lines of:
    What can one realistically expect from a particular Scientology process or set of processes and under what circumstances?

    For example, OT TR 0 with eyes closed will normally result in the major stable win of being there comfortably. However, it will not if the person is currently in physical agony, is currently ill, or has some kind of physical situation that would have to be addressed before they can sit long enough to do the drill to a major stable win. As well, the person has to WANT to be able to be there comfortably and see it is valuable enough to sit there long enough to get that gain.

    1. So a more precise question would be “For whom does Scientology work?”

      An answer could be, “L Ron Hubbard”.

      Yes, the question is as important as the answer. If you ask one question you get one set of answers. So what, exactly are we trying to find out?

      “For what percentage of people does Scientology meet their expectations?”

      What percentage of people are satisfied with the results they got in Scientology:

      Auditing?

      Training?

      Administration?

      Human Rights work?

      Treatment of Staff?

      Treatment of Fellow Earthings?

      Treatment of those who disagree?

      Whistleblowers?

      To get the answers we need, the question “Does Scientology work?” needs to be tweaked.

      Alanzo

      1. Maybe there should be a Scientology version of the Clinician’s Handbook of Prescription Drugs!

        Very thorough — who is intended for, what are the benefits, are there any contraindications, side effects, expected response rates, and so on and so forth.

        Not likely to happen unless someone makes it their life’s work.

        1. Should the published end phenomenons be part of the entries in this book, such as the EP of OT VII being CAUSE OVER LIFE?

          See, this is where the more you inspect things in Scientology, the more they fall apart.

          When someone says that Scientology, specifically OTVII, works, do they mean that it actually achieves Hubbard’s stated end phenomenon, CAUSE OVER LIFE?

          In what way does it achieve this?

          If it doesn’t achieve this, then how can someone say that it works?

          It works in that I feel much better than I did before?

          It works in that I no longer have any BTs? (whatever that means to the person)

          See?

          When you really start to examine the results of Scientology, you really start to get into the weeds. No Scientologist has ever really done this before.

          So what does it actually mean when a Scientologist says “Auditing works”?

          What does it mean when a scientist says “Auditing works”?

          If you care about the truth, and if you care about results, and if you care whether or not auditing is actually safe at all for people, these are the questions that must be confronted and answered specifically.

          And I don’t think Scientologists are ever going to confront them. Because if they did, then their “wins” might go away. And that is the last thing that a Scientologist wants to happen. Because that is the least thing that usually happens to a Scientologist.

          Before he becomes and Ex-Scientologist.

          Alanzo

          1. ” And that is the last thing that a Scientologist wants to happen. Because that is the least thing that usually happens to a Scientologist.

            Before he becomes and Ex-Scientologist.”

            You do know that there are plenty of ex Scientologists reporting on this and other blogs whose wins did not go away? In fact, the owner of this blog reports that his wins, while they are everything he wanted or expected, did NOT go away. Neither did mine. So there are two people for you.

            Really, what happens is that the loses start to outweigh the wins. And the loses are pretty much on ethics and admin tech, and resulting from the impact of crazy demands for group support on one’s life. Having an expectation that isn’t met doesn’t make all past wins disappear! But it sure doesn’t encourage one to continue either.

            1. Maria wrote:

              Having an expectation that isn’t met doesn’t make all past wins disappear! But it sure doesn’t encourage one to continue either.

              I agree with that. It sure makes all those “make it go right for the sake of the planet – every and woman and child will burn in eternity – all hands and face-rippings feel for naught when you really examine your wins and realize it was all just a little intestinal gas.

              Alanzo

            2. Well, you know, gas can be very much a gas! Seriously though, my personal wins were pretty spectacular along the way. And I really do still have them, some happened as much as 35 years ago.

              Until I began reading up on others wins (or lack of) on blogs like this one, I was baffled by the lack of interest from most people. I can confirm your Div 6 survey as I did one too and pretty much the same breakdown of first service starts, with a rapidly dwindling resign ratio. That was from the period when we had to follow official policy. Before that there weren’t any stats kept and the place was always full with people doing all kinds of co-audits — pretty happy place, but no one was trying to get anyone to do anything in any hurry either. The place was so full they had to get a bigger place. After all the stats and policy went in and Ruth Minschull became a no no, the place emptied out.

              I probably had it a bit better than you did, for there was another center a few hours away that I could go to and see for myself that it wasn’t just my center’s problem. They had the same stats and problems. So at least I was saved from this notion that I somehow, or our staff somehow was just incompetent or PTS or SP or OW case, etc. It seemed ridiculous to me that all those staff members and all those auditors were “bad guys.”

              As far as the dire consequences go, I have to admit that this was a worry for me, right up until the day that Geir made his announcement. I’ve had lots of time to examine that and found that I had that worry before I did Scientology, courtesy of the Christian Church, then courtesy of the Buddhist center I went to before Scientology. First the dire consequence of going to hell, then the worry about being reincarnated as an insect or forever suffering, and then facing total oblivion or the complete destruction of the planet, hey, what is it with that!?! They all had that going one way or another.

              Then one day I read this book called the Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche and learned about the Amitābha Buddha, the Buddha of the Western Pure Land. That was the end of my anxiety. Strange but true.

            3. Maria, I’ve kept the games that I’ve made throughout my life even the ones from Scientology. Maybe that has been my placebo effect, that I have kept the ground I gained in life.

            4. Interesting post, Maria.

              Even a little lyrical.

              KSW Series 1 was the beginning of the INSTANT ATTACK tech when someone said that Scientology “didn’t work”. Every Scientologist learned from Hubbard to blame each other instantly and viciously and to never allow anyone to examine the actual results of the tech. This teaching from Hubbard is actually a fundamental cornerstone of being a Scientologist.

              It is no wonder the Church turned out the way it did. The people at the top were the only ones with the viewpoint necessary to see what worked and what didn’t in Scientology. They saw and ordered all the “Baby Watches” of the OTs that had psychotic breaks. They knew all the areas of the tech which were hopeless – like Super Power and pretty much anything Hubbard came up with in the 1970’s.

              I believe that the reason Miscavige is just outright buying buildings and not delivering is because it is too much of a liability – legal and otherwise – to deliver Scientology auditing. And the reason for that is because Hubbard never let anyone really examine the tech and change it in order to get better results.

              Unless you throw out whole swaths of Hubbard, as a subject, Scientology is dead.

              And in the end, it was L Ron Hubbard who killed it.

              Alanzo

            5. Yes, LRH did set the wheels in motion, when he chose this idea of making a brand called Scientology and then attempted to protect that brand as a primary target.

              I don’t know if you have been following Marty’s blog at all – there was a thread about was there any possibility of recovering Scientology as a brand or some such wording.

              Most of the Independents didn’t think it was possible, thought it was too damaged to survive. There were a few that thought it might survive renamed as “Reformed Scientology” or some such wording, and the great majority thought that much of the admin and ethics tech had to be dropped as a first priority.

              I think elements of it will survive. But not as the entire body of work called Scientology with the three wings of ethics, tech, admin. As so many pointed out, you can’t be an independent Scientologist AND subscribe to much of that tech for by its very teachings the Independent is in fact a persona non gratis in the scheme laid out.

              More likely it will morph as things like KHTK and other derivatives, and you can be sure that the New Age, Human Potential, and Psychology movements will incorporate elements into what they do. In fact, they already have to no small degree.

              And what is good and truthful in it will be “rediscovered” along the way because it is the core of good and truthful whether it is under the brand name of Scientology or incorporated into a practice like non-violent communication. This is particularly true now that we are getting some amazing translations of Tibetan Buddhism, the Vedas, the Torah, and so on, not to mention that the New Thought Movement texts are all being digitized.

              And Korzybski is back under the auspices of NLP in a BIG way.

            6. Maria: “And what is good and truthful in it will be ‘rediscovered’ along the way because it is the core of good and truthful whether it is under the brand name of Scientology or incorporated into a practice like non-violent communication.”

              Awesome. Yes, it is “the core of good and truthful”.

    2. More “efficient” when there is no want, no expectation. Just doing the process. Any. My experience. I was “flying” so. I was basically just curious all along.

  6. I think different things work for different people. Without a doubt, Christianity truly works for some people. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, psychoanalysis, triathlons and the Standard American Diet all “work” for some people. Like you, Scientology happened to work for me. Certainly more than other things I tried such as TM, psychology, sports and being a knucklehead. Scientology worked for me far better than all those things combined. In fact, it solved all those (though some would argue about the the knucklehead part). I am grateful that it did work because there was sure a lot of HE&R surrounding my involvement with the organization. For someone who didn’t really get anything personally out of Scn, I can see why they would be so put off by the subject, because there is a lot of crap one has to put up with these days with all that surrounds the subject.

  7. There is of course always the question of “what does work mean?”

    I will settle with the subjective “valuable gain” here. Mileages will thusly vary.

  8. Here’s what LRH says are the necessary assumptions for Scientology to work:

    “There is a basic series of assumptions in processing, which assumptions do not alter the philosophy of Scientology. The first of these assumptions is that Man can have a greater freedom. The second is that so long as he remains relatively sane, he desires a greater freedom. And the third assumption is that the auditor desires to deliver a greater freedom to that person with whom he is working. If these assumptions are not agreed upon and are not used, then auditing degenerates into ‘the observation of effect’, which is, of course, a goal-less, soulless pursuit, and is, indeed, a pursuit which has degraded what is called modern science.” (Creation of Human Ability)

      1. Okay, Al, to each his own. To me, it explains why for some people auditing doesn’t work. LRH says those three assumptions need to be agreed upon. That is to say, if either the auditor or the pc doesn’t believe that a greater freedom can be had, or if the pc is not sane enough to desire a greater freedom, or if the auditor does not desire a greater freedom for the pc – then auditing won’t work. To me, he’s essentially stating that auditing needs to be an activity involving individuals as spiritual beings. rather than mere mechanical operations of the material world.

        1. p.s. I think this is what Pe-er is saying too when he wrote that it isn’t Scientology that works but the people – i.e. the mechanics of tech alone will do nothing without certain intentions of the beings involved.

            1. That’s right. If you are in then you are in. (God I love tautologies) Within the well defined parameters of Scientology is the dedicated glare of belief which IS the panacea of Scientology.

              Same in other disciplines. I am glad we are finding common ground.

            2. No, we aren’t finding common ground at all. You continue to misduplicate both me and Scientology. But that’s okay, stick to your beliefs. That’s your right.

        2. Two people can desire “greater freedom”, they can both believe that greater freedom can be had, and they can both consider that each other is a spiritual being, and auditing can not work.

          Look at Lisa McPherson, if you can confront it. Look at Rex Fowler. Look at David Miscavige. My God – look at L Ron Hubbard.

          These assumptions have nothing to do with whether Scientology can work. Even Hubbard said that Scientology works even if the pc doesn’t believe it can, remember? Here he is completely contradicting himself and placing the blame on the beliefs of the auditor and the pc, instead of on Scientology technology – where it belongs.

          Hubbard liked to do that. He liked for everyone to blame each other for Scientology not working, rather than examining Scientology itself to see if it actually worked.

          Hubbard built in billions of thought-stopping and blame diversions into Scientology. You have to drop all those and look at the results of Scientology itself. Stop blaming people for the failures of Scientology.

          If after 60 years the Church of Scientology – the greatest single concentration of the tech with the highest percentage of willing and devoted and trained scientologists in the population anywhere – if it has turned into a huge squirrel-fest as you assert, then Scientology itself failed to work – on a colossal scale!

          I do not understand why you are so unwilling to see that.

          You don’t have to.

          But man, Marildi, your cognitive dissonance reduction techniques are glaringly obvious here. Come on! You are too smart for this.

          I’m not saying that Scientology doesn’t work. I am saying that Scientology technology itself must be examined, and the blame can’t just go to the beliefs of the auditor and the pc, as Hubbard outrageously asserts in your quote.

          Alanzo

          1. Al, do I have to explain everything to you? 🙂 The quote simply says those are the basic assumptions necessary for auditing to work – it doesn’t say that these assumptions are the ONLY things needed. Can you see the difference or is that beyond your powers of differentiation and reasoning? 😉

            You also said, “Even Hubbard said that Scientology works even if the pc doesn’t believe it can, remember? Here he is completely contradicting himself and placing the blame on the beliefs of the auditor and the pc…”

            None of those three assumptions says anything about a pc needing to believe auditing works. C’mon, Al, you’re smarter than that. 😛

            And the the rest of your post was just further Straw Man of either me or LRH. You really gotta do better than this Al or I’m going to have to go back to not even trying to have a discussion with you. 😦

            1. Notice Vinnie isn’t calling foul on Al for his address to the poster instead of the content of the post?

              Are Vinnie and Al in cahoots? Is it a conspiracy? Is there a double standard at work there?

            2. Vinnie and I had a Vaudeville Act way before you and I did, Valkov. We had dogs. We had ponies.

              We killed.

              Alanzo

            3. Yes marildi you have to explain everything to Al. You are really explaining it for the hypothetical “lurkers” whose affinity for Scientology he is trying to corrupt and alloy.

              Surely you know by now Al is the Grandmaster of Dev-T?

            4. LOL! Valkov the Feral White Russian, you just came up with a perfect title for Alanzo – Grandmaster of Dev-T. 😀

            5. I believe that Scientology is just a label.

              What is important is the consistency of knowledge, and when that is achieved nothing appears to be important, not even knowledge.

              .

          2. “billions of thought-stopping and blame diversions” built into scientology by LRH?

            “billions”?

            Overwhelm much?

            Remedy – Take a break from the pot, let your head clear, then find something in scientology that is not a thought-stopper.

            Assignment due in one week.

            1. There are thought-stopping mechanisms in Scientology, deliberately placed there by LRH in KSW, whenever someone says Scientology “didn’t work”.

              Yes or no?

              After you answer that one, we’ll go on to the other 999,999,999.

              Alanzo

            2. You make it sound like “thought-stopping” is peculiar or limited to Scientology. The way I see it, it is pervasive throughout this and every society and culture and their organizations. They are all built on “thought-stopping”.

              You use “thought-stopping” quite frequently, having cultivated it as a tactic for quite some time and admittedly throwing “thought-grenades” into discussions.

              So what’s the big deal? The only possible discussion is about specific statements and whether any particular statement is a “thought-stopper”, and how and why it is or is not.

              There is a liability to constantly looking for and at walls. Yet walls are sometimes useful.

              But one needs to also look at the freedom of the space between the walls, dude.

            3. Valkov –

              There are thought-stopping mechanisms in Scientology, deliberately placed there by LRH in KSW, whenever someone says Scientology “didn’t work”.

              Yes or no?

            4. NOTICE: The poster known as “Valkov” has blown from this comm cycle. “Valkov” is hereby declared a BLOWN POSTER. Should you see him anywhere on this blog, he is to be SEIZED at once and dragged back here so he can take responsibility and answer up.

              AGAIN: The poster known as “Valkov” has BLOWN.

              He was last seen making smart ass remarks to others on this blog, starting things and never finishing them. Please report him as soon as he has been located.

              Thank you.

            5. I don’t get it, Geir. A few threads back Alanzo blew from 2 or 3 exchanges with me in spite of my TR 3’ing him multiple times. True, he had put himself in a bad position and had no better answer than to just not reply. But you made no comment about it being “legendary” or some such. Maybe your bias is showing? 😉

            6. Marildi
              For me it was Alanzo’s wording! and also his flow! that put a smile on my face! I noticed that he has writer’s talent.

            7. I know, Marianne. I gotta admit he makes me laugh and I’ve told him more than once that his saving grace is his humor. 😉

            8. The reason I blew from you was because you had once again said that highly trained auditors never ended up being critics, and how this supported your assertion that only people who do not understand scientology (untrained people) end up criticizing it.

              This was after I had compiled a list of, iirc, 14 Class 8 auditors and above who were very prominent critics of Scientology. You never even seemed to read them – again if I recall correctly – .and I was not going to rub it in your face.

              You obviously have a deep emotional need to continue to believe in Scientology and I know from my own personal experience that no facts are going to get in the way of deep emotional needs. I have sensed this about you for a long time and so I have pretty much stayed away from you ever since.

              It is the reason you have earned The Alanzo Pass. You have a deep emotional need to be a Scientologist, and you have a right to be one. So carry on!

              Alanzo

            9. Al sez: “Please report him as soon as he has been located.

              he he – I have no location in time or space.

        3. Auditor and pc both have a job in session. The auditors job is to ask a question the pc can answer (meaning it’s correctly reading). The pc’s job is to LOOK for the answer. Most failures were due to the pc not having been educated on what his job was. If the pc sits there like a spectator nothing may happen. Charge and incidents don’t always jump right out for the viewing.

          1. Well said. This now get into what is needed beyond the primary assumptions.

            And what an incredibly valuable datum this is: “Most failures were due to the pc not having been educated on what his job was.”

            That sounds like a why that could really open the door to a handling! If only DM had come up with that instead of “The blind are leading the blind” – almost the polar opposite.

            1. Ever heard of a CS-1?

              The handling is already in place. Has been since Hubbard was around. And still we see the results we see from Scientology Technology.

            2. Yes, I’ve heard of a CS-1. I’ve both given and received it. And it seems you missed the point – which is that the CS-1 wasn’t done well enough (usually by a student auditor) to adequately hat the pc. And an unhatted pc is a major cause of unsuccessful sessions. It isn’t uncommon that the case supervisor has to order another C-S 1 to remedy the situation. And while we’re on the general subject, pc’s who are auditor trained, i.e. “educated pcs”, are the best hatted and are generally known to make faster progress.

            3. So we are going to completely ignore examining the auditing technology itself, and blame the auditor and the pc for not doing a proper CS-1 as the cause of auditing failures.

              And your evidence is that trained auditors make the “fastest gains”. Sounds like something I read in some training promo from the Church.

              So to apply critical thinking to your claim, it must be asked:

              The fastest gains in what?

              Achieving the stated EPs of the OT Levels? Having all the abilities of OTs and Clears that LRH claimed?

              No? Because you do admit that there are no Clears and OTs as described by L Ron Hubbard, right?

              So, the fastest gains in what, exactly?

              Alanzo

            4. Al, it’s not at all a matter of “blaming” the auditor or the pc. Whichever one or both need correction gets corrected – this is part of the tech itself. Built right into it are the handlings for things that can go wrong. And they CAN go wrong because you are dealing with human beings, unique individuals – on both sides of the meter.

            5. Marildi: Al, it’s not at all a matter of “blaming” the auditor or the pc.

              Chris: It’s Saturday morning and I beg to differ. “Blaming” is quite the Standard Tech of the matter. That’s KSW. Do I have to explain everything to you? 😉 (I use your winking emoticon)

            6. It took about 5 tries by different terminals to get me through even the first step of my CS1. And actually that was the only success I had at Flag, back in the 1990s – clearing theHCOB on the Suppressive Person, He was apretty decent auditor, but he was European and English was his second (third?) language and I had to make him understand that the definition I was using for some word not the one he was proposing, was the correct one!

              This reminds me of the tape where Ron says the auditors get more case gain from the tech, by auditing others, than the pc does. LRH was actually saying that the pc gets his cog, but the auditor gets his own cog, and also gets the pc’s cog. Double the gain. So the pc actually helps the auditor, too. How”s that for win/win?

              However I did finally get through that step, and it was thanks to that auditor who at least could listen and duplicate what I said. .

            7. Val: “LRH was actually saying that the pc gets his cog, but the auditor gets his own cog, and also gets the pc’s cog. Double the gain. So the pc actually helps the auditor, too. How”s that for win/win?”

              If you recall where he said it I’d like to get it for a reference. I experienced that a few times. More often I’d get cogs as the pc was running a process. It was like the process was running on me at the same time. This was not something I ever thought of trying to do, it would just happen. The biggest difficulty was trying to suppress the ear to ear grin that would come with the cog, i.e. to keep my TR’s in and let the pc continue the process without distraction.

            8. 2ndxmr, I don’t know of a reference but I’ve definitely heard other auditors talk about getting cogs themselves while auditing a pc.

            9. Val, word clearing is so underrated it blows my mind. I couldn’t find the reference but somewhere in the Word Clearing Series LRH stated good word clearing “rivals the wins of auditing”. Few people seem to realize that but I get the idea that you do.

            10. So you qualified for Flag public?

              Forgive me if I have this incorrectly, but I thought that you said that you were an illegal pc, and this is why you have never had any auditing.

              Is that correct?

              If not, how much auditing have you had? Where are you on the Bridge exactly? Training side and auditing side?

              By the way you are blown from a comm cycle with me. Things will go much easier for you if you turn yourself in.

            11. I’ve done 4 auditor training levels (and some Div 6 type auditor training) and Pro Word Clearer Course, and attested to Clear.

              Your turn now, Al. And don’t blow this time like you did the last couple times when I answered your question but you chickened out and never answered mine in return.

            12. Marildi –

              I was actually asking Valkov this question about his certs and awards in Scn because I thought he had said he was an illegal pc. But if you want my certs and awards, here is what I can recall right now.

              On the Admin side, I am trained to Exec Status One. I have completed mini hats for the posts of ED, Qual Sec and HCO Sec. I am a GAT trained Ethics Specialist, and an Elementary Data Series Evaluator.

              I was ED of the Peoria Mission as well as its Course Supervisor for 5 years, and a course supervisor in various missions in southern california. I was contracted staff in missions for 7.5 years, working my guts out to beat DEADLINE EARTH, and was a Scientologist for 16 years.

              In tech, I have completed HQS – the old one containing all the TRs, upper indocs and objectives auditor training, and delivered them for over 100 hours to my twin. I have completed three Book One courses and delivered probably 200 hours of Book One auditing, plus tons of Self Analysis, to random pcs off the street in various mission div 6es around the US. I’ve done the PTS/SP course 3 times,and PRO TRs Twice, as well as the Upper Indoc TRs course. I am an interned mini course supervisor and suped in 5 course rooms around the US for a total of around 5 years. I have completed the Qual Examiner Hat, and given hundreds of exams to dozens of pcs.

              I have completed up to Level G on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course.

              As a pc, I have completed up to ARC straightwire and attested to Past Life Clear twice, and having specifically verified it another two times in auditing per specific CSes to do so. I have had more than 300 hours of FPRD, completing the Basic List and First Dynamic list, with many tailor-made FPRD sec checks as a staff member and as a Supervisor. I have also completed a PTS rundown and my OT Preps. and I have done lots of other auditing actions as well as I hung with lots of Class 8 field auditors, and even a Class 9 or two in the 80’s and 90’s who just loved to audit me, it seems.

              It was on my second time through my Solo 1 course at AOLA when I realized that “WE CREATE OUR SELVES” where I stood up and picked up my meter and my books and walked out of AOLA and never returned to Scientology ever again.

              I had realized that “Scientologist” was a self I had adopted, but not created, which contained goals and purposes and problems and a “case” which was not my own, and which were packaged specifically by LRH to be controlled by Scientology. I realized that this synthetic personality was derailing and destroying my happiness, my self-determinism, and the life I had set out this lifetime to live.

              That is what prompted me to leave Scientology forever, and to get on the Internet and to expose it to others so as to give people the information necessary to make informed decisions about their own involvement in it.

              I have been doing that for the last 12 years or so.

              Does this answer your question? Because I have probably answered this question on the Internet to various Scientologists at least 15 times.

              Alanzo

            13. Well, that’s quite a Scn background, I will grant you. But, sorry to say, it makes your misstatements about the tech even more shocking. My opinion.

              I also want to point out again that I never claimed there were no critics who were trained and experienced with the tech – only that it seemed clear to me from all I’ve read on the internet that the majority of critics were not experienced auditors. You tried to prove me wrong on this and failed to do so (as explained on the comment I just posted). And my point about “experienced” auditors is something I’ve repeated quite a few times times but you continue to misrepresent it, among other things, which is why I find exchanges with you to not be worthwhile.

            14. For Alanzo to have such an extensive experience in Scientology and yet to rebel against The Tech; I believe we need no further proof of his recalcitrant and suppressive nature. Written plainly, he is psychotic. Shocking but true.

            15. 2nd,

              It is in the first few lectures of the 4th London ACC. He lectures about various aspects and philosophy of auditing in that ACC, as well as going into Native State , the expanded Know to Mystery Scales1st through 4th Postulates and related stuff like thetan’s automaticities.

              The exact wording in my post is my own. But that is the central idea I got from the lecture.

              I have posted the link to the 4th London ACC before. It is a free download courtesy of Anonymous.

            16. Checked it earlier. All the links were broken. “invalid file(s)”. They’ve been removed or re-located.

            17. Alanzo
              “We create our selves.” VERY interested! Can/will you write about your view/experiences of it? And: what is your favourite music these days? Will you post it?

            18. Marianne wrote:

              “We create our selves.” VERY interested! Can/will you write about your view/experiences of it? And: what is your favourite music these days? Will you post it?

              At the time, the WE CREATE OUR SELVES realization I had hit me like a freight train, and I saw everything in Scientology – all my struggles with it – all in one big bursting basketball.

              That realization really was IT for me.

              I have since realized a lot more about it, and what I was seeing him do on the Briefing Course with his “research” of the GPM and goals began to make more and more sense to me. And then going to see in a completely controlled environment like a ship, as his next brainwashing laboratory finally made sense. The Sea Org – all of it finally fell into place.

              Classical brainwashing is all about replacing a person’s self identity – who the person tells himself he is – with a self-identity (with goals and purposes) that you can control. That is fundamentally what brainwashing is.

              That realization I had, standing in the AOLA course room, was fully IT for me and Scientology.

              And I knew that I could not just walk away and let my friends continued to be abused. I had to do more than that. So I got with a lot of others who had similar realizations and experiences with Scientology on the Internet, and became a “critic” in the late 90’s, early 2000s.

              As far as my favorite music – I have not been listening to much music lately. I’ve been writing a lot, and working hard. But when I come across some music I like, I will post it.

              Alanzo

            19. Alanzo:”Classical brainwashing is all about replacing a person’s self identity – who the person tells himself he is – with a self-identity (with goals and purposes) that you can control. That is fundamentally what brainwashing is.”

              That may be a method of brainwashing but you haven’t convinced me that was the intent (of LRH or others). As you have done the majority of the BC you have listened to the tapes of the research and development of the subject. The progression that the subject went through looks much more like the attempted scientific codification of a path to improved sanity than an exploitation and entrapment of minds.

              I think it is more likely that, due to the path being a study of how beings were entrapped, the means was there – as it evolved – for unknowing re-entrapment.

              That statement deserves a bit of expansion. In all my years as an org staffer I saw only a small handful of people that I would trust not to bend situations to their advantage. Bending the situation could be accomplished by taking a piece of tech or admin and using it as the rod to coerce or enforce some sort of compliance. In some cases this could be seen as entrapment.

              Those of us who wouldn’t do that (attempt to get our way by using force) might have looked like marks to some of the staff who would. I made a stand against that sort of thing once and the senior said “The duck isn’t supposed to shoot back.”

              How I personally resolved the inconsistencies of how I saw things should be compared to how most execs wanted them to be was that these execs were most often poorly educated former criminals (petty thieves, drug pushers, delinquents, even a prostitute) who were trying to change but still continued former habits and attitudes. One of the attitudes was the willingness to scam and another was the attitude of personally desrving something for nothing i.e. out-exchange. These were actually considered good traits – at least until they backfired.

              I could see them use these means and the power of posts to control, and I could see them using the technology and admin tech to do it, but I always considered that the choice of the individuals, not the intent of the subject or the Founder. In the taped lectures I simply could not then, or now, get that from Ron. I am not denying there is evidence that he didn’t have a ruthless, militaristic side, but he was a product of military training so at least one aspect of the behavior is understandable i.e. its origin.

              As far as org staff getting into the militaristic kick, few really did – mostly those who joined the SO – but execs especially could get into the holier-than-though beingness. I still wouldn’t have called them brainwashed because as soon as their stats were down a bit and they suffered a personal attack they’d be gone. Typically blown. Not exactly a behavior of the brainwashed, I’d think.

              The conclusion here is that while the opportunity was there to use the technologies for brainwashing, the worst that I saw over the course of 15+ years was basically attempts at personal control by people who never could have achieved a position of real control in the real world. Even amongst the weakest of those minds I never saw enough characteristics of a cult member to have ever accused anyone I worked with of being a cult member. I could come up with many unflattering adjectives for them, but cult member, no.

              As far as things that happened distant to me, I’ll leave that for others to comment on. That there could have been brainwashing is not the point I would dispute. However, that it was the real intent of the subject and the Founder I find easy to dispute.

            20. Alanzo – “At the time, the WE CREATE OUR SELVES realization I had hit me like a freight train, and I saw everything in Scientology – all my struggles with it – all in one big bursting basketball.”

              What a life changing realization that was!

            21. Chris
              “he is psychotic”
              Until one fully REALIZES the I AM ME, one can show any TRAIT of psychosis. A tiny, little trait! As the root of that is still having an/more attention unit(s) in the past and dramatize it/them in the present. An issue of degrees of amnesia, that is! I am asking here Geir whether it is true or not as he is the only one here who handled that with OT8.
              Also, I “see/feel/sense Alanzo as HE is! His “core nature” which is common in each of us (caring, loving…) + parts of (the) SELF each of us has a share in either by creating/agreeing to (games) or by uncreating its parts (no games and/or new games).
              So we are communicating here LIVE in accordance with our “levels” of
              awareness to get a reality of the “parts” of this SELF and have Affinity for them. In one place Ron changed ARC for CRA ( I don’t remeber where) – you see, live Communication, Reality, Affinity. The basis of CHANGE (of mind) as a “human” being. No dramatization or logical mind has as much power as the “base” – the real ME=YOU.

    1. Hubbard seem to have something against SCIENCE. He is nattery.

      Since 1950, modern science has made much more progress than Scientology. Scientific knowledge is freely discussed and built upon.

      There is no KSW in science.

      .

  9. Scientology does NOT work

    by

    Per Schiøttz, Class IX

    I hear a lot of talk these days where people are bringing forth their viewpoints about Scientology and weather it works or not. I have got news to all of you: SCIENTOLOGY DOES NOT WORK!!

    People who agree with this also want to defend their viewpoint against other viewpoints, they want to be right in their viewpoint, they do not want to be wrong, and therefore they sometimes MAKE SURE that Scientology doesn’t work. This can be done in various ways. By promoting it doesn’t work, wins are false PR, Ron Hubbard was an idiot etc etc.. there are many ways. They also talk about other people who “died from Scientology”.

    Then again you can see people for example on Internet who write successtories about their contacts with Scientology and from their application of Scientology. They talk about how Scientology had changed their lives and they are much more happy now and they have gotten rid of various illnesses and have obtained new abilities to be able to do this that and the other which they could NOT do before they started in Scientology, so Scientology does work!!

    So now we have two viewpoints contradicting each other here. And they are very black and white dichotomies, oppositions and cause for many, many discussions which sometimes becomes fights and wars and lead to criminal acts and things like that.

    It is true that Scientology does not work. What is Scientology? It’s a lot of ideas, drills and practices which are stored in books, tapes films and CD’s. And this body of data does not do anything all by itself. Nothing, silts, nada. There has got to be a person who study the materials and then APPLY them in his life, only then can you talk about the philosophy of Scientology is working. It has to be made alive, studied, understood, drilled and finally put to work in real life situations, THEN it will work. For the person who is not willing to study, understand drill and practice Scientology doesn’t work, and he will tell you so. He will not say “I can not MAKE Scientology work” which is actually the truth of the matter. The other guy, the one who study, understands, drills and practices he will tell you that Scientology works, but it dies not, HE MADE it work for him.

    Scientology does not work. Scientology does not work all by itself. Scientology does not do anything at all. Scientology has to be used, has to be worked with in order to gain anything. So the person who tells you that Scientology does NOT work, he has not had the ability to make it work. The truth is that he could not make it work. His right statement is not “Scientology does not work” – NO – his true statement is “I can not MAKE Scientology work”. The person who tells you that Scientology works is saying. “I have made Scientology work for me”.

    The statement that Scientology does not work is true, it doesn’t do (work) by itself. A live person has to be added and THEN workability can be created. Those who say that it does not work are telling you that they were unable or unwilling to study the subject, handle earlier misunderstood in similar subjects, do the drills and make it work.

    1. Maria and I’ve already worked this one over. I like the play on words, but Geir is using the 11th and final definition of work from Merriam-Webster online as follows: 11.b.2: having effect : operating, functioning.

      Fun post though.

    2. Chris covered my viewpoint here.

      I will add that it is a bit a splitting-hair take on this, Per. It’s like saying the HP calculator DOES NOT WORK – simply because it cannot work ALL BY ITSELF. Well, yawn… whatever. But there IS a difference between a working calculator and a non-functioning one.

    3. Pe-er wrote:

      The statement that Scientology does not work is true, it doesn’t do (work) by itself. A live person has to be added and THEN workability can be created. Those who say that it does not work are telling you that they were unable or unwilling to study the subject, handle earlier misunderstood in similar subjects, do the drills and make it work.

      Actually, no.

      There are objective results that Scientology is supposed to achieve. These can, and should be, examined closely.

      When someone says that Scientology “did not work” for them, it is not good enough to simply dismiss them as “unable or unwilling to study the subject, handle earlier misunderstoods in similar subjects.” This is a complete non-confront of the reality of the results of Scientology itself and has been one of the problems in actually finding out about the results of Scientology all along.

      Stop it.

      Alanzo

      1. Yup, when I read the first sentence of that I saw where it was going. Preachers do this all the time. They will make a completely heretical statement that eventually puts the blame on the people for the heretical statement. It’s a good bit though. Gets attention and delivers a strong message.

        EXAMPLE: “God cannot love you!” ((AND OF COURSE HE DOES ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE))

        MESSAGE: “He cannot LOVE you in reality if WE don’t love him enough to share his love with you. It’s our fault for not obeying the Herbie-Derbie. Repent! Eat grape juice some pasty toast AND REMEMBER – NO DIPPING SAUCES and BE GRATEFUL!”

  10. Geir, you got me thinking more about this: “It is only really worthwhile to look at the actual results produced. The results is the key – the only aspect really worthy of discussion.”

    I fully agree. But I actually don’t think it’s possible to do! I say that because over the decades there has been increasingly less practice of tech (including ethics and admin tech) that is actually based on the philosophy of Scientology, other than a small percentage of exceptions, from what I have gathered. Thus, even if a valid way to test results were to be worked out, it wouldn’t be a test of valid Scn tech (I don’t mean perfect but reasonably valid tech). It would only be a test of its alteration to one degree or another.

        1. Testing, testing, testing – the tech applied this way, the other way, with ethics tech, without, with setups, backwards, etc, etc. This will give the real answers. Maybe the tech actually works the best under the leadership of DM? Who knows. Right now all we have is opinions, conjectures, speculations.

          1. That seems like an enormous amount of testing and pretty complicated, and it would be testing a number of essentially different techs. Maybe that’s the only possible way to do it, but I can think with the idea of simply testing tech that is based on the philosophy, i.e. the tech that generally existed in the earlier years.

          2. I agree with the scientific testing and verification approach. I’ve been suggesting that ever since I entered Scientology. However, you couldn’t just hand auditing commands to a scientist and expect a result. But if you used pro auditors of the pre-GAT version of tech as the auditors (record them up the yin-yang if you want), they’d get standard results.

            A point Maria made: it’s the current organizational structure and crucifying demands made on parishioners that is the real problem. Ya, ya, repeat of story and argument. All that’s needed to verify it is a tabulation of the results indie auditors are getting on a routine basis.

            1. I’m all for folks testing whatever they want to test. But I’m not expecting much for a couple of reasons – one, it’s just not that kind of world.

              “Scientific testing” as a generality is often called for on these blogs, but no-one ever seems to actually get into the specifics of what to test
              or how to test.

              I say it’s not that kind of world because the issue was recently brought up on Marty’s blog. Here’s what I posted in response:

              Someone posted: “If you want ‘Scientology’ as a subject to attract more positive credibility, then offer and subject it, in its entirety, to official and credible SCIENTIFIC evaluation, testing and reporting.”

              My response:

              “Clinical psychology or even psychiatric counselling have never been “scientifically proven” in the way you suggest Scientology tech needs to be.
              Yet clinical psychology, not to mention psychiatry, are multi-billion-dollar businesses that are covered by insurance and just keep rolling along decade after decade.. And the only evidence they help at all is “anecdotal”, not scientific.

              Related fields like “life coaching” haven’t been scientifically validated either. How about “psychics” you can call on the phone, paying lots of dollars per minute? It seems to me all counselling techniques ought to be subjected to the same scientific standards, shouldn’t they?

              Otherwise it seems like a double standard at work here. But I do feel your heart is in the right place.”

              The other reason I am skeptical that any effective testing will ever be done is this:

              On some lectures on the 4th London ACC, LRH actually was quite specific about the basic condition necessary for auditing to “work”.

              The primary condition necessary is the existence of ARC and the intention of the Auditor. I won’t go into a lot of detail, but the SOLE purpose of auditing, per LRH, is “to increase the ARC of the preclear”. This requires a certain level of auditor

              In the lecture I have in mind, LRH states that a “bad auditor” tries to create an effect on the preclear. Get that? Bad auditor tries to create an effect on the person he is auditing.

              How might this relate to “testing”? Think about it.

            2. Val, I think I get your drift but I believe testing could be done. There have been cameras in auditing rooms for years now and if the auditor is actually wearing his hat and has his attention on the pc, with intention and ARC in, all goes well. So it seems to me that with auditing being so much more systematic than other practices – as well as having the objective physical universe data of the e-meter – is the one practice that actually could be scientifically tested.

            3. I think it is possible to easily address the final point – the bad auditor wanting to create an effect. That would be the rarest of cases among professional auditors. I don’t think the scientific environment would cloud the issue either: the auditor wouldn’t be working to prove or disprove but simply to provide honest, measurable data. Same with the pc. As soon as a scientific investigation turns into something beyond data collection and analysis it has failed. Games and deceit do not work.

              As far as medical psychiatry agreeing to a test challenge, psychology and psychiatry might say they are dealing with very broken individuals as a general rule and Scientology is aimed at helping the able. A fair enough difference and I wouldn’t advocate testing Scientology on the severely disturbed. So I also wouldn’t advocate a side by side test of psychiatry and Scientology.

              The simple reason I would like to see Scientology introduced to the scientific realm is that I think Scientology could pass muster and be shown workable. Perhaps science could even contribute to evening out the bumps in it. The biggest bonus would be, however, if some measurable characteristics were seen to improve after auditing and science could confirm what some of us are already certain of – in short, that gains can be had.

            4. I don’t actually agree with either of you.

              Cameras in auditing rooms is a crime by my lights. I wouldn’t be surprised if those cameras at Flag were part and parcel of the degradation of the services there.

              How about cameras in Confessional booths in Catholic churches? Acceptable? Do you think folks would still go to Confession?

              As for the quality of “professional” auditor necessary, I doubt there are 10-15 people in the whole world who could audit effectively under those conditions. It is not unlike auditing under the conditions of the CoS system of having to produce a “stat”. I think that is also a major reason for the degradation of Scientology delivery overall.

              But don’t take my word for it. Listen to the first 10 or so lectures of the 4th London ACC, and if you still think it would work, then go out and volunteer to be the auditor in such a study, and see what happens, and how it affects you and your performance.

              Talk is cheap, and there is a lot of intellectualization on this
              and other blogs too. Intellectualization – this month’s hobby-horse or perhaps whipping boy. 🙂

            5. It isn’t intellectualizing, Val. What I and 2nxmr are talking about is based on factual experience – his is probably personal experience, mine is a matter of experience in orgs and knowing what goes on.

              Leaving aside what is happening at Flag for a moment, I know of many instances over the years of a camera being in the room recording the session when the C/S needed more direct data in order to debug a pc. I’m sure it’s done with the pc’s agreement, and the camera is in plain sight. People differ, but I imagine there would be plenty of pcs who wouldn’t mind at all and would agree to a camera being there for purposes of scientific testing.

              A good auditor can keep a pc in session regardless – i.e. “interested in case and willing to talk to the auditor”. The pc forgets about the camera even being there! And the auditor too has his attention on the session and the pc. The other reason I can think of where sessions are recorded is as a requirement to get a final pass for an internship – a “passing video”.

              At Flag, it’s different. The cameras are hidden so the pc doesn’t know, but the auditors do and yet they are perfectly capable of having their TRs in on the session and the pc. This is even in spite of the fact that they are terrified about “incorrectly” calling an F/N that hasn’t swung 3 times – which they know is out tech and will have a bad effect on the pc but they also know they’ll get into severe trouble if they do so. They try to get away with it anyway.

              You probably saw Marty’s blog post not long ago with Sylvia Llorens’ write-up. She was a top auditor at Flag and told the whole story of what’s happening there, including some of the ways auditors get around the arbitraries and risk a lot to do the right thing for their pcs. Here’s the link: https://markrathbun.wordpress.com/tag/silvia-llorens/

            6. In fact, most people who go to clinical psychologists are no more “seriously disturbed” than those who go for Scientology.Usually, they have a “wants handled”. That’s even some what true of people who go to talk to a psychiatrist. Most are not “psycho”. That is in fact a myth promoted by I’m not quite sure who.

              Hmmm. Have to look into that…..

              And it’s beside the point anyway. The point is neither profession has been subjected to much “scientific” testing, regardless of the particular populations they are dealing with.

            7. OK marildi. I want to know where I can get some of those rose-colored glasses too!

              And, imagination is a good thing, but I seem to imagine something other than what you are imagining. But that’s par for the course here on earth, isn’t it? Maybe you can be 2nd’s pc in the testing of scientology processing.

              I don’t buy the concept but I have no problem with others doing it. Or trying to do it. Go for it.

            8. My dear Valkov, there was very little imagination in my post. Mainly it was factual data about what I’ve seen to occur. The only thing I “imagined” was that there would probably been more than enough pc’s willing to take part in a scientific study – and that was based on what I’ve observed about pc’s commonly not minding that they’re being filmed or video’d.

              In fact, did you know that LRH stated that it’s a sign a pc has arrived at a relatively high case state when he doesn’t give a darn who knows what about him? And yes, I would happily agree to be 2nd’s pc. 🙂

            9. in·tel·lec·tu·al·ize (ntl-kch–lz)
              tr.v.
              1. To furnish a rational structure or meaning for.
              2. To avoid psychological insight into (an emotional problem) by performing an intellectual analysis.

            10. Marildi wrote:

              Val, I think I get your drift but I believe testing could be done. There have been cameras in auditing rooms for years now and if the auditor is actually wearing his hat and has his attention on the pc, with intention and ARC in, all goes well.

              This would be an excellent assumption to investigate and to test!

              So it seems to me that with auditing being so much more systematic than other practices – as well as having the objective physical universe data of the e-meter – is the one practice that actually could be scientifically tested.

              YAY MARILDI! This is the Marildi I know!!!

              Whew! I was beginning to see only the same well worn ideological pathways and mandated thought patterns. Such a relief to see the real Marildi shine through!!

              Alanzo

            11. marildi, it seemed to me that your main point was introduced by “I imagine”. Clarify away if you like.

              I however imagine, that any study ought to be done with folks who have never had any auditing or major case action you want to have tested. Raw public in other words. There needs to be a baseline and that is a good one.

              It would be made clear they were participating in a study, there would be cameras and recording devices, interviews and questionnaires,
              etc etc.

              I believe that practiced, educated pcs-subjects would not be right for any initial studies at least.

              Really, this was discussed on The Scn Forum 2-3 years ago.

              We are rehashing the same old generality: “There ought to be studies done.” It’s like the weather, everbody talks about it, nobody ever does anything about it, except the shaman.

              But for an actual auditing practice, I am thumbs down on cameras and recordings. I doubt many psychologists, psychiatrists, psychoanalists or other counselling practitioners would agree to such, either, for some very valid reasons. Confidentiality being a chief reason.

              So how about cameras recording confessionals in Catholic (or Orthodox, they do confessions too) churches?

            12. Valkov, I think there is very good reason to do scientific research on auditing. Basically, in the eyes of the general public it would lend credibility to Scn and the fact that it works – and that has never been more needed than now when its public image is so bad. And your point about no one so far having put up the funds for such research may no longer be a problem when some of the well-to-do Scientologists wise up about the CoS. I say we put the postulate there! 😉

            13. And I never suggested head-to-head studies comparing psychiatry and Scientology.

              I was simply pointing out that neither psychiatric counselling nor clinical psychology have ever been “scientifically validated” yet they keep chugging profitably along. And even helping some people along the way while they make a living.

              So why bother to demand it from Scientology methods?

              One reason may be that Scientology was oversold, and disappointed people are pissed. They are calling for studies.

              Another reason may be some people lack confidence in it’s workability and so fear to promote it even though they personally believe in it and benefited from it themselves. They are in a condition of Doubt towards actually practicing as an auditor, and want some studies to validate their basic faith in it. kinda to shore up their own confidence n it.

              And then there’s Al.

              All of these are vias. I feel LRH was right in presenting it directly to the public. If no-one audits because they are waiting for “scientific validation” by the Academic flat-earthists, well, good luck. Two hundred years from now you’ll still be waiting and no-one will have benefited. Wouldn’t that be an overt of omission?

            14. Val:” Wouldn’t that be an overt of omission?”

              Who said to wait? If you could do testing that validated it and got more people to use it, but didn’t, wouldn’t that be an overt of omission?

            15. Sure, it could be an overt of omission to not do testing.

              So, who do you know who would be interested and willing and flush enough to conduct some studies?

              And what should we do about those folks who have failed to run studies over the past 50 years? Hubbard did give them the Dianetics materials and carte blanche to do studies….

              All the Universities, departments of psychology, medical schools etc?

              Ahhh, we should write Ethics Orders on them! Then hold Comm Evs. That’ll do it!

              Running the studies will be their required A through E. 🙂

  11. I audited through the grades, but not NED. Interesting enough, I got excellent wins and objective gains on almost all auditing actions I did. I used to sweat profusely (especially under the arms)…did the purif and on day 1 ran out a drug I did when I was younger. I knew EXACTLY what it was and the feeling I experience. After the purif…the sweat turned off like a light switch.

    One of the reasons I have so much affinity for Geir is his story was so similar to mine. Geeky, akward and then communication to large groups became second nature. Plus we are both good looking 🙂

    I have no experience on the OT levels, but agree with Geir on what I observe in “OT’s”.

    Also, the Admin tech, when I used it with non Scn staff was a disaster. “Your stats are down”….”yes but it snowed a foot and nobody could come in to the business for the past two days…” “Here look at this policy on rationalizing stats”

    I am super happy with my gains, but one of the biggest gains was my ability to see something was wrong in the church and I walked away from what I thought would be my life’s path. I have yet to audit on the outside but plan too.

    Finally, I found when I audited simply because I wanted to, I got the best gains. Whenever I audited to “handle something”…never worked out…ever.

    One day Geir, I hope to share a beer/wine/whiskey with you my friend.

    1. forgot to add in my post…when I got to Flag to do setups for an L…I was pissed, I wanted out of there, and wanted to go back to my local org. I think I may have fallen prey to the 3 swing F/N that is often mentioned. After two weeks of misery, they gave me a different auditor and she handled it in one day and felt great. Standard Tech? Geez…

      1. Thank you kind sir…. the more the merrrier! Your posts are always worth reading twice.

    1. Don’t do it, Valkov!

      You have so much to live for on the outside! Sure no one understands you, but you can learn English better!

      Alanzo

      1. Hey, I have it easy. I’m already in jail for all practical purposes. It’s a prison planet, remember?

  12. I posted this on Marty’s blog a while back on a thread he labeled “Keeping Scientology Working” and I thought I would post it here as well — it is addressed to Marty.

    I have been reflecting on the many posts that you have made on this blog in the last couple of months and the wide divergence of opinions and viewpoints. It is truly enlightening.

    When this is coupled with the reports of past conditions and situations from multiple viewpoints, it seems obvious to me that without a tool such as this blog and its broad spectrum of available information, including the impact of various actions on individuals in the short and long term, and the scene that evolves, evolved and is still evolving, it was impossible to truly discern the efficacy and integrity of the various policies that were issued over time. Therefore I am reluctant to harshly judge LRH and the executives who sought to formulate policy, directives, plans etc. It is so easy to look in the rear view mirror and say — that was a bad turn!

    I believe it could be much more possible to formulate and monitor policy, plans, programs, etc. with a much higher probability of success now — especially if tools like this blog are employed — but only if those multiple viewpoints are viewed without bias and without preconceived belief systems or authoritarian dictates. Of course, there would need to be a tolerance for the inevitable hashing and bashing as people find their way through the losses, betrayals and ARC breaks.

    I think it goes without saying that every policy letter ever issued was intended to solve a particular barrier, or to align and forward individual, post and organizational purposes. Context, culture and existing situations are critical to evaluating a policy issues value, importance, alignment, cohesiveness and potential for abuse. And that is what a blog such as this provides. And it is a desperately needed step now and in the future too.

    This is transparency at its best, no one afraid to say what they really think, or afraid to offer information that may have a bearing on the discussion at hand. I see that you have welcomed people on this blog who have never been Scientologists and people who once were and are now very much opposed to it. I often wonder if it is possible to embrace this completely, thrive from it and forge a library or compendium of thoroughly reviewed materials from which people can draw the best of it, with full caution noted where there is potential or past abuse.

    I think of a progression like a Wikipedia Cliffs Notes featuring the original materials, their context included, with an ongoing restatement of clear principles derived and extracted from information and discussion in modern day terms and technologies, with an ongoing feedback mechanism to monitor ongoing discussion, results, and comments. This could be very powerful. With that in hand, If someone wants to apply the materials just exactly and only as they once were, well, all the power to them, but I cannot see how anyone can rely on them just on the basis that LRH said so and therefore it must be so.

  13. Geir, re your point #6: Does Scientology training work?
    Usually. The training is lacking the component of an instructor that help bring the material to life. Thus, the training tends to be more “dry” than other comparable training in society.

    I have lately realized that the “instructor” or “mentor” is there, or intended to be there, in the form of the lectures by LRH. He is actually there providing thousands of hours of instruction all through the Congresses and the ACCs in particular, and then on up through the Special Briefing Course and Class VIII course.

    So my view is that component is there, just being underutilized. Yes, it is not quite as good as having the living LRH there personally instructing you, but he does a pretty good job in the lectures. The written materials are less than 50% of the understanding that is available through also listening to the lectures.

    I think these are an underutilized resource the significance of which is not grasped or applied enough.

    I think there has been a general tendency to “quickie” Scientology training which is responsible for some of the poor results that have been and are being obtained.

    I attribute it to the usual human laziness and tendency to look for shortcuts.

    1. There is no substitute for an instructor that can – on the fly – tailor the delivery of the material to the audience, to you by giving relevant practical examples.

      1. I don’t disagree. Obviously it’s not the same thing as having a personal instructor right there with you.

        But I think LRH did the best he could in his lectures to: first, reach as many in the group audience as possible by expanding on each point in a lecture from different viewpoints, and second, have his lectures recorded to continue the transmission of specifically his teaching.

        As he lectured to groups, no doubt he lost a few people along the way, just as he probably did when he did group processing. No doubt some did not get as much benefit out of those sessions, as others did.

        Perhaps you can do better? Maybe by living and teaching live forever?

        Let’s argue about it, eh? 🙂

      2. Here are some points on the Supervisor’s Code that, if applied, would permit a Supervisor to bring the subject to life:

        7. The Supervisor will be able to correlate any part of Scientology to any other part and to livingness over the eight dynamics.

        8. The Supervisor should be able to answer any questions concerning Scientology by directing the student to the actual source of the data. If a Supervisor cannot answer a particular question, he should always say so, and the Supervisor should always find the answer to the question from the source and tell the student where the answer is to be found.

        19. The Supervisor will never give a student opinions about Scientology without labeling them thoroughly as such; otherwise, he is to direct only to tested and proven data concerning Scientology.

        That last one especially, as regards giving opinions and labeling them as such, is one I’ve observed Supervisors are afraid to do as it goes outside the bounds of the rote application of tech that is being demanded in the CoS.

        1. Great post marildi. It really illustrates how much sheer study needs to be put into becoming a really good and effective Supervisor. Not unlike becoming a tenured professor at a university, eh?

          Certainly a very good knowledge of the lectures at least.

          1. Right, Val. There are big differences from one Sup to the next. They range from the most rote and robotic and more of a hindrance to the student than anything, to those who know the study tech and can think with it conceptually. And the really good ones apply standard tech but at the same time don’t evaluate for the student.

        2. M: I am an interned Course Supervisor – I can speak from broad experience in many camps of supervision and instruction. Apart from the original lectures by LRH, there is no Scientology courses that offer the free flow of a live instructor instead of the rigid course checksheet system dictated by LRH. What I do now in front of a group would send me to the gallows, by the order of LRH, if I were to tech Scientology that way.

          1. OK.

            Just to make sure you understood my point, it is that LRH wanted to create a “public education system” that would teach or lead as many people as possible to learn, assimilate, duplicate the discoveries and insights LRH felt he had made into Life, the mind, spirit, etc.,as quickly as possible. Thus he lectured to groups in the first place, rather than teaching people one at a time, and had the lectures recorded in their entirety. He did in fact illustrate various points in his lectures, with specific examples.

            Obviously it is not the same as having individual attention from a living instructor. However as LRH could not be in all classrooms all over the world all the time to respond individually to students who needed some help, 24/7, forever, he attempted to “clone” himself as an instructor through having his lectures recorded, and setting up a system which was supposed to minimize the alter-is by minimizing the interpretation and evaluation the Sups engaged in. it was set up as much as possible that LRH himself would bethe “instructor”, through his writings and lectures.

            That was my only point.

            I have been to a live public lecture by good old Gyatso the current Dalai Lama and I was actually quite disappointed because all he did was recite or read Buddha’s materials in Tibetan, which were then translated into English for the audience! He essentially just quoted references, adding nothing of his own.

            I had expected something extemporaneous and in English to boot, but no. So even the DL is careful not to misrepresent what their “source” taught. Of course DL and others do publish books in which they do explain things in their own words. And this happened a little in Scientology, with Ruth Minshull, Peter Gilham et al, but was curtailed somewhere along the line.

            However,given that we have Hubbard recorded in his own words and voice, I do think that ought to be our first resource.

            Imagine if we had actual recordings of Buddha or Jesus to listen to, how much more sense and meaning the Bible or the Buddhist Canons would have.

            But of course people have a tendency to think their own understanding is more “:important”, even when their knowledge of the actual original works is incomplete.(I’m not implying I think you or anyone else on this blog fits that profile. I’m saying anyone who seeks to instruct others needs to be very sure they understand the original ideas very thoroughly.)

            1. Valkov
              A “free being” has a PRESENCE. There is a “free flow of energy” sorrounding that person. Also, certain sacred texts retain that energy. When another “free being” reads out such a “text”, it is the same as if the “original being” was saying that in present time. “Listening” both means the “feel” of the energy and the “words” as pointers/tools. My experience.

          2. Geir, I actually like the idea of the free flow of a live instructor, just as I like the free flow of discussions on forums or wherever. And LRH provided for a free flow in things like seminars or lectures, but with courses, having checksheets ensures (for one thing) that all the most relevant materials and drills, etc. are covered. Also, instructors are called supervisors because they do not instruct or teach, for the simple reason that doing so can easily get into false data and incorrect tech, and it would not be a very practical system to oversee. LRH himself is essentially the teacher on courses, via the course materials. Btw, there are quite a few lectures with lots of examples on auditor training checksheets.

            1. One must tailor the course to fit the need (the intended fixed result of a specific skill in the student). Such tailoring is best done with a live instructor. Ref the article “Processes, Automation and Human Potential).

            2. I would say that many a good supervisor has proven that supervising can be quite “live” enough to “tailor the course to fit the need (the intended fixed result of a specific skill in the student)”. Haven’t you ever experienced one like that?

            3. Isene
              Yes. Live. Nothing can substitute it when an alive “enlightened/realized” “master/instructor” challenges the “student”. Ego/self gets gradually built down (Kill Bill) while skills are acquired and abilities are re-gained. Can be tough at times. My experience. I wouldn’t change it for any other way. Also, it boils down to resonance. As I have found it only those can face such a person who are really, really ready to leave their egos behind. That is ready to “die” at times. I did so. And ready to continue. Aliveness is through the doors of the “deaths” of
              the ” I “. Behind the doors is more and more “fresh new creativity” to
              “change” the culture we “live in”. Visible results!

            4. Marildi; Nothing even close to what Brendan and I are doing with students, or Tony Robbins, or many excellent instructors in many areas. Light years apart from the factory-like checksheet courses in the CoS.

            5. Are you saying that all Scn courses should be designed like yours are and have people like you and Brendan teaching the courses?

              And please say a bit more about what you and Brendan do. Sounds interesting.

            6. Okay, Geir, but I get the idea that you have an idealistic (and unrealistic) notion of how Scn courses and supervisors should be. It would be something similar to the idea that all schools should have only gifted teachers, ones who even devise their own curriculum. Am I not far off?

            7. Marildi: Okay, Geir, but I get the idea that you have an idealistic (and unrealistic) notion of how Scn courses and supervisors should be.

              Chris: Really Marildi? Unrealistic? Compared to the unrealistic absolute nonsense of KSW?

      3. I agree Geir. The question is, is such an instructor conveying LRH’s understanding, or his own?

        That is why some people prefer to study LRH directly, even if it might take longer and take more effort. They are trying to grasp LRH’s own understanding in full, to the extent it is available. It’s not a question of slavishly following, it’s a question of actually duplicating and understanding.

        That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t teach, or that what you have to offer isn’t valuable. It definitely is, as any participant in this blog can testify.

        1. I don’t have that much interest in LRH’s understanding. I am looking for factual results, not other people’s understanding. The student’s own understanding is the key. I find live communication to do wonders. It is less “dry”.

          1. OK.

            I find LRH’s lectures not dry at all.

            As for saying “the student’s own understanding”, that’s all very well, but it is all a student can ever develop – his own understanding.

            That is in fact not what we are discussing. We are discussing the OBJECT of his study and understanding, in this case, LRH tech. That’s what we are discussing, because you mentioned scn “training” as lacking the element of live instruction.

            So indeed you should of course develop your own understanding of whatever it is you wish to develop an understanding of; in my case, one thing I wish to develop is my understanding of LRH’s thinking, especially on the tech side as he presented it in the ACCs etc.

            If that’s not an interest of yours, naturally you might find the
            lectures boring, uninteresting, or dry.

            It seems obvious to me that if you are interested in the results of Scientology, the way to start is by getting trained to audit so you can consistently apply it to others yourself; but you don’t really seem interested in that, so perhaps you are interested in something else?

            Maybe you are more interested in being a researcher into the results of others? Only you can say or decide that for sure. Perhaps discussing it here will help you reach a conclusion and choose a direction.

            The main thing is, your interest needs an OBJECT to examine and
            understand. It really is as LRH said: “ARC = U”. U = ARC. What are you in ARC with? Or what do you want to be in ARC with? Then you can go about figuring out how to achieve that.

          2. Val; I don’t think you are getting my point. Live communication is better than a recorded lecture for many reasons.

            1. I got your point and acknowledged it several times.

              However, since Hubbard is dead and gone, if I want to study his thinking as directly as possible, all I have to work with are his writings and his recorded lectures. Of the 2, the audio lectures are closer to the live man than the writings.

              Buddhists are at a real disadvantage as unless they know Pali or Sanskrit,they have to read his alleged words in translation. There are no recorded lectures of Buddha in his own words.

              But in case you missed my agreement the first 2 or 3 times, here: Yes, live communication is better than writings or recorded lectures, for more than one reason.

              Since I have already stated why I listen to Hubbard’s lectures, perhaps you will tell us how and why live communication is better?

              I’d like to know what your thoughts on this are,because I don’t really know why YOU think this. Don’t be shy now.

            2. “Don’t be shy now”? What kind of a stupid comment is that?

              See my answer to Marildi on the same.

            3. Sorry Geir, I guess that was my mistake. I must have momentarily thought of you as that shy computer geek-nerd you perhaps once were, in another life? Not that I think you are chary of sharing your opinions; you are just thoughtful and don’t usually carelessly shoot from the lip like I do.

              But now you got me interested – how many different kinds of stupid remarks are there?

              Perhaps we could develop a taxonomy? Perhaps by studying the postings of myself, Al, Vinnie, etc?

            4. I have decided my own stupid comments tend to be Ferally Stupid, in keeping with my character.

              How’s that for “consistency”?

            5. he he he – I guess I decided to treat your point as a bit beside the point since we were, I thought, talking about Scientology training and with Hubbard being dead and all, how else could it be done? He’s not here to instruct us in person and living color. All that’s left are his writings and recorded lectures.

              But we could do like Captain Bill did and mock LRH up to sit on a shoulder and instructor converse with us, like Plato’s(or was it Socrates’ ?) demon did. I think that is valid processing and a valid research and philosophizing technique. Create an LRH circuit that duplicates LRH as closely as possible, and i’s almost as good as the real thing.

              It might in fact take on a life of it’s own and start walking around and talking with you. Like that 6-foot tall white rabbit in that play.

              Can you imagine a 6-foot tall white rabbit walking around with you talking like LRH and revealing the secrets of the universe to you?

              I think sometimes that’s what happens to Al, but the rabbit that walks around and talks to him is high on weed, and reveals the gobbledygook of the universe to him through a haze of smoke.

            6. I think sometimes that’s what happens to Al, but the rabbit that walks around and talks to him is high on weed, and reveals the gobbledygook of the universe to him through a haze of smoke.

              Natter, indicating overts and withholds.

              Also, he is blown.

              What more proof do you need that what I say is true?

              Alanzo

  14. Back in the day, only auditors were considered to be Scientologists. When LRH refers to “scientologists” in his lectures and written materials, he is usually referring to Auditors, no-one else.

    Thus, Al, the populations you are talking about were largely never “scientologists”. They were something else. This may even apply to you. So maybe you are not an “ex-scientologist” at all. Because in order to be an “ex-scientologist”, one would have to have been a scientologist, ie an auditor, to start with….

    Looked at that way, even Geir might never actually have been a “Scientologist”.

    1. Neer-Ne-Neer-Ne-NER-knee-ner-ner-ner-nee-…

      ANNOUNCER: “Valkov On. Valcov Scientologist”

      VALKOV: “I think it’s a privilege to call yourself a Scientologist and its something you have to earn. And because a Scientologist DUZ…”

      Nun-nuh-NAAAAAAAAAAA
      Nun-nuh-NAAAAAAAAAAAA
      Nun-nuh-NAAAAAAAAAAAAUUh
      Nuh-nuh.

      1. Okay. Valcov I’m sorry. That was fucking mean.

        “My name is Katageek AKA: Will Harper. I’m addicted to blog dopamine, fast food and caffeine. Today is day 1 of my sobriety of all three substances as I, a non-Scientologist. choose to be at ’cause over hand’ regarding keyboards, coffee cups and fast food wrappers.”.

        _/!\_ (gassho)

        1. No problem geek. I always expect you to suddenly (mis)duplicate me in your own idiosyncratic way.

          I mean, like everyone else, you have your own “filters”…..

          1. But factually, back in the 1960s-1970s, people did not lightly claim to be ” a Scientologist” nor was anyone considered to be “a Scientologist” unless s/he was an trained and interned auditor.

            It’s a matter of defintions, and it does make a difference.

    2. I guess if history becomes inconvenient for you, Valkov, you can always revise it.

      It’s the only game where you always win.

      Alanzo

        1. You wrote:

          Back in the day, only auditors were considered to be Scientologists. When LRH refers to “scientologists” in his lectures and written materials, he is usually referring to Auditors, no-one else.

          Thus, Al, the populations you are talking about were largely never “scientologists”. They were something else. This may even apply to you. So maybe you are not an “ex-scientologist” at all. Because in order to be an “ex-scientologist”, one would have to have been a scientologist, ie an auditor, to start with….

          Looked at that way, even Geir might never actually have been a “Scientologist”.

          1. Well Al, as I posted above, in 1970s a “Scientologist” was an auditor or at the very least an auditor in training, like on the HSDC, which back then came before the Grades and Academy levels.

            I did not call myself a “Scientologist” because I had just started to learn about it. It was obvious that calling one’s self a “Scientologist” required an understanding and some practiced ability that I and many others had not achieved. Thus people did not lightly call themselves “Scientologist”.

            It was not a bandwagon to jump on for the “coolness” of it’s status, it required real results based on real training and understanding.

            All this was pre-IAS and pre-fundraising rah-rah and pre status consciousness. It was pre bullshit to a large extent.

            1. I see.

              And what about the Tech dictionary definitions of “Scientologist”, which all came from Hubbard’s lectures and issues in the 50’s and 60’s?

              Also, I believe that you are blown from a number of other comm cycles with me elsewhere on the blog.

              Are you planning to turn yourself in as a blown poster and answer up on those?

              Or are you just going to run irresponsibly rampant, wildly amok, starting comm cycles all over the blog and blowing when you can’t confront the answers?

              This is no way to be a Scientologist, Valkov, if you believe you deserve the privilege to call yourself that.

              Alanzo

  15. Looking is simply noticing what the perceptions provide in terms of sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, thought, feeling, etc. To learn to look is to learn to differentiate one thing from another. Looking is followed by a recognition of what is there.

    It seems that the first level of differentiation would be in terms of senses. What is being perceived? Is it a sight, a sound, a smell, a taste, a touch, a thought or a feeling. However, a level before that might be, ‘Is it out there, or is it in the mind?’

    Sometimes it is hard to make the differentiation, ‘Is it out there, or is it in the mind?’ This is especially so when nobody is around to confirm or deny it. Doubt may still persist even when somebody is around agreeing or disagreeing. Lately there have been many movies on this subject.

    There is hallucination. Dictionary tells us that it is a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind. The root meaning of the word ‘hallucination’ is ‘a wandering of the mind’.

    Let me put this question out there,

    “When the technique of ‘looking’ is applied to spot inconsistencies what happens to hallucinations?”

    Or, maybe someone could provide an alternate question.

    Looking at Hallucinations

    It seems that a hallucination can be very mild and may simply serve to alter reality. Can religious ideas and imagery, such as that of The Last Judgement, result from hallucinations? Can expectations, such as those on the OT levels of Scientology, result in hallucinations of OT abilities?

    Hubbard establishes right from OT Level 1 that you must go by what the e-meter tells you in response to your questions. In other words, your body reactions must be trusted over and above your thoughts or feelings.Thus, Hubbard puts one’s thoughts and feelings under suspicion and as something that cannot be trusted.

    To me this is an inconsistency. Why give priority to body reactions (to which the e-meter responds) over something that one can clearly see.

    Where do body reactions come from? I would say that the e-meter reactions are not free of the judgmental nature of the mind. Only looking per KHTK issues goes beyond the judgmental nature of the mind.

    I would definitely trust LOOKING over the E-METER.

    .

    1. vinaire:”Can expectations, such as those on the OT levels of Scientology, result in hallucinations of OT abilities?”

      S: Yes. But there is huge difference between them two. In the case of a person that is total effect, he can try to reach the 8th Dynamic by going further down. OT does that the other way around. The difference is that OT cannot be effect, because he doesn’t identify with an object. He can pretend to be the object, just for fun, but he is basically not a ‘something’ that can receive an effect.

      1. By ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ I don’t mean tha any being is better than the other. It is measurement of affinity towards one’s own creations. One creates something and looks at it, or fights it or this or that. Both preclear and fully OTs are fully capable to create. They both create, thus they experience. If they couldn’t create, they wouldn’t experience their creations. But a person that is busy resisting (creating charge) his creations doesnt leave much space for new creations to appear. Even if they appear, other creations will be at odds with them.

  16. Hubbard says on the original OT 1, “It is not the intention of this section to exteriorize anyone but if it happens don’t worry about or fool around with the fact.” Why would he say that? There is considerable mystery and expectations built around the word EXTERIORIZATION in Scientology. It would have been better not to bring it up if it was not part of OT 1. But, I suppose, it was intended by Hubbard to present these OT Levels as something mysterious. Are they really mysterious?

    First of all, is there anything mysterious about exteriorization? The Tech Dictionary says,

    EXTERIOR, the fellow would just move out, away from the body and be aware of himself as independent of a body but still able to control and handle the body. (Spec Lect 7006C21)

    Now, what is this thing that would just move out, away from the body? Ah, it’s the being. But what is a being? According to the Tech Dictionary, it is a viewpoint. But is there somebody assuming this viewpoint? Yes, it is the thetan. So, what is a thetan? The Tech Dictionary defines it in several different ways. It starts out by defining it as an abstract concept used for “source of life and lfe itself.” Then it defines it as “awareness of awareness unit,” “the individual who lives in the body,” “something assuming a location by consideration,” etc.

    It is obvious that the being or thetan is not something material that moves out of the body. So, exteriorization must be the freeing of some consideration attached or fixed with respect to the body.

    Any mystery attached to “exteriorization” would come from not understanding the above. And any misunderstanding of “exteriorization” can inadvertently create complications with a person trying to interpret his or her experiences on OT 1.

    I would say that a person’s experience on OT Levels will be messed up to the degree it is made mysterious. Hubbard says on OT 1, “A great many phenomena (strange things) can happen while doing these drills if they are done honestly.”

    This definitely injects expectations in the process, thus coloring and corrupting one’s “ability to look.” It moves one away from the position of pure looking.

    Hubbard did his best to make these levels mysterious, probably for the purpose of creating a “mystery sandwich” to attract people. But this very action corrupted the ability to look on these levels.

    I doubt if Hubbard understood the concept of LOOKING as Buddha put it.

    .

  17. On the earliest OT 1, the drills have to do with

    (1) Counting bodies
    (2) Noticng the sex (male or female) of those bodies.
    (3) Noticing the size (small or large) of those bodies.
    (4) Noticing the attribute in terms of there being an individual, or a crowd.
    (5) Differentiating oneself from others.
    (6) Noticing the degree to which one can have (tolerate) others around oneself.
    (7) Noticing the body part in others that one doesn’t like having in one’s body.
    (8 ) Spotting things in others that are not wrong with them.
    (9) Note people walking toward you or walking away from you.
    (10) Note how people stick to the ground (get the sense of gravity).
    (11) Spot importance in people (these would be one’s own considerations).
    (12) Note places where there are no people.
    (13) Note places where there are people.

    Basically, this is LOOKING and recognizing what is there. The principles of KHTK should apply here. OT 1 focuses looking on bodies in different ways so their various attributes may be perceived, and then looking at oneself with respect to those attributes.

    I think that this drill would make a person look at oneself more objectively, and may free up some fixed considerations about oneself.

    Nothing more mysterious need to be read into the OT 1 Level.

    .

  18. When I did Grades III and IV, I was absolutely on top of the world…I thought to myself “if this is the wins on the grades, OMG what are the OT levels going to be like?”

    When I went to flag to do L11, I was completely bummed. I know everyones experience is different, which lends to Geir’s question about does auditing work. If Grades III and IV were a “10” for me, I would rate L11 as a “3”.

    After the fact I knew I had a new life after III and IV. So I justifiied it that way. In Flags defense, they knew I wasn’t that happy and they put me back in again and again and even again on another trip to give me the wins. All on their dime. So does audting work? For me absolutely and no question.

    1. I believe that some people have to go up to OT 8 to get rid of their ‘mental hindrances’, but others can blow them away at lower grades.

      It seems that I blew mine in the first 25 hours of my auditing as documented in
      My Introduction to America. After that I could have simply lived my life by resolving the inconsistencies as I came across them. But it seems like mysteries promoted in Scientology keeps you there.

      I like the simplification of Idenics compared to the Bridge in Scientology. Now KHTK is going one step ahead and incorporating the best of Scientology and Idenics. I haven’t given much attention to KNOWLOGY of Alan Walters because it is just a rehash of Scientology.

      .

      1. Ditto Vinaire. I can say without ego I’ve met OT VIIIs who just didn’t seem to have half the abilities I did. I’ve met non-scn who were more able than I. I am fortunate in that I got out of the craziness cheap by comparison to others. But I wouldn’t trade my wins back for the time money and aggravation I spent. I’m a happy man

        1. Ha ha! GG, I am a happy man too. And I am determined to condense the essentials of knowledge to KHTK.

          And once that is done, I shall throw KHTK away to the winds..:)

          .

          1. Right there. I think that you have hit upon the salient point of all self help and self betterment. Whether or not you “throw it” it finally goes.

            Each of us tries if we do. Each of wins and loses as much as we do. Each generation of life does this again. Some people are disturbed by this but I think it’s just the game of life and when it’s iteration is over, meaning at each moment, another moment takes its place.

        2. gaeaglefan1023, I have also noticed that people at the same Bridge level can differ greatly. In fact, people start out on the Bridge at greatly different levels of ability and spiritual awareness. One of the incredible things about the tech and the Bridge is that LRH devised it in such a way that anyone, at whatever spiritual level they begin, can do each Bridge step and get whatever depth of gain they are capable of at the time – and still have the EP because it’s their own EP based on their potential.

          This concept of people starting out at different levels of spiritual advancement was even mentioned as early as 1951 in SOS, chapter “Ability to Handle Responsibility”. LRH was describing a fully responsible individual in relation to his various dynamics, and when he got to the 7th dynamic (theta) he wrote just one sentence but it was significant:

          “He may or may not have some consideration in the direction of theta, this depending upon his own advancement.”

          When I was a word clearer, I got a lot of reality on this point of differences. Students varied enormously in their depth of understanding of the materials – even of the meaning of a word.

          So I find it easy to understand that people vary all along the way up to and including the end of the Bridge. And for some of them the “rest of the journey” will be a lot longer than for others.

          1. marildi…spot on. One story sticks out to me in a big way. I was probably on Grade 3 at the time, but an OTVII I knew was telling me a story that they had previously told me about 2 months prior. I let them tell the story again, and he had no clue he told me.

            I remember where we were, the position of our bodies, the clothes he was wearing, his hair, his facial expression, and his breath (ugh). My recall of that was amazing.

            And you are right…the bridge was laid out so anyone can walk it. I am looking forward to getting back on the bridge outside the foolishness.

            1. Thanks, gg (what can we call you for short? :)). Even though I believe that people come to the far end of the Bridge with different levels of ability, I have the idea that someone who ends up at OT VII like the guy you described is most likely what they call a bypassed case who didn’t get the EP(s) somewhere along the line. Or he may have roller coastered or had his case ruined outside of session because of the CoS culture being what it is.

              Other than that type of thing, though, my sense of it is that anyone who gets the actual EPs of the Bridge would at least be high enough in knowingness and abililty to be able to find his next path to walk, and to continue forward. I would even venture to say that people don’t necessarily have to do the whole Bridge to get to that point – again, they vary in their “advancement” (the word LRH used in that SOS quote) even from the beginning.

      2. Yo Vin, (this post is not a trick, a kick, or a jibe).

        Have you checked out the links I posted on the previous thread, about Gestalt Therapy?

        I really did have you in mind when I posted those, because I think you could incorporate the concepts and language there, into your blog posts about KHTK to make them more duplicatable.

        Gestalt is very much in the vein of Idenics, mindfulness, Vippasana, and KHTK, in kind of a modernized, Westernized way. It’s all about the donut and the hole.

        Incidentally it was founded by a maverick psychiatrist.

      1. Amazing huh? Here’s the story Chris. When I started my preps for L11, I got with an auditor and when I was reading definitions of words and then using them in a sentence…I was miserable. I remember in all my auditing actions I would use the word in a sentence or two or three and may be 4-5 at most. For my preps, I swear I was clearing it 40-50 times. I was super frustrated. When I finally got out of session, I saw the D of P and went over it. I stated that in all my previous audting I would clear a word a few times and felt GREAT! Now I’m doing it 50 times and I am miserable.

        They switched auditors. And my reg, Sonya, said the guy messed up and the added hours back to my account.

        When I started L11, I was going through a few sessions and was waiting for something to happen….never did. the Class XII said “So what do you think of your L11 so far?” I replied “Its okay.” We went round and round on this and I just wasn’t blown away. They said “well what did you expect?” I answered “well all I can expect is what you promote that it is” New Life? Life changing wins?

        Anywayz, when I finally left, they checked on me later inquiring about L10 and I stated I didn’t want to do it. I wanted to go to NED. they had me come back down and recheck L11 and fix it up at no charge.

        It helped for sure, and you are not the only person to say they never heard of this before.

          1. About 6 years ago Chris. Couldntwait to be a Flag guy but it was a letdown. First Flag experience was Havingness RD and was good. I got big balls from auditing and told itnlike it was

        1. That is a great story of how mistakes can be made and then fixed up. Totally is the way I would have handled the problem as well. I don’t charge people two-times for one-time results. Seems only fair, right?

  19. One last comment on Geir’s intellectually honest and courageous post above.

    The overwhelming majority of Scientologists become Ex-Scientologists. This has been true throughout Scientology’s history. And the reason this has always happened is not anyone’s fault. No one fails, no one “turns SP” or becomes convinced of anything at all except for one thing: You can no longer defend the indefensible.

    When you take away all the thought-stopping techniques, the misdirections, and the justifications, all you have left to examine is Scientology itself – its statements, its claims, its abuses, its lies, and their results in your own and others’ lives.

    When you really zero in on those without letting yourself get distracted from them, you begin to realize, one by one, that they can not be defended.

    I believe that this process is going on with Marty and Mike right now, and this is also happening on a mass scale with numbers of people I have never seen before. It probably happened on a similar scale after Mary Sue went to prison and LRH went on the run, and Marty and Mike and Dave first started taking over, but that was before my time and there was no internet to record it.

    Marty used to say, over and over and in many different ways, that Scientology would be fine if it weren’t for David Miscavige. He hasn’t said that now in a long time. I think that while working on his book, he has had to strip away the thought-stopping techniques, the misdirections, the justifications, and really examine Scientology’s claims, its abuses, its lies and their results. I believe he is beginning to realize that you can not defend the indefensible.

    This is all that an Ex-Scientologist is. It is not a person who is evil, or filled with MUs and overts. It is not a “victim” or any other kind of thought-stopping, misdirected justifier for continuing to defend the indefensible.

    An Ex-Scientologist is just a person who has come to realize that they can no longer defend the indefensible.

    Geir has walked this path in one of the most positive and constructive ways I have ever seen anyone walk it. I think Marty is also, possibly, maybe, beginning to do the same. It’s easier to do this positively and constructively now that Marty and Mike aren’t trying to utterly destroy people who are engaged in this process and find themselves on it, now too.

    This is all to the good.

    It has been very fulfilling for me to watch people rising up out of the chains that have been placed on their minds, and freeing themselves in such an intelligent and positive way here on Geir’s blog.

    Alanzo

    1. Alanzo
      This is YOUR flow! Or rather, THE FLOW! + your humour + your masculine power! Creative, that is!
      You want to be the Riddler! Chris said it was taken by me. No. I am
      giving it to you! This song too – I like Freddie. Hope you too!

      1. Alanzo
        You probably read Katageek’s post on MEANING. I see it the way he does. A flower just grows. Doesn’t need to explain to itself how to do that. I have found it very useful to examine how the mind works. In auditing and in studying it got pretty clear. Good stuff. But there is more to Life than just that – as you very well know it. Geir used a phrase-
        the Bridge is standing in mid-air. Perfect description! What the Bridge stands in is more important than the Bridge!

    2. Good write-up!

      I will add that being able to read first hand accounts from multiple time periods and locations, accounts from multiple whistle-blowers of hidden actions, and discussion from many points of view enables one to even see that there are elements that are indefensible and cannot be justified no matter how wonderful the end-goals may be.

      I have learned that if I have only my own point of view, and my own experience to work with and I am cut off from information that is crucial to full evaluation, I come to conclusions that are flawed, not because I am flawed in my ability to form conclusions, but because I have been denied the full data that should be present to form conclusions.

      It’s been quite a ride for me, Alanzo! I well remember being so frustrated and sometimes angry at you and a few others that I could have spit bullets. LOL!

      I may not ever agree with all of your ideas and I am good with that. Somewhere along the way, I came to look forward to being challenged about my ideas, oddly enough it brought me to a state of equanimity, a state where I did not feel any need to stop another’s communication or push the ignore button. I think that’s great!

      1. You’re right Maria. It’s a matter of having all the information necessary to make informed decisions. That was not available for people before. The internet has given that to us, and Geir has consistently used the Internet very productively and constructively to move this process along.

        He’s always stayed as positive as possible, and continually re-positioned himself for further positive change, while bringing others along with him.

        If he is the new “Scientology Critic”, then things are getting much better for people whose lives have been affected by Scientology.

        I have loved debating with you, Maria.

        Always learning.

        Always intelligent.

        Always a challenge.

        (:>

        Alanzo

  20. WOW! Does Scientology work? This is a very “Loaded” question. I hope this discussion is not going to detour into a semantics rambling. We know that our vocabulary is very extensive already. Had to get that out of my system!!

    I would like to share my opinion from the point of view of someone who is not a Scientologist, not even IS.

    I am trained as CR Supe therefore I am very familiar with Hubbard’s Study Tech and Supe Tech as well as the Admin Tech, I can tell you from experience that these three areas of Sci work, with one condition – You must applied what you have learned, that’s it, there is no getting around that.

    I currently work as CR Supe and having many wins applying it and Study Tech on me and my students.

    Unfortunately many of the people who work at this organization are not trained in the Adm Tech so more often than not I feel like I am on a different world, by the way this is a non-Sci organization but they want to establish the Hubbard Adm Tech. Finally though the rest of the employees are being trained in the Adm Tech so I am starting to feel like we speak the same language and little by little things are coming together.

    I have worked in organizations where most of the employees were Scis and they were failing miserably and the reason for this failure was that they were not applying the Adm Tech standardly, they were pretty much applying it the way each person thought it fit best. The wrong thing with this approach was that this person didn’t not let everyone else know that she was doing that, so there was no agreement, which brings me to another point – in order for any areas of scientology to work for any one, there must be agreement amongs all parties involved, if this is not so, it won’t work for those involved who have come together.

    I have also worked for a for profit organization which uses and consults other businesses in the Hubbard Admin Tech and this organization is winning both as a for profit org and applying Hubbard Adm Tech and the people working there are not Scientologists.

    One of the precepts of Sci is to make an individual be more at cause rather then effect, in other words, to be more in control of his/her environment and I think many areas of Sci do just that but again it must be applied to each person individually, Sci is a personal matter! But the way many Scientologists approach it as if Scientology is going to work to save humankind on a massive global scale, and this approach in my opinion is totally wrong for the reason stated above which is that Sci is a personal matter, just like Ethics – one can study, read, do drills, etc, etc but if each individual person does not apply it to real life then it is just learned theory!

    How do you save the world or humankind? One person at a time, one individual at a time!!

    One of the faults I see with Sci is that they think of themselves as if they have the answer for everything and everyone and this as we all know if very farthest from the truth. They also like to apply Sci as a one cure for all and again this is the wrong way to go about the application of Sci processes. The one big wrong approach is that they already have expectations as to the results of certain processes and when the results are not what they expected they place the blame of the “client”, this is the one cure for all approach, Wrong! They have forgotten that Sci is a personal matter and that each individual should be treated as such and when that happens the processes work, Scientology works!

    Another thing that current Church of Sci do is that they expect you to get into Sci fully and completely and they tell you that if you don’t do it that way, that Sci won’t work for you. Wrong! I love reading Mr. Hubbard’s books and I remember that he said that Sci is a box of tools to which you can go to and use the one that you need to use for a specific purpose, it follows then that a two arms/hands person can only use one or maybe two tools at a time to build or fix something!

    In conclusion – Sci works if applied properly to each individual’s needs or wants without preconceived expectations and it also works when each individual learns it and applies it standardly to meet his needs and wants and not those of the church, right now most Scientologists apply Sci to meet the church’s requirements rather than their own individual requirements!!

  21. I just finished reading Helen O”Brian’s book:

    DIANETICS IN LIMBO
    A Documentary
    About Immortality
    by Helen O’Brien

    It is an excellent and honest book on the workability of Dianetics and Scientology and very worthwhile reading.

    Helen was into it from very near the beginning. She explains to what point it worked and where Hubbard went off the rails.

    She is very intelligent.

    Only one of these book currently available for 650.00.

    (Content removed. Link to book further down)

    1. Dio – I recently saw this linked on another blog and read the whole article. It’s a wonderful story with the first paragraphs in the Foreword which had significant meaning to me. Thanks for posting, will know where to look when needed. 🙂

    2. Yeah that was a great book. I tried hard to find other information about her, the “rest of the story” so to speak.

      I would love to know how much abuse she faced the years after the book. What she ended up doing etc.

      I presume she is dead by now. But I don’t know. She has never appeared in any kind of interview shows.

      From what I can see, she wrote her book and vanished. Would love to know more.

      1. She did boink LRH according to Bare Faced Messiah. She apparently was a bit jealous when Mary Sue showed up. She may have been married to John then.

        It had to be tough being John knowing your girl boinked the messiah. Hard to compare yourself to THAT.

        But since her book came out in the late 60s and she certainly had ample dirt a plenty, I wonder what happened to her. She seemed to be around when BFM and A Piece of Blue Sky came out for research purposes.

        I went to Spiklers blog and asked him and he didn’t provide any info.

        Oh well, Helen you are beautiful wherever you are. And I’m sorry about John’s suicide. Depression kills. Love from others must be swift and wise in its wake.

        _/!\_ (gassho)

        1. “Love from others must be swift and wise in its wake.”

          This is NOT to blame Helen by the way. Love can be both swift and wise and fail just as easily. And when it happened, she and he both seemed (from her writing) still in a funk over it all.

          I just hope wherever she is she’s happy and that she knows she is beautiful.

        2. KG: It had to be tough being John knowing your girl boinked the messiah. Hard to compare yourself to THAT.

          Chris: Yes, how do you believe her when she tells you that your “awesome” is much bigger than his “awesome.?”

        3. This is fascinating to me. The mission holder I worked for in Peoria was an old Dianeticist, and hung with Ron and his crowd since the beginning. He told me a story about Nibs, LRH’s son, who was disowned by LRH for practicing “Black Dianetics”. He said that it had been found that Nibs had, using “Black Dianetics”, “gotten the husband of a woman to commit suicide in order to collect the insurance money”.

          It was standard LRH DA tech, on his own son no less, but I wonder if this was Helen O’Brien?

          Alanzo

          1. She was the first real “Big Shot” to leave. I tend to believe her story as told. But with that suicide, LRH may have solved two problems with one fabrication.

            1. Exactly. Never hesitate when you can take out two enemies to your income with one 3rd Party Lie.

              This is total OSA Tech, as written up by Dead LRon, and successfully executed by Marty, Mike, and Dave for decades.

              Alanzo

    3. Helen O’Brien is an excellent (and short) read.

      My own modern analogy and take on her book would be to compare Dianetics to STAR WARS as follows:

      The Force = Theta
      Annakin Skywalker alias Darth Vader = Marty Rathbun
      Senator Palpatine alias Darth Sidious = L. Ron Hubbard
      The Dark Side of the Force = Dianetics

      L. Ron Hubbard saw himself in the part of Luke Skywalker but the casting agent did not.

      1. Love it.

        Princess Leia can be Helen O’Brien! I think her and John’s role in keeping the movement alive is probably understated.

        But I think DM is more like Dearth Maul. Right now, he’s bisected and falling down the chute after being cut in half. WE NEVER SEE DEARTH MAUL DIE.

        And I think Rathbun is more like Admiral Ackbar. He’s Mr. big fishy trying to blow up the Death Star.

        Tom Cruise could play Biggs?

        Well maybe. In REAL LIFE that’s the role he’s been playing of late. But in Star Wars, I would cast him as Qui Gon Jinn for his devoted sincerity to find “the one” to bring balance to the force he loves.

        Oh, and that would be Anakin. Damn. Chris wins again!

        ((SHAKES FIST AND SCRAMS “KHAN”))

  22. Valkov – I agree with your post and feel strongly about it. Intimidating to the PC and distrust of the auditor. Creates an unsafe environment. Do they do that on all solo levels too?

    “Cameras in auditing rooms is a crime by my lights. I wouldn’t be surprised if those cameras at Flag were part and parcel of the degradation of the services there.”

    1. I think most solo auditing is done at home, so no camera. But I don’t know, not being a solo auditor myself.

      1. Valkov. Gave me the thought that new e-meters could come out with a camera to solo auditors to keep check on them? Future with DM? Of course if they let PC’s get that far.

  23. I said something before about squirreling and I want to correct my wording because it can be easily misunderstood. When I said ‘squirreling’ I didn’t mean a guy that runs scientology processes and doesn’t call them ‘scientology’. Nor somebody that alters in one way or another the tech and doesn’t call it ‘scientology’. I meant those super-standard guys that don’t fully apply scientology, and yet call it scientology.

    I am fully for the idea that scientology should become fully and freely available to everybody, not only those that have a good opinion about scientology, because them are very few and as time passes -since the group scn gives a bad name to itself- they will be less and less. I dont see any reason why I shouldn’t give somebody an assist, if he doesn’t accept scn. Similarily I dont see any reason why I shouldnt help somebody with any problem, if he doesn’t accept scn.

    People are here to live and die, and afterwards they may as well visit some implant station, if those are still around. You will not hurt anybody by trying to set him free from that, even if you dont do it perfectly well. That is my opinion. If you withold your help because scn has a bad name, it is plain stupid, and an overt of omision in my opinion.

    I wish healers and psychologists and people all sorts will deliver processing even if they dont know that they do it. And I wish that thousands of textbooks that are based on scn principles will be released. Because that is more PRACTICAL than trying to convince people that scn is good, while the church is evil.

    1. Helen O’Brian’s book continued:

      [Geir’s edit I have removed the content of this post pending verification of copyright permission]

  24. Geir,

    I appreciate Dio’s enthusiasm to share with us the book Dianetics in Limbo, however posting the whole book in the comments has made reading this thread very uncomfortable.

    I think, many readers will appreciate if you
    ◦ Delete Dio’s comment [Dio 2013-02-15 at 02:00] (second part of the book).
    ◦ Edit Dio’s comment [Dio 2013-02-15 at 00:26]: deleting the book’s first part, and after Dio’s comment paste the following links:

    Pdf file: https://sites.google.com/site/onscientology/DianeticsInLimboAdocumentaryaboutimm.pdf

    Text file: http://www.xenu.net/archive/books/dil/Dianetics_in_Limbo.txt

    1. Thanks, Ferenc the Formidable ;). I for one definitely appreciate your solution. I was trying to figure out a constructive way to say I didn’t agree with taking up that much thread space with a whole book! I commend both yours and Geir’s diplomatic handling. 🙂

    2. Ferenc,

      Posting the links is ok with me. I did a brief search for such links but I did not find any. So I reluctantly posted the whole book, thinking that it was not that long and will be ok.

      I certainly did not look hard enough.

      And to Geir: I doubt if there is a copyright on it, because the book was written in the 60s and as far as I can tell, the author is deceased.

      Dio

  25. Evidently Scientologists go through a process where they end up as ex-Scientologists. Like Alanzo stated above.
    There are many levels of awareness in between. Some stays a while at certain levels before moving on up a little higher.

    Could it be that LRH went through the same process since he has not made himself known upon his return?(If he has returned?)
    That must be a mess of creations to come back to – and take responsibility for.

    1. Yes, I suppose so too.

      Also, the goal was not that he would take full responsibility for scientologists, but that scientologists would take enough responsibility for -at least- themselves.

    2. If you look back on the “Ron stories” that circulated among Scientologists, did you ever here a Ron story where LRH just dropped in on an org and hung out and chatted?

      After the mid 60’s, I never ever heard he did this anywhere. And yet there are the policies about management by walking around, look don’t listen, etc.

      And yet he never hung out?

      Personally, I believe that, just like when LRH lied about his war record, he knew he was lying to them.

      Personally, I do not think that LRH liked to be around Scientologists. I don’t think he felt safe around them. He knew what he was doing to them.

      Personally, I believe that LRH could not have liked Scientologists very much.

      Alanzo

    3. Anette, I get that you consider all Scientologists will eventually end up as ex-Scientologists. That’s one of the most extreme viewpoints I have read, and it won’t surprise anybody that I don’t agree. But I’m sure you and I both base our opinion on personal experience in Scientology as well as on the data we have come across.

      What I have observed is that most of the posters here have a similar viewpoint to Geir’s, which comes through in terms of a larger number of critical comments about Scn than favorable ones (both Geir’s and posters’ comments). On other blogs, however, it’s clear that there are far more pro-Scn posters than the number of critics who post here. And many of those have been out of the CoS for years, even decades, yet they continue to call themselves Scientologists and practice Scn.

      1. Yes, that’s the ongoing transition process I have observed in self and others. Though the time span varies from weeks, months to years.

        And of course one can still apply any part of the philosophy of Scientology being an ex-Scientologist, or any other preferred “label”. 🙂

        I see where your comment is coming from – I might have said the same if you asked me a year ago.
        I think it’s important to keep an exterior viewpoint of any subject, not BE the subject. Then one might get hurt if the subjects is criticized.

        I will describe in details the stages in my own ongoing transition process in a separate blog post in the near future.

        1. I see where your comment is coming from – I might have said the same if you asked me a year ago.

          I think it’s important to keep an exterior viewpoint of any subject, not BE the subject. Then one might get hurt if the subjects is criticized.

          This is such a true statement, and such good advice for any Scientologist. Any subject can and should be criticized, and its flaws exposed – especially one that costs as much as Scientology in terms of time and money and even danger to one’s own mind and family.

          If there is a pothole in the street and people are falling in it and breaking their legs on it – do you just drive on by and let people keep falling in it?

          No. You stop, you get out, and you wave people away from the dangers until the authorities can come and deal with it.

          Scientologists have done their best not only to take no responsibility for the dangers in Scientology, and the damage it has done, but to try to destroy the people who are warning others about it. It’s completely crazy and irresponsible.

          But Scientolgists are only doing what their religious beliefs tell them to do, following L Ron Hubbard dictates for standard tech, ethics and admin.

          I will describe in details the stages in my own ongoing transition process in a separate blog post in the near future.

          Can’t wait to see this! I think telling a story like this would be good for lots of people, because I think LOTs of people are going through that very thing right now.

          Way to go Annette! Speak out, Write, Communicate!

          Alanzo

        2. Thanks, Anette. Since you seem to be a “critic” whose viewpoint comes across as sincere and not simply HE&R or reactive, I would like to ask you a question: Is it conceivable to you that a person could have taken an honest, clear-headed look at Scn as a subject (i.e. not the CoS brand but Scn as it existed in the earlier years) and come to the conclusion that Scn is in fact a valuable body of knowledge and a workable practice? (I mean by that, valuable and workable overall, not just some parts.)

          Most critics seem to have a strong conviction that Scn is not a valid path to take and therefore anyone who thinks otherwise must be operating on incorrect data or fixed ideas that were blindly adopted. Those critics don’t even consider the possibility that the person might in fact be operating on personal experience data as well as the experiential data of others that corroborates their own – and which aligns with the data of Scn.

          1. p.s. So with the above in mind (and with all due respect, including the kindness I felt in your reply), maybe you can see why I would not find it persuasive or appealing to be told in so many words (not just by you) – “Oh, you’ll come to your senses eventually, even if you’re one of the slower ones who takes years and years to do so.”

            1. I’m a critic but I think you should do the Scientology Bridge that you have always believed in and hoped for. I don’t think we’ve really connected on why I tell you this, but in a word, it is your chosen path so it makes sense for you to walk it. You’ll change and change and change, but until you do what you dreamed, you’ll imagine a golden road that you’ve yet to walk. I say satisfy your curiosity. Then later, you’ll have newer ideas about it and your confidence may yet be intact and that would be fine. I only want to see you do what you wanted to do.

            2. Chris: “…but until you do what you dreamed…”

              Why is it so difficult for you to understand that I’m doing exactly what I want to be doing? Or that I don’t need you to tell me what’s best for me? Can you see how that might across as presumptuous, condescending and arrogant? Seriously, think about it. Or as Alan Watts put it, “come off it”.

            3. My bad? I guess? I am only agreeing with you when you harp on the wonderful consistent workability of Scientology and encourage you to do it.

              Maybe we’re missing because you don’t believe that I can agree with your opinion for yourself while holding a different opinion for myself. I fail to agree that I am being arrogant or condescending, because my feeling on this is heartfelt, not snide. I really think you should do it.

            4. Straw Man and Needling.

              These logical fallacies are also 1.1 characteristics, especially needling.

            5. Well, you are arguing with the likes of me and Al when you could be doing Scientology. Your clever use of the tone scale to spot my 1.1 tone level seems disingenuous when posed off against your lack of actual participation in your beloved Science of Survival. Are you and Valkov disingenuous? or OSA trolls? or just trolls? Endless quoting of Hubbard hasn’t won you any arguments since we generally understand that when you substitute authority for truth that you don’t believe in truth as authority. Without looking any deeper, it sort of nixes your arguments. — both of you. Using nasty expletives like “bullshit” — same result.

              In fact, posing honest personal looking against your authoritarian worship of Hubbard’s Scientology literally produces the exact opposite result of what you hope for. No converts here.

            6. Chris, I’m really enjoying your recent posts and I admire your courage.

            7. deE: Chris, I’m really enjoying your recent posts and I admire your courage.

              Chris: Thank you Dee. That is very kind thing to say. I like the way that you moderate and steer everyone toward peace and common ground. That is more courageous than doing battle.

            8. Laughter!!!
              Chris: “I like the way that you moderate and steer everyone toward peace and common ground. That is more courageous than doing battle.”

              What a wise man you are to compliment me, taken as such, when I’m just a scared little pussy cat, humbly hiding and reading what others have to say.
              I was thinking to write tonight, after reading so much here today. It’s always like a book of pleasure and study, enjoying and learning all in one on this blog. I’m usually ‘compelled’ to comment due to exasperation or a cocktail on occasion. That brings the cat out a bit. Love yours and other’s good humor, even in the most serious of posts. So much valuable comm and info.
              I thank all of you for sharing.

            9. Seriously deE, it’s easy to lose one’s head. Battle rage is the worked up froth of “inconsistencies gone wild.” No particular charm or skill needed to go berserk. To get control of one’s mind, to bring all of one’s inputs into focus and to “traffic cop” the lot of it is mental athleticism.

            10. Chris: To get control of one’s mind, to bring all of one’s inputs into focus and to “traffic cop” the lot of it is mental athleticism.

              That is of course unless you just be the observer and let yourself, since you have free will to participate or to react. Reaction is always more fun for me of course. Sometimes I feel like playing the word game, which I’m not good at however, so play it smart, for me and let those better able to put into words, while I listen. So the “traffic cop” doesn’t relate to me as I’m watching the cop most of the time. hehe

            11. deE: So the “traffic cop” doesn’t relate to me as I’m watching the cop most of the time. hehe

              Chris: I get it. So as traffic cop, I had to pick a video from a plethura of well done mosaic multi-media presentations including home movies of John Lennon, but I picked the one with the happy little girl in the tea cup in the middle of the video… enjoy “I’m just sitting here watchin’ the wheels turn round and round.” (click on link)

            12. Chris: “watchin’ the wheels turn round and round.” (click on link)”
              didn’t work from Notification or thread. but Ok I know the song.
              Love Lennon tho. You make an excellent traffic cop, directing the show.

            13. Marildi: “Oh, you’ll come to your senses eventually, even if you’re one of the slower ones who takes years and years to do so.”

              Chris: I don’t think that you need to come to your senses. I don’t hold this opinion for you at all. I think you should walk the path of your dreams and do it. You should take your next auditing step and starting right away. The way out is the way through.

            14. Chris: “I don’t think that you need to come to your senses. I don’t hold this opinion for you AT ALL. I think you should walk the path of your dreams and do it. You should take your next auditing step AND STARTING RIGHT AWAY. THE WAY OUT IS THE WAY THROUGH.” [caps are mine]

              Here’s a quote about the tone level of 1.1, covert hostility:

              “Every conceivable mechanism is used in this area of the tone scale to make nullifications of others seem valid, to make them stick. Here we have raillery against people who refuse to accept criticism ‘for their own good.’ Here we have painstaking efforts to ‘better people’ by showing them their faults. Here we have attempts to ‘educate’ people into adjusting themselves to their environment — in other words, to stop being vital and active and go somewhere and lie down, where they will be no menace. Here we have confusions introduced into any situation which are given the most adequate ‘reasons’ and which are yet only nullifications.” (Science of Survival)

            15. Chris,
              Personally, I see myself as a Feral Troll From Manchuria. Did you know there are still Trolls in Manchuria? Do you even know where Manchuria is???? He he he

            16. I am also the Feral and Disingenuous Troll from Manchuria. This is how Manchurian Trolls operate, how they trap their prey.

              My motivator is all the bullshit. I want to design a new Smiley. It is a side profile of a squatting bull dropping a bullpie, with his face turned out to face the person reading the page online.

              Any suggestions on what his facial expression ought to be?

              I am thinking a lot of the time the posters here ought to shut up and do lots of TR0.

              Let me preempt the obvious response – I do not except myself.

            17. The look on his face should be one of complete satisfaction. 😀

              (Still laughing!)

            18. This “smiley” would save tons of time and bandwidth. Instead of lenghty rebuttal posts, I could just post the bull smiley.

              For some of Al’s posts, I would post it twice.

            19. I agree. Al often deserves two bull smileys!

              Oh man, you cracked me up tonight. 😀

            20. Honestly Marildi, I don’t see Chris being snide or 1.1 in the last several comments he has made. I believe he sincerely wishes you well. Perhaps in the past he has made such comments, but not now.

              At the risk of offending Chris by jumping in and offering my evaluation of what he is doing: What I see is that he is currently embracing a self-generated paradigm that does not align well with Scientology, and part of that paradigm is that he wishes to personally and autonomously explore further along that line without instruction from a “teacher” such as LRH. It is a process he embarked on some time ago as far as I can tell. His very process collides with an effort to learn from LRH, or for that matter anyone else, or to attempt to align principles from a particular teacher. Unfortunately for you, and for your interests, his path includes disentangling his own autonomous paradigm from any earlier teachings, and in his case that does include Scientology. He changes his mind along the way too.

              He can correct me if I’m wrong, but that is what I see.

              And you are intent on fully comprehending what LRH taught as a path that you have come to know and trust, with the expectation that you will be able to glean additional and greater understanding by doing so. And that is YOUR path, but it isn’t necessarily a path that others will have great enthusiasm for, for whatever reason. Chris has acknowledged that, many times in fact, but that doesn’t mean that he will give up his own quest!

            21. Maria, I too have acknowledged Chris on the path he is now on, including acknowledging that his path doesn’t have to be Scientology. And, sorry to say, but what you say about it being “unfortunate for me and my interests” isn’t the case. I’ve stated explicitly that I no longer believe everybody needs to do Scientology – a good while back.

              The situation I ran into with Chris is that he categorically has NOT, as you seem to think, acknowledged my path, except in a covert way to make it seem like he was “just trying to help me do what I want to do”. The fact is that he has incessantly – incessantly – continued to tell me what he considers I should be doing with regard to Scientology, in spite of my objections and telling him many times that I don’t appreciate his evaluations – especially since they’re not my reality at all!

              This had been going on over a period of many months with me telling him repeatedly that I’m on my own path, just as he is – and that my path isn’t confined to Scn alone or to auditing. He nevertheless continued over and over to tell me what my path was, not even changing how he worded it in any meaningful way – i.e. plainly goading and needling and apparently trying to push my anchor points in.

              Believe me, I gave it a long time and a long hard look before I saw clearly what his intention was. And after I spotted it with certainty and told him, his change of tune has been just enough to make it seem he has had good intentions all along. It doesn’t fool me.

            22. Testing out the email notification/reply system here.

              I kinda agree, Maria. I did not perceive Chris’ comment as 1.1 exactly. I think he basically means marildi well. He may have been trying to politely reject what he perceived as her evaluating for him. He does seem resentful, rejecting, or not tolerant of others evaluating for him. I can understand that, as I feel that way myself.

              There is a difference between offering one’s own evaluation or understanding of some subject, and trying to evaluate for another. I think Chris is very sensitive to that, and sometimes thinks others are trying to evaluate for him, even when they are not. On the other hand, only marildi can know for sure whether she is trying to evaluate for him, or “trying to convince” him of anything.

            23. Val:”I did not perceive Chris’ comment as 1.1 exactly.”

              If Chris made his comment general, such as ” I think all the people who believe auditing can improve them should do it” it would be acceptable.

              However, singling out Marildi in his very patronizing way – despite what he views as the intention – is an act that would get the guy a serious shiner if said face to face.

              I don’t recall seeing him address others in this manner. It’s bad form. Having an opinion about someone’s argument is one thing, having an unsolicited opinion about how they address their case is another. Marildi has previously made it known to Chris that she does not appreciate him suggesting what she should do. It’s time for him to address and handle that issue.

            24. Maria: “He can correct me if I’m wrong, but that is what I see.”

              Chris: Spot on as usual Maria. With the exception of learning from others. I seek out and learn from others each and every day. What I am trying to learn from them though is usually in the form of information and technology but NOT doctrine. Your quick comprehension of what is happening right in front of you is a hard won skill that I aspire to.

              With few exceptions, everyone commenting here is experienced and studied in Scientology. Over the past couple years that I’ve been here writing, I estimate millions of words have been written by these students of Scientology — commenting on this dog-eared subject. I’ve been sitting here wondering if I am the only writer here who has had any major shifts in viewpoint majorly because of the writing and thinking and working that they’ve done here?

              More or less, during the time that I have been writing here, I have begun as a dyed-in-the-wool Scientologist afraid of his own Xenu shadow; scared of the dire consequences of being disaffected and losing my immortal soul. I used to be a Thetan, but now I am a “pimple on the skin of consciousness.”

              I swallowed my misgivings and taught myself to solo audit and then proceeded to solo audit a combination of “Self Analysis” lists. I taught myself to “list” and to make lists and then practiced until I was comfortable nulling the lists to single reading item. At the behest of Elizabeth Hamre I taught myself to run rudiments and found this activity to be both simple and effective.

              Then last Spring, approximately 9 months ago, while running a rudiment, I had this realization that the entire process was handling something I was creating (nothing new in that) and for the sake of conversation, I will call this realization the “clear cog on the Scientology dynamic.” I had learned a paradigm to describe life in a fresher way and then I had proceeded to get into that harness and pull. The booby trap of Scientology for me was that they were selling me an objective reality which depended utterly on my cooperation to make it personally objective and to hide its subjectivity from myself. I thought Hubbard was the greatest genius of all time and told people as much.

              I hate to sound like an infatuated teenager, but If you’ve noticed me cheering on Alanzo and his quest to slay the Scn beast, understand that it’s because he’s been telling my own story with each of his posts. I don’t have quite the same fire in my belly that he has, maybe I don’t love others as well as he does. Maybe I don’t want to help. Or maybe my understanding of the importance of context allows me to sleep well even knowing that people are mind fucking themselves using this doctrine of Scientology, of Catholicism, of Islam, of every religion that knows better than you about what you really are.

              So did Scientology work for me? Yup. Would I want others to have the gains that I now have? Yes. Would I recommend the path that I took to have these gains. Nope. I consider that the really useful gains that I got from doing Scientology were done since these past 5 years or so since waking up from the mind-fuck of Scientology. I think the things that I learned could’ve been learned without the huge detour of Scientology. Would I change the path that I walked to get to where I am now? That’s not really a choice is it? Anyway, hard to say I would want to change route no matter how circuitous when you end up being ok and having lots of cool stories to tell.

              Well the little prompt at the top of the typing window says, “Have Your Say” so I sort of did — sorry about the length if anyone waded through this wad of maundering.

            25. Chris on- “Have Your Say”

              Well, you sure did and it was positively, positive to read and I understood and could relate to every thing you said. We’ve come a long way baby, huh? and the way out is getting through it.
              Good on you! 🙂

            26. deE: We’ve come a long way baby, huh? and the way out is getting through it.

              Chris: It is the experience of living lifetimes. I seemed to have been myself but not in the 1st dynamic sense. Then I’ve lived and identified and lived and died and come back round to myself – just not the 1st dynamic kind of myself. This idea, being thin as it is, is difficult for me to write about or express. I try, but as we all say, the words are code for a model of the thing which is not every the thing if in fact there is a thing. Well, maybe we all don’t say that. LOL.

      2. Marildi: That’s one of the most extreme viewpoints I have read,

        Chris: This seems to be an exaggeration. Neverminding the irrefutable statistics that her statement is true, even Hubbard said that eventually Scientology would have to be “audited out” of the PC on this spiritual path. Also, “calling oneself a Scientologist” and practicing Scientology seem obviously to be different terminology as well. My father-in-law is a “Catholic” though he has neither been to church, nor partaken in a sacrament, nor contributed to that cult in decades. I think it is obvious that we have Scientologists of this genus posting on this very blog.

        1. Chris: “…even Hubbard said that eventually Scientology would have to be ‘audited out’ of the PC on this spiritual path.”

          Here’s an exact quote for you:

          “If you will just stay with me on this line, up to the first
          milestone in Scientology, and bring yourself up to a high level of ability
          and apply yourself to that, you will be free – free from me and from
          Scientology too!” (520303 HCL 1, Scientology Milestone One and also in New R&D – Volume 9, p. 456.)

          1. Exactly. So we are together on that. I suppose I have “achieved” that.

            It is hard for me to review my life; to look at the various iterations and impossible to predict how the roads not taken would precisely have changed my life — Fruitless endeavor. But I’ve arrived where I’ve arrived. I’m good with who I am and happy walking the path that I walk. On the one hand, my life could be very much worse in a manner of speaking. On the other hand, some of this path that I walked in Scientology was unnecessary in my opinion and many have arrived to a similar state of awareness as myself without many of the rigors the Scientology path. Se la vie.

            1. Chris: “I suppose I have ‘achieved’ that…

              Entirely possible that you have achieved that. You may have noted a comment I made recently to the effect that I believe Scn can accomplish its mission for some individuals at any point in the route.

              Chris: “But I’ve arrived where I’ve arrived. I’m good with who I am and happy walking the path that I walk.”

              Same here. Can you grant me that beingness too?

            2. Marildi: Chris: “I suppose I have ‘achieved’ that…Entirely possible that you have achieved that. You may have noted a comment I made recently to the effect that I believe Scn can accomplish its mission for some individuals at any point in the route. Chris: “But I’ve arrived where I’ve arrived. I’m good with who I am and happy walking the path that I walk.” Same here. Can you grant me that beingness too?

              Chris: I do grant you beingness to be all you want to be. You’ve blogged hundreds of hours on the fascinating applicability and pertinence of Scientology. You want to be a Scientologist, so I encourage you to be that. Do it.

            3. Chris: “I do grant you beingness to be all you want to be.”

              Amazing how blatant and obvious your covert hostility is. So obviously snide that it’s almost overt hostility. Pretty pitiful.

    4. Trapping one’s mind into a hard-to-shake true belief can, in some cases, be the best thing that can happen for someone (often because of the disconnection, suicides, financial ruin, etc.) because AFTER THEY WAKE UP it begs the question “How did someone DO this to me? How did I LET them do this to me? How did I let myself be fooled?” And THEN …

      A foot steps forward.

      Maybe not with the “Boots in the Sky” but maybe with the high-top Converse sneakers of the Tao.

      1. Kata
        Yeah! I would rather go for the raw energy side of this question, not the significances. Many people say that they woke up in the middle of the biggest ever force/pressure/misery of their lives. In my reality after waking up there is no blame/shame – “how did someone do it to me”….the Tao is there.

  26. I always like reading your view points

    I have always wondered

    – Why does anyone go to the next level if the one they supposedly finished not give the advertised result?

    You would not accept that from any other service industry but for some reason in scientology, it seems to be the norm to continue to the next level even though the advertised result was not achieved……

    Interesting.

    1. From my experience; Often the advertised result is what I got. Other times I got something else – but valuable enough to me that it warranted a move to the next level.

    2. As I mentioned in a earlier post on this thread, whenever I recieved audting when I was already doing well and just wanted to get some, I always got fantastic gains. Whenever I went to audit to “handle something” it never worked. So I think the when people are audting to “handle something” and it doesn’t get handled, the C0$ says “it’ll get handled on your next level”

      I think that is why they continue, and not to mention you feel pretty darn good too

    3. I’ve certainly met some high case level people that exhibit very service facy attitude. All you have to do to get to their evil side, is say ‘no’ to them, when they arbitrarily give you a command, like you ought to obey them.

          1. Because people allow themselves to be provoked and then react that way.

            Looks like I am either going to get a justification now or some kind of invalidation. This will be the standard reaction as I have come to expect on this blog.

            .

            1. Vin, you are like the bullfighter waving the red cape. Are you in a games condition with Geir?

          2. It’s because the reflectance factor on his screen goes up. Mirror, mirror on the wall…

      1. I don’t know so I wont judge. But just for the record there could be times that I would justify disrespecting one’s self-determinism –that would only be when that ‘one’ disrespects another’s self determinism too.

        1. Just provoke a few people on this blog and see what happens. It is so easy to bullbait people here and find out how much they are being there.

          .

          .

            1. I don’t unnecessarily provoke people and my intention is to learn. Knowledge brings about a stability that makes one hard to be provoked.

              But some people with their impatient behavior seem to invite provocation.

              .

          1. Alright, I may try that out 😛 But why cause that they will mistreat me like that? I cause what I experience.

      2. Spyros, that’s a fascinating subject – ser facs. It’s “only” Grade 4 but I have the impression that it is one of the biggest aberrations – at all levels of case, as you’ve observed too. Unfortunately, the grades are releases, rather than “erasures”, and IMHO the best answer to preventing those Grade-level aberrations from reappearing is training. Technical knowledge of the mind is what gives a person the best chance of having the necessary insight and know-how to be able to be at cause over things like ser facs.

        1. Marildi: Technical knowledge of the mind is what gives a person the best chance of having the necessary insight and know-how to be able to be at cause over things like ser facs.

          Chris: OMG A person needn’t be “at cause over” something once it no longer exists. “Suppressive” Scientology is that Standard Scientology practiced by the “no case on post” crew.

          Having written that but noting that you call it a “release” not an erasure, by your own observation then a PC should logically continue auditing the Grades toward erasure? (No joke.)

          1. Here’s the tech of it: A service facsimile is “that computation GENERATED BY THE PRECLEAR (NOT THE BANK) [my caps] to make self right and others wrong, to dominate or escape domination and enhance own survival and injure that of others. (HCOB 1 Sept 63)

            The point I was making is that (1) not all ser facs need to be handled to get a Release and thus could later be restimulated and (2) that a ser fac can be generated in PT – especially if the person doesn’t know how it gets created and the mechanics of it. You may want to look up “Release” also.

            1. Yes, I agree. And add that everything is created by the person (or the preclear person).

              When I mentioned high case level people before, I meant people from Clear and above. I understand that case -like everything- is potential, that’s why a person from Clear on can create a reactive mind at will. But I just found it too much sometimes. I would expect less hate from some people, if I don’t have the same viewpoint as them. Service facs make pan determinism impossible by the way. 8C is not pushing people around. A preclear must AGREE to get in session before he can execute the auditors commands willingly. When people came to me and rudely uttered commands to me out of the blue, I was like “huh?!”. Yet they blamed me for their failure. There was something wrong with my case. Nothing wrong with their utter lack of pan determinism –OTs!!

            2. Spyros: “But I just found it too much sometimes.”

              You are preaching to the choir on everything you said, Spyros. The horrors of what goes on in the Church is one thing that no one on this blog disagrees about ;). The main disagreement is on the question of what good there remains in the subject of Scn (if any, some would say).

              But anyway, it’s heartening for me anytime I meet someone who has had all kinds of bad experiences and can still differentiate that kind of thing from true Scientology. And I don’t think you do so for any other reason than that you see the truths in Scientology for yourself. Good to have you here! 🙂

            3. I have noticed the verbal datum that because one is a pc or a wog or not staff or something, his self determinism is wrong, and so you don’t have to allow it. Really? Sounds like a nice justification for a few tons of overts I have observed (and some I have commited too :P). And of course it’s a very obvious ser fac.

            4. Right again, Spyros. That’s the corruption of ethics from it being greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics to being the greatest good for the CoS. Marty wrote a lot about such things in his book “What is Wrong with Scientology?” Have you read it?

            5. Yes? And you may want to look up “computation” also. Can we do better in my opinion than to make snarky comments to one another.

            6. In the above comment, there was no feeling or intention of being snarky on my part whatsoever. This goes to show just how much out of comm we’ve gone.

            7. Marildi: In the above comment, there was no feeling or intention of being snarky on my part whatsoever.

              Chris: I see, you simply evaluate which words I need to look up? But you aren’t being snide? You simply notice where I don’t understand and can’t grasp straight basic Scientology and are helping me. Ok.

            8. Your comment beginning with “OMG. A person needn’t be ‘at cause over’ something once it no longer exists” showed you didn’t understand the mechanics of ser facs or the idea that Grades, including Grade 4 (ser facs) are Release points. I had already quoted the definition of ser fac and the ONLY thing I had in mind when I said you “may” (meaning if it indicates to you) want to look up the word “Release” – was further clarification if needed.

              But this is all “after the fact” of the comm line being out. I may very well have played a part in creating your covert hostility towards me, I don’t know, but I’ve been attempting for quite a while to get out of this games condition with you and you keep going back to it – with little or no provocation. In fact, you usually launch into it out of the blue.

              And you do so regardless of the fact that I’ve stated many times that I don’t appreciate you repeating this evaluation of me over and over – in spite of my repeatedly telling you it is only your reality, not mine. I no longer believe it is your reality or that you haven’t heard me. Your intention is clear to me now.. .

            9. Perfect. Then our minds meet. Now all that’s left is for you to get some auditing and clean it all up. I will be vanquished for real.

              So are you going to do that?

            10. Yes, obviously I caused/agreed with the ‘negative’ experiences that I had with Scientologists. And I know I’ve been service fac-ed and generally banky myself. That I mention some disagreement doesn’t mean that everybody does what I disagree with. It means I disagree with it, and it should be looked at, as I find it to be an outpoint in relation to SCN principles. I understand I have invalidated some people quite a bit, but I don’t do it to get above them. I just extrapolate what I said before about Ron’s SCN being good -if applied well-, and some SCNists give it a bad name, and now if you tell somebody you’re a SCNist, he thinks you are some brainwashed elitist or something. If I expected people with high status (for their case level or other) to show me what SCN is, I would had started going around talking rot about Ron and SCN too, long ago. And I bet many talk ill of SCN because of expriences that they’ve had, not because they’re evil.

              Anyway, to avoid being misunderstood, I have also met great beings scientologists that have made me super glad to be my friends and grateful that they exist!

            11. I have noticed the book ‘What is wrong with Scientology’, but haven’t read it yet. With the exception of these recent messages of mine in this blog, and few more in some other group, I don’t talk/read about SCN much. I preffer to focus on case gains, and I avoid to try to figure out my past charge. I’m going to check out ‘computation’ too 🙂

            12. To make things worse, I didn’t only mean the Church. That one quits the Church or gets disconnected from it (he is cause in both cases), doesn’t mean (to me) he now fully differentiates between Ron-SCN and Miscavige-SCN.

              I decided to no longer call myself a Scientologist, because I saw that I disagreed with the majority (not just with the Church) about how it should be like. Also, I no longer wish to be accused that I’m something that I am not, by non SCNists. So, I will call my (my=the one I ‘believe’ in) new spiritual philosophy Spyrology, and be happy with people that I agree with, and no longer create what I used to disagree with.

            13. Spyros
              ” if I tell someone I am a scientologist..”
              If one is in the NOW, one is nobody, just kind of “Life” sensing what “there is” and acting accordingly. In the purest-deepest “teaching and practical” sense, scientology gets one to the core/edge of the mind, its creator, that is “Life”. The “concept” of “scientologist” has lost its meaning then, so one doesn’t say that. I know it sounds “idealistic” but
              it’s my reality of it. I understood it very early. I helped a lot of people
              with it in the past. Just one example: I was successful at work. Another asked how that was. I said “Problems of work” book and course (for him, I had studied much more previously). Handled misunderstandings/false data etc.concerning scio, off he went to course, finished it, his business went up. Didn’t stay for another course as the next course he was offered was not the one he wanted ( I totally agreed to his choice and not what was offered to him). We are friends ever since. (Geir’s processes…article hm. great that is in application…).

            14. I fully agree with everything you said Marianne 🙂

              A ‘Scientologist’ was a role in a game for me. And whether in SCN or not, my most basic intention is my fully ‘unlocked’ potential. I will use and support anything that does that. I may criticise anything that pretends to do it and doesn’t do it, for that would be betrayal.

              My cirticism towards some out-tech and out-ethics I have observed, doesn’t invalidate Scientology as philosophy. And my intention is to as-is it. I bet a Scientologist can be very pleased with the results he can get with the tech, as I’ve been in the past.

            15. I think maybe I should explain what I mean by fully ‘unlocked’ potential. I don’t have a tech dictionary right now in my vicinity, but there is a definition for responsibility which goes about like this: To consider oneself source and cause over all 8 dynamics. That is my goal. I suppose that is what ‘Source’ means up the in the top of the awareness chart.

            16. Haha thanks, but I use ‘potential’ much lately inspired by Andreas Butler’s Spiritologie book. Although I don’t think he would claim copyrights over it, it’s not fully mine (unless I be him).

            17. Spyros
              “to consider oneself source….” Hm. …..to consider…..hm. oneself.
              Actually “source” has nobody there….source is “Life/Potential” itself….there is no consideration of ” I / Me” in this experience/livingness of it. Just no-thingness and a Flow. It’s called “awakening”, also
              “realization”. You can listen to Adyashanti, if you like. Listening to him you may get conscious of some “latent” “experiences” you have had…he is an alive “enlightened/realized” (concepts these are too
              but there are no better) being. While listening, not the words…the whole.

            18. If so, then I’ll be glad to listen to it.

              I understand what you mean. Considerations are additives and not the primary state of (not) being. ‘To be’ a being is a creation too (The Factors). I think right below that state of static, there is the state of the being that has full awareness of being static and consequently all Dynamics. I think that is what ‘Source’ means as a point of awareness.

            19. I like him. Yes, I think something is going on with this ‘awakening’ on a wide scale. And yes, I experience too that on/off of awareness of Static.

              I only disagree with the ‘we are all one’ that he mentioned. That phraze is an implant. Static is not a unit.

            20. Speaking of that. There is a refference in the Route to Infinity lectures. I don’t remember exactly where. But the tone level 40 was defined as (being aware of) being all Dynamics.

            21. Spyros
              Wow! Enjoying communicating with you now LIVE! The ” I ” + “AM” + “ME” are parts of the first consideration – in a narrow sense, that is one can fixate on it and can think that a separate ” I ” is THE creator of all one’s experiences. Which is true in the “sense” of one’s “mind and beingness” and “present/past” lives, subjectively. While,in a “broader” view of it, the ONE SOURCE IS AN UNDIVIDED ONE SOURCE AS POTENTIAL OF ALL DYNAMICS, where manifestations of the ” I “, “my life”, “you” “your life” are interconnected…under continuous change….So, a broader “real sense of it and in practice”, the Source without the consideration of the ” I ” is the Creator wherein “me” is under continuous Change in relationship of all manifestations. Also, in the midst of Change, there is absolute motionlessness. ” ME” in this sense is both Potential and Change. The boadest ever sense of it, however, is that all there is is POTENTIAL. Everything which is created ceases to be right after it has been created. Yet, Potential retains whatever it has “created” (knowingness).
              My reality so far.
              (perhaps this is close to when Geir says ” I am a work in progress”.
              Geir? Am I close? )

            22. “(perhaps this is close to when Geir says ” I am a work in progress”.
              Geir? Am I close? )” <— LOL

              That's beautifully put Marianne. Yes, we are all basically Source, and Source is potentially all.

              Among the most valuable expriences I've had, was to cognite causing something as another person. It's awesome.

              I'm enjoying chatting with you too. Hey, by the way, if you or whoever else would like to chat can find me on facebook as 'spyros illusionist'. I don't use my surname (Polkas) because I don't like it 😛 I preffer rock-related music.

            23. Spyros
              “One” is a “word” (not a good one) for “source” + “all dynamics”. That is No-thing and All-things at the same time.Two sides of the samecoin. Tone 40 is the point, in my reality, where “we as interconnected manifestations” operate “together” as being AWARENESS and PERCEIVINGNESS leaving “time” behind. That is NO TIME, just CREATION/MANIFESTATION (my experience, also source of OT phenomena). In my reality, there are levels of “experiences” beyond Tone 40. Subtler than in Scientology which has gone only in its investigations up to Tone 40. These experiences are totally ego-less…”listening” is a very “deep” concept…when one is in a”free being” awareness “state”, that’s when subtler experiences start to happen…(no ” I “, no “ego” – that’s why I say “start to happen”…as they cannot be “made” and described).

            24. “Among the most valuable expriences I’ve had, was to cognite causing something as another person. It’s awesome.” <— Wrong wording again. I meant to cause (postulate) something and observe the effect of it not only on myself as first dynamic but on other persons as well.

            25. Very interesting what you just said Marianne. I wonder whether I experience such phenomena. I have to take this body to a spirituality meeting now 😛 Maybe they can help me clear that up…

            26. Spyros
              Not necessarily bad wording. I checked my experiences, both can be true. Thanks for Facebook. As you like music, you can post your favourites here. We do it, as illustrations of the minute creations-cognitions. Can be fun !

            27. Marianne, if post the kind of music I listen to here, I’ll get banned forever.

              The meeting was useful to see my own service facs in wild action. I couldn’t stop thinking how superior my spirituality was compared to theirs. But I’m glad to have located this. Time to run it out,

            28. Spyros and Marianne, I really enjoyed your exchanges today!

              One request. Rather than clicking on the nearest reply button above the spot where you want to post a reply, you can click on the reply button at the bottom of the email you got notifying you of the comment you want to reply to. Clicking on that reply button will pull up a new tab or window and you’ll see where it says “Leave a Reply to Spryros”, for example – or whoever it was that wrote the comment on that particular email. That way we can follow the exchange better! 🙂

  27. Bullbaiting exercise in Scientology is a failure when mindfulness is not there.

    Mindfulness in bullbaiting helps one as-is one’s reactions; but with the lack of mindfulness one simply ends up suppressing one’s reaction for the duration of the exercise.

    After the exercise one reverts to reacting as before.

    .

          1. I am talking about you – the only person I have asked to take a vacation from this blog three times due to bad manners.

            1. Of course you do. But that doesn’t matter. This is my home. I decide what is good manners here. You don’t need to agree. And there is no discussion on this.

            2. Marildi wrote:

              I gotta say, I’ve seen much worse manners here than Vinaire’s.

              You mean me, don’t you, Marildi?

              I’m rude to Dead LRon, aren’t I?

              Alanzo

  28. Well I am new here, and very much enjoying this blog. Of all the wins we have garnered on our spiritual journeys, is there any greater accomplishment than a guy sitting in the US able to create A+R+C with others in Norway and beyond. from a computer? Priceless…

    1. gaeagle: Well I am new here, and very much enjoying this blog. Of all the wins we have garnered on our spiritual journeys, is there any greater accomplishment than a guy sitting in the US able to create A+R+C with others in Norway and beyond. from a computer? Priceless…

      Chris: I am enjoying your participation, too.

      1. Thanks Chris. I am going to buy you a big fat steak with the drink we have together 🙂

  29. Alanzo: 2013-02-16 at 15:32 “The reason I blew from you was because you had once again said that highly trained auditors never ended up being critics, and how this supported your assertion that only people who do not understand scientology (untrained people) end up criticizing it.”

    Here we have the typical Alanzo use of Straw Man tactics, as well as a complete alteration of what occurred as regards that “list” you came up with. In a nutshell, the names you gave were not “experienced auditors” – my actual words, not the Straw Man you now state. And when I found the links and refuted your implication (or knowing falsehood) that they were experienced, you simply whimpered and went away. And now you have the gall to twist it into claiming such nobility on your part that you were not going to rub it in my face. Bah! That would be so unlike you not to do at any conceived opportunity!

    In any case that wasn’t the exchange I was referring to. I was talking about the exchanges much more recently on the “Happy New Year” thread, including this post of mine, at 2013-01-06 at 20:05:

    “Hey Alanzo, yesterday I asked you for specifics on the generality you were spreading that Indies have now decided LRH was crazy. You blew the thread right after that.

    “I also asked you to give me an example of any single time you ever changed you mind about some criticism you had made about LRH or Scn. I had already answered your question asking me for an example of a time I had ever stated a disagreement with Scn (even giving you the link to a comment I made doing just that). You blew that comm cycle too!”

    And you never ever did complete those exchanges. It was just your usual diversion tactic of cracking jokes when all else fails. Here’s one of those posts, at 2013-01-07 at 01:06
    :
    “Pssst! Chris! Vinaire! Shhhh! I’m blown from two comm cycles with Marildi right now and I am staying in a barn outside of town in order to lay low for a while. I’m on the lam. Can you guys send me a toothbrush and some shaving cream, and a couple of pop tarts? Thanks. Alanzo”

    To sum it up, the above gives you an idea why I am the one who has “stayed away from you” most of the time – and also explains why you have stayed away from me WHEN you do.

    1. Marildi –

      I am not lying about why I have stayed away from you and why I have come to see answering you as not productive for you. I have seen you, over and over, look away from factual information. It just does not get assimilated by you. I see you consistently reduce your cognitive dissonance by denying the facts which run contrary to your Scientology beliefs.

      And I know how that comes about. The motive is primarily emotional. Deeply emotional. I know this because it happend to me too. There is a deep emotional need to believe and to belong, and no factual information will ever conquer that. And it does not need to, either.

      You have every right in the world to be a Scientologist. You are not harming anybody with Scientology and I do not believe that you ever would. I think that if Scientology is going to be around for a while, you will probably be a good influence on it.

      I am not lying when I say that. I really mean it.

      As far as Indies recognizing that LRH was insane at the end of his life, comments like that are appearing on Marty’s blog every day now. People are reaching out and availing themselves of the information that exists on the internet and in books – which they were not willing or able to look at before – and they are learning the true facts about LRH’s true biography.

      Just as an example from a comment late last night on Marty’s blog:

      Most Interested | February 15, 2013 at 11:22 pm | Reply
      …. I truly believe the majority of people who became involved on a long-term basis would have walked out the door on day one if they knew what lied ahead in terms of mind control and alteration of beingness. The good that was available from Scn was overwhelmed by the organizational madhouse that was created to protect Hubbard, as much as the tech he was involved with. Hubbard did not die a happy man by all stories I have been able to find and from some intimate sources. And yet people are stressed out on a daily basis to achieve a spiritual state as promised by this person. It was an experiment gone very wrong in my opinion and it is up to the individual to separate the wheat from the chaff and to also realize there are many wheat fields out there in spite of enforcement of ideas to the contrary. ….

      I see comments like this with greater and greater frequency from Indie sources.

      Are you saying that you are not?

      You also write:

      I also asked you to give me an example of any single time you ever changed you mind about some criticism you had made about LRH or Scn.

      All right. I used to say that LRH died “alone, insane, and on psych drugs”.

      I have changed my mind about the “psych drugs” part after I looked into it a little more. Vistaril, the drug that was found in LRH’s body during its autopsy, is a 1st generation anti-histamine that causes drowsiness and a calming effect which psychiatrists use as injections for highly anxious patients.

      Knowing that LRH (the author of the Allergy Rundown) suffered from allergies all his life, then Dr. Denk’s administration of these injections for LRH were not necessarily “psych drugs” at all. And who am I to question somebody’s physician’s choice of drugs for him in the last days of his life?

      So: LRH definitely died alone, having disconnected from almost every member of his family. And by all accounts, he never really did have very many friends that he hung out with in a normal human way. They were all Cult leader/Cult follower kind of relationships by the end of his life – by all accounts that I am aware of.

      If you read the last few pages of “Going Clear” where Sarge tells his story about LRH’s last days, there really is no denying that he was not very sane at the end of his life. So, when I think of a guy who developed a technology that was supposed to make everyone sane, and he charged so heavily for it and even made people sign billion year contracts to work for free for him – and he died like that – I’m going to go ahead and say it – LRH died insane.

      But he didn’t die “on psych drugs”. I changed my mind about that after looking into it more. He died while under the influence of an antihistamine typically administered by psychiatrists to calm overly anxious patients.

      So that’s one time that I changed my mind about a criticism I’d made about LRH.

      There.

      Am I still a Blown Poster in your mind now?

      Alanzo

      1. Alanzo, how do you reconcile being a past-life clear with your current assessment of things? Has your idea of your state changed? I am asking because I get the feeling you’ve negated all aspects of your Scientology encounter and its worth.

        I doubt that when you attested that you were attesting to the definition of Clear stated in 1950. I wouldn’t ask you to unattest because you hadn’t achieved the 1950 definition but you must have had some realization that carried you through two verification checks. Yet you seem to think it better for others to carry on being the effect of something you got rid of than to attempt to rid themselves of the thing.

        In the words of the Vinster (or not quite), them be inconsistencies.

        1. There is no such thing, in reality, as a “state of clear” for a human being. It is an ideological belief based upon a Freudian model of the mind, with the “reactive mind” substituted for the “Id” and “cleared” of its “held down 7s”.

          A model is never reality. I have learned that believing that models and all these other things are the truth are serious mistakes that person can make that can get him into real trouble. I now believe that the State of Clear was something that LRH created and sold to people, me included, to exploit their spiritual vulnerabilities for his own material gain.

          That an Emeter reacted the way everyone says it did while I believed in this “state of Clear” and talked about it to them, well all right then. Even L Ron Hubbard said that a meter is not any kind of proof of anything, didn’t he?

          I do still believe in past lives, and future lives. And there are a lot of nicks and nacks in my mind that suggest to me that I might have been involved in Dianetics last life time – but this is all VERY hazy and speculative and wish-fulfilling and feel-good, too. It always has been.

          I have learned to treat all this stuff very hands-offish and keep it very much at arms length. I do not embrace it or dwell on it at all like I used to as a Scientologist.

          If you really need to know, I have a kind of view of spiritual immortality now built on Platonic Greek philosophy which includes a fascinating explanation of this world from the ancient Greek Myth of Er which I like to use to pull human existence together for myself.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_Er

          I believe now that, as a human being, I know that I am not capable of knowing the ultimate truths of my own existence and it is a folly to think I can. Brick a brac in my mind is certainly not proof of anything concrete.

          To me now, past lives are both true and not true at the same time. It is like seeing a ghost. A ghost is both there and not there. It is a part of human experience that has those characteristics.

          I’m sure not going to write any more checks based on my beliefs in “past lives” and “future lives”. It’s not a check-writing truth to me any more. It is a series of nice thoughts that can not be confirmed at this time.

          Those are my intimate religious beliefs, as I see them now, and they make me feel good, and they give my life and my world a sense of consistency and meaning, which is what religious beliefs are supposed to do for a human being.

          L Ron Hubbard created an elaborate trap that exploits the spiritual vulnerabilities of people for his own material gain.

          I was in that trap for a while.

          I’m not any more. And I’m not likely to fall into many others in my near future, either, because of what I learned from being in Scientology and thinking I was on the “Road to Clear”.

          Alanzo

          1. One small point – what you briefly refer to as the “Freudian model of the mind”, does not anywhere near resemble the actual model of the mind as Freud saw it and wrote about it.

            I wonder if you have actually read much Freud, or is that what someone else described to you as the “Freudian model of the mind”?

            Because the analogy you made is completely wrong.

            The “Id” as Freud conceived it is the actual life energy or source of life energy of a human being; It is the” life force”. The “reactive mind” corresponds most closely to what Freud called the “superego”, by which he meant a very mechanical part of the mind consisting of internalized enforced rules and behaviors.

            Really Al, you are the Master of Bullshit for real. It is this kind of fantastic inaccuracy that for me, discredits just about everything you post, because your data is untrustworthy.

            Go read some Freud in his own words, clear words using an older dictionary to understand what he is saying, then maybe you can draw some more accurate analogies between Hubbard’s conceptualizations of the mind and Freud’s. Freud’s,by the way were based on observation and are still considered very ground breaking and insightful. By those who have actually read and understood some of them.

            Until then I can’t help but consider you a hack. You really are at your worst when you pretend to be so knowledgeable about things you of which you really know next to nothing.

            1. Sorry Al, that’s just too stupid. Read some actual Freud and see what he was really saying and how he really conceptualized human beings and their minds. Or perhaps you need to re-read your college textbook. That’s assuming it is not watered down pablum as some public textbooks are.

              “Id” is the German word for “it”. It actually points in the direction of Vinnie’s “unknowable”. That’s why Freud called it the “it”. It is in the direction of Marianne’s “flow”, not in the direction of the automaticity and mechanicalness of the “reactive mind”. You might check out this:

              http://www..wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Groddeck.

              He was a contemporary of Freud, and wrote a book titled “The Book of the It” which is available in English.

              The “id’ is that vast ocean of energy that carries the “ego” as a tiny bubble on it’s surface. The “ego”mistakenly thinks it is the master.

              Try reading Freud’s book “TheEgo and the Id”.

              I have posted previously about your misuse of the word “reification”. It does not mean what you say it means. It means to take an abstract concept like “justice” or “liberty” and concretize or personify it, treat it as a material object. Like thinking that “justice” is a blindfolded woman holding some scales in one hand.

              We’re talking about symbols here. A “construct” is not a “reification”.

              You are wasting our time here. If you’re going to post data about real people like Freud and his ideas, at least try to make sure it is accurate.

              As for the rest of your point, I don’t happen to agree with your constructed view of dianetcs and scientology, so there is no point for you and I to discuss them.

              It all seems the way it seems to you; it does not seem that way to me. Your efforts to somehow force me to agree with you or see things your way are wasted. You are apparently driven by some deep need of your own to do so. Oh well.

              As for your proposal that nothing like Hubbard’s concept of the “reactive mind” actually exists, I have addressed this issue before, too.

              Being a Clear, past-life or whatever, naturally you have no reactive mind f your own within yourself, to observe; Thus when you try to see it, it is of course not there, and you exclaim to yourself, ” I can’t see anything like that, there’s no such thing! Hubbard was full of it!”

              However, like any being, you are perfectly capable of creating an endless number of service facsimiles to make yourself right and others wrong. Service facs are “computations generated by the being himself, not by the reactive mind”.

              What I find interesting about your extensive history in Scientology this lifetime is, you never actually set foot on the Bridge, as far as I can tell. No auditing of Grade 0, Grade 1, or any of the Grades.
              Since a person learns to recognize and handle Serfacs on Grade4, it is no wonder you are so busy creating them without really recognizing what you are doing.

              So for all the auditing you had while you were “in”, apparently not a single Bridge step after HQS and what? – ARC Straightwire? Did you do ARC Straightwire?

              So basically, you never went up the Bridge, and your Grades are definitely out as far as I can see.

            2. Valkov: “Really Al, you are the Master of Bullshit for real. It is this kind of fantastic inaccuracy that for me, discredits just about everything you post, because your data is untrustworthy.”

              That’s the reason I don’t like to get into exchanges with Al. His untrustworthiness shows up in his statements about Scientology too, especially as regards the philosophy and tech. And when you catch him out he always squirms out of it in one way or another, either by confusing the issue with Straw Man tactics or other diversions, or by switching to humor. Such responses when he is confronted with his inaccuracies are just further intellectual dishonesty. His reply to this post of yours is an example of how he tries to slither away. Your reply back was excellent!

            3. Hey, Val, I hope you saw the comment I just posted to Spyros and Marianne about using the reply button on the email notification. Sometimes it’s hard to tell which post you are replying to and Enquiring Minds Want to Know! 😀

            4. As the two staunch Scientologists, Valkov and Marildi, have just confirmed, hell hath no fury like an ideology scorned.

              As we see time and again, when it comes right down to it, Scientologists actually have no faith in Scientology auditing. You see, as a “Clear”, I would be 4.0 on the tone scale, not a slithery 1.1 service fac case like they desperately need to make me out to be.

              And with all that FPRD under my belt, my “serv facs” would be well on the way to being handled and my “evil purposes” would be, too.

              But not when you say something that questions the Ideology. Then the Scientologist’s ideological filters make them so blind with self-righteous fury that they can not even see their own contradictory nullification of the very technology they are so fervently trying to defend.

              Scientology is probably not going to make it. As we are seeing so much lately, it really can’t stand up to scrutiny.

              And neither can Scientologists, obviously.

              Alanzo

            5. marildi,

              The problem has been that I do not receive/read the email
              notifications. I don’t even use the email accounts I have been posting
              under. I guess I’ll have to look into doing it the right way! 🙂 Then I can irritate that idiot Al more quickly. I am realizing I am wasting a lot
              of my own time scrolling around to see new posts. I guess I need to setup some email forwarding or something to get the notifications.. I like this blog but it’s a passtime and I have a life outside of it. And, I have accumulated a jumble of accounts over the past few years. So I guess I gotta get organized, if I want to get organized.!

            6. Okay, Val, that explains it. As you say there is probably some sort of forwarding you can do. On a hushmail account, for example, you can click on “Preferences” and give another email account where you will get notifications when something new arrives in your hushmail account. It may be a different word than “Preferences” on other accounts. Maybe check out “Help” or some such.

              But yes, you better get organized. There is no choice but to apply all 3 – admin, tech, and ethics, and to the degree that one goes out, the others go out. Nevertheless, on the general subject of organization, some of us are doing pretty well as organized OTs winning the battle agains MEST beings ;). (HOM)

            7. Not bad, Al. A pretty thorough denunciation of marildi and myself. Are you happier now that you have posted it? Vinnie doesn’t understand why Geir gets irritated with him; you don’t understand why I (or marildi) get irritated with you. It must be because we are just brainwashed Scientologists, right? Because you are innocent as the flowers of the forest, right? Oh well.

              Actually Al, I am just like you. I am not really interested in YOUR
              “truth”. I am interested in my own “truth”. I’m not here to kiss your ass or be agreeable to you on principle.

              To me, this is not the bar in the “Cheers” TV show – “where everybody knows your name”. When you post inaccurate or made up data just because you want to support your own notions, I remember it and it does make a lasting impression. You build your own credibility – or lack of it.

              And I don’t care how much FPRD you had. I had an aquaintance here in town who had tons of FPRD run on him, but he was a self-absorbed guy who didn’t necessarily have great ARC. But he was an OK guy
              in his own right I guess. Worked hard, took care of his family etc.

              And I said nothing about you having “evil purposes”. I did say I thought you liked to make yourself right by making others wrong. A person can do that right in present time. Perhaps having FPRD auditing makes it like Catholic confession – you can make others wrong for 6 days then confess it all and start with a clean slate on Monday, making others wrong all over again.

              I actually think Scientology can foster that mindset – that nothing is irrevocable, all can be forgiven. Thus a person starts to think he can do or say whatever he wants and there are no consequences.

              But in life there may be consequences. Sometimes what goes around, comes around.

            8. Well Al, you have your postulates for Scientology, and perhaps I have mine.

              You will have to decide whether yours are constructive or destructive, and live with the consequences of your decisions and actions.

              As wilI I, have to live with the consequences of mine.

            9. So katageek,

              are you referring to Al’s posts or mine as “trolling”, or both? It had better be both, because Al posts plenty of ad hom towards me.

              He thinks he is insulting me by calling me a “scientologist” and discounting what I say by calling it as coming from my scientology “brainwashing”. This is old stuff, he has been trotting out the same old lines for about 3 years, going back to our old The Scn Forum days.

              He disses and dismisses me as a “scientologist”, I dis and dismiss him as a “troll” or “doctrinaire critic”.purveying the “critical party line”.

    2. Marilda, call me Tom 🙂

      The “Ga” is for Georgia…and I am a “fan” of football team named the Eagles..

      However, thinking of changing that little name since I found this site. Started when I was on Marty’s page and saw Geir’s avatar. Caught my eye for sure and then I read about him and his doubt formula. Really enjoying the ARC I get from this site, and the exploring of free will.

      Went to “Norway” in Disneyworld a few times that’s as close as I’ve got to the real thing! I can still smell that bakery

        1. LOL…yeah that was one of them. I’m a boring low-carb and health food junky type guy so I don’t splurge on the pastry side of things too often. But I always make an exception when I got to Norway in DisneyWorld.

      1. Tom, good to know you! I had it figured out correctly about your moniker except I didn’t know what to make of the “1023” – unless it represents the highest number one can count to on one’s fingers using binary (the internet is practically omniscient :)). But my guess is that 1023 is for your birthday – October 23. Too lame a guess? Then tell us – unless it’s secret code of some sort. 🙂

        Btw, the way you came to this blog is exactly how I did a couple years ago – got the link from Marty’s. And Geir and I have been arguing ever since ;). But what fun would it be for him if everyone just patted him on the back and told him how right he is about everything? 😉

        Anyway, I’m glad you can see the ARC here too. And welcome!

        1. Excellent! No secret code on 1023 you nailed it. I remember LRH saying on one of my favorite tapes I listened to “The Road To Truth”…that nobody could figure out women and that men are a pipe (pardon the best guess there). Yeah I’m a pipe.

          Interesting, for me I started blogging a big on Marty but I “EP’d” his site a while back. I found this one and as I’ve mentioned, its right up my alley. Thanks for the welcome!

          1. Cool. I’ll take a win on my right guess. Maybe there was also a bit of intuition in picking up on your beingness from your posts. You’ve probably noticed that the exchanges on this blog are getting into a realm that is out of this world (i.e. the physical universe ;)). And I’m starting to think spiritual awarenesses are “contagious” in the sense that even talking about them brings up awareness.

            I couldn’t find a definition of “pipe” the way LRH used it, but judging by the context I guess it has something to do with the fact that men aren’t too hard to figure out. Was that what you meant when you said “pardon the best guess there”?

    3. During my life in service in the Sea Org, my mother in law would copy pages of bible verses and send them to her daughter, my wife. Somehow she thought if she quoted Jesus enough that somehow we would see the light.

      1. Maybe she was just trying to help a little by passing along whatever she had found to be enlightening or beautiful or helpful in some way to herself.

          1. “Somehow she thought if she quoted Jesus enough that somehow we would see the light.”

            That seems remote from what I posted about her. I guess writing on a blog is not the perfect communication medium, eh?

  30. Which links in particular?

    I posted the links to Helen O’Brian book and to Hubbard’s son’s interviews.

    And I posted links to the major CO$ expansion in Ontario, Canada.

    Dio

  31. Marianne,

    After some thought, I thought that you could mostly likely mean what do I think about the CO$ expansion?

    I think it is sick. It is diabolical. It is insidious.

    It turns my stomach.

    It is only a ten minute drive to the new ideal Cambridge org, for me.

    I read on line that there is a TR that teaches a person how to lie with a straight face.

    I did not know that before.

    This is black scientology.

    The CO$ uses black Scientology in almost everything they do.

    They are the world’s most professional, most dangerous confidence artists, liars and thieves.

    Everything they say is energetically loaded with black magic and sinister postulates.

    Hubbard’s hidden data line, his withhold postulate was that everyone is his slave. And this postulate is still in place.

    Like someone said:

    The most dangerous lies are the ones that are almost true. The more truth there is on a cognitive set up, the more the truth acts as a glue to hold the embedded lie in place, which is then often defended to death.

    Especially, if not exclusively, by those low on the tone scale and theta scale.

    And there is no shortage of those.

    Like, there is a sucker born every day.

    Dio

  32. You have most probably read LRH being critical against the authoritarian attitude of certain scientists and religious masters. How some in those fields claim to know it all because they have a diploma or more, and how they don’t allow further looking and evaluation of their subjects, and how they do it because their intention is actually hide the fact, they have been dishonest.

    Judging form the above, and from the definition of the word ‘intergrity’, do you think he would try to inhibit those who disagree with something in Scientology, to communicate their disagreement? Do you think it was his creation to label someone that goes around talking against persons, orgs or even tech as unethical or even SP? I think not.

  33. Scientology – Does it work?

    Scientology is an ideology which endlessly proves itself. No outside test can prove anything in Scientology. Like a dog chasing its own tail, Scientology only sets up its own conditions in order to prove itself.

    For instance, in Scientology once you get rid of your own “reactive mind”, you then reach the “State of Clear”.

    The problem is, no test outside of Scientology can be developed to even uncover evidence that the reactive mind exists at all, let alone prove its existence. The proof of the existence of the reactive mind exists solely and only from having adopted the belief structure of Scientology.

    So, a Scientologist is pretty much left holding the bag when his beliefs are questioned by outsiders on the internet. He is stuck having to attack and insult others personally if they do not believe in Scientology, too, and can not see the proof that his faith offers him.

    Further, the Scientologist can not even admit that his proof is faith-based, because Scientology teaches him that he has no beliefs and that the reactive mind and the State of Clear are factual.

    It is a bad position to be put in, and it is no wonder Scientologists get so nasty when you start a discussion on your blog about whether Scientology works or not.

    The truth is that Scientology works.

    But only if you believe in it.

    The problem is that believing in Scientology has real-world destructive effects that are not faith-based at all, but very very real. Many have declared bankruptcy, had their careers destroyed, broken up their families, murdered others, and even killed themselves from believing in Scientology.

    If only the people who are stuck inside this Scientology mind trap could step outside of it, then they could see what it is they are dramatizing, over and over.

    Many people are doing that right now.

    Please help it continue.

    Alanzo

    1. True Alanzo, nobody will ever proove that any kind of a mind exists, because it doesn’t. Check the cognition a Clear has to see if Hubbard said that the reactive mind exists or not. Also, check the definition for the analytical minds in the tech dictionary. One of them says ‘The thetan”. Psychology on the other hand claims that the mind exists, and that it’s very solid too (the brain). When did that get prooved? Have you ever seen any thoughts getting created therein?

      Yes, SCN like everything else is true, if it is true for you.

      You say SCN is horrible and it should be stopped etc. Are you aware of how many people have gotten killed, raped, tortured etc in the name of christianity, communism, capitalism, or some other popular idiocy? Why such worry about SCN? SCN is busy commiting suicide anyway. And very few people in those Churches nowdays. How many people have died in SCN, by the way? 1?2?5?10?

      1. Spyros –

        That someone else has died from something other than Scientology is not relevant to a discussion of those who died, or were bankrupted, or whose families were destroyed, from Scientology.

        No, Scientology is not as dangerous as a Nazi Blitzkrieg, or an American Shock and Awe attack.

        But we are not talking about those.

        We are talking about something that sells itself as creating a new civilization without war, crime, or insanity. It sells itself by saying it can make you “sane”. Yet it does not do that. It actually and quite literally enslaves people – in the corporate form – and still causes much insanity in its independent form.

        Like cocaine, Scientology gives you “wins” at first but becomes very toxic to your system after a while. Most people who do become addicted to it are harmed by it in the long run – if only in terms of stultified thinking.

        Scientology is an ideology that takes over your mind and tells you to “think with it”.

        If you do that, you are fucked.

        Don’t let it do that to you. Stay outside of it. Do not let it do your thinking for you. If you can stay outside of Scn long enough, you will eventually graduate from it. You will eventually be able to see its flaws, its unproven techniques, and its insanities, and you will find better ways to get yourself where you want to go.

        Alanzo

        1. As for people who have died, been killed, or killed themselves from having Scientology do their thinking for them, Google:

          Noah Lottick
          Rex Fowler
          Kyle Brennan
          Lisa McPherson
          Jeremy Perkins

          From there you will find others.

          Stay informed about Scientology. Be willing to look at and consider factual information that runs counter to the Scientology ideology. Do not identify your self too strongly with it – to the point where you can not walk away.

          Stay exterior to Scientology and be willing to walk away from it at any time when the facts demonstrate to you that you should.

          Remember, Scientology is insidious. It gets inside you. And it can harm your mind and life. It has for others. It can for you, too.

          Alanzo

          1. Also, you cannot prove anything spiritual by physical means. Unless you have some kickass telekinetic spirit that can move things around by thought, or something. Science is fine for scientific stuff. Spiritual stuff are a matter of ‘inner’, personal experience. And untill the psycho-sciences back up their claims with a little proof, and locate and show us a few imaginations in a few brains, this ‘hasn’t been proved” doesn’t mean anything to me.

            1. Spyros –

              I’m not saying that spiritual things can be proven. But the behavior prompted by the spiritual belief is real, is factual, and can be proven.

              This is why the unproven things in Scientology matter: they cause actions. They demand actions and govern behavior.

              As a Scientologist, you are supposed to be “ethical”. And being ethical means applying what L Ron Hubbard said to apply, in the exact way he said to apply it, in the real world.

              Scientology is not just belief. It is the behavior which the Scn belief commands, as well.

              This is an important point to fully confront.

              Why did Rex Flower, for instance, murder his business partner? This is a very important thing to investigate with an open mind – a mind completely independent of Scientology thinking.

              Alanzo

            2. Alanzo, if you believe all that which is said by fanatic anti-SCNs, you will never get to know much.

              That one is in or out of the Church doesn’t mean that much to me –but at least the people that are out, are free to choose. What means much to me is whether or not he has grasped what it is about. There are super-experienced guys who has worked their asses out and son on, and don’t understand a thing. They think SCN is some form of a fascist party, or something.

              You say with certainty that SCN as philosophy makes people do evil things. I disagree, but tell me what about Scientology makes people do evil things? I mean be specific so that I will understand and so I can give an understandable answer too.

            3. Spyros:

              Let’s just pick one for now: Scientology has made people destroy their families through disconnection.

              Yes or no?

            4. I thought we were going to talk. Where do you see SCN as philosophy and LRH in that? So if I go and start slapping people with an anarchist flag, you will blame anarchism for it? What if I wear a Slayer t-shirt?

              Also you said: “As a Scientologist, you are supposed to be “ethical”. And being ethical means applying what L Ron Hubbard said to apply, in the exact way he said to apply it, in the real world.”

              That is entirely incorrect. like in the above example, it is misinterpretation and misapplication of SCN by the psychotics I mentioned above. Those who seek to rule SCN. LRH said ethics is self-determined. Check out what Self determinism means, if you like.

            5. Spyros, when you compare enough, it will become abundantly clear that LRH said many things; many in contradiction to each other. Some of the other blogs have writers who focus on the COS; however, you will find those of us here are beyond caring either way about the future of COS and focus on the “works” of L Ron Hubbard in their own right. It is a spurious argument to declare that we cannot sort out “the church” from “the tech.”

              Disconnection as well as Fair Game are the Standard Tech of Scientology. Regardless if you decide to dispute this, these are the facts and they are irrefutable.

              Every despot has “good” ideas. Within this frame of reference, it is LRH’s game; LRH’s ball; LRH’s rules — play his way or go home.

            6. Also, it is obvious that some accepted LRH as a despot and also some super-‘ethical’ beings claimed LRH to be a despot, obviously to justify their own despotic attitude. I can tell clearly they are dishonest, for the reason that I mentioned before –they have no actual understanding of SCN, which shows a lot to me.

              I’m aware that I disagree with the majority, thus I said I’m no longer a Scientologist –which is very relieving to me. I keep what I agree with, discard what I don’t agree with. And it is almost impossible to believe that a despot could help anyone. I’ve never seen that happening.

            7. Spyros: That is entirely incorrect. like in the above example, it is misinterpretation and misapplication of SCN by the psychotics I mentioned above.

              Chris: Oh, and those “psychotics?” I would be slow to apply that label. They are just people like us who wanting to improve themselves and others learned Scientology to do so. I would be slow to judge them harshly as their spiritual path has been on quite the detour while practicing Scientology. It is a confusing subject. One that even the “psychotics” will need to recover from.

            8. Chris, I regret using the word ‘psychotics’ on a wide scale. No, I don’t think there are ‘many’ of them like I said before, but I do think there are some of them and hold important posts. And I mean the people that apply the tech in reverse, to harm others. For me SCN is an SP magnet, which is obvious judging from the experiences many complain about. Not only it attracted SPs, but it is run by SPs –without this meaning that all execs are SPs.

              I have no great knowledge of admin tech, but words says that LRH cancelled disconnection in some PL. Even if he hadn’t, I think that to willingly disconnect form a person that intentionally harms you is not the same as to impose to a person to disconnect from friends and family. I personally had some HAS/Ethics Officer (and not some poor misguided soul) 3rd party to disconnect me from my 2d partner because I intended to quit staff, and staff should only be with other staff, according to them. Well, unless the staff are with some vip person –rich person. Well, I would gladly fair-game that bitch. I’m sorry I didn’t.

              Most importantly, above all, such persons as that ‘Ethics Officer’, have no idea of SCN tech. Ask them about a book, you will get parroting but no application. No respect for self determinism, no actual help, just status.

            9. No harm done Spyros. We’re just talking here. Sorting out these contrary facts takes a while. If we do it with a love and a reverence for ourselves and for the truth of the moment, we will be fine and it will all turn out alright.

            10. Yes, well I can generalise quite a bit when I’m angry. Then after a couple of minutes I wish I could edit my messages 😛

            11. Show me, please, his books and tapes bulletins where he told people act like authoritarian, suppressive assholes. Then we will talk about SCN as philosophy and LRH. I have no more interest in the group. Do what you will with it. Burn it, sue it, swear at them all day long. But the group is not Hubbard. He’s gone since 1980 if I’m not mistaken by the way. They said he left to research stuff. Yeah right. I wonder what he researched, because he never issued anything…

        2. Fine, since you’re talking about the Church, I’m with you on it. I would go there and shove their ‘freedom’ where they like it most. Many in there are among the most psychotic, evil intended people I have ever met. But I left them more than 10 years, ago and I don’t mind anymore. However, I dont think that since they are retarded and evil, the philosophy itself is the same. The philosophy can get harmful and evil too, if you use it like they do –to set people ‘free’ by enslaving them. Yes, to hell with that and with whomever does that in or out of that Church.

          1. Spyros wrote:

            Fine, since you’re talking about the Church, I’m with you on it. I would go there and shove their ‘freedom’ where they like it most. Many in there are among the most psychotic, evil intended people I have ever met.

            The evil people in the Church are thinking the same thoughts from the same ideology as those outside it. The ideology commands that they take the actions they take, and behave toward others the way they do.

            These “evil people” in the Church are simply obeying the commands of the Scn ideology that they are allowing to do their thinking for them.

            Remember what Voltaire said: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

            Alanzo

    2. Alanzo:”The problem is, no test outside of Scientology can be developed to even uncover evidence that the reactive mind exists at all, let alone prove its existence. The proof of the existence of the reactive mind exists solely and only from having adopted the belief structure of Scientology.”

      You could substitute “Physics” for “Scientology” and “Higgs field” for “reactive mind” and have a perfectly equivalent “truth”.

      A year ago people were still saying the Higgs boson was scientific lunacy and anyone who made reference to it in an argument was dismissed because it was unproven.

      Scientology has only been un-scientifically proven / disproven because it has not been tested.

      Until it has been scientifically proven you can discount all the empirical and anecdotal evidence you want, however that will not give validity to your argument that there is nothing such as a reactive mind.

      Curiously you believe in past lives – yet another thing that can’t be easily proven and hasn’t been to general satisfaction or acceptance.

      When you consider what has gone on in the past – all the deaths by war, pestilence, general disease, suppression and betrayal it is a wonder that you would not expect there to be some trace of influence from all those past lives.

      Moreover, if you have lived previously then you fit the definition of a spiritual entity. If you’ve lived previously and track that back, how far does it go? What is the nature of the spirit that defines you? Can it not improve?

      Inconsistencies to sort out?

      1. Actually 2ndmxr, I made a very conscious effort to describe past lives as a belief. I even italicized it like that in order to say that I have beliefs which I very importantly recognize are NOT knowledge.

        There is a big and all-important difference between those two things which Hubbard intentionally blurred. And that blurring has caused all kinds of problems for Scientologists and what they think that they KNOW, vs what they actually only BELIEVE.

        I have found that, thinking with Scientology, a Scientologist does not know what a belief is. He thinks his beliefs are knowledge and this confusion is very damaging to his self identity. The reason it is damaging is because memories make up part of your self-identity, and things found in session may or may not be real memories. To say that data found in session is knowledge is one thing that leads to disasters for Scientologists.

        The reactive mind is not like the Higgs Bosun. The mind is part of a model found in an ideology, NOT a science. These two things are also very very different, and to mix these up is also another problem that Scientologists get tripped up on because of Hubbard’s teachings.

        The solution is to learn critical thinking skills and to become more scientifically literate. A great course for that which I have found is here:

        http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=9344

        This is an excellent course. And it goes on sale from time to time. It changed my life.

        Alanzo

        1. Sorry: This sentence “The mind is part of a model found in an ideology, NOT a science.”

          Should read: “The reactive mind is part of a model found in an ideology, NOT a science. ”

          Alanzo

        2. Al, I got that you characterized your ideas about past lives as a belief and agree that a belief does not necessarily constitute knowledge.

          The questions I posed still apply. If you don’t mind, please answer them from the viewpoint of belief.

          Your reply brings up another question: If you wish to try and analyze all things by the scientific method or crical thinking process that is the outcome of the course you recommended, how do you apply that to your own belief in past lives? Is there a way critical thinking can allow you to reconcile having a belief in past lives?

          1. 2ndxmr wrote:

            Al, I got that you characterized your ideas about past lives as a belief and agree that a belief does not necessarily constitute knowledge.

            Your statement is like saying “apples do not necessarily constitute oranges”. No, apples are DO NOT constitute oranges and beliefs DO NOT constitute knowledge.

            A belief is something as common as “the sun will rise tomorrow.” That is a belief for most human beings. It is not knowledge.

            It is important to understand what your beliefs are, and what your knowledge is, and not to confuse them.

            When you consider what has gone on in the past – all the deaths by war, pestilence, general disease, suppression and betrayal it is a wonder that you would not expect there to be some trace of influence from all those past lives.

            A reactive mind is not a sufficient explanation for all that has gone on. A reactive mind does not explain any of this sufficiently to understand and reconcile all that we already KNOW about human beings. A reactive mind is an ideological insertion, an ad hoc explanation, which does not take into account hormonal systems, brain chemistry, primatology, and whole swaths of scientific knowledge which, when taken into account, point in a completely different direction than a reactive mind for an explanation of these things.

            I do not use the concept of a reactive mind to explain anything about human existence – my own or anyone else’s – any more. Accepting that the reactive mind exists – and that you have one – was the problem that Hubbard gave you for which he held the only solution. It was a trick to get you hooked on auditing. Because there is absolutely no evidence for a reactive mind, spending any money or time to achieve a “state of clear” was a major mistake.

            Because I believe that I have lived before, and will live again, there is absolutely no need to spend any money or time on that. It is a belief only, and it is not connected to any price tag, loyalty, or commitment.

            Moreover, if you have lived previously then you fit the definition of a spiritual entity. If you’ve lived previously and track that back, how far does it go? What is the nature of the spirit that defines you? Can it not improve?

            If you are using a scientology definition of “spiritual entity”, then no I do not fit your definition of a spiritual entity. In fact, I do not pretend to know what I am. I have beliefs only.

            I don’t pretend to know how far back anything goes, or whether that is even remotely important to know, since I no longer believe that previous incidents cause neuroses or psychoses, or even feelings of being “keyed in” or dissonance.

            I do not know the nature of the spirit that defines me. I am a human being. I no longer pretend to KNOW these things.

            And yes, I believe a spirit can “improve”. I believe I have, immensely, since graduating from Scientology.

            Inconsistencies to sort out?

            I am operating on a completely different paradigm than I did when I was a Scientoloigist. My thoughts, beliefs and knowledge have a certain amount of consistency and a certain amount of inconsistency with my paradigm, and they always will. To be completely consistent with the paradigm you are presently operating on is not a valid goal for a human being, in my opinion. To be comfortable with the inconsistencies that you constantly generate from constantly seeking more knowledge is a much more workable one.

            Seeking certainty is not good. It stagnates you.

            Seeking to live with doubt and uncertainty is much more constructive, expansive and productive.

            Alanzo

            1. Al: Seeking to live with doubt and uncertainty is much more constructive, expansive and productive.

              Chris: Huge — if we are to begin to start.

            2. I like your writings Alanzo.

              “Seeking certainty is not good. It stagnates you.
              Seeking to live with doubt and uncertainty is much more constructive, expansive and productive.”

              May I add a bit more fun too!

  34. You were spot on, Spyros, You really shined light on Alanzo’s lame rationale.

    One thing was where you said, “Why such worry about SCN? SCN is busy committing suicide anyway.”

    I’ve pointed that out to him many times. He usually does an A=A on the Church and the principles of Scn, but mostly he is talking about the evils of the Church and continues to run a crusade against it – refusing to recognize that it is, as you say, committing suicide. If he recognized that he wouldn’t be able to continue being the lofty savior he has mocked himself up to be.

    If you haven’t seen it yet, you’ll also see how he misrepresents the principles of Scn as well. He really doesn’t understand it and/or is purposely twisting what it is.

    I got that you easily saw his illogic where he included murder (and suicide) in with the statement of “MANY have declared bankruptcy, had their careers destroyed, broken up their families, murdered others, and even killed themselves from believing in Scientology.have declared bankruptcy, had their careers destroyed, broken up their families” – this is essentially and knowingly equating the numbers. I loved how you called him on this when you asked, “How many people have died in SCN, by the way? 1?2?5?10?”. And I see he still doesn’t get it, as he names just five and then adds “and others”.

    In his additional comment he includes another one of his typical generalities where he says that Scn “still causes much insanity in its independent form.” Of course, he has no data to back that up, but again, we have to remember that he is on a mocked-up crusade so he can puff himself up as some sort of hero.

    Carry on pointing out his irrationality if you have the spirit to do so, but I personally have learned that it goes nowhere.

    1. Hi Marildi –

      Can you give me the experience of the auditors in the list of critics I gave you who are trained to Class 8 or above?

      You said that they might have been trained to those levels, but they were not “experienced”, and that is why they are critics of Scientology.

      So could you give me their experience levels with Scientology as Class 8s or above?

      Alanzo

      1. Another typical ploy is to wait until the discussion is long gone and everybody has forgotten about it and then ask a question that involves the comments of a long exchange – asking such when you know that the many details aren’t going to be remembered. The exchange is there. Go back and look at it for yourself.

        1. Actually you said that the reason for Class 8 auditors or above turning into critics of Scientology was because they were not “experienced”.

          So since you know their experience levels, and that this is the reason for their becoming critics, I wanted to ask what their experience levels were.

          I’d given up taking the next step and asking you their experience levels at that time because I thought your answer was completely irrational and absurd, and that you could not have known the experience level of a Class 8 or above auditor who became a critic of Scientology.

          But now that you are calling me irrational and doing your best to dead agent me, it is time I go ahead ask you this question so you can show how rational your conclusions are about why Class 8s or above turn around and become critics of Scientology.

          So could you please give me the Scn experience levels of the Class 8s or above which caused them to become critics?

          I would think that it is because they are very experienced with Scientology and this is why they criticize it. But you obviously believe you have superior reasoning than this.

          So could you provide the experience levels of Class 8s or above who become critics of Scientology?

          Alanzo

          1. Blatant Straw Man tactics. As usual, you altered what I said just enough to make it an entirely different statement.

            And you have altered what occurred.in the cycle as well. I would tell you again to go back and read it but it wouldn’t matter – you would resort to re-writing the history of it or some other diversionary tactics even IF you duplicated it.

            I’m not interested in trying to have a comm cycle with you. Talk to Spyros.

            1. Al, if I’m not mistaken (and I definitely could be), a Class IX auditor is an NOTS auditor. That is a specialized training which does not require a Class VIII certificate. I believe there have been Class V auditors who are also Class IX.

            2. But more to the point, you are A=Aing everyone who has any criticism of the CoS as a “critic”. Not all critics are alike by any means. For example, Karen De La Carriere is an LRH trained Class XII auditor and CS. She is also a “critic”. She is also an independent Scientologist.

              Are you like her? No. Geir is a “critic”.Is he like you or Karen? No. For that matter, Marty is a “critic”.

              So the salient question is, what exaxctly is Pia a “critic” of?What,specifically, does she have a beef with?. It may or may not be relevant to your argument.

              “Beam me up, Scotty.” .

            3. Marildi: Blatant Straw Man tactics. As usual, you altered what I said just enough to make it an entirely different statement.

              Chris: Having read through a list of fallacious arguments it seems that it is incumbent on Scientologists to then apply them. haha I’ve been witnessing you do this for months and I wonder if this is your Div 6 hat at work just continuing to disseminate a false party line until it is believed? It’s juvenile and also Scientological to believe that anyone is buying it.

    2. Marildi, this Comment, Reply system is so confusing to me 😛 I think Geir should move the blog to facebook that is nice and simple.

      With the acks that you give me sometimes you make me feel like such a show-off, lol, keep it up 😛

      I don’t feel offended if SCN is offended, so I don’t get upset. I feel a little more exterior to this matter nowdays. Maybe we’ll get to learn something out of this, too.

      1. Well, it doesn’t look like you’re confused. you did it right. 😛

        And yes, I will keep up the acks – I call it like I see it. 🙂 I need to go out for awhile pretty soon but I’ll catch up later with anything I may have missed.

        It’s great that you are feeling exterior to the matters of Scn. For me, it isn’t a question of getting upset so much as to see the gross false data being spread. And yes, if you’re like me, you will learn from the experience no matter what. 😉

  35. I’ve been reflecting on the course the comments to these last couple of posts by Geir have taken.

    I believe the curves were triggered by Geir posting things like this:

    “I have been involved in Scientology since 1984. I did all the available spiritual levels delivered by the Church – up and including OT 8. And I have gotten personal gains from every level, every service. I left the Church in 2009 for reasons well known, but my personal experiences in Scientology has been very beneficial. I have personally witnessed many people having gotten personal gains from Scientology.”

    I can’t help but contrast these with some of the rants along the lines of Scientology being an evil ideology that somehow takes over people’s minds in a virus-like manner and drives then to insanity and suicide, etc. These sound like paranoid rants

    Geir’s positive remarks about his experience and lasting results from Scientology have brought out an avalanche of negative comments from some “critics”; some of these commenters seem desperate to make sure nothing good said about Scientology goes unchallenged and un-rebutted.

    The polarization is obvious. Personally, I’m not sure I’m going to post my viewpoints anymore; it seems to cause those who had a negative experience within the CoS, distress.

    Perhaps they need more time to decompress?

    Duplication and dialogue does not seem to be occurring at this time. It is apparently politically incorrect, according to some who post here, to quote Hubbard or use words from the Scientology lexicon; such users are dubbed “disingenuous” and/or “trolls”.

    Y’all have fun being self-righteous and judgmental “critics”.

    1. You *are* self-reflective guy, Valkov. You are extremely well-read, and I think you are extremely intelligent, as well. As I have said before, I have learned a lot from you.

      So thank you for the times you have been kind to me, and done your best to be helpful, as well.

      Alanzo

  36. Here is the transcript from Lawrence Wright’s interview with Stephen “Sarge” Pfaugh, a person who worked with L Ron Hubbard at Int Base for years at the end of Hubbard’s life.

    This is a transcript of the video interview that exists in Lawrence Wright’s Going Clear – the enhanced edition:

    Stephen “Sarge” Pfauth shares intimate details from the final weeks of L. Ron Hubbard’s life. (2:59)

    SARGE:
    “About six weeks before he died, he called me into the Blue Bird and he briefed me that he was going to drop his body. He was gonna be leaving and he wanted to drop his body. He told me basically that he failed. He said he failed and you know, ah so, he’s leaving.

    He didn’t seem upset, you know what I mean. I mean he wasn’t like, ah, misemotional over it. He just stated a fact, I failed, ya know. So ah, it was like a briefing, like he would brief me to go to town, you know what I mean? It was like that way. He was just explaining things to me. Trying to explain to me. I was pretty shook up.”

    (MissWog: He looks to be fighting back tears and very sad at this point.)

    LW:
    “And then is that the point that he asked you to build this machine?”

    SARGE:
    “Yeah, several weeks went by and I was supposed to be working on building this machine and ah, Annie kept pestering me and pestering me. ‘Sarge, you gotta work on it, you gotta start doing something, you gotta do this, he asked me everyday about this.’

    So ah, so what I did is I did a little bit of research. I had read some books about Nikola Tesla and stuff and I figured maybe building a Tesla coil would probably be the best route to go. And I built that and I had little electrodes you hook it up too the e-meter so when he’s on the cans he would just flip the button and it would just do its thing or whatever, you know what I mean? That was the whole idea. I designed it that way but I just wanted to scare him a little bit, you know what I mean? I don’t want to kill him. So you know 12 volts ain’t gonna kill him. But I … ya know.

    Annie brought it back to me and it was all burnt up, didn’t work anymore. I didn’t ask any questions after that. I was all upset about the whole thing. I didn’t want to do it to begin with and I didn’t want anybody to know I did it, you know what I mean?”

    LW:
    “Did you and Annie and Pat ever talk about this afterwards?”

    SARGE:
    “No. Ya know, that’s the odd part, it wasn’t brought up at all. Not at all. You would think somebody would say you need to be debriefed on that or something but nobody did. Nobody did. They knew about the machine. Annie knew. Annie was the one pestering me. Annie took it in to him and then, ah, Pat had to have known because I’m sure Annie told him, ya know. I didn’t talk about it.”

    1. From the very end of Wright’s book, page’s 363-365:

      “He became head of Hubbard’s security detail, and was with the founder on his Creston ranch in his final days, with Pat and Annie Broeker. In early 1985, Hubbard became extremely ill and spent a week in hospital. Pfauth was told it was for pancreatitis, “I didn’t find out about the strokes until later, ” he said. After that, Hubbard stayed mostly in his Blue Bird bus, except when he came out to do his own laundry. Pfauth might be shoveling out the stables and they’d talk.

      Six weeks before the leader died, Pfauth hesitantly related, Hubbard called him into the bus. He was sitting in his little breakfast nook. “He told me he was dropping his body. He named a specific star he was going to circle. That rehabs a being. He told me he’d failed, he’s leaving, ” Pfauth said. He said he’s not coming back here to Earth. He doesn’t know where he’d wind up.”

      “How’d you react?”, I asked.

      “I got good and pissy-assed drunk, ” Pfauth said. “Annie found me at five in the morning in my old truck, Kris Kringle, and I had beer cans all around me. I did not take it well.”

      I mentioned the legend in Scientology that Hubbard would return.

      “That’s bull crap, ” Pfauth said. “He wanted to drop his body and leave. And he told me basically that he’d failed. All the work and everything, he’d failed.”

      I had heard a story that Pfauth had built some kind of electroshock mechanism for Hubbard in the last month of his life. I didn’t know what to make of it, given Hubbard’s horror of electroshock therapy. Pfauth’s eyes searched the ceiling as if he were looking for divine help. He explained that Hubbard was having trouble getting rid of a body thetan. “He wanted me to build a machine that would up the voltage and basically blow the thetan away. You can’t kill a thetan but just get him out of there. And also kill the body.”

      “So it was a suicide machine?”

      “Basically.”

      Pfauth was staggered by Hubbard’s request, but the challenge interested him. “I figured that building a Tesla coil was the best way to go.” The Tesla coil is a transformer that increases the voltage without upping the current. Pfauth powered it with a 12-volt automobile battery, and then hooked the entire apparatus up to an emeter. “So, if you’re on the cans you can flip a button and it does its thing,” Pfauth explained. “I didn’t want to kill him, just to scare him.”

      “Did he try it?”

      “He blew up my emeter. Annie brought it back to me all burnt up.”

      This was just before Christmas 1985. Hubbard died a few weeks later of an unrelated stroke.

        1. That BT he was left with must now be perched on the shoulder of DM. Maybe that’s why DM got the grounding rods!! – if adding electricity won’t blow it, short it out to ground.

          Al, that story doesn’t tell the whole story. You can use it to say he was sanity-challenged or you can use it to say he was still looking for a way to succeed. With all the things he used to try and find a path it’s a wonder he got as far as he did. Madame Curie died of radiation poisoning – we sometimes learn the hard way. It doesn’t mean a failure resulted in zero progress.

          He may have failed in finding a route back to OT, assuming that’s what he was looking for, but that doesn’t mean other researchers can’t pick up the ball and continue forward with new research. If the mind is such a minefield as Ron said it was, there’s bound to be more casualties among researchers before it’s fully mapped. Researchers will be willing to take that risk.

          1. 2ndmxr –

            I’m glad you pointed out Hubbard’s assertion that “the mind is such a minefield as Ron said it was”. Scientolgoists should question and examine this idea very closely. I no longer hold this idea at all. I believe this was another trick that Hubbard played on Scientologists to sell them auditing.

            The mind is not dangerous at all. There is no need whatsoever to worry about your mind. You are certainly not going to die or get pneumonia if you look at the “wrong” parts of it at the “wrong” time or in the “wrong” way.

            I realize that Ron could have been simply saying that he had not found it yet.

            If that is so, why didn’t he tell Scientologists that? A whole lot of bankruptcies, destroyed families, and broken lives could have been avoided from Sea Org “Hill 10’s” and “too gruesomes” from trying to avoid the fate of every man woman and child on the planet being dependent upon what you do with and in Scientology – don’t you think?

            Why did he keep lying to everyone about having “made it” and telling everyone that 100% standard tech will take you to beingnesses where nothing can strike you down, and all the other lies he told over and over and never once corrected in 36 years of running Scientology?

            To me, that is utterly insane.

            Alanzo

            1. Alanzo: “I’m glad you pointed out Hubbard’s assertion that “the mind is such a minefield as Ron said it was”. Scientolgoists should question and examine this idea very closely. I no longer hold this idea at all”

              I agree that the content of the mind is generally harmless. But that is because it is generally inaccessible. The more accessible it becomes, the more energy that can be released. I don’t know if you’ve ever experienced a list error or out int condition that made you feel like you were being squashed, but it happens. I’ve had several experiences that left me with no doubt that mental energy can exert a physical sensation of force on the body and then dissipate virtually instantly when the right item is found.

              I have seen people who were put into that “stuff” and later succumbed to illness of one sort or another. There is energy in the mind and it does get unleashed when it is contacted. If you want to prove it to yourself, just think of a particularly bad time and view it without really confronting it. It can feel rather nasty. No minefields, you say?

            2. 2ndmxr –

              I know what you are saying. I read and studied Scn 8-80 very hard. And I used to “see” electronic ridges and “masses” and the whole way that Hubbard defined my mind for me. As a “past life clear”, I used to be terrified that being in the interference zone so long was going to kill me if I just looked at something wrong, was exposed to something before I was “ready”. I would feel panic and a sense of being trapped because I did not have the $45,000 I needed to get myself through OT III.

              I’ve also had “out-lists” and walked around feeling exactly as I was supposed to feel. And I have gotten sick after auditing and accepted that the auditing was the cause of my illness.

              I believe that now, all these things are hypnotic implants which come from accepting the whole Scientology worldview and the way it describes the make up of the mind. All this certainly puts a person at effect, and these assumptions color the whole world for him.

              I just don’t see things that way any more. I do not believe that seeing the mind this way has advantages. It is just accepting and assuming a Scientology worldview and then seeing scientology everywhere. I believe that the masses and the ridges that you see when you are a Scientologist are entirely mocked-up. And when you audit them, you are playing a game of putting them there first and then “erasing” them.

              It is a phenomenon very similar to the Clear cog and what you audit on OT 8, and its EP. You mocked it up. But you mocked it up from accepting Hubbard’s ideas about what your own mind is. And those ideas DO NOT make a person more free. They very definitely are part of an elaborate trap.

              That’s how I see it now.

              And it is a huge relief!

              Alanzo

  37. Valkov, you are right that to train as a Class IX doesn’t require a Class VIII cert, or even Class VI. The pre-req is just Class V Graduate.

    The other thing I wanted to let you know is that the class of auditor had nothing to do with what I had stated about critics – and by critics I specified critics of Scientology as a subject, not the CoS. (Except those still in the Church, virtually everybody is a critic of the CoS, including even the general public at this point.)

    JFYI, all I have ever said was that from what I have observed, the majority (not all, just the majority) of critics are not experienced auditors and that the majority of experienced auditors are not critics. It had nothing to do with being a high-classed auditor, just an experienced one.

    In my view, experience with the tech directly demonstrates for auditors that the constructs and principles of Scientology fit with what occurs for the pc when the tech is applied. And part of auditors’ increased certainty is that their MU’s and confusions get flushed out by the time they’ve audited many pcs – i.e. wrong ideas show up in their session errors. I know this not because I myself am a highly experienced auditor but as a highly experienced word clearer I saw many pink sheets and the relationship of MU’s to session errors.

    On that exchange with Alanzo way back, in an effort to counter my contention he first posted links with lists of critics – which didn’t show what training they had done, let alone how much experience. So when I didn’t accept it he gave me the names and links for some Class VIIIs, maybe a dozen but I think it was closer to half a dozen – certainly not enough to be considered a majority of critics, and in any case there still wasn’t evidence of what kind of experience they had, except for a couple – again, nothing to indicate a majority of critics. I have no figures either but had only expressed what I said as my impression, and he tried to prove it wrong but couldn’t.

    One other thing on high classed auditors – in years gone by, students weren’t required to do an internship before going on to the next level. I personally knew a Class VIII who had never done a single internship, not even Class IV. Big difference between interned auditors and those not, believe me.

    Anyway, I agree that we’ve done enough of certain discussions, but let’s see what new subjects Geir is going to come up with. 😉

    1. That the majority of the critics are not experienced auditors comes as no surprise since extremely few of the people exposed to scientology ever were.

      From what I can see, most of the experienced auditors produced left the subject at some point, never to look back. Most probably wouldn’t bother criticizing it. Not caring may be worse than criticizing, though – as simply walking away doesn’t make for any progress in the subject (such as remedying why almost everyone that is exposed to the subject walks away from it).

      1. In fact, given the numbers here, when you look at the number of people who criticize Scientology technology itself, and see so many highly trained and experienced auditors among them, it becomes even more important to sit up and take notice.

        That so many Scientologists who are untrained and inexperienced with Scientology technology still support the tech and hate to hear criticisms of it lets one see a more accurate view of the problem, I think.

        Aren’t Marildi and Valkov, the two most fervent defenders of the tech here, also the ones with the least amount of tech training, auditor experience, and Bridge progress on Geir’s blog?

        I’m asking – Is that true?

        Alanzo

      2. Geir, if it is logical that the majority of critics in these debates are not experienced auditors due to the fact that the majority exposed to Scn were never experienced auditors – then it is also logical that the majority of proponents who enter into the debates would not be experienced auditors, for the same reason. But that doesn’t happen to be what I’ve observed, here and elsewhere. That observation tells me there is another factor involved – one that I had already learned from the experienced auditors I’ve known. That’s the factor I mentioned in my comment to Valkov – i.e. that auditors have learned from direct, personal experience how much truth and workability there is to the tech.

        The other outpoint in your comment, as I see it, is where you say most of the experienced auditors produced left the “the subject”. I don’t see that they’ve left “the subject” – they left the CoS brand of the subject, and I say that based on the many posts I’ve read.

        I actually agree with you that “Most [experienced auditors] probably wouldn’t bother criticizing it”, if by “it” you meant the true subject. But I don’t agree that they wouldn’t bother to debate it for the reason you infer – that they are not interested in remedying the situation. I think it’s much more likely that they don’t bother trying to debate with people who don’t really know the subject as it is a waste of time (which I myself have am learning). At best, it would take more of their time than it’s worth.

        As a matter of fact, that’s basically the same reason you have refused to discuss the subject of intellectual property rights with people who had not read a particular book – you didn’t want to take the time to give the full background before you would bother getting into a long discussion about it as you would mainly be informing them of what they were ignorant about.

        As for your idea that experienced auditors’ who’ve left the Church are not interested in remedying the situation, what I’ve observed is that for a growing number of them their interest in progress being made in the subject is shown by the fact that they are actively practicing Scientology in the Independent field .

        1. Here’s the scene as I have seen it – from more than 1000 contact over the past three years and from tens of thousands of posts on the Net – from ARS and Whyweprotest to OCMB, ESMB, the FreeZone and IVY mailing lists, Marty’s blog, Scientology Kid’s, ScientologyCult, my blog and many other blogs.

          Most debaters on Scientology – Pro or Con – are not experienced auditors. Very few people on planet earth are experienced auditors.

          Around 30% of the vocal old timers, experienced auditors are defending the subject, 30% are criticizing it (some quite harshly) and 40% are treading a middle ground. This is based on my 3000 hours of research. There are plenty of critical experienced auditors out there, not only Mayo and Whitfield, but people such as Bruce Hines, Gordon (forgot the last name – but was a research auditor for LRH), Allan Walter, Dave Gibbons… lots. But most of the auditors I’ve had contact with have little or no interest in the subject for whatever and various reasons.

          What do you base your observations on?

          1. Geir: “Most debaters on Scientology – Pro or Con – are not experienced auditors.”

            That is a very different statement from what I said, which was that the majority of debaters who are experienced auditors are not critics.

            Also, where you state that old timers are criticizing “Scientology” it isn’t clear what you mean as you usually seem to give it only one meaning – the CoS brand.

            That aside, I’m also not sure what you mean by “criticizing”. When I used the word “critics” I wasn’t talking about people who are critical of certain points in the tech but in general find it to be highly beneficial. The example you gave of Mayo is a case in point. From what I know, there were certain things about the tech that he did criticize but overall he was definitely a tech proponent. He even had his own practice primarily using LRH tech (until the CoS forced him out).

            David St Lawrence is another example of the same kind of thing. He has even made changes to the tech but he definitely is not an overall critic of it. He’s a practicing auditor who mostly follows the tech as LRH developed it. What he criticizes the most is the CoS “tech”.

            1. I can dig up and list Many highly experienced auditors that were trained by LRH or under LRH that are critical of several parts of the tech – many discarding it wholesale. I refer to old timers as they were not critics due to mishandling by the current CoS management – they were trained in the unaltered tech – when LRH was at the helm.

              Mayo became increasingly critical. Did you see his comeback on the scene over at ESMB?

              Also;

              How much of the tech does a person have to criticize to be called a “critic” by you?
              How much auditing must a person have done in order to be called “experienced” by you?
              What class of auditor would qualify as “trained” by you?

            2. Good questions. I’d like to read some direct answers.

              Does anyone have the link to the David Mayo’s comeback? I can’t seem to manage getting on ESMB, unless by link. I have read some things, somewhere. Thanks 🙂

            3. Geir, I purposely phrased my observation the way I did because I don’t have actual statistics. It is simply my “impression” (another word I used) as a result of my experience on blogs that I’ve spent any fair amount of time on. That is to say, the posters who indicate by their comments that they have had some amount of experience, whatever their class of training may be, almost always speak highly of the tech. That, plus my direct contact with experienced auditors compared to those who weren’t, is why I have the idea that it may very well be the main factor as to whether a person is a critic of the tech or not. And I believe that in any why finding it would qualify as a valid string to pull, minimally.

              You yourself have often stated things in terms of your general impression or what you “suspect”, even though you don’t have much if anything in the way of factual evidence. So I don’t think that you should object to my doing so, if you do.

              The observation I made and the conclusion I came to as likely isn’t at all inconceivable, IMO. But on the other hand, I have also observed that a critic on your blog can make some truly outrageous claims about the tech which I know you don’t agree with, and yet you rarely have a word to say in reply. And this isn’t the first time I’ve mentioned that.

            4. It seems to me you are suffering from strong confirmation bias. I believe, as Al does, that you have not frequented the critical blogs/forum much and thus have been shielded or have shielded yourself against those you postulate out of existence – the critical highly trained and experienced auditors.

              Please, if you can, answer my three questions above.

            5. Geir, I don’t deny that my observation is from a narrow base, and I never presented it in any other terms than that – i.e. I stated what I had observed and where I had observed it, and that I found it matched my direct observations of experienced auditors I’ve known. Keep that in mind as I answer your questions as well as I can:

              1. “How much of the tech does a person have to criticize to be called a ‘critic’ by you?”

              I would say they would have to be in disagreement with a large portion of the philosophy as well as a large chunk of the tech. There’s really no way I can be more specific than that, because I haven’t asked the critics what percentage they disagree with. But on many blog exchanges that’s the sense I have of it – that they criticize a lot or even all of Scientology.

              2. “How much auditing must a person have done in order to be called “experienced” by you?”

              From what I’ve seen up close, they should minimally have done a Class IV internship, where they get many hours in the chair and lots of correction. This is the point where most of them seem to be able to get consistent results and are certain of the value and workability of the tech.

              3. What class of auditor would qualify as “trained” by you?

              To repeat, training wasn’t my point – it was experience. Some Class VIII’s who’ve not even done a Class IV internship aren’t likely to get consistently good results and haven’t had the personal experience to know with certainty that it works.
              .

              I have no reason not to believe you when you say that you have found from your personal research that a large percentage of auditors of LRH tech are overall critical of it. But tell me this, how do you reconcile those findings, which would seem to majorly invalidate the tech, with your own experience as a hugely benefited recipient of the tech?

            6. If only higly trained auditors have the right to have a valid opinion whether critical or not, then no wonder why non-SCNists call SCN a cult. Check out ‘authoritariarism’.

              This doesn’t go to you Matildi, just what you mentioned reminded me of it. I haven’t been following your discussions closely.

              In my opinion this (authority) is the doom of SCN. It is only enough for somebody to gain enough status to f@ck the whole subject up with his valid opinions.

            7. We were given by LRH books and other means to take and audit people, but no that is not enough. We have to have a valid stamp by some valid person that has been stampted by some other valid person, (and this pyramid goes all the way up to Miscavige and his likes) because the creator of the tech is not valid enough. Well, thus we enjoy RTCs authority. Boss is always right.

            8. I believe it works for me mainly because it appeals to me as workable. It may not appeal to others and to that degree it fails to work.

            9. Geir, please explain what you mean when you say “it appeals to me as workable”?

            10. Okay. Can you be more specific – how would you sum up its rationale?

            11. Ehm? Give you All the basics? Not enough space on my blog. You’ve read the books, I’ve read the same. I find that the philosophy and the ensuing tech ought to work on me. I like it.

              Others may not like it and may not find it workable on themselves.

              Sounds OK?

            12. Yes, sounds good. I feel the same way. And I would add to it that if others studied and understood the books, they would also feel the same way. They would see that the principles do exist in life. I mean to say, if you and I can see that they do, why wouldn’t others?

            13. People are different. I believe it worked on me because it appealed to me. If it didn’t, I believe it wouldn’t have worked. Covered before; Placebo.

              I feel it is somewhat arrogant to presume that Scientology would work if the person simply understood it. Would that imply that if it didn’t work on a person, the person wouldn’t have understood it?

            14. Do you mean to say that you do not agree that the principles in those basic books are observable in life?

            15. The point I was making is that Scn principles are actually observable in life, or at least most of them are, and we seem to agree on that.. That was in fact my reason for liking Scientology. I would have assumed it was your reason too, but if not, what was the reason you liked it?

            16. That was my reason. But I do not presume they are observable for everyone or that the tech that lies on top of it – the actual Bridge – would work for everyone when applied as prescribed. I practice humbleness in that regard.

            17. Geir, I don’t presume they are observable for everyone either. But to have observed that the phenomena described in Scn do exist in life in spite of the fact that others haven’t made that observation doesn’t equate to arrogance – it’s simply own’s own observation. And if the observation that life does align with Scn principles is a correct one, then, logically, the tech that parallels it should work. In fact, it has indeed been known to work on pcs who knew nothing about the principles involved.

            18. And the tech has been seen to not work on many. And I do not resort to the explanation that they are to stupid or ignorant or out-ethics or whatever to help me understand why that is. I simply simmer down on the explanation that whatever works on a personal level is tied to placebo. Covered this before. No need for reiteration 🙂

            19. “And I do not resort to the explanation that they are to stupid or ignorant or out-ethics or whatever to help me understand why that is.”

              I’m not saying anything like that at all. I’m simply saying that if the principles do exist and if the tech is based on those, then it logically should work – and no other “reason” than that would be needed. That in fact is why it does work even on pc’s who don’t know the principles. It even works on pc’s who don’t know any tech is being applied to them at all and aren’t expecting anything (i.e. no placebo principle involved), as in coffee shop type of auditing.

              In every sphere of life, in fact, if one tries to do something that doesn’t align with the basics of life, it doesn’t work. But if it does align, then it works. I’m sure you’ve observed these things also.

            20. You seem to be implying that if there is a principle in life that is seen to be universally workable, then any tech based on that will work. Is that what you are saying?

            21. No, not just one principle – I’m talking about the whole system of principles and truths in Scientology. The only reason Black Scientology can create whatever effect it does is that it’s based on some – but not all – of the principles. It doesn’t, for example, include in its application of the “tech” the intention of the pc getting better in terms of survival on his dynamics.

            22. From marildi’s post to Geir “Geir, I don’t presume they are observable for everyone either. But to have observed that the phenomena described in Scn do exist in life in spite of the fact that others haven’t made that observation doesn’t equate to arrogance….”

              Reminds me of the time recently when Geir quit a comm cycle with me because I said I “didn’t believe in bosons….” he he he

              I guess Geir is human after all. 🙂

            23. Val, one good thing about blogs is that everything is still there in black and white and it makes it pretty hard to deny what was said. 😉

              Hey, good on replying under the right post. Much easier to follow that way!

            24. The difference in the proofs and scientific validity of bosons and Scientology principles is vast. Vast.

            25. Geir: People are different. I believe it worked on me because it appealed to me. If it didn’t, I believe it wouldn’t have worked. Covered before; Placebo.

              Chris: Exactly. And as covered before, placebo is not a phony trick, it is a reason why.

            26. I still don’t understand this concept of ‘placebo’ you and Geir are using. Is there a reference of some kind that explains it?

            27. Valkov: I still don’t understand this concept of ‘placebo’ you and Geir are using. Is there a reference of some kind that explains it?

              Chris: Nothing esoteric. Just trying to name the commonality of the result of placebo and nocebo. Placebo is commonly thought of as a type of trickery or “haha, you weren’t really sick.” But placebo and nocebo work, and this is indisputable. We’re just saying that the reason why placebo creates the effect that is does has commonality . . . if I’ve been clear about the question, “When does placebo work and why does placebo work?” Then what would you say the answer is?

              My own answer is that when a person is amenable to and positive toward a treatment, then the probability of that treatment having the desired and conversely the undesired effect is increased. This is of course not an original idea. I am simply applying it to Scientology processing as plausible — both placebo and nocebo.

            28. Wow! Thanks Chris. No wonder I couldn’t get what you and Geir meant – the meaning of “placebo” as I use it, is very different. I get mine from medical usage, where it means not that a person wasn’t really sick to start with, but that the treatment was a “fake” treatment, a treatment that is known to have no effect. Thus “sugar pill” as the popular synonym for “placebo”.

              I honestly think that is how most people understand it, not as “ha ha you weren’t really sick”. No. It’ s more like “Wow! He was really sick, and yet he got well taking a sugar pill !” At least that’s how all the people I know understand it.

              It’s true that a few people do respond to a placebo treatment, but I wouldn’t try giving sugar pills to a person with pneumonia as I recently had, while telling him it’s an antibiotic he was taking. Chances are, he would die rather than get well.

              I don’t know what the word is for what you and Geir are talking about, but it ain’t “placebo”.

            29. All right, Marildi. So you have an “impression” based on the blogs that you have been on, that very few highly trained and experienced auditors criticize the tech.

              Do you spend very much time on ESMB, or ARS?, or any other venue that does not challenge your belief system too directly?

              Because I do, and have for 12 years. And that is why I say there are a LOT of very highly trained and experienced auditors who not only criticize the tech of Scientology, but denounce it outright. Some even say it is dangerous – especially if a person needs professional care.

              The blazing examples of David Mayo and Hana Whitfield alone should be enough for you to question your stance. But there are so many others that it is clear that you are either not looking at what is being presented to you, or that you are simply in denial about large sections of reality with regard to Scientology.

              In any endeavor, it is always good to get the other side. You are one of the most intelligent people I have read in Scientology forums. But you do not entertain facts which run counter to your beliefs.

              This is a mistake, in my opinion, Marildi.

              And I hope you consider revising this habit of yours someday.

              Alanzo

            30. I was going to mention this before and now it is time. You and others give important links here and on other blogs. IMO or my conclusion is that some people will not look at them and if they do, it is with the blinders they still have on and not SEE. I know how that is, and until they really acknowledge these people who are of high caliber, listen to what they say and look at it outside of the scn bubble, they will not get it. The continued bantering, making wrong, arguing, defending will not help them or others until they open up and grant some beingness to those with experience to share.

            31. Marildi wrote:

              But to have observed that the phenomena described in Scn do exist in life in spite of the fact that others haven’t made that observation doesn’t equate to arrogance – it’s simply own’s own observation. And if the observation that life does align with Scn principles is a correct one, then, logically, the tech that parallels it should work.

              This seems like way too much of a generality to me.

              What Scientology principle aligns with what principle of life?

              I think there are a lot of assumptions here which are not being examined.

              So let’s examine some of them, specifically.

              What Scientology principle can we see that aligns with what principle of life, and then how can we see that it is “working”?

              Alanzo

            32. Chris
              As Geir said ” I like the rationale”. Me too. It pretty much works for the mind – for me it was a kind of “guided inquiry”. Me used to have a part of scientific mind – so the topic of scio fitted my mind, as it is exact. My other part is….hm. subtleties of the spirit/Life…no-mind….as I find it, the source of Change which is happening now is that….looks to be very exciting to explore…
              Do you do Zazen?

            33. Marianne Toth: As Geir said ” I like the rationale”. Me too. It pretty much works for the mind – for me it was a kind of “guided inquiry”. Me used to have a part of scientific mind – so the topic of scio fitted my mind, as it is exact. My other part is….hm. subtleties of the spirit/Life…no-mind….as I find it, the source of Change which is happening now is that….looks to be very exciting to explore… Do you do Zazen?

              Chris: Yes, exploration is very exciting and fresh. Yesterday while testing batteries at a remote site out in the Arizona desert, the weather became very energetic with thunder, lightning, and hail – I would not have been surprised by a tornado except that this is Arizona and not the midwest! I was very pleased with my adventure and plan to have another one today! Actually, right now.

              If I understand your question, I do not sit zazen but I try to live zazen by being mindful.

    2. Also – probably the best trained and most experienced auditor of all times is a critical of the subject – David Mayo.

      1. Isene
        Agreed. Ultimate caring would be to have a pan-determined view of it. That is still communicating about it in a way that helps to” understand or improve” it where “necessary”. It requires a complete undersatnding of the mechanics of the MIND – if one IS in ! scientology, just to get to a point when the nature of “life force/potential/spirit” (whatever words) starts to unfold as experience(s). Then and only then is one is in a pan-determined position concerning the mind. “Critics”, “victims”,”winners” are still non-confronting something in the MIND. By their own “choices”. They are “not there”, “leave” (the same thing), no present “time” (=mind).
        “….I am responsible for all my experiences”. Yes. “MY” experiences.
        I have a hard-hitting view of this whole subject. Whoever was/is/will be
        experiencing anything in scio, that person has asked for it along his/her life-time, including all the “victims or leaders”. Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it. That another doesn’t see its source is the base of “opinions, criticism” etc. I read a huge amount of “negative PR”, “facts” before (a little), during (a lot) and after (a lot) of scientology. By confronting, analysing, studying and as-is-ing whatever it was I came to the view
        that even who died, were “victimized”, became critics – asked for those experiences. Also, only, just only from a “no-mind” position can “help” another to “see” that “experience/lesson” a person is undergoing by his/her own choice – that help is PRESENCE and LIVE communication. No-mind.

        1. “Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.” +infinity

            1. Because people fall off cliffs. They ride in the coach sections of airplanes that crash. Bombs fall on their heads from shock and awe campaigns that they had noting to do with and could not stop no matter how hard they tried.

              “Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.”

              This statements says that there is no other cause in the universe accept you. Not even me. Only YOU.

              And then it is supposed to be true for someone else, too?

              Think about it.

              It is absurd. The most important step in taking responsibility is finding out what you are responsible for and what you are NOT responsible for. If you make yourself responsible for things that you are not responsible for, you misown problems and all kinds of disasters result.

              This datum was primarily used in Scientology to blame the victims of Scientology for their own abuse. Please think about this. Don’t feel it. Think about it.

              It is not true.

              Alanzo

            2. Alanzo: “It is absurd. The most important step in taking responsibility is finding out what you are responsible for and what you are NOT responsible for.”

              You have my full agreement on this point. I have never agreed with the datum “you are totally responsible for the condition you are in.” That simply got tossed into the “Ya, whatever” category.

            3. 2ndxmr, I always thought there was a common MU on the word “responsible”. Makes a big difference in what is meant by “You are responsible for the condition you’re in.”.

            4. Marildi:” I always thought there was a common MU on the word “responsible”. Makes a big difference in what is meant by “You are responsible for the condition you’re in.”

              I get your drift but I’ve never heard anyone else ever interpret it that way. So, common MU or your sane interpretation of an otherwise insane statement. Dunno.

            5. I dunno either, truthfully. But that was what made perfect sense to me. Now that you got my interest up, I would like to find the LRH reference but haven’t been able to. Do you know what it is? I’d like to see the context.

            6. 2nd, I googled and couldn’t find an LRH reference but I did find a couple other people who took my point of view as to the meaning. Here’s an exchange that was on Marty’s blog:
              ——————————————————-
              Lynne | November 26, 2012 at 12:23 pm | Reply
              The first time I saw the sign in the Ethics Office: You are responsible for the condition you are in”–I took it to mean I was a guilty offender and it made me feel bad. It was much later that I realized it simply meant I had the ability to do something about the condition I was in. LOL

              RussW | November 26, 2012 at 1:37 pm | Reply
              Exactly, Lynne! That was the main way the concept was perverted (probably by people in such sad shape they could conceive of it meaning anything else) – “You are totally to blame for the condition you are in.”

              A fantastic reference about this, just in case you haven’t run across it before, is the chapter on responsibility in Advanced Procedure and Axioms.
              ———————————————————–
              http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2012/11/26/the-webs-we-weave/#comment-241190

            7. “Who wins”? LIFE=THE FULL/REAL Y O U . Without the concept/illusion of a “person”. The nature of the concept of “person” is that it can “postulate” and “agree”. So, the “person-illusion” can be harmed, hurt etc. LIFE cannot. Many examples of the opposite of your examples -“miraculous” survivals.
              So, the YOU wins with all its playful parts such as Alanzo, Geir, Spyros, Marildi, Marianne….”We are the champions” (don’t have humour now, too bad, going to bed soon….please Alanzo write some humour for a good start-up for me tomorrow). And yes, Alanzo, I will “think” about it. Thanks. If you got stuck a little on me saying “feel” you,
              meditate a little on it. “Feel” is not a concept…it’s the Heart’s “quality-experience”. Of Life. And some MUSIC tomorrow, Alanzo!

            8. Marildi wrote:

              2ndxmr, I always thought there was a common MU on the word “responsible”. Makes a big difference in what is meant by “You are responsible for the condition you’re in.”.

              Yes. But what is the correct definition of “responsible” that makes the statement “Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.” a true statement?

              And you might as well give the one that makes a similarly sweeping statement such as “You are responsible for the condition you’re in.” true as well.

              Any condition has many different causes, not just one. And so to tell a person that ““You are responsible for the condition you’re in.”, is to blind him from all the other causes which are contributing to the condition he is in.

              Hubbard made Scientologists blind to his own causes in their lives. He called them a “victim” if they ever, correctly or incorrectly, assigned cause to him or his Church as a part of a condition they were in. He made them introvert away from his and his Church’s causes, and onto themselves.

              It is always good to not blame someone else for something and to RESPOND to a condition the best way you can. But finding the best way to respond REQUIRES you to recognize the correct responsibility to ALL the causes of a condition. Assuming and owning cause that is not your own, and thus taking responsibility for something you did not cause, leads to delusion and even worse conditions for a person.

              So what definition does everyone have such a huge MU on that makes LRH’s teachings make sense here?

              Alanzo

            9. You’re going to be surprised Alanzo -SCN or not- at how cause you were over the things you resisted. That’s what’s funny about it. Logically, it would seem dumb to think that you are cause over some misfortune of yours. Why make yourself misfortunate? Well, that’s what this game is about. Finding it out. But it’s something you have to perceive for yourself. It cannot be taught.

            10. Spyros wrote:

              You’re going to be surprised Alanzo -SCN or not- at how cause you were over the things you resisted. That’s what’s funny about it. Logically, it would seem dumb to think that you are cause over some misfortune of yours. Why make yourself misfortunate? Well, that’s what this game is about. Finding it out. But it’s something you have to perceive for yourself. It cannot be taught.

              I am not quite sure what point you are making to me here. Do you believe that I have a problem with responsibility? That my responsibility level is low and that I need to find out how I’m being responsible for something that I presently think I am not responsible for?

              And by the way, the process of learning to find out what you are responsible for and what you are not responsible for in your life can be taught. It can be learned. It is part of growing into a responsible adult.

              People do it all the time when their minds have not been fucked with by a destructive cult.

              Alanzo

            11. Fine Alanzo, obviously you have much to say about SCN, but when you talk to me, talk to me, not some evil cult, like you say. Normally, I wouldn’t make such evaluations about responsibility or anything else. But since you grand the right to yourself to tell us all we are responsible for nothing, and if we think otherwise we are fools, well I grand myself the right to play my own tune as well, like it or not.

            12. Spyros: But since you grand the right to yourself to tell us all we are responsible for nothing, and if we think otherwise we are fools, well I grand myself the right to play my own tune as well, like it or not.

              Chris: Easy tiger! I love your enthusiasm, but that’s not what Alanzo wrote. He said sorting out what you are responsible for and what you are not responsible for takes some work. If you have the time and inclination, I like to recommend MAN’S SEARCH FOR MEANING by Viktor Frankl to explore this subject of responsibility.

            13. “Alanzo wrote. He said sorting out what you are responsible for and what you are not responsible for takes some work.”

              That takes me to wherever I learned in Scn I believe, is ‘What part of that could you be responsible for’ and I have used that successfully and honestly on myself.

              Since an early day in ethics when the officer told me ‘yes, I was responsible for everything, etc’, which of course I didn’t feel was right and I tried to bolt out the door, saying ‘well then, I may as well kill myself’. That got some attention and I won that one.

            14. deE: Since an early day in ethics when the officer told me ‘yes, I was responsible for everything, etc’, which of course I didn’t feel was right and I tried to bolt out the door, saying ‘well then, I may as well kill myself’. That got some attention and I won that one.

              Chris: LOL! Good one. That “what part of that could you take responsibility for” is of course excellent — the operative part is “what part of”. I didn’t write it but was thinking at the time that a good starting point and a corollary to what you wrote is to “take responsibility” for my own perception of what occurs in my life regardless of “what” or “who” is causing it.

              You and Maria and a few others here have such a good and broad grasp techniques for understanding and getting along that it makes your world bigger. By this I mean that you can successfully negotiate in harmony across many frames of reference.

              An irresponsible attitude makes it hard to operate in any frame of reference.

            15. Isene: your blog sure isn’t visually boring with the artistic changes. 🙂

              Chris, let’s see if i got it right.
              “take responsibility” for my own perception of what occurs in my life regardless of “what” or “who” is causing it”
              Your perception is yours and you are fully responsible for how you take it. The parts others can be responsible for is for them, what they feel is true.
              Take scientology CoS in PT, what part could I take responsibility for? Not looking, seeing and giving monies to perpetuate the criminal acts the leader is permitting. My support, which after finding out of course, I withdrew support and just ack it to self.
              Take an problem between two people, what part am I responsible for letting for? clears your space or helps clear another.
              You are responsible for your own first I’d say. Should you have caused upset, ack it meaning taking respos for your part. You have done this many times and are a pleasure to read.
              It’s past my cocktail hour and hope this makes sense to you. 🙂

            16. I am not telling you that you are responsible for nothing, Spyros. That is the Scn knee-jerk criticism of someone who says that total responsibility in Scn is false.

              But I never said that you are responsible for nothing, did I?

              I said, very specifically, that taking responsibility has to do with finding out what you are responsible for and what you are not responsible for, and why this is important.

              You are using a cult thought-stopping mechanism right now.

              Please notice that. It is a Scn thought-stopping mechanism in your mind. You are using it on me to not confront what I am telling you.

              Don’t do that. Use your TR Zero to confront what I actually wrote. Keep your TRs in on what I am writing to you. Try to understand what the other person (me) is saying to you even if it goes against your beliefs.

              Keep your TRs in.

              Alanzo

            17. No, you didn’t say I’m responsible for nothing, you said nothing specific about responsibility, and you said over and over many dogmatic things/evaluations about what SCN does to us and brainwashed we are. And I don’t get it –how is it that you say SCN is evil etc while you tell me to keep my TRs? You sound like some bossy SO member. I remember, some liked to evaluate/invalidate you to death. Had some confusion there between SCN and psychiatry that they supposedly hated. Have you been there?

            18. I know Chris. I would like to respect people’s self-less contribution to the SO. But I’m personally disgusted at SO because of the gross misinterpretations of SCN tech, and the manipulation of loyal-to-SCN people.

              What responbility and bullshit? If those ethics officers had any idea what responsibility means, they would at least allow people to be responsible (and thus in control) of themselves instead of bossing them around. They should better blow their brains out and rid mankind of their stupidity.

            19. Spyros: What responbility and bullshit? If those ethics officers had any idea what responsibility means, they would at least allow people to be responsible (and thus in control) of themselves instead of bossing them around. They should better blow their brains out and rid mankind of their stupidity.

              Chris: LOL! Maybe you should stop beating around the bush and just say what you really think! hahahaha (joke) Using my OT powers of extrasensory perception, I am sensing a certain, how shall I say, “frustration?” with your past treatment at the hands of ethics officers? If I’m wrong, you can just tell me! hahaha

            20. Yes, indeed, if I imagine some dishonest, ill-intended person (not just a SCN ethics officer) trying to make me (or another) feel guilty, and wrong, and scarred and preach to me right and wrong, for the purpose of controlling me, I will probably rockslam 😛

            21. Because you are misduplicating what I am saying. This indicates to me that your TRs are going out. I might be wrong about that.

              But I do want to make sure that I answer your questions, give you the links that you ask for, and generally be your waitress here on all things Scientology.

              But if you refuse my service and then accuse me of saying I said things that I did not say, don’t you think I have a right to correct it?

              Alanzo

        2. I think just for the purpose of making an evaluation (which yes, is a lower way to know that to just perceive), we can say which person did what, instead of I am cause which is basically the truth. It is not necessarily a victim or perpetrator position to say that -for example- Miscavige released some new tech of his own. It can also be an observation, so we don’t lose pan determination. Now if one gets into it, and feels victim, thats a different thing. I say what I say for the sole purpose of differentiating between some phenomena and the SCN texts.

          As far as I know, Mayo invalidated some points in the state Clear and claimed that LRHs life was in his hands and that he saved him, and he also opened his own orgs out of the Church that didn’t last. If you have other information, tell me. But this is not a sign of some guy that knows better than all. Just my opinion.

          1. Spyros
            ” I am cause which is basically the truth.” In my view LIFE is cause.
            Without identification, without the sense of an ” I ” it is easy to be pan-determined (life/field etc.) and pick up any view or wavelenght without getting attached to them.
            Please write about how you mean that “infinity”.

            1. By ‘+infinity’ i meant something like ‘+1’, but infinitely bigger than that 😛

              To tell you my truth, I don’t know all about primary state. I know when I don’t identify with my body, and don’t add extra thoughts, I can as-is. I guess it depends on what we mean when we say ‘I’. I certainly don’t mean the body. I have a sense of self, beyond the body, and I can cause things and experience them. That’s all I can tell for now. Hopefully, more to come 🙂

      2. Hana Whitfield was a Class 7 auditor, and very experienced. So experienced that Hubbard made her his Deputy Commodore. She worked directly under him for 8 years and helped establish the Sea Org:

        I served one year as contracted staff at the Los Angeles Organization in 1966 and 1967 after which, by special invitation, I joined Hubbard’s Sea Project in Las Palmas, Canary Islands. Hubbard assumed the title of Commodore in 1966 or 1967. The Sea Project grew into the Sea Organization (“Sea Org”) which was looked upon as Scientology’s ‘elite.’ Even though we were Scientologists and ordained ministers, Hubbard had us wear naval type uniforms and insignia, and sign billion year contracts. For the next eight years through 1975, I served on two of Hubbard’s ships, on the “Avon River,” later renamed the “Athena,” and the “Royal Scotman,” later renamed the “Apollo.” I held positions including those of Ship’s Captain, Deputy Captain, Commodore’s Staff Aide, Deputy Commodore for the United States and others, and was immediately subordinate to Hubbard for most of this time.

        This is from Arnie lerma’s site called Lermanet. Go there and search for Hana Whitfield. (I can’t have two links, and the other one is more important.)

        I found the page where I had done this before. So I can re-publish all that information here, or just give the link out to it so everyone can see for themselves what went on.

        https://isene.me/2012/03/21/from-inside-geirs-head-while-on-ot-7/#comment-17126

        Alanzo

      3. David Mayo was also L Ron Hubbard’s personal auditor for 8 years.

        This was something I had no clue of while I was a Scientologist. I had read “Story of a Squirrel” and only knew what I was told. I heard that he was Hubbard’s personal auditor only after leaving the Church and allowing myself to see factual information about Scientology that was suppressed in the Church.

        While in the Church in the 80’s, David Mayo was presented to me as the biggest SP in history.

        So L Ron Hubbard picked the biggest SP in history to be his personal auditor for 8 years?

        Alanzo

      4. Sharing my comment on Mart’s blog in regards to David Mayo. Chuck Beatty looking for comments from old-timers.

        I’m a old timer but haven’t seen it all. Yes, would be nice to hear from some. But then they did what they could do and have turned it over to newer generations to carry forward. Tho there are still many around that are helping.

        However I will tell you, I’m familiar with the “Free Spirit” in ’84. After finishing a mission I was on, found myself in a delicate situation.
        By getting in touch with an old friend led me to the indies and David Mayo, and finding out some Why’s for that time period. The magazine and Mayo’s tapes pretty much saved my sanity and therefore I was not alone with my questioning thoughts anymore. Stayed in touch with them for several years, went to their first convention in San Fran and met my future mate shortly after. They, the ’80′s indies of course had many legal problems, also was destroyed from within by scio intelligence and law suits aplenty, as most of you know and it fell apart.
        I was playing wog much of the ’90′s.

        Today, actually since the internet, it is a different world and so many indie’s, ex’s, blogs, sites are available with information/facts, to help those that leave, and most WILL leave at some. Look at falling stats.
        A stupid me did it twice. Go ahead, laugh! I can now laugh at self too.
        Marty’s blog and others have been available for support to those hurting, and let’s face it, one does come out of there hurting in some way, and it’s important to have terminals who can relate to that.

        OSA and DM are doing it’s best in every way, or in using anyone, to undermine and disable the indies or ex’s who support, educate and encourage those who want major changes in the organization.

  38. The lack of a need for “beliefs” was a primary selling point for my agnostic self on the front end of getting into Scientology. I was sold and believed that I didn’t need any belief beyond “try it” and see if it works. Then immediately, buckle by buckle and strap by strap I was harnessed into tandem under the oppressive yoke of Scientology. Even 15 years after leaving the SO, I would have passed a lie detector test when I told you the same, that I needed no faith nor belief in Scientology to know its truth. Other bloggers here, most especially Marildi, have read and watched in horror that debridement. That path of leaving Scientology or any religion is painful and I recommend it.

    I’ve routinely recommended Conrad Ricter’s book A LIGHT IN THE FOREST for anyone who is curious how cult belief can insidiously creep into and take root in one’s psyche.

      1. I have no idea why this won’t work I got it from Sweden and works from emails. Sorrry!

  39. Guys, I don’t know much about you, but I understand there must be some people with auditing and C/Sing knowledge. Since Geir reffered to the validity of the state of Clear I want to imply and more to ask something about NED and Mayo. If you know the technique, you know that it is only enough (according to the bulletin that describes it) for a single postulate to get as-ised, for the whole incident to be considered erased. So, I’m asking you, how many postulates would a person make per incident? Is there a fixed rate –a reason why someone would only make ONE postulate per incident? I understand the liberation, the win, the F/N and the (V)GIs that discovering a postulate would give, but assuming there may be 10 more postulates in that incident, would the incident be fully as-ised? I take this fact and compare it to the fact that Mayo said some invalidative things about the state of Clear, and I get suspicious. Do you see my point?

    1. Hi Spyros, I did the NED course and what I recall is that “postulate off = erasure” together with VGI’s and F/N.

      This is just conjecture on my part but now that you ask I don’t see any reason why there might not be more than one postulate. Possibly, though, getting THE postulate off, the one keeping the incident or the whole chain in there, is what gets the F/N and VGI’s and the erasure.

      1. p.s. Another thing that might be helpful to know is the definition of reactive bank/reactive mind: “a stimulus-response machine of considerable magnitude”.

        And the definition of Clear s a person who “no longer has his own reactive mind”.

        1. Yes, I’ve done the course too, and although I had that question, I was hardly allowed to ask, and I never got any actual, clear answer.

          And I get what you imply with the definition of a Clear, and I agree.

          Isn’t NED Mayo’s invention?

            1. I recall reading by Mayo that he invented NED for OTs to save LRH (???). And I have read some evaluation by some FZer (dont remember whom) that after Mayo did that, NED for preclears was also added to the Bridge because Mayo was so kickass that he could make decisions about what to be delivered.

              I know the bulletin is signed as L. Ron. Hubbard, but regardless this thing about postulates is much out of logical sequence.