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:
- 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. - 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. - 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. - Does Scientology benefit society?
Insignificant. It’s irrelevant to the world at large – from its inception to present time. - 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. - 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. - 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. - 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.)“.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Perfect.
Scientology works only to the degree that one looks at things as they are.
.
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
“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?”
I am a work in progress. You are welcome.
🙂
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.
What one was, is not as important as what one has become. What you are today is built from what you were yesterday.
Admire it, its all good.
Continuous live communication changes tone. One can thus get to a higher and higher, that is a very pure tone.
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 :)).
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?
Answered mine – it was a good answer.
Thank you Chris!
Great story. Do you do mandala practice Marianne?
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!
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.
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!
Marianne, I would really like to learn more about cognitive semantics. Can you suggest some study materials?
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.
Thanks! 🙂
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.”
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!
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.
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
Yes I am. Lack of resign is not a sign of unworkability. I know many who had auditing, were very happy and left.
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
Yup. Many.
Were you a Scientologist when you got your reports from them, or after you got out?
Both.
There’s the one word Geir there!
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
Al, “my friends” and “people I know” are not necessarily the exact same sets of people….
Valkov’s right.
Also – #2 is the experience as a whole – ethics, tech, admin in the church. #5 i the subset of auditing specifically.
I get it. Thanks.
Peer review is so awesome.
Alanzo
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”.
Spyros: “And like Ron said “depend on nobody –depend on yourself”.”
Fully agree.
Yes 🙂 I think the COS should ban some stuff –they’re really dangerous for tdisciples. How about a Golden Age of Knowledge #2?
LOL! Oh no!!!!
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
Excellent post!
🙂 🙂
Darn these smileys look 1.1
Nah, they look happy. If I had posted a smiley in my +1 response it would have been at least as high as enthusiasm. 🙂
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 😉
The winks are even better. 😉
Here’s a happy grin for you too: 😀 (Now I’m up around Games!)
Do you do it like this? 😀
Does this one work? ^_^
We agree over our emotional state, who postulated that first?
Geir if you don’t like flood of random comments in your blog, I understand and I can quit it :p
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. 🙂
p.s. Don’t worry about Geir. He let’s us get away with just about anything. 😉
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.
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 :)).
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.
First? Second? Okay, “Who’s on first?” 😀
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 😀
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!
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 🙂
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. 😉
Quite an ack!! Thanks 🙂
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.
Hi Marianne, did you mean to word-clear the Axioms?
Oh now I got what you said. You were reffering to my original message. Yes, the axioms are so basic, and beautiful when understood 🙂
Spyros
Yes! I meant both!
🙂
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 😛
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
That is correct.
.
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.
That is an excellent idea.
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
” 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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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”.
That’s not what she wrote.
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.
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.
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.
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)
I’m sorry but this quote by Ron says absolutely nothing.
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.
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.
Now our minds come closer. That intention is to be IN Scientology.
And it is IN Scientology.
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.
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.
marildi, see my post below, about “testing”.
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
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. 😦
You are dodging again, Marildi. Non-confronting.
Tsk Tsk. Such a disappointment.
OMG, talk about a weak comeback.
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?
Vinnie and I had a Vaudeville Act way before you and I did, Valkov. We had dogs. We had ponies.
We killed.
Alanzo
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?
LOL! Valkov the Feral White Russian, you just came up with a perfect title for Alanzo – Grandmaster of Dev-T. 😀
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.
.
“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.
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
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.
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?
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.
LOL.
Legendary.
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? 😉
LOL!
Alanzo
LIKE it! You put a big smile on my face with it! Thanks!
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.
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. 😉
It was legendary funny.
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
Al sez: “Please report him as soon as he has been located.
he he – I have no location in time or space.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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. .
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.
2ndxmr, I don’t know of a reference but I’ve definitely heard other auditors talk about getting cogs themselves while auditing a pc.
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.
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.
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.
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
And it was a good and thorough answer.
Thanks for sharing this. Hadn’t seen it before.
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.
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.
Alanzo- “But if you want my certs and awards, here is what I can recall right now.”
Well said and thank you! 🙂
Alanzo
Like it! Clean and sincere write-up. Got me really interested!
Alanzo: Synthetic personality it is. I agree. Yet another courageous and insightful comment of yours.
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.
Valkov and 2ndxmr, here’s the link to the 4th London ACC:
https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/requested-4th-london-acc.64801/
Checked it earlier. All the links were broken. “invalid file(s)”. They’ve been removed or re-located.
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?
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
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.
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!
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.
Dude, it was a joke. Alanzo got it.
Chris
“it was a joke”, ok, sorry, I didn’t get that way. Thanks for the clarification!
No worries. My nonseq humor and in this case — satire — routinely gets missed due to no one’s fault but my own.
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.
.
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.
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.
Yep, that was one great workout. I leveled!
It was! Yayy!
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.
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
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!”
Be. Free. Anyway.
All systems work as they are supposed to within the metes and bounds of their own self-defining manifestos.
But are these systems “operational” in a larger context? No, except for hit and miss.
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.
Scientific scrutiny and testing is the way to go.
Either you didn’t understand my comment or I’m not understanding your reply. 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
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/
Excellent points! I will be waiting to hear how your auditing goes.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
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.
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
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?
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! 😉
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?
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?
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. 🙂
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.
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…
🙂
I am always game for meeting with interesting people. Drop me an e-mail at g@isene.com and tell me where you live. If I drop by, we’ll hook up.
Just sent it. 🙂
Fine post. I would drink with you.
Thank you kind sir…. the more the merrrier! Your posts are always worth reading twice.
Thank you!
Here, let me throw thisi nto the mix –
http://www.newser.com/story/162749/old-man-robs-bank-so-he-can-go-back-to-prison-fbi.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_3_2
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
Hey, I have it easy. I’m already in jail for all practical purposes. It’s a prison planet, remember?
LOL.
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.
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.
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.
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? 🙂
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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).
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?
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!
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.
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.
Separate post on this coming soon to a blg near you.
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?
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?
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.
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”.
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.
Val; I don’t think you are getting my point. Live communication is better than a recorded lecture for many reasons.
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.
“Don’t be shy now”? What kind of a stupid comment is that?
See my answer to Marildi on the same.
Is this a live communication?
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?
I have decided my own stupid comments tend to be Ferally Stupid, in keeping with my character.
How’s that for “consistency”?
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.
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
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”.
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.
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)
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”…..
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.
I guess if history becomes inconvenient for you, Valkov, you can always revise it.
It’s the only game where you always win.
Alanzo
I’m not sure what this is in reference to?
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”.
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.
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
Maybe Valkov is following my example. He probably likes me.
.
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.
.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
.
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.
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.
.
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
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..:)
.
Aaah…what a great day to fly a kite that shall be!
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.
Excellent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
gaeaglefan1023: All on their dime.
Chris: Seriously?!? Gobsmacked. I’ve never heard of such a thing. When was this? Who did this for you?
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.
Wow. That is an amazing (shouldn’t be but is) and heartening story. Was that recently like in the past couple years or quite a while back?
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
Hope this helps Chris. I love talking…hate typing 🙂
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?
Forgive me Chris are u an auditor? I’ll check back tomorrow
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
+1000
Wow.
Well described!
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!
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!
Marianne wrote:
What the Bridge stands in is more important than the Bridge!
I like that.
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!
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
;->
And +100
(and now you too can buy a new microwave! LOL!)
Alanzo- Excellent post 🙂
Alanzo, your awesome is strong.
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!!
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)
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. 🙂
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.
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)
“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.
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.?”
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
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.
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
Anyone can read it here on XENU for free.
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.
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”))
Here is one of my “OT Experience” 😉
https://vinaire.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/my-thoughts-on-ot-levels/#comment-7922
Another one follows at the above link, which I would call BRAHMIC experience. 🙂
.
.
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.”
I think most solo auditing is done at home, so no camera. But I don’t know, not being a solo auditor myself.
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.
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.
So good!
The book got cut off again, now on page 62.
Helen O’Brian’s book continued:
[Geir’s edit I have removed the content of this post pending verification of copyright permission]
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
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. 🙂
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
The copyright is valid for 75 years after the author’s death.
Splendid idea! Thanks for the links
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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.
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”.
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.
Straw Man and Needling.
These logical fallacies are also 1.1 characteristics, especially needling.
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.
Chris, I’m really enjoying your recent posts and I admire your courage.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
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.
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.
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)
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
Agreed. I see you that way too.
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.
LOL!!! 😀
Seriously, I’m still laughing!
The look on his face should be one of complete satisfaction. 😀
(Still laughing!)
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.
I agree. Al often deserves two bull smileys!
Oh man, you cracked me up tonight. 😀
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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! 🙂
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
That’s all you got? Fixating on my opinions is a waste of precious auditing time. Or are you PTS to me? Maybe you need a rundown?
Marildi
+1 for the quote! (…free from me and Scientology too). In a good sense!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Oh! That’s a common experience for me on Geir’s Blog.
.
But do you understand why that happens?
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.
.
Vin, you are like the bullfighter waving the red cape. Are you in a games condition with Geir?
It’s because the reflectance factor on his screen goes up. Mirror, mirror on the wall…
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.
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.
.
.
If that is your intention, I suggest you leave this blog.
Because that is the definition of a troll: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
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.
.
Alright, I may try that out 😛 But why cause that they will mistreat me like that? I cause what I experience.
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.
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.)
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.
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!!
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! 🙂
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.. .
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?
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!
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 🙂
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.
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…).
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.
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.
Spyros
“fully unlocked potential” +10 (never heard anybody saying that phrase – creative that is!!!)
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).
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.
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.
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.
Rephraze: Source is not a unit 😛
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.
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? )
“(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.
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).
“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.
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…
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 !
Spyros
Have a nice time at the spirituality meeting ! Sure, you can clear it up!
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,
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! 🙂
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.
.
Trolls can be easily handled by not reacting to them, instead getting in real communication with them.
.
Trolls are not welcome here. People with good manners are.
I have excellent manners so I know you are not talking about me. But about some others on this blog you may be right.
.
I am talking about you – the only person I have asked to take a vacation from this blog three times due to bad manners.
I question your ability to judge bad manners.
.
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.
I am very much aware of your bias and double standards. Go ahead and put me on vacation once again.
.
Sure. No more Vinaire blog promotion here for a week or so.
I gotta say, I’ve seen much worse manners here than Vinaire’s.
But not consistently so. And not completely impossible to better.
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
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…
Welcome, Tom 🙂
The ARC is rising. And ARC is indeed priceless.
Yes Sir! I’m happy and now wealthy too!
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.
Thanks Chris. I am going to buy you a big fat steak with the drink we have together 🙂
Mmmmm!
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.
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
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.
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
Al, I appreciate the reply and clarification.
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.
LOL!
What you describe of Freud is not what I studied in college.
By ignoring and desperately distracting from my main point then, you do agree that Hubbard got Scientologists chasing a part of a model for the mind, a reification, and that the State of Clear does not, in reality, exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)
Alanzo
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.
Yo, Moderator. This here be trolling.
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!
Thanks marildi.
Sorry, my Groddeck link had a superfluous period:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Groddeck.
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! 😀
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
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.!
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)
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.
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.
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”.
Yes Alanzo, you have your A-E steps to do. No further contact until you recant.
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
how about “FreeWillFan1023”???
Like it!
Mmmmm, lefse! yum.
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.
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!
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!
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”?
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.
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.
Yes, that’s what I wrote. What else could I have meant?
“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?
Here is what L. Ron Hubbard Junior ( aka Ron DeWolfe, aka Nibs) had to say about his father and the origins, workability and traps of scn:
http://gathering-minds.net/a-tribute-to-ron-dewolf
http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/penthouse-LRonHubbardJr-interview-1983.htm
Dio
Dio: Here is what L. Ron Hubbard Junior ( aka Ron DeWolfe, aka Nibs) had to say about his father and the origins, workability and traps of scn: http://gathering-minds.net/a-tribute-to-ron-dewolf http://www.lermanet.com/scientologynews/penthouse-LRonHubbardJr-interview-1983.htm
Chris: Those are both hard-hitting links Dio.
Not to forget the must read on NEW OT 8 Michael Pattison’s relation with the kids of LRH´.
http://www.lermanet.com/michaelpattinson/
There was a grand opening of a CO$ new ideal org in Cambridge Ontario, Canada, one hr west of Toronto: (approximate cost: 6 to 7 Million dollars)
New advanced org in Mono about an hour north of Toronto:
http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/1577792–church-of-scientology-opening-in-cambridge
http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news/local/article/1581410–protesters-part-of-church-opening
Mono advanced org:
http://anonymoustoronto.wiki-site.com/index.php/Advanced_Org
https://whyweprotest.net/community/threads/scientology-facility-at-caledon-ontario.91357/
http://www.factnet.org/macleans-magazine-scientologies-secret-plans-canada
Dio, Chris, Rafael
What are your reactions in your minds and bodies when you read these links?
Marianne Toth, in my body none. In my mind to say so, that of interest in finding out if there is any lie on this info as reported by the bloggers here.
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
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
Does anyone know the whereabouts of Michael Pattinson?
And how to get a hold of him?
Dio
Dio –
Michael Pattinson is on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/michael.pattinson1?fref=ts
Good luck.
Alanzo
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.
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
Whoops, sorry about the wild italics in the post above!
Spyros:
Let’s just pick one for now: Scientology has made people destroy their families through disconnection.
Yes or no?
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.
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.
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.
You make good points and are contributing here. We only need to put one foot in front of the other and continue.
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.
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.
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.
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 😛
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…
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.
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
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?
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
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
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?
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
Al: Seeking to live with doubt and uncertainty is much more constructive, expansive and productive.
Chris: Huge — if we are to begin to start.
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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.
There is the Italian critic named Maria Pia Gardini, who was a Class 9 auditor and OT 8.
She was actually a staff auditor at Flag Service Org and won the Auditor of the Year award there twice, in 1989 and 1990.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Pia_Gardini
What was her experience level with Scientology?
Alanzo
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.
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.” .
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.
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.
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. 😉
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”.
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
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:
From the very end of Wright’s book, page’s 363-365:
Did Scientology work for L Ron Hubbard?
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.
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
” . . . utterly . . .”
Well, more than a little, at least.
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?
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
Yes. Huge.
Has Pfauth verified this in other interviews?
No idea.
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. 😉
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).
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
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 .
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?
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”.
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?
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 🙂
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Geir, please explain what you mean when you say “it appeals to me as workable”?
I like the rationale in Scientology. I believe it should work on me.
Okay. Can you be more specific – how would you sum up its rationale?
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?
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?
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?
Do you mean to say that you do not agree that the principles in those basic books are observable in life?
Most are to me. They may not be to others. Very little in Scientology has been proven.
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?
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.
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.
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 🙂
“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.
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?
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.
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. 🙂
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!
The difference in the proofs and scientific validity of bosons and Scientology principles is vast. Vast.
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.
In total concurrence.
Geir: In total concurrence.
Chris: Can we tie the idea of free will into placebo? As a proof; a falsification; neither?
I still don’t understand this concept of ‘placebo’ you and Geir are using. Is there a reference of some kind that explains it?
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.
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”.
. . . and we do seem to need a reason why.
True.
Geir: I like the rationale in Scientology. I believe it should work on me.
Chris: And thus it has.
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
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.
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
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?
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.
Also – probably the best trained and most experienced auditor of all times is a critical of the subject – David Mayo.
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.
“Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.” +infinity
Yes. More about it later.
This is a false statement.
Alanzo
“This is a false statement. ” Why?
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
It is the old enigma of the two FULL OTs playing a game where there cannot be a draw. Who wins?
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.
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.”.
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.
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.
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
How so?
“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!
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
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.
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
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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. 🙂
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
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?
Yup. Been there. Be aware that Alanzo uses lots of satire (jokes) in his writing to break the tension.
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.
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
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 😛
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
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.
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”.
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 🙂
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:
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
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
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.
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.
In my Netflix queue!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0051864/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
haha well ok… I hope they did justice to Conrad Ricter’s rich and vivid book…!
Not sure where to put this but if flying is a favorite subject enjoy this…
Try again with the flying vid:
Oh well, I tried. Titled “Rio for Real!, Fly with a bird”. Really nice!
http://www..youtube.com/v/pd5BMP_41bl%26re1%3d0%26hl%3den_US%26feature%3dplayer_embedded%26version%3d3 (take out a dot after www.)
I have no idea why this won’t work I got it from Sweden and works from emails. Sorrry!
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?
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.
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”.
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?
Mayo’s invention? Where did that datum come from? 😉
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.
Oh, I thought you said NED. As regards NED for OT’s Marty Rathbun says Mayo absolutely did not invent NED for OTs. Here’s the
link:http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/deconstructing-the-mayo-myth/
Thanks, I’m checking it out. To be honest, I don’t believe the story with Ron being sick and Mayo healing him with his NED tech. Also, I don’t believe the story of Ron giving Mayo the tech hat –meaning the right to invent, cut and paste tech and son on. For you see tha would shake the stable datum that what is not by LRH, is not Scientology.
However, that very important arbitrary there on that NED bulletin, and also that LRH disappeared around the time that it was released, made me think it possible that it was an effort to suppress clearing by somebody. But it’s just an idea. I’m more than open to information concerning this.
Spyros: “For you see tha would shake the stable datum that what is not by LRH, is not Scientology.”
You are going to have to get used to having your stable data shaken now and then – essentially the point Marty has been addressing.
Whether or not Ron conferred a tech hat to Mayo and then rescinded it, or not, we may never know for sure. Personally I think Mayo was the last great Case Supe. The best C/S I ever audited under was trained by Mayo. That guy wrote pc programs that were intuitive and really addressed the pc’s case. Of course, being trained by Mayo meant he had to be declared. (There went my stable datum that ethics and justice were trustworthy.)
Well yes, experience is superior to speculation. If you have experienced good results by Mayo, then so it is.
I hardly see any difference between defending a stable datum -without looking- and being service faced. So, I avoid it. Nevertheless, The datum that only LRH writes SCN is not just any stable datum. Shaking that could shake the whole world for a Scientologist and make KSW 1 null. And subsequently make a Scientologist open the door to other people that deliver their ‘right’ tech. Why would LRH allow that?
Spyros: “…Why would LRH allow that?”
As time goes on you will be exposed to data that will answer some of your questions and allow you to come to your own conclusions about other questions. There is no short answer.
Also I’m very concerned about this: When I did the NED course I had no information about Mayo’s possible part in it. And during the whole course, I only disagreed with that little (yet of huge importance) part that says run only untill THE postulate appears. Later on when I read about Mayo and NED I thought “Yes, I was right!”. 😛
M. “Mayo’s invention? Where did that datum come from?”
Perhaps a confusion with NOTs and Mayo’s part in it.
Here is a discussion on ESMB about the link that Marildi fed to Spyros:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?18511-David-Mayo-s-Contribution-to-SOLO-NOT-S-is
Looks like Marty is lying again.
Alanzo
If the state of clear actually exists, no invalidative comment could possibly harm it.
But if it does not exist, and it is only a belief, then an invalidative comment could destroy the state of clear. And this would be considered a suppressive act by those who believed in the state of clear.
The state of preclear is a belief indeed, and when you no longer believe it, you have the state of Clear. You see Alonzo, if you experience a thing or two, no matter what others tell you, you dont give much of a damn. I personally wouldn’t declare anyone SP for not believing in Clear, but if he trolled me every day that I’m not Clear, it might cross my mind.
Alanzo, sorry for being a bit authoritarian to you before. Actually, I was sort of kidding, but I was also a bit pissed about the incomplete communication about the topic we were discussing yesterday (Where did Hubbard told people to act despotic?)
Anyway, believe what you believe about Clear or anything else, it’s truly fine by me. Peace.
Sorry I “blew” the comm cycle on this one (joke). I just did not have time to go through my books and compile a list of quotes for you.
How highly are you trained in admin tech? Because this is where LRH talks about how an Executive should act, and how Scientology orgs should run – it isa very authoritarian system. It is NOT democratic in the least.
“What an Executive Wants on His Lines” trains executives how to accept or reject his juniors’ communications. There are many more – but have you ever read it?
Alanzo
No, I haven’t read the one you mentioned and generally I haven’t read many HCOPLs –maybe 100 pages the most. But from the auditor’s tech that I know, the goal of SCN was to rehabilitate self and pan determinism, and the picture you communicate fits in the opposite –other determinism.
Exactly.
A big part of Scientology uses distraction and misdirection: Get the pc looking up to the sky, and reaching for it with both hands. And while the pc is doing that, rifle through his pockets and take whatever you can.
There is so much for you to know what you are getting into.
You really need to study more Scientology policy.
Look over this page and others on this site.
http://suppressiveperson.org/spdl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=340&Itemid=30
Also go to operation clambake and start educating yourself.
So like if I took a book and run a process with a friend (which is what those books were for in the first place) how would it add up to what you said? I read lots of twisted ‘facts’ in clambake more than 10 years ago, and see no reason why I should dwell in that again. In the final analysis why should I be bothered what clambake or any other clambake says?
Three cheers for Spyros! 🙂
lol 😛
Spyros: “lol :P”
I’m glad you discovered that emoticon. It matches a lot of the comments you make which show a certain beingness – a “devilish” playfulness. And I bet your friends who know you well would agree. 😉
Another nice ack heheheh and this time a bullseye one. Yes, I mock up myself as such, indeed. I don’t know if my all friends perceive t or not. But although mischievious, I’m not really an evil one. Those christian priests have been slandering us for eons now.
Well, I don’t know about your friends but I perceived it all the way from the other side of the planet! 😛
I also perceive that you have a way of seeing truth by looking directly, and you express it simply and honestly and with a willingness to change your mind if you’re presented with something you haven’t considered. And you express yourself without using a lot of fancy wording to make it seem more impressive.
And that’s the last ack you’re gonna get! 😛 (for now ;))
Thank youuuuuuuu
This made me feel bad, as I’ve decided to not express opinions about others (except from some rare occasions that I’m really pissed ) in order to not evaluate them. I’m going to break down and review this consideration of mine.
But yes, you are right about everything –I am as awesome as you said LOL 😛
In case the others didn’t notice, that was a psychic reading (I hope you know what it means)!! If people knew what we can do psychics would run out of business!
You feel bad, Spyros? 😦
No way! You have the right to speak out fully on any subject – or not to! That’s your personal choice in terms overall responsibility as you self-determinedly see it. Right? 😛
I used bad english. what I meant was that I felt bad because I haven’t been as nice to you as you have, in terms of great acks 😛
No worries. I know you like me. 😀
*Blush* 😀
*If I expected others to point out to me ‘the truth’, I would be quite some brainwashed cultist indeed. But you see, I don’t, so I can’t allow clambake’s brainwashing either. For me there is no ‘the truth’. There is personal truth which is a matter of personal perception.
Because Scientology has booby-traps in it. And you can get yourself caught in them.
I agree that taking things from books and running it on a friend, far away from an org, or others who would exploit you. is completely safe.
So knock yourself out!
But don’t think that Scientology is not used for harm, as well. I think you are very aware of that, aren’t you?
Alanzo
What booby traps? Name them?
I myself explained how SCN can potentially be used to harm, just like a surgeon’s tools can be used to butcher instead of performing a surgery. What can it do in the hand of an honest person? Screw the Church.
Spyros: I myself explained how SCN can potentially be used to harm, just like a surgeon’s tools can be used to butcher instead of performing a surgery. What can it do in the hand of an honest person?
Chris: Well said. Then all that’s left to do is to just get on with doing it, eh? I am particularly interested in hearing about your results.
Chris, I have much to say but it is all past. I’m no longer on the SCN path. I just acknowledge the good and the bad in it, just for the sake of discussing about it. If a person joined a SCN group, I would worry. If a person decided to do things with SCN by himself and friends, I would be glad. I have reasons for that. I could talk about it for hours and hours.
Spyros: Chris, I have much to say but it is all past. I’m no longer on the SCN path. I just acknowledge the good and the bad in it, just for the sake of discussing about it. If a person joined a SCN group, I would worry. If a person decided to do things with SCN by himself and friends, I would be glad. I have reasons for that. I could talk about it for hours and hours.
Chris: I misunderstood. I thought pursuing auditing was something you were proposing.
Well that depends…there can be infinite variables. Above all, whatever you do, do it with a person that honestly cares and wants to help. That’s the most important of all for me. I could probably even make freudian psychoanalysis work on a person I truly want to help.
And to add to that, I’m glad to know now that SCN is not the only way. I admit there is much bull… spirituality that works in reverse, but it doesn’t mean that all spirituality works in reverse. And not all that aren’t SCNist want to booby trap you. And not all that are SCNists want to help you. In the final analysis, you experience what you create.
Spyros: What booby traps? Name them?
Chris: Vinaire and I were discussing this and he wanted me to share this idea that “Scientology Is built on the idea of individuality, which trumps over all other concepts. When push come to shove, any ARC is trumped over by assertion of individuality. This is the power of Scientology Axiom #1.” He said to show that to you in answer to your question about booby-traps in Scientology. If you don’t mind, please let me know what you think of that.
Individuality in SCN is only 1st Dynamic. According to LRH one IS all 8 Dynamics. If one allowed his 1st to hinder ARC with all the rest, it wouldn’t be alligned with SCN philosophy. I understand there can be misunderstanding/misapplication of the philosophical principles –that is very common.
I’m not implying the only reason one would misunderstand/misapply is a misunderstood word. There is something above that, and that is what one duplicates in this universe (others would say ‘in his mind’). I know people that have read similar stuff as myself have understood completely different things, as they combine them with different ideas that they have. So, I cannot claim that I am right over them. But I’m certain that SCN was not meant to empower ego nor the group (such as in the case of the SO, that was more important than all). It is a balanced thing. All dynamics are equally important.
Spyros wrote:
For me there is no ‘the truth’. There is personal truth which is a matter of personal perception.
Well, I have to dispute this.
A freight train is an objective truth. If you stand in front of it, it will run you over. No auditing, and no postulate from any OT that Scientology has ever made, will ever change that truth.
There are freight train truths to Scientology that I am trying to get you to see. But you are intentionally not looking at them – which is your right.
Normally, when I talk to a person like this and they display lots of knowledge of Scientology – both good and bad – and a clear rationale for why they want to be a Scientologist, I give them a “PASS”.
But you, Spyros, are telling me that you are ignorant of huge parts of Scientology and that you do not care. You have asked me to show you references where LRH said it was okay to be an asshole. I have tried to give them to you and you have refused to look at them.
So I am afraid that I can not give you an Alanzo Pass to be a Scientologist just yet. You are going to have to show a little bit more knowledge about the bad parts of Scientology before I can pass you.
An Alanzo Pass is a very valuable and coveted thing. Marildi has one. In fact, I do not know of any of the regulars on this blog who does not have one.
But you don’t have one yet, Spyros. You have to earn it by showing me knowledge of the bad parts in Scientology before you can earn one.
So good luck, and FLUNK for now.
START!
Alanzo
It seems you hope to feel very much above me now after all those almost random evaluations, invalidations, advices and commands you gave me. I’m not going to ride your fright train dude. Enjoy your psychedelic trip to wonderland.
Spyros: It seems you hope to feel very much above me now after all those almost random evaluations, invalidations, advices and commands you gave me. I’m not going to ride your fright train dude. Enjoy your psychedelic trip to wonderland.
Chris: It takes hard work to carry on a responsible discussion. This venue is different from some other ex-Scn; anti-Scn; and pro-Scn blogs. Hang with it a while. There are things here to learn. And I enjoy your energy. We should try to bring it into focus and harmony.
Yes Chris. But how am I going to learn –by believing either LRH or Alanzo? Alanzo is very dogmatic. He says I know the truth because this website says so or something. Websites can say whatever they want. Where is evidence/proof? I cannot be logical about a subject in such a fashion. Also, above all, whether one agrees with something or not, one should differentiate between helping and saving somebody –the kind of saving Jesus did. If one tells somebody he is wrong and victim and he doesnt know what is wrong with himself and this and that, he mostly plays like Jesus, and Jesus wanted disciples too. So I don’t follow.
Spyros: Alanzo is very dogmatic. He says I know the truth because this website says so or something.
Chris: Alanzo is strongly opinionated. I think that he presents his arguments well and maybe dogmatic at times, but he never gives anyone the brush off; is not authoritarian; and fills all voids with data. It is up to you to think these things through and see if you can develop your own arguments. I wouldn’t worry so much about his opinions. I would pay more attention to his arguments. I do and I learn.
How will you learn? Just like you already do. Study and pay your dues like the rest of us continue to do. Be open to the counterintuitive questions for they lead to the counterintuitive solutions. You are on the ball, you are doing fine, just continue! This solving the whole universe thingy is kind of a long process! hahaha.
Spyros: So I don’t follow.
Chris: I used to, but then I stopped. But then I got the idea that if I am mindful and remember to stand on my own two feet that I can walk along with anyone for a time to see where they are going if that seems interesting to me… sometimes even if that doesn’t seem very interesting. Now, having walked out of the labyrinth that was Scientology, I feel that I can always turn back from any course of study and begin again. And I routinely do.
No Spyros, I very much think we are equals. There was a time when I also did not know what you are telling me that you do not know about Scn. And I know what my ignorance of Scn did to my life.
I am trying to avoid that for you.
That is all.
Probably a very stupid, co-dependent thing for me to do.
If I thought you were beneath me, I would never have wasted any of this time on you.
Alanzo
Alanzo, I’m sorry that you let people manipulate you. But don’t assume that I’m in the same trip as you were. The SCN that I know is texts. You pointed out to me what people did to you and to others. Don’t make me start again with how idiots rule the world of SCN. If you like to tell me something about the books etc tell me about that. Keep in mind that I don’t like to be told what to do and what to believe. If I accepted that, I might as well be like the SCNists that you described.
I said before that if a friend of mine joined a SCN group I would worry. I was also critical of ‘groups’ in my previous messages. I want to clarify that not all possible grouping of SCNists is bad. It’s just that I believe that if a person has been in the Church, and then leaves it, it doesn’t necessarily mean that he has discarded all that he has learned (by the Church, not by LRH) as ‘not Scientology’. So, I would have more than second thoughts to trust an independent group that is somewhat connected (in terms of ideas) with the Church. I’m clarifying this because I don’t want to appear that I invalidate all groups –not even close.
Acknowledged, but I didn’t take what you said that way.
I suggest an ex member of the Church shouldn’t invalidate what I’m saying about Church ideas. Some of the greatest case gain I had during my processing was to get rid of IMPLANTED (non Scientologists call it brainwashing) ideas that I had from the Church. I’m talking about really IMPLANTED ideas, and I’m not exaggerating at all. All this contradiction between freedom and suppression, truth and inhibition of truth, intergrity and inhibition of intergrity and so on, can drive a person completely nuts. Also, I have located some people that implanted knowingly and on a regular basis in the Church. Check the definition of an implant by the way. It’s very vague in the dictionary, but may ring a bell.
Spyros –
The people in the Church are operating on the same texts you are talking about. The assholishness you see in them come from their study, acceptance, and application of Scientology texts and tape recorded lectures, as well as the group dynamics which result from operating on Scientology.
For some reason, a Scientologist is able to look at the manifestation of studying and following Scientology – The Church of Scientology – and say to himself “That’s not Scientology”.
It is amazing how they can do this, but it is done every day. I even did it as a Scientologist. When you are a Scientologist – and I am not saying you are one – you just don’t want to look at the results of Scientology too closely. Because if you do, all your dreams of OT and Clear the future you are working toward are threatened.
So you wall-off the reality of being and operating on Scientology to yourself and look at the fantasies in your mind, put there by the books you’ve read, and not put there by the books and policies that you have not read.
Scientology is what Scientology does.
I can’t put it any plainer than that.
It may be that you can take a few processes out of a few books, and stay away from all the bad stuff. It may very well be that can happen. But Scientology also promotes magical thinking, lowered critical thinking skills, and dreams of “Clear” and OT that it has NEVER produced in anyone.
The definition of magical thinking is: expectation of certain outcomes based on performance of unrelated acts or utterances. Living your life on magical thinking tends to create catastrophes over time.
However, it is totally your right to live your life any way you want. But you are not going to get me to agree that Scientology is healthy in the long run for anybody. I have seen too much of it myself. And in the long run, I have never seen a person do well from being any form of Scientologist for a long period of time.
That’s why most people leave Scientology. The initial wins can not be gotten back. They are still “chasing the dragon”. And the dragon is gone.
Again, I want to end by reiterating: IT IS TOTALLY YOUR RIGHT TO BE A SCIENTOLOGIST.
But, as the overwhelming majority of people who have ever been involved in Scientology realize, it is not a sustainable way to live a life.
Alanzo
Alanzo: Scientology is what Scientology does.
Chris: Adding that to a little list I’m keeping of potential tattoos to put on my body.
Spyros: “Since Geir reffered to the validity of the state of Clear I want to imply and more to ask something about NED and Mayo.”
I hadn’t heard about Mayo making comments about Clear so I googled and found it at:
http://www.ivymag.org/iv-01-02.html
I found no fault with what he said. It follows my own observations of “Clear” cases, including my own.
The real key point – even though Mayo called it a vague generality – is summed up in the statement “at cause over mental MEST as regards the first dynamic”.
That has everything to do with how the “Clear” reacts to and handles first dynamic engrams, and to how the “Clear” will respond to dianetic auditing.
Mayo called “Clear” a release state, of sorts, and that has a large measure of accuracy as things still can key in, albeit much less often. It is a peculiar release state, however, because of the phenomena that occurs if engram running is attempted after hitting the “release” state. No Scientology Grades Release has a similar phenomenon; it is peculiar to the engram case – the dianetic case.
Mayo ends by saying:
“Regardless of what the state is named, the recognition that a person can continue to be come clear-er, restores hope and makes progress possible again.”
Agreed. There is the entirety of the OT case yet to address.
Yes, I don’t think it is wrong to comment on what LRH has done and said either.
But as for the stability of Clears, like you said, there is also the pre-OT levels. And there is that phraze somewhere but I can’t recall where exactly, that says that if a Clear has a picture, it is not his own.
Also a Clear has the potential to create a reactive mind, complete with charge and all. It is an awareness level. He could do it as a preclear too, but now he knows he was doing it. So, I think running incidents on a Clear would produce phenomena, but also invalidate his being Clear, and eventually, you could unClear him that way.
2nd, if you are still interested in the 4th London ACC lectures, shoot me an email to – IamValkov AT gmail.com andI will send you a new link.
By the way, if somebody thinks that the above that I mentioned is confidential and I shouldn’t talk about it, you have been lied to. LRH mentions it in non confidential materials and very clearly too 😉 If DM had any idea about SCN tech he would had located and obliterated that data too. But he hardly knows his div 6 stuff, judging by some old interview of his that I watched recently.
Spyros –
The “Sole Source Myth” of Scientology is something that has been discussed quite a bit by people who have been involved in Scientology all throughout its history. Before the internet, these people could be “shuddered into silence”, per LRH’s orders. Fortunately, the internet has provided places where these people can come together and tell each other about their experiences.
This thread on ESMB is a collection of first hand accounts from people who were there, and who know where many of the pieces of Scientology came from.
Marty, Mike and Dave, as well as others from Int Base, worked very hard to make sure no one knew about this. They even re-wrote and re-signed all the HCOBs and HCOPLs to include noghting but LRH’s signature at the bottom of the page. Before, these HCOBs and HOPLs would note who originally wrote them and that they were approved by LRH. Per LRH’s orders, the people at INT Base have created the myth that the whole of Dianetics and Scientology was “researched” and “discovered” by L Ron Hubbard alone. LRH lies about this in KSW as well.
Here is the thread on ESMB. It is important to expose yourself to information that might go against your present beliefs. If you think about it, it is actually the only way to grow. So I hope you read this thread with an open mind and do your own investigation.
Report back your findings:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?29298-Best-of-the-Sole-Source-Myth-thread
Alanzo
You’re talking to me about many things for which I know nothing, so I don’t know what to answer. I’m going to check things out.
Nevertheless, I for the most part address myself as an individual not as some -ist, so please, do the same, if you wish to be fair to me. Besides, like I said I’m no longer a SCNist, for reasons that I mentioned in my messages above. This doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate certain things. It’s not black or white for me.
All right. I understand.
There are a lot of lies surrounding Scientology. It is one of the reasons some people say the whole thing is not good. It is as if Hubbard intentionally booby-trapped it.
These people say that you might as well treat Scientology as all bad because most everything good in Scientology is used as bait to stick you to something bad – something which can be used to expose your vulnerabilities and to exploit you.
And only someone who has been fully through the ringer with Scientology would have experience enough to recognize the traps that LRH set for people, and to avoid the bad things in Scientology.
I asked Marty about this one time recently. I asked how he could responsibly refer others to Scientology when he knew how insidious it was and the damage it leads to, when he knows that a person without his knowledge of Scientology can not know where the traps are in it.
He said that’s why he wrote his book “What is Wrong With Scientology?”
I’ve read his book, though, and I can tell you that it does not identify all the traps in Scientology. Not even close.
Alanzo
Alanzo: He said that’s why he wrote his book “What is Wrong With Scientology?” I’ve read his book, though, and I can tell you that it does not identify all the traps in Scientology. Not even close.
Chris: I’m shocked. LOL.
Interesting how this flawless philosophy creates so many declared SPs. What did it do to pull that in??
Because the Mind in one aspect is Untruth. So if one doesn’t go through it completely or doesn’t get off it (see it as an illusion), one is an SP of Truth in that degree. Ron, in this respect was right – one must go to the end of the Bridge. In my reality, one can equally Realize Truth just by being conscious of it.
Marianne, I really like what you said here (as usual :)). It is basically what Marty said in a recent blog post. If you have a chance to read it, please do! And tell me what you think.
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/integration-evolution-and-transcendence/#comment-255442
Marildi
Thanks! I used to read a little Marty (one year ago) and since then I haven’t. I am not surprised at his conclusions as when I read him before, I felt “deep inside ” of him a pure beingness, sincerity and curiosity. But that time he had anger, complexity – that was what came through by “theta perception and energy.” Reading the article – I am not surprised that he
speaks about “nonduality” and quantum physics. The question is, how much he “lives” the way he is writing about (only he knows that, of course).
Also, “other universes”, subtler realities – he sees them too. Great! He certainly has the potential to be(come) pan-determined in the question of
the Tech, Eastern knowledge/wisdom/practice and Truth (my view of it now).
To “explore” the “no-mind realities” I got “drawn to ” Adyashanti and Tibetian practice. I find them the purest ever …..no name for that. Thanks Marildi for showing me this link!
Yes, Marianne, I still pick up a bit of “crustiness” in how Marty “lives”, but much less so than before. And I believe that he has indeed transcended Scientology, just as LRH himself has stated it can be done – basically, by going up the tone scale. One reference is the one from AP&A that Maria quoted earlier today, part of which was this: “When one forsakes individuality on the way up, he, of course, can commingle with thoughts and other individualities.”
I really liked that Marty’s whole blog post but I especially resonated with how he concluded it:
“Is one then a separate, distinct identity or a part of a single infinity?
“It would appear that it all depends upon how one is viewing himself and the universe.
“Can one have it both ways?
“Inevitably.”
That was my recent cog – we can have it both ways!
Scientology is responsible for the condition that it is in.
Nothing can be done to Scientology without Scientology postulating it or agreeing to it.
Alanzo
Dude:
You apply Scientology to Scientology at a level of mastery (outstanding skill, expertise).
If Scientologists were like you, It would be an honor for me to become one.
LOL!! Good to see you, too, Rafael!!!
LOL!
Marildi, you wanted the reference for the materials on responsibility. It is from Advanced Procedures and Axioms, the 14th Act:
“DEFINITION: Responsibility is the ability and willingness to assume the status
of full source and cause for all efforts and counter-efforts on all dynamics.
“There is no compromise with full responsibility. It lies above 20.0 on the tone
scale and is descended from in order to effect randomity but is descended from with
the full knowledge of its assumptions. It means responsibility for all acts, all emotions
on every dynamic and in every sphere as one’s own. It includes such “disrelated”
data as the death of an individual one has never met on a highway on which one has
never traveled at the hands of a stranger no matter how culpable. One does not
send to find for whom the bell tolls without full willingness to have tolled it and to have
caused the cause of its tolling.
There is a scale of responsibility between full responsibility and full other responsibility
where the former is above 20.0 and the latter is at 0.0. Complete negation
of responsibility is complete admission of being under the complete control of the
environment. Assumption of full responsibility is a statement of control of the environment
and persons within it without necessity of control.”
Thanks, Maria. Yes, that reference fits well with the usual understanding of “You are totally responsible for the condition you are in”, especially this part of what you quoted:
‘It means responsibility for all acts, all emotionson every dynamic and in every sphere as one’s own. It includes such “disrelated” data as the death of an individual one has never met on a highway on which one has never traveled at the hands of a stranger no matter how culpable.”
Here’s a similarly *ultimate* concept of responsibility, from the Ethics book:
“The nonrecognition and denial of the right of intervention between oneself and any being, idea, matter, energy, space, time or form, and the assumption of full right of determination over it.”
But some of the other definitions, also in the Ethics book, seem more useful on a practical level:
“Full responsibility is not fault; it is recognition of being cause.”
“Responsibility also means a state, quality or fact of being responsible, and responsible means legally or ethically accountable for the care or welfare of another. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority. Being the source or cause of something. Capable of making moral or rational decisions on one’s own and therefore answerable for one’s behavior. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable. Based upon or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking.”
We’ve all seen the plaque in the Ethics Officer’s office that says “You are totally responsible for the condition you are in”, but I don’t know if that’s a direct LRH quote. In any case, it seems to go with the more “ultimate” definitions.
Maria, on responsibility definition.
And thus the viewpoint of a God who made all the games, all things and watching the creation playing, as all that one created and is responsible for without interfering, for one is fully responsible.
Then, there is less responsibility and more fun?
Scientology worked for until I got hit with the GPM’s from the group about actually holding on to my wins. People get locked into GPM’s little by little. First, you are asked to “not know” anybody who questions or doubts your faith. GPM.
You get through grade zero, attest that you have the ability to communicate to anyone on any subject. Then you become instructed on who you can not talk to and what you can not say. GPM. and it goes on and on like that right up the grade chart to the very end. Right up to joining the Sea Org. Where you are asked to lose everything you own and everyone you know in order to join the group where everybody wins.
Finally you have these people locked behind walls at the Int base who agree not to know anything unless they are given permission. Not to communicate with anyone who is not on an approved list. You are shown people in the group who are being thrown out who could not be helped or handled. You are punished for any change. And you really have no tools left to resolve problems. The people are being ruled by a sociopath who has been blown off the bridge for decades, and they can not confront getting out the front gates and walking down the street to face reinvention. And the whole invitation to Know how to know has turned into one big GPM they are all locking into.
If you mention any part of the outpoints you are an “L.R.H. basher”.
And the only freedom that exists for you anymore is within a group of wogs .
It’s a pretty tricky walk to staying on the path of knowing how to know. Even in the Church of Scientology who teaches that as a goal.
The problem is, your own group in Scientology opposes your gains!
For instance, you finish grade zero. You attest that you are willing communicate to anybody about anything. Now, who would oppose a person who is willing to communicate to anybody about anything? Why, A Scientologist! You are not supposed to discuss your case. You are not supposed to discuss your upsets. You are not supposed to talk to anyone who is not in good standing. You are supposed to talk to the press. On and on and on. So you see, the group does not want a person who is willing to talk anyone about anything! So, where is your suppression coming from? The group!
You can go grade by grade ot level by ot level right to the top. And for every gain you can attest to, you can figure how the group itself opposes what you have become on some or many levels.
All the while you are told, “The suppression is “over there”. The suppression is “out there” somewhere.
Laughter! Now it doesn’t mean a damn inside the Orgs to declare their products for manifesting gains! Look at the declares issued on people who are willing to communicate to anybody about anything! Who are problem solvers. Who can experience change easily. Who can spot source.
And in the times when someone was allowed to go out and manifest new abilities, whatever they were allowed to keep under their command, and become successful. Then the Church wanted you to come back and donate it all to them either in terms of cash or labor or influence.
So what you got here folks, was an unwillingness really for the Church to let you have and keep under your command, your gains and profits.
In truth then, they was no exchange. Sure, you could get over your hang ups on communication. But only if you learned then to speak in their language and talk to an approved list and to say approved patter.
So you see, you get something, then you are asked to give it all back.
The entity itself became a sponge. And if you walked away with all that you paid for, for anyone else’s benefit, even your own, you are condemned as being self interested, greedy, and a “consumer Scientologist.”
And yes, when you look at the truth matter then, it is a rip off.
But it only begins to be a rip off when you agree to give up your gains. Or pretend that you don’t have them for the benefit of the group or for someone that need to keep knowledge from surfacing.
Then, there are purposes. Sure you can handle false purposes. But what about real purposes? What if 2,039,456 years ago you were trying to escape notice and your life depended on being invisible? And today you seek recognition and can not get it? No matter how much effort you pin to it. The purposes flow through time. So you have thetans working against themselves. The purpose for recognition bangs into the purpose to be invisible.
Frankly, it may have been mercy for a person at the point of going clear, to audit out why they had a purpose to have a reactive mind to begin with and get that out of the way. Because I have seen people go clear and mock up a new reactive mind. These issues only get handled on L12.
This is a success story of mine after I finished L12.
Hey, when I get auditing there is a “self” of me that splits out and takes on a student hat. As well as working with the auditor I try to learn so when the Auditing is behind me, I am not only saner but have more tools to work with and more knowledge to handle myself and life.
I sure got in a huff after I got back, reorganizing these tech cycles and the HGC here.
I woke up this morning thinking all of the reorganizing was good, but not liking my big protest reads.
From the knowledge I gained on L12, I had to ask myself about this opposition I was feeling in the protest of it all.
Who / why / what “I” was having this protest feeling about certain events recently gone by.
I realized I had a huge case called “hidden standards”.
It blew like another bank.
Waiting in a coffee shop later, I listened to a woman tell me how God had a plan for her and how realizing this changed her life.
I was able to honestly listen to her with sincere interest without other thoughts going on that would have been eval and inval, just because I have a different view. I even admired the peace in her voice and her ability to surrender to something. Whether real or imagined.
It did not frighten me to believe her. It did not threaten me in any way. I did not have to invalidate any part of this experience.
I realized, as soon as we parted, all of my misery and disillusionment in this world has been directly linked to my own hidden standards. What I expected other people to be, how I expected them to act, what I of expected them to know or think or become, because of similarities with myself. And I expected to see myself in other people. The highest form of narcissism. As if I could only find peace in a mirror.
These burdens to “fix everyone! heal everyone! clear everyone! educate everyone! free everyone! wake up everyone! protect everyone! …blah blah…” seemed to lift off my shoulders like some armor lifted from an old soldier’s body.
I have had this feeling of un – indebtedness for the rest of the day. It is as if I had been paying for a debt I no longer owe.
So, I am not so uptight or hysterical about these tech cycles as I was before yesterday.
T.O.
This was the initial success story on finishing L12. I actually wrote many as the gains continue to unfold over months. I am still having cognitions.
Generations and dimensions go by and by and, there were a lot of conversations I wanted to have. I didn’t have them and as more time and more living went by, I came to think these conversations would never be possible.
As time went by and by, I even just started talking to myself most of the time.
On L12, the conversations for so long impossible, became possible. And I found myself tumbling into a new “now” as the conversations went on. Over the time of this amazing rundown which, for me, was the first real OT level.
Mainly, I had been fighting for so long, I had forgotten how to stop. It had been working out for me, I fought my way to freedom. I fought my way to L12. And as soon as I saw on some level it had been working out for me, and I was still alive, and I was still me, and I was still here, and I had survived, I came into a very good place.
My enemies, I have surrendered unto themselves. I am in a very, very good place. In a very, very good frame of mind. I am in a, “we can work it out” frame of mind.
That is who I really am. I am out of the condition of enemy with myself. I found out who I really am.
You do find out who you really are on L12. And that is vital information for any being.
My eternal gratitude to my auditor, Trey Lotz truly an auditor of the highest caliber , my good friend Hubbard, all Scientologists who have worked to keep the porch light on, and to all beings who work it out.
The Oracle
Namaste
Oracle!!
Yay! Good to see you here. I have been reading you a lot on Marty’s blog lately and even though we may disagree on Scientology, I love your freedom-based attitude and the way you write.
Stick around. You said some things about your kids getting auditing that I wanted to talk you about.
I have to go right now, but I am going to write to you here.
YAY! It’s The Oracle!!
Alanzo
XX OO Still love you Alanzo……
Excellent post. I applaud your clarity.
Thank you for your kind acknowledgement.
You said a lot there. It’s tough releasing all that and starting over but you are free of that now.
Oracle, you have just succinctly summarized EXACTLY what I saw and realized was happening to me all the way up the bridge!
I will add that every win, success, gain and cognition I had had to be attributed to Scientology one way or another. Did I write a fabulous poem? Well, a great example of a Scientologist! Did I work my buns off to build a terrific income? It was because I was OTx or a particular rundown. The basic communication seemed to be that without Scientology I would have been nothing and therefore whatever good, whatever success I had was because of the great power of the group of Scientology and the rehabilitation available only in Scientology. Did you see that too?
Lovely!
Yes. I saw that. The complete dramatization of “The group is all and the individual is nothing”.
Yes, that’s what they do. They don’t like to let you win without taking it back one way or another. For each time I had some case gain, I had a person approach me and get on my nerves by unkindly asking for my involuntary contribution to something, or something. Orgs are instructed to put pressure on both the staff and public. It is considered a good thing, because we wont clear the planet otherwise 😛 (Somebody clear DM first, plz)
There is a scale. On the scale there is “must be contributed to”. This is where the Church is at. To the point of making people feel very guilty and denying them service if they have not made huge cash “donations” in which the Church is expected to give nothing in return. Hubbard put it in writing that OT8 was to be delivered in the A/O’s. Hubbard never wrote any issue about the Freewinds. The donation project for that said, “You will not get OT8 if you do not buy us a ship”. First, that is “having to have before you can do”. Second, it placed the burden of delivery on the public. Both, totally against policy.
Yes, I understand. Propitiation and making amends is part of our spiritual evolution 😛 Speaking of OT8, some have been wondering about the OT levels over 8. Any idea where they might have been?
There are no OT levels above OT8. It was a scam . People who were sold OT8,9 and 10 packages were simply defrauded.
I hate to be so “antago”. But I have to say this:
Who was the first person to say that there were OT Levels above OT 8, knowing that there weren’t any?
Answers to think about:
“oraclemysticism
There are no OT levels above OT8. It was a scam . People who were sold OT8,9 and 10 packages were simply defrauded.”
Do you want to say that David Mayo lied when he said that he saw the levels up to OT XI? David Mayo is a Class XII, C/S and had first hand knowledge. You again spread the Church enemy line!
“LRH continue researching the levels above that and eventually completed through what’s called OT XI” David Mayo – 3:10+ into the tape
Chris
Placebo means “to please”. Me as life and Life as me will please me with whatever I find valuable, wish to experience or not experience…may be it the exploration of the mind, a character in life…Life pleases us to see it all, even the protection mechanisms to see it all. It’s a very subtle awareness level when e.g. you or me can differentiate between e.g. Alanzo as a “free being”, his “originations”, “his comments” on scio…nice, isn’t it? Yet, still mind. Yesterday I was on the edge of writing to him “come on guy, wake up to your true nature”. As he wrote ” we create our selves”. Then I realized, no way, I won’t interfere between him and his creations. (Marildi please put the definition of full responsibility here again, thanks).
MarianneT: As he wrote ” we create our selves”. Then I realized, no way, I won’t interfere between him and his creations.
Chris: And the reason you changed your mind?
Chris: And the reason you changed your mind?
SP: It’s fun!! 😛
Chris
I can put it in many ways. 1. he is fully responsible (see a little earlier Marildi’s comment with the definition of full responsibility from the Ethics book). 2. only he knows why he is playing the character he is playing now and why he needs this experience 3. in the full picture of LIFE he is surely helping a lot of people with what
he is doing (e.g. rise in Tone etc.) 4. from personal experience I know that one has to “be there for the person” all along (Geir said something similar)…I don’t know how long I will be on this blog, also, one can “help” the most when one is fully Realized, like Adyashanti. I see Alanzo as…hm. his pure being. But it’s not enough,
he has to see it for himself….each of us is already awake, naturally Clear, in a Native State…they cannot be “achieved”, “attained”, one just “wakes up” to this
truth after peeling some layers of the onion, erasing some energy, that is knowing
what one is not (Geir OT8). Then one starts a different “journey”, as I said earlier, of subtler spiritual experiences and living in the here and now, “navigates” the Flow.
I was happy to see that Marty ( I don’t read his blog) also started to realize it (Marildi showed me the link, it is a little earlier on this thread). Spyros, if you read me now…you say there is something going on with this “awakening”. Surely…resonance, that is….if you once truely “catch” it, that is “listen to and resonate” with e.g. Adyashanti to the core of what it means to be “Realized” then ….well, you will see it.
MT: I can put it in many ways.
Chris: I meant, first you didn’t want to interfere with his reality, but then you decided to. What changed?
Just for you, Marianne:
“Full responsibility is not fault; it is recognition of being cause.”
“Responsibility also means a state, quality or fact of being responsible, and responsible means legally or ethically accountable for the care or welfare of another. Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority. Being the source or cause of something. Capable of making moral or rational decisions on one’s own and therefore answerable for one’s behavior. Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable. Based upon or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking.”
We’ve all seen the plaque in the Ethics Officer’s office that says “You are totally responsible for the condition you are in”, but I don’t know if that’s a direct LRH quote. In any case, it seems to go with the more “ultimate” definitions.
(from the latest edition of Intro to Scn Ethics book)
Yes yes, I think maybe this is a point over which we can all (or most of us) agree: Whether or not it works, or whether or not something else works has much to do with the practitioner’s intentions, his love, caring and secondarily with his skills. Hurray!
Marianne wrote:
Alanzo as a “free being”, his “originations”, “his comments” on scio…nice, isn’t it? Yet, still mind. Yesterday I was on the edge of writing to him “come on guy, wake up to your true nature”. As he wrote ” we create our selves”. Then I realized, no way, I won’t interfere between him and his creations. (Marildi please put the definition of full responsibility here again, thanks).
I am creating myself. And I am creating a self that is based on my true nature as I see it.
I used to accept statements like “Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.” without examining them. Not because it made sense but because it felt right. I have learned through hard won experience that those things I accepted from the feeling they gave me, and not from real world logic testing and examination, are the things that screwed up my life and led me into absurd and damaging situations.
It’s like telling a kid that cars will just float above you when you cross the street. And you get this real good feeling in your stomach that crossing the street is perfectly safe and you see in your mind floating cars, fluffy floating cars floating in the sky, and it all just feels so good and so right. Then, as soon as the kid operates on that idea, he is smashed flat by the first car that comes by.
This is the kind of real world lesson I have learned about statements like “Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.”. The feeling they give you doesn’t matter. They have to be examined and tested before you allow yourself to operate on them in real life.
My first examination of the statement: “Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.” failed. It is a false statement, and I showed you why.
That you are not willing to test this statement with real world examination is going to be your problem, if it already isn’t. So I am stating what I see as the truth to you. That’s all.
It is not meant to harm you. It is provided as something for you to consider. To me, it’s nourishment for you, although you may not see it that way right now. Or ever.
Alanzo
Alanzo
I see what you mean. Thank you for writing it for me. I feel “warmth”. Truely. Let me respond. LIFE has a lot of manifestations. One is the “analytical mind”. Yes, I use it too, like
you, for “real life logic testing”. The material world we see all around us are partly products of that. I agree with you that “feeling” what e.g. “nothing can be done to a person…” is not enough. Because 1. one didn’t completely understand what it means – deeper than conceptual level, which means, for instance, that there is Life that puts a person there from Life-potential (you can clearly experience this potential if you recall your “past life Clear” experience-cognition ((may not be a good example as I don’t know how you experienced it)), also what it means in experience to postulate and get a counter postulate – that is being in that awareness layer…so, fully experiencing that sentence. 2. FEELING in a spiritual beingness awareness state ( kind find a better phrase for that) means kind of “expanding” and perceiving/sensing the environment in present time, that is the “cars”, the “movements” etc. like a little bit “part of you”. It’s safe – much safer than only with the analitical mind. Also, it is so with emotions etc.
You say ” I am creating myself. I am creating a self which is based on my true nature.” Sure, you can do that. Whatever self with qualities, abilities, character etc. Sure, I “feel” you and you are able, wise, strong and energetic to do that. But I tell you something…that, which is YOU is the real thing…I wouldn’t change (and I truely can’t) my “true nature”for anything. Also, if you ever want a “true/real” (stupid words) “relationship” with another, the “basis” of this is that “both of you” live from that “true nature”….a game between self-self, ego-ego, tone-tone etc. can be ok….yet, as I have been writing about it, there are very true-subtle-“factual”-spiritual experiences also “embodied” in the here and now that are worth living….So. Your life – do as you like. Like me here. In my experience, “waking up”
automatically rearranges a lot of things in real life, including one’s former relationships, others’ views of “me” and of “my former views” etc. LIFE starts to get into action then
without the “self”. I see I was long…for you. Hope you don’t mind it.
Marianne –
You are a good person and I believe that you want people to feel better about themselves.
You scare me, though.
Not because I am a low-toned MEST being and you are a huge fluffy theta being, but because this world we live in, the MEST universe, actually exists. And like it or not, this “game” we are playing has real results. In the grand scheme of things – at the ultimate level of everything (where none of us are right now) – dying by being run over by cars and freight trains does not matter at all.
But we don’t live up there, where it doesn’t matter at all. We live here, where dying matters. And down here, it is possible to avoid being run over by cars and freight trains if you have the correct information about them.
As we’ve discussed before, the information you are giving out might work somewhere up there in the grand scheme of things, but down here?
It gets you run over.
And that’s why you scare me.
You scare me for others. When everyone sits around and agrees that “Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.” with no one even questioning this statement, a scary situation results and I have to at least say something. I have to say something because of what I have seen ideas like that do to people down here.
I hope you don’t mind. I don’t mean to run you off or hurt your feelings or to be mean at all. But I just feel a responsibility to say something so no one gets run over down here.
Alanzo
I think that this might be why Buddha constructed the 8-fold path as he saw, very clearly, that some would take a nihilistic view and then nothing you do here would matter, after all, “its all just an illusion.”
Maybe “up there” is just the illusion.
Either way, karma exists. If I eat a fat, dripping cheeseburger for lunch, karma says that by 2:30 or so I am going to feel bloated and fat and be farting a lot.
This is the law of Karma, and Karma must be obeyed.
“Nothing can be done to a person without the person postulating it or agreeing to it.” is NOT the law of Karma.
Alanzo
Yes, Buddha also suggested that “up there” is just an illusion too!
But I do notice that when it comes to living one’s life as a human participant, he offers the 8-fold path, which consists of ways of acting and doing that will reduce the generation of karma and lessen the impact of the experience, the goal being liberation from the need or addiction to the endless cycles of action in this or any other existence. In other passages he suggests that if you are here at all, it is because of your karma, the results of permutations of the four noble truths and violations of the 8-fold path along the way. It is notable that he considered existence as a human being to be a great boon and opportunity for liberation.
Maria: In other passages he suggests that if you are here at all, it is because of your karma,. . .
Chris: Kind of hard to create an argument to that. Not to be flippant, but like I snap my fingers to keep the elephants away. Really? Yes, have you seen any elephants?
OK, so YOU apply the 8 fold path, including right speech, anywhere on the Scientology Internet. Show me how it is done.
I’d love to see it. :>
Alanzo
@ Chris. Elephants aside, one of the discussions of Buddhism was to do with this tendency to swing to one side or the other of the polarities of nothing (nihilism) and everything (all-ism.)
On the swing to the nihilism side, all compassion goes out the window and its okay to do whatever you want because there isn’t anything there anyway, nothingness is nothingness and since there is nothing, nothing matters. Suffering ceases of course, because nothingness has no experience and cannot suffer. So causing suffering is okay because it is nothing anyway.
On the swing to the all-ism side, everything matters and everything is forever and ever and therefore one must always be a certain way forever and ever, forever immersed in everything and there is no liberation and there is no sense even exploring these ideas because you are everything anyway and everything is as it should be because it is that way and if it is that way then that is perfect just as it is. And therefore there is no need to address suffering because suffering is all-ism — if it were not then it wouldn’t exist.
Neither polarity expresses true liberation (from suffering) according to the Buddhist thought system.
Maria one sounds like was born out of apathy the So why would one believe there are entities at all except for LRH saying so? other is denial..
Maria.. one sounds like was born out of apathy and the other is denial… just because something was said way back who knows when that still can be placed and see where it fits on the tone scale..
I have visited some of the greates museum and i have seen some” art” which was so bad it should have been lost and remained lost… and should never have been called art just because it was painted 250 years back… the same should be applying for ”’ the old” sayings too.. not all is wisdome which comes down on the pike…
[ I pushed wrong button so there is a mixed up thing posted too.]
Well I have to say that the 8-fold path is one of the most difficult and demanding set of precepts I have ever tried to live! LOL!
I’m not arguing with you here, merely exploring various concepts to do with what you said, so there’s really nothing to “show” or “demonstrate” to you!
Nor am I suggesting that YOU must follow the 8-fold path.
Alanzo
Of course I scare you. That’s what everyone has to confront before one “lives” for real. Fear is in the “guts” of one’s beingness, body, mind. I “died” in my mind during the past three months. Death – in the mind, which has a real effect on the body too – but !!! the body survives, and it is the door to the “free live flow” – and then your body is more alive, you are more energetic, perception is better, you emanate theta (actually you just let it flow free) that others perceive. They perceive that (as they are that too), so
they get more energetic etc. and are not “run over down here”. It’s the
question of energy…handling energy. And the pure “energy” of theta/love.
You say what you want Alanzo…it is basically your “flow”, its “nature”, which is “changing” the environment. Also, knowing ! knowing ! that another “lives” flows theta to that being…I could give you actual examples from
my life “down here”. Alanzo…I am not “blown up there”. I am here, present.
You also. I like how you write. You do what you feel like doing and me too!
As regards, “the one,” I found the following quotation in Advanced Procedures and Axioms, which offers insight into the concept of individuality underlying auditing processes:
******************************
“When one forsakes individuality on the way up, he, of course, can commingle with thoughts and other individualities. When he slows down below toward 0.0 he is again getting confused in his individuality, shifts valences easily, is hypnotic and is in a generally undesirable condition.
“Another prime error has been made and is part of our culture, both religious and scientific, and that is the error of single source. At 1.1 single source looks to be the case. Also at 39.0. At neither point, however, is there any clear view. All life forms are not from a single source. The ideas of Nirvana, Valhalla, Adam, the original cell, each is now rather completely disproven.
“There is a source for every genetic line. By this is meant both a theta (thought static) and MEST form. There are as many sources as there are living organisms, each line distinct and individual. The similarity of form in a species is due to similar environments and age of the class, not single source. A negative proof lies in the finding that health, sanity and effectiveness exist where the greatest self-determinism can be rehabilitated. A positive proof is that, if it were single source, the discovery of the genetic line facsimiles, the blueprint of the body, should permit just one individual to go back and clear the original upsets for the whole human race. It has been tried several times. It affects none but the preclear. His source is the very model of self-determinism.
“What then are you trying to do with your preclear? You are rehabilitating him from a state of partially I am not to I am, from understand to know, from distrust to trust.
“If you only concentrated upon distrust in others of him and his distrust of others,his enforced faiths on others and the enforced faith of others on him, and with his trust and distrust on all dynamics, particularly self, and de-sensitized such facsimiles, your preclears would be at around Ten at least. Occluded cases may be only broken trust cases for the preclear cannot trust himself, thus cannot trust his recalls. Run trust-distrust, and enforced and broken ‘know’ and ‘I am’ and ‘faith’ in Act Four.”
**************************
Note: the above uses the definition of facsimile in the glossary of the book —
***************************
“FACSIMILE: A facsimile is a memory recording for a finite period of time. It is considered that memory is a static without wave length, weight, mass or position in space (in other words, a true static) which yet receives the impression of time, space, energy and matter.
A careful examination of the phenomena of thought and the behavior of the human mind leads one to this conclusion. The conclusion is itself a postulate used because it is extremely useful and workable. This is a point of echelon in research, that a facsimile can be so described. The description is mathematical and an abstract and may or may not be actual. When a thought recording is so regarded, the problems of the mind rapidly resolve.
Facsimiles are said to be “stored”. They act upon the physical universe switchboard called the brain and nervous and glandular system to monitor action. They appear to have motion and weight only because motion and weight are recorded into them. They are not stored in the cells. They impinge upon the cells.
Proof of this matter rests in the fact that an energy which became a facsimile a long time ago can be re-contacted and is found to be violent on the contact. Pain is stored as a facsimile. Old pain can be re-contacted. Old pain, in facsimile form, old emotion in facsimile form, can re-impose itself on present time in such a wise as to deform or otherwise physically affect the body. You can go back to the last time you hurt yourself and find there and re-experience the pain of that hurt, unless you are very occluded. You can recover efforts and exertions you have made or which have been made against you in the past. Yet the cells themselves, which have finite life, are long since replaced although the body goes on. Hence the facsimile theory.
The word facsimile is used as bluntly as one uses it in connection with a drawing of a box top instead of the actual box top. It means a similar article rather than the article itself. You can recall a memory picture of an elephant or a photograph. The elephant and the photograph are no longer present. A facsimile of them is stored in your mind.
A facsimile is complete with every perception of the environment present when that facsimile was made including sight, sound, smell, taste, weight, joint position and so on through half a hundred perceptions. Just because you cannot recall motion or these perceptions does not mean they were not recorded fully and in motion with every perception channel you had at the time. It does mean that you have interposed a stop between the facsimile and the recall mechanisms of your
control centers. There are facsimiles of everything you have experienced in your entire lifetime and everything you have imagined.”
*************************
Thanks for posting this! It gives a compelling rationale for my recent cognition that, yes, there can be a co-mingling with all others, but we nevertheless remain as individual spiritual entities.
So this text gives you a compelling rationale for a recent cognition that you had.
Read that again: this text gives you a compelling rationale for a recent cognition that you had
Do you see any outpoints with this statement?
Cart before the horse, perhaps?
Should cognitions or conclusions be the RESULT of a rationale, rather than coming after?
Alanzo
Alanzo: “Should cognitions or conclusions be the RESULT of a rationale, rather than coming after?”
I don’t think cognitions are a matter of reasoning. Cogs or realizations about some aspect of life come about as a result of clearing away the barriers in the mind to actually observing that aspect of life. Or they can come about by looking directly, sometimes called intuition or simply pervading the area.
So you believe that cognitions are intuitive, rather than rational?
(This is not a trick, I swear.)
Alanzo
Al, you must have missed the other possibility I gave before I wrote the sentence starting with “Or…”
Yes, the “pervading the area” statement kind of distracted me. It was like a little electric shock that blinded me to what came before it.
Alanzo: Should cognitions or conclusions be the RESULT of a rationale, rather than coming after?
Chris: Good catch. post hoc ergo propter hoc.
I didn’t want to get all latin and shi…
I’m taking it easy on Marildi. She’s blown from many comm cycles and I’m using the ARC Triangle to lull her into a sense of complacency. As soon as the ARC is higher between us, and I see that I have her IN SESSION, then I will continue the hammering to mold her considerations into something more controllable.
It’s actually a brainwashing onslaught, but I want it to appear “spiritual”.
Alanzo
What one finds in session.. what one confronts is ones very own creation…
You mean you didn’t want to get all Latin because you didn’t understand what it meant? Or if you did, you didn’t understand how it applied to the exchange? Don’t worry about it , it didn’t. 😉
And just to note, ladies and gentlemen, the above is yet another example of when little ol’ transparent Alanzo has no direct reply to make that would hold water, he resorts to cracking some jokes. But at least he is funny. 😀
Right you are my dear… he is not funny enough to earn a living as a stand up comedian… in fact it is he who would need to pay to be listened to..
Al: “It’s actually a brainwashing onslaught, but I want it to appear “spiritual”.”
Chris: LOL
Elizabeth wrote:
Right you are my dear… he is not funny enough to earn a living as a stand up comedian… in fact it is he who would need to pay to be listened to..
It’s a tough crowd. But there is one guy sitting alone at a little cocktail table there, LOLing.
Somebody! Buy Chris a drink! :>
Thank you, Chris. I’ll be here all week.
In fact, I will not leave until everyone gets the joke!
Alanzo
Marildi.. you are never a individual spiritual entety… there is no such a thing as individuality in the Spirityal Universe. The pain you feel experience can be experienced and IS experienced at the same moment by countless beings at the same time who also believe that the pain is theirs and the name is theirs which you use and truly believe that it only belongs to you..
Interesting…yes…. and very real…. Individuality is a thought, a concept.
Cant have it both ways… be a infinite and be a individual.. One only can be a individual in belief…. but not in rrality.
Got it, E. Well, as we have said many times, each person has their own reality.
That has been established that we cant duplicate the universe of others but in your wondering in the vast library of knowledge… do look up what is individuality and that concept feets into spirituality, why is one named one or the other.
Eliz, don’t know if you saw my comment to Chris but I gave the definition that I believe LRH is using when he speaks of individuality, or of thetans being individuals – it means “a single, distinct entity”. In his other words, each thetan is an awareness of awareness unit, a single entity distinct from all others but capable of commingling with all others.
M… I wonder how that defination could be true, and be the fact? since what he said is Impasible, there is no singularity or awerness in the spiritual universe…
E…LRH said “When one forsakes individuality on the way up, he, of course, can commingle with thoughts and other individualities.”
The meaning of “forsake” is “to give up or relinquish”. So the way I understand it is that since thetans can postulate anything, they obviously could “give up or relinquish” being distinct from other thetans.
M… You have pointed out me more than once that my reality is mine and I have said the same over and over again.. WHAT EVER I WRITE IS MY REALTY which COMES from sessions cognitions.
But NOT once LRH ever said the same thing any place.: that what he sees what he has written is only his reality and no other persons have the same in their universe or should have the same reality as his.
What he believed that every one should have HIS REALITY and no other reality exist in this UNIVERSE… And he wanted to make every one mold into his universe—his reality and that is implanting… and that makes scientology a implant station.
If some one dared to think differently with that the person become on SP…. the enemy…. please ….please… why would any one should have the same reality as LRH said?
What he said was from his bag of goodies… and in that bag were lot of crap and only few goodies..
Eliz, I think LRH did say, in various ways, what you and I are saying. One was, “What’s true for you is what’s true for you”.
Now I have to get onto some other fish to fry for awhile. But I’ll see you all later!
Than the problem is with the ”scientologists” because they want to fit their universe into LRH’s and that do not work… They should be taking the material use it any way it fits into their universe and discard whatever not needed. So LTH is not to blame at all. nor DM,
The so called brilliant know it all scientologists have not duplicated the material.
L. Ron Hubbard, Science Fixation author, explorer, sailor: Another prime error has been made and is part of our culture, both religious and scientific, and that is the error of single source. At 1.1 single source looks to be the case. Also at 39.0. At neither point, however, is there any clear view. All life forms are not from a single source. The ideas of Nirvana, Valhalla, Adam, the original cell, each is now rather completely disproven.
Chris: This inverted look at the physical universe is the kind of tripe that I spent years studying, learning, and practicing. The weirdest thing to me is that I was actually able to do this. Now I understand how constructed systems like Scientology can be closed and consistent no matter how incomplete they may be. Within the world of Scientology, the above statement by Hubbard is true.
You left out the paragraph following the one you quoted, which included this:
“… A negative proof lies in the finding that health, sanity and effectiveness exist where the greatest self-determinism can be rehabilitated. A positive proof is that, if it were single source, the discovery of the genetic line facsimiles, the blueprint of the body, should permit just one individual to go back and clear the original upsets for the whole human race. It has been tried several times. It affects none but the preclear. His source is the very model of self-determinism.”
Many people posting on this blog have attested to the truth of the “negative proof” stated above, including Geir, whose powers of observation most of us have confidence in.
Marildi wrote:
Many people posting on this blog have attested to the truth of the “negative proof” stated above, including Geir, whose powers of observation most of us have confidence in.
Speak for yourself. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Generally yes.
But my confidence comes after I inspect each result of his powers of observation for myself.
(appeal to authority noted)
Alanzo
The replies don’t seem to be placed where intended. In case this one doesn’t land in the right place, my comment starting with “You left out the paragraph…” was in reply to Chris.
Yes, he introduces his opinion or reality on how the individuality issue pans out on the scale he developed. As I see it now, there is a “ground” of being, there is “commingling” phenomena, and there is an individuality aspect i.e. the individual who perceives truths along the way.
I thought he made an important point in this essay (often ignored) that by auditing a single individual one does not “disappear” the aspects/phenomena of “other” individuals. But that’s in terms of what auditing can be seen to do or not do.
Maria: Yes, he introduces his opinion or reality on how the individuality issue pans out on the scale he developed. . . . there is an individuality aspect . . .
Chris: To me, I see a fracturing universe in each and every physical activity around mebeginning if I can with the Big Bang. Regardless of that hypothesis, in everyday life, from biology; to cooking; to nuclear fission; geography; the stars; and in the quantum states of matter, I see a fractal world around me. If I have understood Hubbard, then my view as explained to his explanation is antipathetic.
And as you say, there is an individuality aspect which to my experience is now not an eternal unchanging spirit but the most temporal of the physical experience of all. Individuality is very fragile and very fleeting.
Chris, it all depends on what you mean by “individuality”.
I get that you are defining it as “The aggregate of qualities and characteristics that distinguish one person or thing from others; character: [example] choices that were intended to express his individuality; monotonous towns lacking in individuality”
All LRH definitions of thetan tell me he is using the following definition in that reference: “A single, distinct entity.” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/individuality
Marildi: “. . . it all depends on what you mean by ‘individuality’.”
Chris: In this context of what Hubbard said, I will rather go by what he said. I don’t agree with Him. In this modern age of science that Hubbard alluded to being in agreement with, what is manifested in the physical world did come from a single thing. The individual entity is not the basic source of everything. The individual is the least simple and latest on the chain of universal manifestation.
Chris, if that’show you define “individuality”, then how do you define “individuation”? As differentiated from “Individuality” by LRH?
Hint: They both need to be veiwed in the context of the Dynamics.
Chris: “In this context of what Hubbard said, I will rather go by what he said. I don’t agree with Him.”
Me: My point was that if we’re talking about “what HE said”, before we can agree or disagree with it we have to understand what HE meant by the words – one of which was “individuality”, a key word in the context.
Chris: “In this modern age of science that Hubbard alluded to being in agreement with, what is manifested in the physical world did come from a single thing.
Me: Firstly, and most importantly, LRH was not just talking about the physical world. Secondly, what science has to say with respect to the physical world coming from a single thing is just a theory – and no less so than LRH’s descriptions are theories, which he himself labels as such. Thirdly, not all theories of science postulate that the physical world “came from a single thing”, e.g. another theory is that it started with two particles.
Morning! My 5 cents concerning your topic is that science is fine to examine physical laws with, but when it comes to examinig the creator or creators of these laws, science wont make it, because we reffer to something that is not native to this universe. If the creator was native to this universe, how could ‘he’ had created this universe? Even if we considered the big bang theory to be true, there must have been a creation prior to that to allow it to happen. Science was never really in conflict with anything spiritual. It’s just that some use the ‘one universe’ to dominate the universes of others, just like some others used the ‘one true God’ to render null people’s godly qualities, and have them believe they are humble sheeple. Although such scientific people seem to contradict such religious people, they both use the same mode of operation –nullification by invalidation. See, the ‘real’ universe can tear your body apart if you don’t obey it and thus it makes it stronger than yours (one can think). Yes, but that is IF you think you are a body which is partially a product (and thus junior) of this universe!
Good morning, Spyros. But it’s almost time for you to say goodnight to some of us. 😛
I agree with you 100% with regard to traditional science. But as regards quantum physics, it seems there’s more to it. The following is the first part of a recent blog post of Marty’s (note that some of it sounds like Marianne, and maybe you too?):
———————————————————–
“Learning the art and honing the skills of differentiation, identification and association increases accuracy of observation. It increases intelligence. It increases ability. L. Ron Hubbard aptly defined the application of those skills as sanity.
“When one observes the whole of existence with no differentiation, identification and association in mind – simply observes the whole of existence as it is – one does not differentiate, identify or associate himself. One is not separate and apart from the whole of existence. One is experiencing nonduality.
“If one also studied advancements in science, he might find that the higher reality of nonduality is being validated in the laboratory. And if he continued to observe, beyond differentiation-association-identification, he might find that the universe can be seen to behave as quantum mechanics is beginning to demonstrate. That is, the behavior of the universe is dependent upon the character of the observer; that there is a synchronicity and interconnectedness across the cosmos that is largely invisible and undetectable to the five traditional human senses which are all bound up in identity, and its dependence for survival upon differentiation and association. Planet earth’s greatest scientific minds – historically, the most skilled at differentiation, identification and association – tend to say of quantum mechanics, ‘if you think you understand it, then I know that you don’t.’
“They might more accurately have stated that ‘if you think you can explain it in words, then you haven’t witnessed it.’ …”
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/integration-evolution-and-transcendence/
———————————————————
Interesting, isn’t it? 😉
“When one observes the whole of existence with no differentiation, identification and association in mind – simply observes the whole of existence as it is – one does not differentiate, identify or associate himself. One is not separate and apart from the whole of existence. One is experiencing nonduality.” <—- Beautiful!! In Spiritologie this is called 'zero perception'.
Yes, I don't know much about quantum physics –just some random things I may get to read here and there. I'm interested to know, though I assume that the label 'physics' pertains only to this universe, so I imagine it being kinda limited.
“Beautiful!! In Spiritologie this is called ‘zero perception’.”
I was pretty sure you would like it. Didn’t I say it sounded like both you and Marianne? 😛
Well, it seems physics in the form of quantum physics is starting to merge with metaphysics. You should read Geir’s article “On Will”, which takes up the subject of free will and the relationship of beings to quantum physics: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/73825672/onwill.pdf
But first watch this:
“this universe”=the big black one
By the way, I have some info concerning being out valence and being ‘in’ this universe. It is explained in the fundamental of thoughts book (i think where ‘beingness’ is explained). So if you are thoroughly in this universe, whos valence do you take? That is a question of whos universe was originaly this one?
Also there is an analogy between being ‘in’ this universe or ‘in’ some other universe other than your own, and being unable to perceive other universes. I read it recently. Sorry I don’t remember where.
Okay, I’ll take a look at Fundamentals of Thought tomorrow. See you then (“tonight” your time :P).
Sleep well 🙂 and thanks for the homework 😛
Be ready for a quiz. 😛
Good morning, Spyros. I was thinking about that homework assignment I gave you to read Geir’s article “On Will”. The first time I read it, I didn’t understand a lot of of it. But later there were some threads with a lot of discussion about quantum physics and I picked up some of it, and by the next time I read “On Will” I understood it much better. So if you give it a try and it’s not going very well, I’m guessing there will be more discussions on the subject and you’ll pick up on it like I did (and I intend to learn more myself!). I found it’s more interesting and fun to learn about it in a discussion than to just read about it.
But you still have to watch the Dr. Quantum video. That’s lesson one in QM (quantum mechanics or quantum physics). 😉
Morning! I didn’t blow our discussion, it’s just that I was missing most of the day and when I returned my wireless internet was really bad. I wanted to tell you something but I didn’t make it. I was by the way talking with some guy who has much interest in quantum mechanics (yesterday) and I must say -if I consider what he talked about to be quantum physics- I am highly disinterested 😛 But OK, I’m going to give your links a try to test them 😉
Marildi: “. . . is just a theory . . .”
Chris: It is unfair to back Hubbard with zeal and to call the science underpinning the culture and technology which create the life that we live “just a theory” plus it’s not true – not in the context of the physical universe. It is the other worldly doctrines which are “just theories.” — And not very good ones.
oh, and I do understand what Hubbard means.
Chris: “to call the science underpinning the culture and technology which create the life that we live ‘just a theory’ plus it’s not true – not in the context of the physical universe”
You mean to say that Newton physics wasn’t a theory, superseded by Einstein’s THEORY of relativity, which was superseded by quantum physics? Now, if I had made a statement like that Geir would be jumping all over me.
Geir? Come on, be fair once in a while.
Ah the trouble with words, Chris. The individuality “component” I refer to is the “knower,” the “me” I refer to when I speak to you, the “knower,” that which decides / chooses focus amongst the iterations that shift continually, unceasingly in a continual feedback loop. Conversing depends on focus and without focus there is no conversation, at least not on a blog comment!
Right you were. I didn’t focus on your comment. Good comment though… I was so busy going in another direction with that individuality thingy that your point went over my head.
There is a short refference about this subject of the ‘primary cause’ or ‘source’ in the first phrazes of the Factors. It defines the difference between the 8th and the 7th dynamic. Must-read.
Also, there is no ‘down here’ and no ‘up there’ and no thetan changes as his case changes and he gains abilities etc. All that changes is his awareness level up to the point of ‘Source’ which is the full awareness of 8th Dynamic. It means one IS 8th dynamic and consequently all 8 Dynamics, whether ‘he’ is aware of it or not.
Correction: Nobody gains abilities either. Full pan-determinism is present in all, regardless of case level. What changes is again awareness. One wouldn’t consider himself pan determined while he considered himself a body or a victim of life or something, would he?
Spyros
True! Thanks! Also, there are different reality levels one can speak at, though the live com. is the same. As I find it , you can put THE DATA there as you do but it is real only to those who have the experience. And one puts the DATA there still as you did because EXPERIENCE and DATA can then “meet” in anyone! Spyros, I like you!
Yes I agree and thank you too. The way I see it, we all go through our process whether we do it in session or not. Some would like to play one game others another. If some would like to discard spiritual matters, it’s really fine by me. What matters is for people that seek truth to stick together now for I think there is something being cooked.
S… right you are about cooking… I am cooking chicken soup.. what is on your stove? 🙂
I’m just making spaghetti — don’t expect any serious food from a male body 😛
At least, it isn’t “sandwich”!
Yeah, you put it in a funny way! Being cooked, that is! As I find it, after one has left the “personal will”, “personal choice” illusion points, Life makes the cooking and it’s a joy to see how it is doing that by its Free Will and ability simply that it Can do so even if it can be “hard” on the being sometimes…(read Geir’s articles sometimes in a new unit of time….even he should do that…funny, I also published some and I always get amazed by what I wrote, learning from myself at times).
Yes, again I fully agree. We are playing now with one of the most basic charges (who am i, who are you, who is Source etc) . But I’m feeling like it has been discharged, and it’s happy news. I’m going to read older posts too. I’m new in this blog.
Geir, I for one would like to cast my vote against this black background. For me, it adds an unappealing vibe, and I believe there is a lot of truth to the idea of “The medium is the message.” (Marshall McLuhan).
I know you like to experiment with changes and that in itself I enjoy! But I’ve never liked black backgrounds on websites. Just my 2 cents. 🙂
Sorry Maria, don’t know how this ended up under your comment. I hadn’t even seen this comment of yours yet!
+1 Nice that it is almost like “drawing” on it, yet black , even if you have confronted it and you have no problem with it, it “absorbs” energy. And I also agree that the “medium is the message”………….one can change either the message or the medium. Geir? You said that you were not here to answer questions. Got it! Yet, what’s the case with this medium-message issue?
Isene
PLAY BUT NOT ONLY WITH YOURSELF …..even if it cannot be put into actual reality, can you overcome the impossible? You say, everything is possible and I trust it more than the present abilities of Life.
I kinda agree. But on the other hand , if we all strat rightting dyslexically liek teh saadl ni Grei’s tenx psot, maybe it will werk at lseat az wlle az sienctgoloy duz.
Valkov
You want to exceed the findings of Quantum Mechanics? Or you think Isene will?
Val, that’s a good example of the medium is the message. 😉
Yoo hoo, Geir. While we’re on the subject of this current medium, and since you are an expert in computer tech, can you also fix the fact that the replies aren’t lining up right?
And one other thing about this black background is that it doesn’t work to copy something in another person’s post and then paste it into a word document, where I sometimes like to write a longer reply. 😦
Can’t fix reply placing – that’s underlying thngies at WP.com
But – doesn’t work regarding copying…? What d you mean – how does it not work?
When you go to paste something into a word document, all you get is a squiggly blue or red line that looks something like this: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That changed coincident with the black background theme.
And I think the problem with replies may have too.
Marildiv, In Microsoft Word, Paste has the implicit option “Keep source formatting”. One way to avoid pasting the formats (in this case the white color), is using the Paste option “Keep text only”.
Also this is the answer to Geir: “doesn’t work regarding copying…? What d you mean – how does it not work?”
Ferenc, totally got it! I’m still getting used to the latest version of Microsoft word that I recently got and I had forgotten about that option. Thank you, sweetie. 🙂
Spyros
With the phrase “devilish playfulness” Marildi was spot-on describing you!
Yes, she is a psychic 🙂
I’m feeling I just lost some of my devilishness 😦 Is it that you as-ised it, or did I not-is it to hide it? Hmmm
It was me…but you can re-create it any time. You know, as the Clear can put there the reactive mind, whatever. Don’t hide! That’s the worst thing one can do in my reality! Just speak out and
also put here the music you think Geir wouldn’t like. No withholding anything – that’s a basic key
as I found it! Psychic yes, with the best ever intentions! Also playful, like you.
I’m giggling. Yes, we can re-create anything anytime 🙂
I listen to really hard and dark music, and it’s a conscious choice of mine to not post it like that. It’s not that I hide it. My facebook wall is full of it.
Yes, witholds can be such a pain…not reccomended. My hiding my mockups I think doesn”t have to do with witholding an overt. I’m not sure what it was. I sort of felt that if I didn’t have private mock-ups I’m not as much an individual anymore.
Let me play a little smartass now, that you made me a devil again. Reality in Scientologese means agreement (between two or more beings). So then what does ‘my reality’ mean?
Now, you can take my devilishness away again 😛
No way, I love the devil! I rarely use that part of me but just recently I decided to use it a little bit more! So, you have appeared right in time for me to “coach” me in that direction! When I use “my reality”, it means the “way I perceive it now”. To me it also shows a kind of humbleness towards change. (haha, there is no fixed “reality”, just change) I noticed that in fact I cannot “agree” in the real meaning of the word. Also, with some persons I cannot “talk” with, just actions, communication by perception and affinity, so the R in the meaning of “agreement” is completely lacking! (huuu , I love being like that – how about you, if
you see what Imean? )
Well, I’m just A devil, not the devil himself. Maybe a demon would be a more appropriate word. So, I cannot show you the science of implanting –although I know that too anyway 😛
I will leave to you what reality is, of course. I was just joking because I often got to hear people say ‘in my reality’ (agreement) when they posed an arguement (a disagreement) so it’s a bit of a strange contradiction the way I think about it. As for myself, I don’t believe in a reality. If there was one, we would all agree with it and be perfectly gameless. Maybe there is one, that we all have in common, and that would be our root of course. but that is so airy that is not considered to be ‘reality’. Reality is supposed to be something solid that you can bang your head against.
Did you mean a sort of telepathy without wording before? Yes I understand it. It’s nice. Communicating with words can never be as exact as communicating with thoughts.
Spyros
You are right “on time”. I have just decided to put something here. You: “Maybe there is one, that we all have in common, and that would be our root of course.” Here it goes:
I AM YOURS. Listen to this song with all of your beingness, let it really sink! If you can listen to it from a “motionless, non-place of silence” (no-mind), that is the Source/the real You/Life/non-duality. All manifestations appearing in the video are “arising” out of it. With one perception you can see “differences”, with another shift you can perceive the “source potential” in them. When there is no identification in the ” I AM” with the “I” (the concept, the sense of separation), there is just the SOURCE. The song’s wording is perfect: I am your(s) (creation). Do you get what I mean? Listen….
Thanks 🙂 I’m playing the song now.
About Source and reality, yes I got what you mean and agree, and I want to add some more. There is this theory in the PDC and other early issues of SCN –that the lower parts of the tone scale are a mockery of the upper parts. For example a person that is thoroughly sunk in apathy tries to reach the serenity of tone 40. He is immobile like static, he doesn’t worry, doesn’t try etc. Yet he doesn’t have the free potential as in the case of actual tone 40. Some very sticky and popular ideas are sticky and popular because they mock the primary truth –being the 8th Dynamic. The enforced unity of individuals under one ‘real’ universe that convinces individuals to accept it as the one and only truth, is a mockery of a state primary to the existance of individual universes, that’s why it’s so sticky. A being that claims to be the one and only true God, is a mockery of the 8th dynamic. But the 8th Dynamic wasn’t a being, beings are 7th Dynamic. The ‘we are all one’ idea is the same thing –8th Dynamic isn’t ‘one’, it is infinite potential and embraces everything.
Wow, Spyros, extremely well said. 🙂
p.s. Spyros, here’s a quote from Fundamentals of Thought that I think fits perfectly with your post:
“The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other dynamics, but when the Seventh Dynamic is reached in its entirety one will only then discover
the true Eighth Dynamic.”
Yay! Thanks again 😛
Yes, I hardly remembered that part. Nice, isn’t it? I wonder now that LRH didn’t leave any OT levels above 8 to that God-wannabe-Miscavige, how are people going to reach those states? My idea is -among other things- that there is a vast number of OT processes burried in red volumes and tapes that have been severely invalidated (see ‘technical degrades’) because they are not part of the Churche’s official Bridge set of processes. I bet they can still be workable in good hands…
They say it’s dangerous to tamper with OT case. Sure, it is also dangerous to start on the way to truth and not go all the way to the beginning/end. Maybe that adds up to the introversion and craziness that Geir mentions in his original message. If you start to tamper with case and at some point you stop and you are not cause, you are effect.
Spyros… you over estimate what OT’s are, you put them up hight where they do not belong… Long as one is an this Planet one operates out of the MEST. OT’s are no better that you or I… no one is better than you or I are.
What difference there is between two individual is “what is their viewpoint, their reality, their assumption their thought considerations. and whow they see the universe because of them… in other words how are they stimulated by those considerations they have..
And of course just how much agreement is there collected on their reality… example: chicken soup is good for you, it is health: there is lots of agreement collected on that item… but is it really trully healthy, good for the body? So some thoughts have lots of agreements which make those thought good or bad in the eyes of the population: ”roses smell good, shit smells bad…. etc..
Long as one here on this planet and that being is connected-anchored to the body has a case… and case is a case… there are no such a thing is better Banks… or better aberration.
Oh… look at me I am better aberrated than you are!!! You poor boy.. that would be hogslop..
Dont esign your power, dont compromise your reality… that is not OK..
Yes yes, I don’t really argue with what you said. I don’t think anyone is truly more OT than another, as basic nature. What can change is what one considers self to be. It is different to view things directly as a being than to view via eyeballs –that’s an example of what can change by dealing with case.
The thing is SCNists engage to deal with something, and I think ti should be dealt with to the end. That’s all. And other than SCN I think it is something that we all have in common, to seek truth –“who am I”, “how did this happen” etc
S… I am just tired to see OT’s being put up high on the pedestal and that number after their name with the letters OT means nothing… there are no levels stages in the spiritual universe.. Those levels only indicates what courses they have taken… but those numbers do not indicate the true reality where they are spiritualy… Numbers cant indicate spiritual achievements. But those letters and numbers goor for the ego and to impress others.
Elizabeth, as a preclear I had been pretty much invalidated by people with higher case titles, because they thought that when I argued with them it was because I dramatised something. Also, the same stuff with people that held high posts in organisations. I don’t want to say my opinion about this, because I’m feeling my body beefed up already by thinking about it. OT or spiritual freedom or call it what you will, for me, is not a title –certainly not one to make others wrong with. That would be a service fac.. And by the way, i’m no longer a SCNist so I don’t use ‘OT’ anymore. Actually, I don’t use any labels. Nevertheless, I ertertain the thought that MEST doesn;t have to have absolute power over any of us, and by following this frame of thinking I have managed to achieved some things, and I’m glad about it.
Spyros… we are on the same page, same reality. That is the reason I have writen about the title OT as I have. I too believe that much wrong-ness was created and please believe if i could take that away I would.
But I also believe that each experience can be looked at not just in the negative way but to see what good can come out of it.. I too left the chuch in 76 as a fool OT7 and in apathy because my dreams what I wanted were not realized. I cut out in 82 and I never looked back.
I dont use titles, I think that is totally wrong since there should be none on the Spiritual Path and there is NONE an the TRUE SPIRITUAL PATH.
No one walks front of any one and therefore no one walks behind any one..
I dont ask this from people since there is no need because it dont make any difference if my cognitions-wins are read or not but please go to my blog and read ”To walk the walk of the Solo Auditor: the Path of Enlightenment, The self-discovery.”
What one do with ones experience is again up to that person. We have the tech. we can use it or not it is up to us. I have used it and I have gone all the way to the END where the first light come about in the Universe..
I have not stopped at OT7 since that place is not a good place to stop.. how could apathy be a good place since I had not realized my dreams but I believed that they can be real.
I dont believe auditing OT8 will give all answers or to any numbers.. There are no numbers needed An the Path since spiritual gains-awarness can not be numbered, measured, labeled.
Please read and let me know.. endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com
The auditing tech is brilliantly put together and works but it need to be used, In my reality one should be able to sort out what works for one and discard the rest.
There is lot of crap floating under the bridge… hehehe any bridge… and in my adventure so far I have not walked on the bridge but shoveled lot of shit which is called MEST..
Throughout my course in SCN, I rarely got to meet anyone who would be willing to discuss the subject OT. It probably has to do with the confidentiality of OT materials, I assume. But when I talk about OT, I don’t necessarily talk about the OT levels of the Churches Bridge. I talk about OT as a general term. SCN is basically about OT. Dianetics was about minds and fascimiles and victims. The most basic SCN book of all, the fundamentals of thought is pretty much about the thetan as OT –how he causes stuff to happen to himself.
I think this secrecy about OTs, has much to do with the fact that the Church simply doesn’t intend to offer any ‘total freedom’. Thus, the sec checks etc –hiding their little secret by putting blame on others.
I like your honesty –with yourself of course. And that you’re not afraid to communicate about it. I’m certainly going to read your blog, and we’ll talk 🙂
S… I have learned in my adventure of solo auditing that the greatest crime is not what one commits against other but what one commits againts self. Because that will remain with the being. Responsibility is a interesting but very simple item-consideration-belief.
What ever one feels, believes in, has happened to self, when one realize that no one was the cause of that but self… and no one can be the cause but self. that is my reality what is responsibility means… When I realized that way back in session half of the case went out through the window… That was: being a victim and the blame that other were responsible for me… The power of causitivness has returned to me. I am the cause of my universe there is no other I blame..
Sectrest are simple items which should be found in session and confronted..
They hold no value, but they hold that person, LRH was totaly 1000000% wrong to keep information as ”secret” but it was a selling point… made lot of money for the church and caused lot of ARCB’s too.
Secrets having the ”upper levels” caused the segregation among the church members and have given those OT”‘ incradible attitudes, huge ego inflation ”’I am better than you because I am a OT” fuck all that shit…. total aberrated thinking..
Elizabeth, I don’t know what harm the confidential materials can do. I’m almost certain they cannot do anything, mostly because I don’t think Ron would trust any dangerous materials in their hands. Maybe they could have some restimulative quality in older times. But engrams run out. What I can tell with certainty is that the cognition for Clear shouldn’t be hidden, as Ron mentions it clearly in materials that are available to all, assuming they have the $ to get ahold of them. I’m not saying where because DM will run to hide them. I bet my head he’s never studied them 😛
Now the Church tells SCNists that if they read/hear about confidential materials, they lose their Bridge (!!!!!!!!!). So you understand, this is a disgusting effort to make SCNist disconnect from the whole world, as most people in the western world know about those materials –even a little bit.
Yes I agree that the most important thing is to know what you cause to yourself, and that’s what I do myself.
I don’t want you to compromise with your reality, so we’re OK with that 🙂 Just checking out your technique out of interest.
S… knowing any part of the material would not could not cause harm.. Since we are already in the MEST U. and have the Bank one is alway keyed into some kind of energy-mass-thought-consideration…. so it would not be a problem at all, having a bank.. having thoughts– they are just thoughts no matter what and have equal value.. or no value at all… Knowing that there are spiritual being in the universe who do not have the body is known fact..
They are called ghosts, spirits and every person knows about them and believe in their existance simply because we KNOW WE ARE ONE TOO… and of course because we are more aften without a body and operate without one than having one…
WE live in the Spiritual universe in my estimation without the body 99%.. We live-operate we as spirituals endlesly…we seldom get a body. and my friend that is life, that is fun… there is the true freedome..what every body is looking for.
Elizabeth, I think it is part of our basic purposes to seek truth. Each one does it to greater or lesser degree, either by logic or cognitions or I don’t know what. I don’t want to try to inhibit anyone’s impulse to do so. If I disagree with something, doesn’t make it invalid for another.
I think what was supposed to be restimulative was mostly the incidents. LRH had talked about ‘entities’ and ‘demon circuits’ before, very openly.
I see you talk about a single spiritual universe that we all have in common, in your blog. Interesting, I have imagined that too, but cannot confirm it. Could it be an intersection of individual universe?
“what I experience- know what ever that is…. is my creation I have caused it and that is the only reason it is and exist.” <—- Sure, exactly my idea too. That's why I consider full OT to be possible.
Spyros.. More I have seen as I walked the path, it become very real to me that the Mest universe is the illusion and the spiritual universe where there are no thought, assumptions considerations and there are course no agreements. is the real universe….
I have spent 40 years in sessions.. And i soloed since 76… there was no day since than when i have not have had a session and my realities have not changed…. in fact the spiritual universe become the only universe which exist…. I do not say that games.. other realities do not exist, being played in miilion different ways in million different universes… it is there for those who want that…
To me this is the real, true only universe… Where all can be experienced without owership, where singularity is not needed or wanted and one do not have any use of MEST.. and this universe is where no such a thing as concepts or alone, lonly, us, me, or others or in fact the need to create to have or not having… this what i know and experience and can not be explained by words.. It simply is…..
My dream-reality has been realized. I am home.
Eliz, I always appreciate your comments. Reading them at the end of the day are most helpful. Kinda chills me out from previous mesty activities and helps produce a good nights rest, in the spiritual realm. So thank you dear one. 🙂
Dee…. good one I have not heard this before that I am helping to key out of the day and connection to me induce better night rest..This one is new… but that make senses. Natural sleeping pill… hehehe So my dear Dee for my service: my bill is in the mail and please pay promptly when received! 🙂 love ya!
Eliz…. “Natural sleeping pill… hehehe So my dear Dee for my service: my bill is in the mail and please pay promptly when received! 🙂 love ya!”
Love ya too, received and I promptly put it on my credit card, hhehe
“Could it be an intersection of individual universe?” <—– I meant to type 'individual universes' meaning personal universes.
Spyros…. Individual universe only exist in the mest universe where are considerations, singulsrity, concepts like me, mine, values, belonging, walls, barrier, life-death, names-labels, all those thousands of concepts separate one, make one a individual… the body it self having one, playes the major role in believing that one is separated, singular person.
One is only a person when has a name, a identety that I am Elizabeth Hamre… and that identety is gone with the droping of the body..
No my friend this universe is real…. very real….solidity is the illusion because one believes that it lasts for ever and solidity no matter what is that item has a life span because it was created…
The Spiritual universe is not a personal universe… personal universe is made out of the beliefs… the thoughts, concepts, assumptions considerations and the agreements one collected.
S…..”–”who am I”, “how did this happen” etc”
Yes… those answers can be found in sessions… go for it… the adventure is yours…. the greatest adventure one ever can create for self is the discovery of Who I am… and how did this happened … how I have created my universe!!!
Elizabeth: “S…..”–”who am I”, “how did this happen” etc”
Yes… those answers can be found in sessions… go for it… the adventure is yours…. the greatest adventure one ever can create for self is the discovery of Who I am… and how did this happened … how I have created my universe!!!”
Me: I’m on it! I said I’m not a Scientologist, but don’t take it as black and white, yes or no. At this moment that I’m aaware there are more than one ‘true’ Bridges. I would ask ‘What makes your Bridge more true than another?’ but let’s not dwell in philosophical speculations. It’s a fact for me there is not only one standard Bridge. I’m sorry to shake people’s stable data but if the Churche’s Bridge was standard, it would lead to full OT, and people wouldn’t be subjected to being suppressed and suppressing and watching others being suppressed and suppressing themselves. That’s my fact. I love SCN tech, but I’m free from the group. And yes, I case-gain more than ever 🙂
I mean, is you (plural) admit that the boss, the COB, David Miscavige is SP. If you know that he has been squirreling up Ron’s materials (see Golden Age of Knowledge and Golden and of Tech and many others and more undercover alterations), what is the meaning of the words ‘Standard Tech’? If you were present during the 50s-60s or something, like Phil Spickler was, you would know SCN had nothing to do back then with what it has become (he has given some nice interviews, check them out, if you haven’t). So, who do you count on to guide you to be 100% standard? I count on myself. I say if this thing makes me case-gain more than gain case, it is a good thing. It’s as simple as that for me. And yes, it’s workable too. I can tell a 1,1 from a 4,0 and so on, so I’m not afraid of booby traps either. Enjoy!
I believe in the tech… the basic: the extanded Rudiments, O/W questions will and can handle any ARCB’s and one had nothing more in their universe but ARCB’s and it is there because when something has happened to that person that person HAD no affinity for it or reality on what has happened therefore no understanding what was happening.. because all those not understood conditions existed he really was or could not communicate-confront as-is the situation of that moment.
So he just added one more ARCB to the pile.
If any one can describe better, how ones universe accumulated those unwanted item lets here it.
“I believe in the tech… the basic: the extanded Rudiments, O/W questions will and can handle any ARCB’s and one had nothing more in their universe but ARCB’s and it is there because when something has happened to that person that person HAD no affinity for it or reality on what has happened therefore no understanding what was happening.. because all those not understood conditions existed he really was or could not communicate-confront as-is the situation of that moment.
So he just added one more ARCB to the pile.
If any one can describe better, how ones universe accumulated those unwanted item lets here it.”
To be clear about it, I didn’t invalidate Ron’s tech. I invalidated the ‘one and only standard Bridge’ and the pretended ‘standard tech’. Standard according to whom? Did LRH put it there?
Anyway, yes I see and agree about how basic ARC breaks can be. But did you mean that you handle all case by solely running O/Ws?
Extanded Rudiments ..O/W’s I have written about how I have used them in my blog. The sessions are smooth.. perfect, and there is nothing.. but nothing in the universe which can not be confronted since ones universe exist only because one has put it there created it in the first place.
Alright then, I’m checking out your blog 🙂
S….. there are 216 posts and out of them about 196 major cognitions which have come out of sessions in the past 2 1/2 years They are my reality how I see the universe I have created.. I am not asking for agreement because by now I have no need for such in order to know.. The knowledge I have is my reality and I will not compromise that… never again…
S…. the reason I have writen that no one can compromise my reality is because I know what I experience- know what ever that is…. is my creation I have caused it and that is the only reason it is and exist..
S….COGNITION.
I had a small Cognition because writing to you, so I thank you for your presence and your communication.
COG: one only compromises ones reality when one assignees power to others that they know better, above. have more power than self therefore what they know have value and self what one is less…
When one is doing that one gives away ones power -reality and ones responsibility that one is the cause of ones universe and one becomes the victim and blames others for the condition one is in..
Thank you once more. Elizabeth.
Elizabeth: you over estimate what OT’s are, you put them up hight where they do not belong… Long as one is an this Planet one operates out of the MEST. OT’s are no better that you or I… no one is better than you or I are. What difference there is between two individual is “what is their viewpoint, their reality, their assumption their thought considerations? and whow they see the universe because of them… in other words how are they stimulated by those considerations they have..
Chris: That is a good clean statement.
Elizabeth: you over estimate what OT’s are, you put them up hight where they do not belong… Long as one is an this Planet one operates out of the MEST. OT’s are no better that you or I… no one is better than you or I are. What difference there is between two individual is “what is their viewpoint, their reality, their assumption their thought considerations. and whow they see the universe because of them… in other words how are they stimulated by those considerations they have..
Chris: good clean statement. simple.
Marildi: “The basic characteristic of the individual includes his ability to so expand into the other dynamics, but when the Seventh Dynamic is reached in its entirety one will only then discover the true Eighth Dynamic.”
Chris: Is there any example of this?
Chris– Marildi.. If one lives by the MEST RULEs that person is held-walled in by those rules.
When One believes in numbers, example OT 1-40 and puts the universe into little cubicles: that this happens here that happens there.. they get cut by the same game and they are in those assumptions they are the prison
That is all good and good to know while one playing pushing about MEST energy and believing that they are cause.
But Spirituality is not something which can be discribed, and say it is here or there, or it causes this or that… that is theory, a assumption guessing. While one is connected to the body one really have no true understanding what is spirituality and what it can can do.
When is session and when one recalls what one was doing while not having the body that is a recall what a spiritual entety can do.
Of course that inifnite potential is you, me, him, and another. It is not a different thing and we are not parts of it. We are it, the whole thing, each one of us. Thus, the concept of being another being (ever noticed it in 2D?) is possible.
*Geir and others were discussing ARC before. There is connection between being another being and high ARC, because before seperation there is misunderstanding, then come overt/motivators and the rest down to the point of enforced nothingness which again mocks the (somewhat) nothingness of primary state.
Body is whinning to sleep now. And untill I can be exterior and type on my keyboard with beams, I have to join it. I’ll see you guys tomorrow. Have fun 😀
Geir, I remember one time (quite a while ago) you mentioned that you wished LRH had written down how he went about discovering what he did (or something to that effect). So I thought of you when I was reading a comment recently by a poster nameed CR, who gave his view about that question. Here’s part of it and the link, if you’re still interested:
“Now, I was extremely interested in what LRH was, how he was thinking, his way of handling things, as much as in his concrete discoveries. The method, way of being indeed. And what struck me as an evidence is this enormous power he had, on a literally ‘physics’ basis: the number of completed cycle of actions and handlings, let’s say to the hour – like the electrical power of a machine, even if we know a thetan is much more sophisticated than a machine. I like calculus, and would say that it would take about 200 hundred years to a grouped formed up of 100 superior individuals to elaborate this practical path to freedom or an equivalent path in terms of effective freeing up of beings – as it is a way, not a simple set of tools. A sequence, remember…” http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/mission-statement/#comment-254257
L. Ron Hubbard was absolutely right about one thing:
“You are beginning an adventure. Treat it as an adventure. And may you never be the same again.”
Totally agree with that assertion by L Ron.
I can remember when I was first getting involved in Scientology in 1984, talking to myself as I was leaving the mission after my very first time there. I said to myself, “This is the coolest thing I’ve ever seen.”
“But it could be a total brainwashing cult.”
“That’s okay – I can take it. And anyway, it’ll be a huge adventure into the mind. And it will be fun to write about either way.”
And so there I went. I was always going to write about Scientology, either as the greatest discovery since the invention of fire, or as the most advanced and highly developed brainwashing system ever developed.
Or, possibly, both!
Either, or both, ways – it has definitely been an adventure.
Alanzo
Alanzo
Impossible to give it back with words what I sense/perceive in what you write above! Amazing! Wish you would get it without me wording it! Sure you will, as you created it!
Alanzo: Either, or both, ways – it has definitely been an adventure.
2nd that!
Marildi
Listening to something now I just realized that STATIC can be an MU for some, also I find it right now that it was not the best choice as a concept from Ron (though I myself couldn’t give a better one now) without letting students or Pre-OTs completely experience ! what he meant by it. Can you please give here the definitions of Static, and also any reference you have for its qualities if it’s not a big request and if you find it useful for further clarification. Thanks!
MT: “I just realized that STATIC can be an MU for some, . . .”
Chris: It better be. There’s nothing there to understand. LOL
Chris
HaHaHa…Great you are!
Thank you. So are you.
Marianne, here are the definitions from the Tech Dict. I’ll try to find a reference that adds more to these.
STATIC, 1. a static is something without mass, without wavelength, without time,and actually without position. That’s a static and that is the definition of zero.(5410CM06) 2 . a static by definition, is something that is in a complete equilibrium. It isn’t moving and that’s why we’ve used the word static. Not in an engineering sense but in its absolute dictionary sense. (5608C–) 3 . an actuality of no mass, no wave-length, no position in space or relation in time, but with the quality of creating or destroying mass or energy, locating itself or creating space, and of re-relating time. (Dn 55!, p. 29) 4 . something which has no motion. The word is from the Latin, sto meaning stand. No part of mest can be static, but theta is static. Theta has no motion. Even when the mest it controls is moving in space and time, theta is not moving, since theta is not in space or time. (Abil 114A) 5 . has no motion, it has no width, length, breadth, depth; it is not held in suspension by an equilibrium of forces; it does not have mass; it does not contain wave-lengths; it has no situation in time or space.(Scn 8-8008, p. 13) 6 . the simplest thing there is is a static, but a static is not nothingness. These are not synonyms. We speak of it carelessly as a nothingness. That’s because we say nothingness in relationship to the space and objects of the material universe. Life has a quality. It has an ability. When we say nothingness we simply mean it has no quantity. There is no quantitative factor. (5411CM05) 7 . a static, in physics, is called something which is “an equilibrium of forces.” (Dn 55! p. 27)
Marildi –
I have a 3 questions for you. And again, these are asked with all due respect.
1. Do you believe that if you just clear enough words, and present enough of the “correct” definitions and source references for Scientology, that you can clear up this whole Internet Critic Thing?
In other words, is all this internet criticism of Scientology just so many MUs by so many people? Or do you think that a person can validly understand Scientology, and validly criticize it too?
2. This leads to this question: Can a person validly understand Scientology and even validly decide against it for himself or someone else? Are all such cases of criticism of Scientology, and decisions against its use, simply not understanding what Scientology is?
3. And then finally: Are all instances of Scientology abuse – abuse of human rights, abuse of children, criminal acts from Scientology against people such as fair game – do all these come from not understanding Scientology?
Thanks for taking the time to consider my questions.
I’m awaiting your considered and respectful replies.
Alanzo
Here are my answers to your questions:
1. Clearing words and presenting references will only help clear up people’s misunderstandings about the subject of Scn itself, as a philosophy and tech. The vast majority of criticism, however, is not on that subject but on the subject of how the organization has been managed and how it has promoted and supposedly defended Scientology as a subject. And no, that isn’t going to be handled by clearing words and presenting references.
2. The answer to the first question in #2 is yes – a person could validly understand Scn and validly decide against it. People vary on their motivations and interests.
As for the second question in #2, I believe if they understood Scientology (the subject itself) they would not criticize it. However, as I already said above, they might decide against its use.
3. As for whether all instances of Scn abuse come from not understanding Scn, I would say to the degree one understands it one would be to that same degree unlikely to commit abuses. In my view, understanding Scn gives one a high level of knowledge, i.e. a high understanding of life, and such would not include any inclination to abuse.
Btw, Al, don’t worry – I can pretty well tell when your comments to me are sincere. Sometimes I don’t reply, but it might be because I don’t think the discussion point will go anywhere, especially the points we’ve been over – and over. 😉
All right. Very clear, very straight forward. Very intelligent.
Thank you.
Let’s say that there is another cause of criticism besides MUs, missed withholds, and overts. Let’s say that criticism can ALSO be cause by unmet expectations.
You go to McDonald’s and you expect the normal Big Mac, but this one has a roach in it. Can you criticize McDonald’s for completely missing that they did not serve you bug-free food? You would not have any MU, nor overt, nor missed withhold. It was simply a case of you expecting normal expectations of sanitation and recognizing that those expectations were not met.
This can be a cause of criticism, too, right?
I’m going to assume that you agree with me and go on to my next question for you.
What if you, as a Scientologist, had an expectation that L Ron Hubbard, the founder of your religion – the most sacred thing in your life – what if you had an expectation that he would not lie to you?
And what if you discovered that he lied? Would that be a legitimate cause of criticism, with no MUs or overts or missed withholds?
If a Scientologist had an expectation that L Ron Hubbard would not lie to him, could LRH legitimately be criticized for these statements, for instance?
Alanzo
Alanzo: “And what if you discovered that he [LRH] lied? Would that be a legitimate cause of criticism, with no MUs or overts or missed withholds?”
Legitimate cause of criticism of Scientology? No. Whatever lies he told don’t make the truths any less true.
Marildi: “Alanzo: ‘And what if you discovered that he [LRH] lied? Would that be a legitimate cause of criticism, with no MUs or overts or missed withholds?’ Legitimate cause of criticism of Scientology? No. Whatever lies he told don’t make the truths any less true.”
Chris: Is Scientology more important than Hubbard?
Marildi wrote:
Legitimate cause of criticism of Scientology? No. Whatever lies he told don’t make the truths any less true.
But what about the lies he put into Scientology?
Such as that there are OT levels above OT 8?
Or that he was blinded and crippled in combat in WWII and he cured himself using Dianetics (these are his first lies about the results of Dianetics, circa 1950)
And then the lies about the results of the state of “Clear”, and the lies about the results of the state of “OT”.
These are all specific lies Hubbard put into Scientology, into its fundamental structure and sold to Scientologists as the truth. And so if you expect your religion to not contain fundamental lies like this, then don’t you think that a person could legitimately criticize those lies in Scientology, put there by L Ron Hubbard?
This would be criticism not caused by any MU, overt, or missed withhold the critic has – but by the fundamental expectation that Scientology teachings should not lie to Scientologists, or to anyone, for that matter.
When that expectation is not met, then the cause of the criticism is valid.
Don’t you agree?
Alanzo
Marildi –
I found another way to approach this point I am trying to make to you.
You and other independents are very critical of David Miscavige.
Is your criticism of David Miscavige based on:
MUs?
Missed Withholds?
Overts you have committed against him?
Unmet Expectations for how he should be acting as the leader of the Church of Scientology?
How can David Miscavige be a legitimate and valid target of criticism, yet L Ron Hubbard and Scientology can only be a target if the critic has MUs, overts against them, or missed withholds?
See?
Unmet expectations are a huge cause of criticism which Hubbard never wrote into the Scientology ideology. And Scientologists don’t think with this cause of criticism because it is missing from their ideology to think with – even though they themselves criticize David Miscavige from this source and feel completely justified for doings so.
What do you think about this? And I mean YOU. Don’t dive into the ideology of Scientology for an explanation, or a definition, or a source reference for this because there isn’t one.
What do YOU think about it?
Alanzo
Al, of course there are just reasons for criticism. How many times do I have to repeat that I am not countering criticisms of LRH or the CoS? Generally speaking, I don’t even disagree with the criticisms. But all that is beside the point of the value of the tech. My interest is in the tech as it is, not how it should have been or was supposed to be. And not how it fell short of what it could have been either; rather, I’m interested in how a great body of work, as it stands, can be utilized and also further improved.
(Just so you know, I’ll be leaving soon and will be out for most of the day.)
Here is a challenge for you Marildi that I hope you will not run away from or talk yourself out of:
You agree that nothing can be perfect (absolutes are unobtainable), right?
Not even the basic Scientology philosophy can perfect – according to Gödel’s.
So, can you point out the three most grave faults with the basic Scientology philosophy or tech according to you?
Geir: “Here is a challenge for you Marildi that I hope you will not run away from or talk yourself out of…”
Besides “Ad Hom on a Via”, we now have “Ad Hom by Insinuation”. (Insinuation: “an indirect or covert suggestion or hint, esp of a derogatory nature” – Random House Dictionary) Creative, both of us, don’t you think? 😉
You asked, “So, can you point out the three most grave faults with the basic Scientology philosophy or tech according to you?”
That is a question like me asking you to point out your girlfriend’s three worst faults after you have said she is issueless. You probably would tell me that it was either a Loaded Question, i.e. a logical fallacy, or simply a stupid one, which is how you recently did describe (unfairly, IMO) Valkov’s question to you – stupid. Nevertheless, I would like to answer because you apparently have not yet duplicated my viewpoint.
Firstly, I am not a Class VIII or above and don’t by any means consider myself an authority on either the philosophy or the tech. Nevertheless, whatever I’ve studied (and could duplicate) of the philosophy, I am in agreement with – either because of having observed it for myself or because I find it to be consistent with Reason. Simply put, it makes sense to me. And the fact that it does make sense to me seems to make some people (who disagree about it making sense) conclude adamantly that I am accepting what LRH said simply because he said it. IMO, that’s their own bias or filter going into action.
As for the tech, I don’t say that it’s perfect, but based on mine and others’ observations I consider that it is workable enough that it would work on the majority of people. That apparently is your conclusion too! You stated it in the OP: “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.”
One other consideration I have is that if scientific researchers on the tech started with Scn principles as their postulate (“postulate” in a scientific sense) and perhaps also included relevant discoveries since LRH’s day, such as QM, they would develop improvements to the tech. And I would postulate that the closer tech aligned with the philosophy the more workable it would be.
You admit it is not perfect – yet after years of debating hundreds of points in Scientology, you cannot point out one single element in it that you think is flawed?
Earlier you said, “Not even the basic Scientology philosophy can perfect – according to Gödel’s.”
My understanding of Gödel is that no system can be both consistent and complete. As regards the philosophy of Scn, from what I understand, it is consistent but incomplete. LRH himself said that in different ways, e.g. that you can only take a thetan to the point where he knows he can have freedom and after that you let him go (paraphrasing, but I posted the quote fairly recently and would have to find it again). That indicates the incompleteness in Scn itself.
As for the tech, which I have said is not perfect and have even given examples before, you insisting now that I point out what I think is flawed reminds me of the HCO B “You Can Be Right” – the part about the guy who wants you to “ADMIT YOU’RE WRONG!” What is your purpose?
My purpose is to find a way to achieve exteriorization with full perception and the solution to loss of memory between lifetimes. Scientology does not even half-concistently deliver the first and does not deliver the last. I want to improve upon any human knowledge, including Scientology, to achieve that. I also want to improve upon human knowledge to mor concistently handle whatever problem a person is facing in life. Thirdly, my purpose is to assess if it is worth my time engaging in discussions with you. Trying to improve upon something together with a person who is adamant that a subject is perfect and cannot be improved upon, but that any faults lies instead with the application of it (MU’s, O/Ws, PTS, etc.) is a waste of time. If you cannot see areas in real need of improvement in Scientology, then I will spend my time discussing with people who find it worthwhile to improve rather than defend.
OMG, that is unbelievable. Give me one quote in this exchange where I said that “the subject is perfect and cannot be improved upon”. I said just the opposite as regards the tech – and will quote it for you if necessary. And as for the philosophy, I explained how it wasn’t fair or accurate for you to say I’m calling it “perfect”. On top of it, you are now blurring what I said about each of them, the philosophy and the tech, by lumping them both under “the subject”.
And tell me one place where I said the fault lies in the application. You are doing some sort of A=A or have some fixed idea from earlier conversations perhaps, and thus maybe I am the one who should be wondering why I am spending my time in a discussion with you if this is the kind of approach you are going to take.
You said, and I quote: “As for whether all instances of Scn abuse come from not understanding Scn, I would say to the degree one understands it one would be to that same degree unlikely to commit abuses.”
Whereupon I answered: “So it follows that absolute understanding of the subject equals zero possibility for the person to commit any abuses with it – which in turn means that there is absolutely nothing wrong in the subject… the subject is in fact perfect according to you.”
This was the basis for this sub-thread. And now, after several exchanges, you wake up to this?
My inquiry stands: Are you unwilling or unable to find any faults or areas of improvement in Scientology?
Marildi, I find you to be the most professional proponent of Scientology. You really do an excellent job. But, I’m perplexed at your intention.
Thank you for asking, deE.
It isn’t new for Geir to now be saying that he is trying to help salvage the best of Scientology by making sure people know all the wrongnesses – we’ve had that discussion before. And I have told him my view, which is based on my own experience regarding what LRH says about the workability of putting one’s attention mainly on what one wants, rather than on what is not wanted. This principle is described in the chapter “Accent on Ability” in Dn 55, for example, as well as in the HCO PL “Targets and Purposes” which describes the folly of focusing on the stops.
I understand and don’t disagree with the viewpoint that we should know the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them (and LRH acknowledges that as well in the PL named above), but I consider that the outnesses have already been pointed out more than enough. Almost no one who reads this blog (or any other blog, for that matter) isn’t already well aware of them. Virtually the only ones who are not aware are those still in the CoS.
In short, I believe the positive aspects of Scientology are what should be talked about now, and promoted. That’s what I’ve been trying to get across to Geir for a long time and have directly and specifically said so to him in earlier exchanges. In turn, he seems to really want to see me (me in particular) criticize Scn without adding any qualifiers or modifiers, even though the surrounding circumstances are entirely relevant to the criticisms since they are in fact part of the picture.
I have acknowledged many times that I do see the negative but that it has come about because of the violation of basic principles. but that’s not good enough for many posters. So I’ve said okay, then let’s talk about those basic principles themselves, but the exchanges quickly turn into generalities and opinions and various other logical fallacies, IMHO.
Be all that as it may, I think the dialogue between me and others on this subject has almost reached an “EP” for me. And probably for them too – we each seem to think the other is either incapable of getting off of a fixed idea of the other person, or not willing or able to duplicate what the other is saying.
To be honest, I think it is from highly unlikely to entirely impossible to be driven to a logical conclusion about this matter of SCN, which -for some- is or -for some others- claims to be based on personal experience. It is nevertheless fun to experience this collision of ideas, and I dont fool myself –that’s why I played. I bet no LRH ever needed me as a lawyer either. I just pretend to have a viewpoint when I don’t really, and I could change my mind anytime -within some limits- and actually I did 😛
Spyros, I’m not sure I entirely duplicated what you just wrote but I will say this – I have no objection to the way you conduct yourself on exchanges, including when you have a different viewpoint from mine. You are one person who I feel is willing and able to have a discussion with the intention of duplication and the use of reason. 😛 😉
You dare have a different point of view than mine? Tell me which one it is, and I’ll show you how wrong you are!! 😛
Seriously, I think we can be reasonable if we consider a thing or two to be true, and then base a whole logical pyramid over it. I mean, if you wanted, couldn’t you be logical that SCN is an evil brainwashing cult or something? It takes little skill, but little. The higher the skill, the more convincing one can be –to himself at first.
It seems not all of us have experienced SCN the same way. Which means to me SCN is not a single thing that is same for all. I personally admit that I live in my own sweet world wherein I put SCN the way I put it and I can analyse what I put etc. but analysing takes time and time takes alteration –look at that 😛
😉
Spyros: “I mean, if you wanted, couldn’t you be logical that SCN is an evil brainwashing cult or something?”
Obviously, that is what it became. But if you mean could I be logical about the intention of the basic philosophy, then that’s getting pretty hypothetical – since it happens that not only as a matter of it containing the element of reason throughout, but what is expressed aligns with my personal knowingness. And there is also the fact that with the evil intention of the user it can and has been made into Black Scientology. Do you duplicate me, Spyros the Greek? (I am picturing you dancing like Zorba in that old movie :))
I could do it as a brain game, I suppose. 😛
True, we have not all experienced SCn the same way, and that’s the reason I have been saying that it’s time to do some testing on it, both for purposes of validation and as research into advancement of the tech.
marildi: “Do you duplicate me, Spyros the Greek?”
I did! And yes it was totally hypothetical.
I too felt often while reading LRH like I had those ideas myself and then I had invalidated and forgotten about it, and the text reminded me of it. That’s why that whole thing clicked to me. Consequently, if you talk shit about LRH, you talk shit about me! 😛
I totally, absolutely hate greek traditional music. Actually, I’m into metal.
I think the best test/proof would be a telekinetic OT that would move things around. Wouldn’t that be cool?
“…Consequently, if you talk shit about LRH, you talk shit about me! :P”
I know what you mean. It’s invalidative of one’s personal knowingness – and that is the highest antipathy.
Okay, you hate traditional Greek music. How about the dancing? In that movie the dancing was joyous. Actually, I like almost any kind of dancing. Next lifetime – singer and dancer. 😉
Yes, a telekinetic OT test would be cool but not likely to happen. The postulates of others against it happening are too many. Check out my post here: https://isene.me/2012/11/25/love/#comment-30973
marildi: ““…Consequently, if you talk shit about LRH, you talk shit about me! :P”
I know what you mean. It’s invalidative of one’s personal knowingness – and that is the highest antipathy.”
Marildi, The society I live in is based for the most part on philosophical valies such as propotiation for the body, protection for the body, hiding sex, doing things to become someone, making money etc. Even if I wasn’t into any particular philosophy, I would have a hard time with it already…but be able to experience anything, word says 😛
Sorry I don’t like the greek dances either…
The 8-8008 stuff are the best. A good enough OT wouldn’t have to co-create (agree) with other people’s postulates!!
Spyros: “Consequently, if you talk shit about LRH, you talk shit about me ”
Marildi: “know what you mean. It’s invalidative of one’s personal knowingness – and that is the highest antipathy.
Thanks marildi, now I understand better. Counselling’s known to help with that.
Yes, and it can also raise the tone level up from 1.1.
That was a good 1.1 comment 🙂
And a good matching of tone. 😀
Exactly, that’s what I thought.
Yes it sure can raise tone level also thicken the skin a bit too.
Oh and thanks much again hihihihi 🙂
p.s. Spyros, thinking about it more, I believe you are right. Even the discussions about basic principles probably have little to no chance of resolving, at least not on a blog thread. I just think the endless criticism should change toward some sort of positive approach, whatever that may be as regards the personal choice of individuals.
Spyros: “I could change my mind anytime -within some limits- and actually I did”
One of the best things about freedom along with education, is to be able to change one’s mind. Something very hard to do from an only scientological viewpoint.
btw, I’m in the wacko club too. Fun!
deElizabethan “One of the best things about freedom along with education, is to be able to change one’s mind. Something very hard to do from an only scientological viewpoint.
btw, I’m in the wacko club too. Fun!”
I agree, it is very basic. If one can swap old thoughts for new ones, one can practically create a new life! 🙂
So let’s be specific: Are you unable or unwilling to point out three specific shortcomings in Scientology?
I believe that if Scientology is ever to be taken seriously, it needs to adopt and embrace the concept of falsification – the very principle that has led to the biggest intellectual progress in the history of mankind – Science. It may very well be the line of demarcation between science and religion. Maybe that is one reason Hubbard shifted his focus from Science to Religion – because the outpoints could thereafter be more easily swept aside. The general public will never take Scientology seriously unless the faults are openly acknowledges – and Scientology will never move forward unless they are rectified. It will not serve the goals of Scientology to wave aside or cover up or Not-Is the faults.
I think the reason you feel singled out here is because you may be the only one here who seem unwilling and/or unable to be SPECIFIC about the shortcomings of Scientology.
So, can you name three SPECIFIC faults in Scientology?
“I think the reason you feel singled out here is because you may be the only one here who seem unwilling and/or unable to be SPECIFIC about the shortcomings of Scientology.”
I will re-state the ones I have already said which you apparently not-ised.
1. I posted a comment not long ago that I disagree with the idea of “no verbal data” as I think it is extremely beneficial to have discussion.
2. I stated in this very thread that the tech as a “one size fits all” doesn’t work on everybody and that research is needed to improve and add to the route.
3. Also on this very thread I said I do not believe that Scn is right for everybody or that it is the only road to truth.
I honestly don’t get why you refuse to duplicate or acknowledge what I write but in thread alone it happened a number of times.
Excellent on the first one. The other two are not Specific. They are generalities and can be said about anything. So, 1 down, 2 to go.
Okay. The closest personal experience to #2 I already wrote a comment on one time. It was on the thread where you wrote in the OP about your experiences on OT 7. I described that there were a couple of times when I was forced to communicate something I didn’t wish to (something I observed about the auditor) which had nothing to do with a withhold and the auditor checking for one found none. And I believe she did what was correct tech-wise.
I can give Marianne as a specific example of someone who achieved a level of spirituality that she does not see exists in Scientology and I agree with her, in spite of this disagreeing with statements made in Scn.
Btw, I would still like you to name 3 things that physicists consider flaws in the subject of physics. And not things like it not accounting for Consciousness as that goes outside the subject matter of physics theory in PT.
Good. 2 down, 1 to go.
As for physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_physics
There are plenty of flaws in that list. That list of shortcomings and flaws are Vital for the progress of the field of physics. I am trying to warm you up to the fact that Scientology need to be open about the same in order to achieve similar type of progress as we find in the field of physics.
Would you be able to compile a similar list for Scientology? Would you be eager to see someone else compile such a list?
It would be good if you could answer those two questions with only Yes or No. Also – one more flaw to go.
What? I added two more to the one you already “accepted”. This is sheer BS.
And I see that you can’t answer the question about the 3 flaws in physics, even though you insisted that they are there and could be easily pointed out. Wow.
Sorry for not really getting the third one. My mistake.
Did you check out the link on the shortcomings in physics?
“Unsolved problems” isn’t what you were talking about. You said there are flaws – that would be a matter of inconsistencies. Unsolved problems would be a matter of incompleteness, and if we have consistency then incompleteness is to be expected per Gödel’s Theorem.
As a matter of fact, that was what I said about Scientology too – that it was consistent but incomplete. So I guess that if it’s good enough for physics, in your book it should be good enough for Scientology. 😛
Now, did you actually read and understand that list?
That list is full of inconsistencies that physicists are trying to solve. But in order to solve them, they first had to Name them. And in order to Name them, they had to Want to name them. If they were reluctant to name such inconsistencies, then we would have far less progress than we have. No man on the Moon, etc. Are you with me? Do you understand why it is imperative to Name the inconsistencies and faults and yes, the shit in Scientology?
“Do you understand why it is imperative to Name the inconsistencies and faults and yes, the shit in Scientology?”
I’ve never had a problem understanding that, Geir. Don’t you actually read my posts?
The thing is that it has been done ad nauseum except as relates to the actual principles themselves. That has not been discussed in any level-headed, intelligent way – at least not on this blog. And if you disagree, please point out the thread I missed.
So, take responsibility for that – start Naming the faults in Scientology so that we can compile a list of the problems in the subject that needs to be fixed – rather than adamantly trying to knee-jerk defend the subject and LRH at at every corner. You have time and again proven yourself to not be interested in a Discussion of the faults in Scientology. I and so many others on this blog have noted that you instantly go defensive on the subject. You even admitted that yourself a couple of times. If you are willing to be Open and search for areas to improve, then you are more than welcome.
So, take responsibility for that – start Naming the faults in Scientology so that we can compile a list of the problems in the subject that needs to be fixed – rather than adamantly trying to knee-jerk defend the subject and LRH at a\every corner. You have time and again proven yourself to not be interested in a Discussion of the faults in Scientology. I and so many others on this blog have noted that you instantly go defensive on the subject. You even admitted that yourself a couple of times. If you are willing to be Open and search for areas to improve, then you are more than welcome.
I think it would be very scientifically minded to start with the basic theory itself and thus be able to weed out all the variables that indicate a divergence. You are going about it backwards, IMO.
And here you are again making generalities about me knee-jerking “at every corner” and also resorting to talking about the past instead of sticking with the current discussion. You must be getting desperate.
Marildi: I think it would be very scientifically minded to start with the basic theory itself and thus be able to weed out all the variables that indicate a divergence. You are going about it backwards, IMO.
Chris: Do you know of one?
Since you started posting on my blogs a couple of years ago, and through thousands upon thousands of comments, you have made absolutely no effort to uncover what could be fundamentally wrong with Scientology in order to rectify it. You have used every opportunity to stop, blunt or derail any such attempt by others by so avidly defending the subject and its founder. Please do start by coming up with fundamental flaws that you think should be rectitfied – flaws that if corrected could serve to better the horrible scene we find Scientology in today.
“Please do start by coming up with fundamental flaws that you think should be rectitfied – flaws that if corrected could serve to better the horrible scene we find Scientology in today.”
Amazing that where I’m concerned your powers of duplication and/or retention are so poor as to be non-existent. I’ll say it again (sigh): from what I know, the principles of Scientology are consistent (i.e. do not contain fundamental flaws) and that they provide for a technology that is workable. Now, get that: not perfect, simply workable – another point I keep having to TR 3 along with the other things I say that you not-is and/or simply reject. It seems you are unable to get past your fixed ideas.
Since it is not perfect. Then point out, clearly, the imperfections that can be rectified in order to make it more perfect.
Geir: “Since it is not perfect. Then point out, clearly, the imperfections that can be rectified in order to make it more perfect.”
Just to remind you, since you seem to have trouble either duplicating or retaining what I write, I said the tech was unworkable and that the philosophy was consistent. And I’ve already pointed out 3 examples of unworkability in the tech, since you insisted upon it. Furthermore, I did so in spite my natural antipathy towards someone who tries to bully me, since I knew you would opportunistically spin my refusal it into what suits your purposes. Frankly, towards me, you are often 2.0 and what you are seeing from me in this exchange is a matching of your tone. There is only so long that I will put up with crap.
Another way to describe bullying is that it uses the method of handling others called “domination” and may even include “nullification”:
“At 2.0 we begin to enter the domination band, which extends downwards to about 1.2. Here theta force can be seen to be distinguishable from MEST force. Theta force is reason; and MEST force is simply that — force. Here we have efforts to hammer and pound and dominate by physical strength, threats, anger and promises of vengeance. Here compliance is commanded, and lack of compliance is stated to mean death. Here we have emergencies being more important than constructive planning. Here we have all manner of undesirable things which, indeed, seem to be the primary business of men and nations today.
“Nullification actually begins with domination but becomes very pronounced at about 1.3. A 2.0 might demand of another that he demonstrate enough “guts” to carry forward a project, but from 1.3 down, the modus operandi is any and every effort to convince another human being “for his own good” or “for the good of others” that he has neither the force nor strength to be dangerous. By rendering the individual undangerous, these levels seek to dominate him with the pitiful strength which still remains to the 1.3 and down. The 1.2 and down is most comfortable around sick people, around people who are in apathy, since he mistakenly believes these people not to be dangerous because they are obviously weak. This is so far from good reasoning that the results are catastrophic — but little if any reasoning is done from 2.0 down. In its stead are excuses and justifications.” (Science of Survival)
I am simply being straight with you. Now I have concluded that I will not waste time discussing with you as my purpose is to find better ways toward spiritual progress.
No, it’s way too long and above my paygrade for skimming lightly.
In any case, YOU are supposed to name 3 flaws. Take them from that list if you need to and put them in simple form for me, as I’m sure you can as I know you agree with the idea that a person who understands something can always do so.
So, you just jumped to a WOW and dismissed the whole list without even TRYING to understand it. Jeeez, Marildi.
I’m not going to drag you through a series of physics 101. You will have to read up on these three yourself:
1. Current theories are inconsistent with the fact that there are far more matter than antimatter in the universe.
2. There is a fundamental flaw in the currently accepted models in physics in that they cannot reconcile gravity with the other three fundamental forces of nature.
3. The standard model for particle physics treat leptons as point-like particles. This is believed to be a flaw.
Jeeze, Geir, such an obvious Straw Man – I did no such thing as dismiss the list. Read my comment again. And the Wow was because you still weren’t answering the question.
I don’t know enough about physics to be able to tell if what you wrote is actually inconsistencies within the theory itself or incompleteness due to unsolved problems that later arose and are not accounted for in physics theory, making it incomplete. But I admit I know almost nothing about it, and this is going too far adrift in any case.
All I said was that I have not seen inconsistencies in the philosophy itself but have seen incompleteness. And no one has demonstrated inconsistencies – including you, although you made an attempt at it with the ARC triangle – which badly contradicts other things you have said, as already delineated fully above.
I have come up with several fundamental issues in Scientology that I believe should be rectified.
As for the discussion of the ARC triangle – all readers should take a look at that one as it stands out as a really good example of what happens to an avid defender of a subject when the subject itself is questioned. It took you tens of comments to get even some of the points I was trying to convey. I have never discussed with anyone so unable to understand one simple point because of such a strong urge to defend. Well worth reading again.
Guys, I don’t mean to derail you from your topic. Just a comment that came in mind since you mentioned ARC. Maybe it has been mentioned before. I remember getting very ARC broken with many people in SCN who tried to get in ARC with me. And the reason was that I perceived an effort to ‘raise my ARC’ in order to get me to agree with them. They would fake anything in order to SHOW that they had ARC with me. They would pretend to like me etc. I think in such a way ARC is definitely unworkable. It has to be honest. As an auditor or just any person who wants to help somebody, needs to really want to help that somebody and also not make invalidative comments to himself about that person, because no matter the words that are used, ARC is basically a spiritual phenomenon and the truth is communicated, even without words.
Geir: “As for the discussion of the ARC triangle – all readers should take a look at that one . . .”
Chris: That ARC discussion was good for several reasons. The first reason is that the ARC triangle comprises the “Scientology introductory lecture” to practically 100% of people being introduced to Scientology. Second, within 20 minutes of being introduced to Scientology I personally banged into my very first inconsistency with The Tech. Third: Upon pointing out that inconsistency to the person giving my “intro lecture” it was smiled away and condescended away with allusions to my needing to use it or practice it more so that I could see how it would work. But what really happened that day was that I learned ARC triangle and twisted its inconsistent definition to make it more workable for me and then proceeded to practice it that way for over 30 years until your blog post on the subject.
LRH stated it this way: “The coexistent relationship between affinity, reality, and communication is such that none can be increased without increasing the other two and none can be decreased without decreasing the other two.”
This is on its face immediately false, and yet pointing out this blatant inconsistency in an org receives blank stares at best and trips to the word clearer and then to ethics section as it gets worse.
And yet, by changing the words “increased” and “decreased” to the word “changed” instantly makes the statement more consistent and usable. This is the twisted understanding that I used and practiced to a good result through the years. Yet, the wrongly worded original statement was printed in the VOLUNTEER MINISTER’S HANDBOOK in 1977, and again in THE SCIENTOLOGY HANDBOOK in 1994. Scientology by definition is a closed subject which cannot be altered for improvement since it is already 100% workable and no improvement is particularly needed or necessary.
“As for the discussion of the ARC triangle – all readers should take a look at that one as it stands out as a really good example of what happens to an avid defender of a subject when the subject itself is questioned.”
Sorry to say, dear Geir, but you really stuck your foot in your mouth this time. In actual fact, that discussion is a really good example of what happens when someone (and in this case you were the prime example) has MU’s and because of that concludes there is a fundamental flaw in Scn. Here’s how that long discussion on the ARC triangle ended:
You had made a comment with some pretty insulting remarks about me – so insulting, in fact, that it shocked me as I didn’t expect that from you, and I comm lagged a while before responding. Eventually, I replied with a sum-up of what actually had occurred on that thread. And in response you had absolutely nothing to say – or could say – about the points I made which gave specifics on your very basic MU’s on the subject of the ARC triangle. Your reply to that was not to refute it in any way, which you factually couldn’t, but only to comment on another point of the discussion (i.e. Popper’s theory about falsifiability, which, btw, is not without its critics in the field of science).
Here’s the link to my sum-up which, to repeat, is a perfect example of how MU’s can lead a person to conclude that something fundamental in Scn is false: https://isene.me/2011/08/19/arc/#comment-9210
As is evident from that thread (read it), I said “I give up” as I realized there was no way I could help you understand my point. That is why I left the discussion. Re-read my point on the thread. It still stands. I will not here try yet again – after more than 20-or-so attempts – to help you understand it. I have given up and I will not reply if you again try to keep it going here. Readers are advised to read the original thread.
This is really poor form on your part.
Yes, you gave up – because you still had not confronted your own MU’s – which you never did, and wouldn’t even comment on as they were pointed out, including right up to the end, although you didn’t quite have the baldfaced effrontery to deny them since the examples you gave clearly showed them up.
And as for the Popper point, you made some confusing comments about it, which I also pointed out in at least one of my posts – and you took no responsibility for that. Zip. None. As well, I was willing to admit that I had been operating over MU’s – something are apparently incapable of doing. Plus, when I finally understood the falsifiablity idea, I said so, as can be seen in that short exchange I posted the link for. So for you to repeat again “I give up” is at best mere rhetoric (putting it nicely) to avoid having to say that you yourself had gross outpoints in that discussion.
I don’t blame you for not wanting to try again as you had already been proven to be mistaken.
I have never encountered an exchange with someone so unable to understand a point. You think it was confusing. I bet. Now, leave it. This thread is for something else. All others who are curious; Read the original thread.
Under the “Handling of truth” column of the Chart of Human Evaluation, we the following have at the level of 2.0:
“Truth twisted to suit antagonism.”
Chill. This is AdHom. Watch it.
Okay.
Geir: It may very well be the line of demarcation between science and religion.
Chris: If Kurt Godel were here, I fantasize that he might say something like, “Religion is a closed subset of the subject of philosophy. Science is an open superset with respect to philosophy as its metes and bounds are not known.
Isene: “Maybe that is one reason Hubbard shifted his focus from Science to Religion – because the outpoints could thereafter be more easily swept aside. The general public will never take Scientology seriously unless the faults are openly acknowledges – and Scientology will never move forward unless they are rectified.”
This is a key point!
One that the indies and even ex’s know and are trying to do something about because they know what gains could be had if changed. They care more than the blind who are still in, because they see it. As the church is moving now they will not recover until changes are made. Who is responsible to making those changes? The public, who are becoming aware of the negatives, since it apparently can’t be done from within.
I speak as a former member who did get gains, had some fun and some bad times too, so what. The philosophy has a lot of good in it and the auditing can be beneficial. The current CofS is destroying itself by not being able to change the destructive, not working, parts to continue with what’s good.
Marildi: “EP” for me. And probably for them too – we each seem to think the other is either incapable of getting off of a fixed idea of the other person, or not willing or able to duplicate what the other is saying.”
Thanks for the explanation. Which of the two choices do You yourself believe?
Furthermore, I didn’t miss that you didn’t answer the question when I asked “What is your purpose?” For the record, I meant what is your purpose in trying to get from me an “ADMIT YOU’RE WRONG! “
No, NOT YOU! Scientology! What areas of improvement can YOU SEE in Scientology. Marildi: YOU are not SCIENTOLOGY.
Marildi: Furthermore, I didn’t miss that you didn’t answer the question when I asked “What is your purpose?” For the record, I meant what is your purpose in trying to get from me an “ADMIT YOU’RE WRONG! “
Chris: No, he doesn’t want you to admit your wrong, he just wants you to think with the subject — not rotely recite it. Do you not have any disagreements with auditing? Or maybe, “have all your goals been met?” Geir more than anyone here divulges his purposes and goals for doing Scientology. And really, to me, it’s fun to do this. Maybe tell how you’ve changed your mind toward Scientology since blogging here? Any part of this is cool and this blog, unlike many, is a safe place to do this.
Marildi: As regards the philosophy of Scn, from what I understand, it is consistent but incomplete
Chris: Yes, It is consistent but only within the metes and bounds of its own belief-system. Its incompleteness encompasses all the square footage outside the gates of Int Base. See? The further from the front gates of the Int Base at San Jacinto that one travels, the more inconsistent the “Tech” becomes. Inside the Ft. Harrison, Scientology is consistent. But the wandering mind of a true-believer is that belief system’s worst enemy, and so it is written.
Scientology depends upon the faith and goodwill of its flock for continued support. Faith overcomes inconsistency within the human mind, but for most of us, only for a time. It is Alanzo’s “unmet expectations” — not OW’s, MU’s, which finally break that faith, not only for Scientology but for other belief systems as well.
This is one of the factors which explains why after intensives of “leaving staff confessionals” — paid for by myself — absolutely not even one overt of omission or commission was “pulled” to explain my leaving staff. And yet, the definition was sitting there in conflict with that confessional. My poor auditor’s TRs finally gave in under the burden and strain of either “pulling my overts” or else “going to the RPF and retraining from the bottom up,” and she yelled at me to “give it up.” I felt bad for her as she was a VERY good auditor but she was placed in an untenable position.
Chris; Regardless of one’s belief in Scientology’s perfectness or not – this is a very good and profound comment.
Geir: Regardless of one’s belief in Scientology’s perfectness or not – this is a very good and profound comment.
Chris: Thank you. I am learning. Some teach me and some force me to think. Both ways, its all good. I have been thinking that using the proven theorems of the great minds like Kurt Godel that a subject such as Scientology could be sorted out and made better. First order of business outside the cult? Cancel its religious tax exempt status. First order of business inside the cult? Cancel KSW.
Do you think fixing Scientology would be a bigger project than creating it in the first place? I kind of do and also predict it splintering at least as much as any of the religious reformations. Some people revere its religious status, but I think by its very definition, religion is a hindrance. Religion for me is a result of the failure of philosophy.
I agree.
On the amount of work needed to fix it vs. creating it in the first place: Probably less work to fix it – and easily split into crowdsourcing – but Scientologists will make it into much more work to fix it by the mere resistance crafted into their bones by the subject itself. So… I don’t know.
p.s. Here’s one LRH quote that indicates Scientology is not complete:
“You’re only trying to free him up to a point where he can recognize that he can have freedom. And after that, all the freedom he gets will be given to him by himself. But you get him up to a security where he knows he can have freedom, and he’s on his own. I mean, you can’t go any further with a thetan.
– 9 Dec 53 tape, Examples of SOP-8C Patter (Standard Op Procedure 8 Clinical).”
M…. fantastic…. and you are a wonderful being….
I wanted Your view, not another quote from LRH.
Marildi: p.s. Here’s one LRH quote that indicates Scientology is not complete:
Chris: It is not necessary to consult LRH to see that Scientology is incomplete or inconsistent. Anyone listening to a few thousand hours of tape or reading a few tens of thousands of words of LRH knows that he only criticizes the Tech and himself with a “wink” and tongue-in-cheek. The question to hand is in which ways is it inconsistent? It already failed as a world view. So for anyone wanting to preserve any part of this technology for the future, these points of completeness and consistency must be learned and applied to the subject — quickly.
I find it an imperative responsibility for every Scientologist to make up his or her mind what in Scientology is workable and what is not. Lest the good will inevitably be thrown out with the bath water while the Scientologist stand watching and screaming “Objection!”, “SPs!”, “PTS!”, “O/Ws!”, “Out Ethics!”, “Misapplication!”, “MUs!”. And in order to sift the good from the bad – one must be able AND willing to recognize the bad and speak openly about it. As a whole body of knowledge – the totality of Scientology – it is indefensible. But parts are so good and so worthwhile saving that it would be a shame to see it yield under the weight of whats obviously bad in it. Future generations will judge our sifting – and as attention span decreases, so will people’s patience with the unworkable parts of Scientology and they will let it reflect quickly on the whole subject.
@ Alanzo
I am considering the concept embodied in your statement: “Unmet expectations are a huge cause of criticism which Hubbard never wrote into the Scientology ideology. And Scientologists don’t think with this cause of criticism because it is missing from their ideology to think with – even though they themselves criticize David Miscavige from this source and feel completely justified for doings so.”
In particular: Unmet expectations are a huge cause of criticism.
So an expectation is something that is anticipated, something “taken as a possession” before the fact, a prediction, something one is relying on.
In the instance of an unmet expectation, criticism is in the sense of a recognition of a shortcoming, deficiency, flaw or lack — a fault, a variance from expectation. The ordinary response is to want a fault or deficiency remedied in some fashion, and this is the essential meaning of amending, or making amends — to correct, free from fault. This is a form of quality control. It is the feedback mechanism at work. i.e. a prototype is envisioned, it is then produced, and then the produced version is compared to the prototype and reviewed for flaws. The flaws are remedied, the produced version is compared, etc. etc.
Quality assurance: the systematic measurement, comparison with a standard, monitoring of processes and an associated feedback loop that confers error prevention.
Quality control emphasizes testing of products to uncover defects and reporting to management who make the decision to allow or deny product release, whereas quality assurance attempts to improve and stabilize production (and associated processes) to avoid, or at least minimize, issues which led to the defect(s) in the first place.
In a quality assurance process, consumer complaints are taken as an opportunity to detect, assess, and improve on service or product quality. Consumer satisfaction is the final arbiter in remedying consumer complaints. Some consumers cannot be satisfied despite all best efforts, and in some cases are not seeking remedy at all, but are seeking vengeance. Only punishment, penalty and degradation will satisfy in those cases.
You’ve got it exactly right, Maria.
My first serious unmet expectation with Scientology happened when I was the ED of my mission, and it had to do with the prices of auditing. In Peoria IL, in 1986, by very intimate and first hand observation, I saw that too few people could one could ever afford it. There was no way we were ever going to clear the planet, let alone Peoria, at $4000 per intensive.
So I looked to the source of expectations in Scientology, LRH, and I found a policy called Auditing Dissemination and Programmes HCOPL 24 September 1964. It said, in capital letters, that 2 intensives should cost about an average months pay in the area you were delivering. That was about 4 times the present price of auditing.
So I began the process of querying the orders that set the prices – an SOED, a junior issue to an HCOPL. I sent these queries to MEI, who was Ronnie Miscavige at the time, and to ED Int. The responses I got back were, to say the least, weak.
So, since my expectation was that a junior issue, an SOED, could never override an LRH HCOPL – in fact the Seniority of Orders HCOPL said that it was a HIGH CRIME to do so, my expectation was this needed to be corrected, as it was a high crime for it to be happening at all, and it was very crystal clear to me that Scientology was suffering from this.
To make a long story short, at the end of this months-long Query, Things that Shouldn’t Be, Knowledge Reports process, I FEDEXED and named each member of the Int Exec Council in HIGH CRIME REPORTS as they were operating the Church internationally on a junior issue that can not override an HCOPL, and Scientology was suffering worldwide as a result.
I learned what happens when you engage in this kind of criticism founded on unmet expectations in Scientology and I hope it will be the subject of a major motion picture someday. It certainly deserves to be.
Anyway….
Until then, I believe that it is important for Scientologists to know that unmet expectations are a major source of all criticism, justified and unjustified, correct and incorrect, valid and invalid. Unmet expectations are a huge area, and even enter the realm of spirituality as a cause of suffering.
And LRH NEVER cited this as a source of criticism in the Scientology ideology.
I think it is a good question to ask your self, if you are a Scientologist, why that would be. Why would LRH leave out this vast and fundamental cause of almost all criticism in human beings?
Alanzo
Alanzo if you want to know more about god or what gods are than I can direct you to a person.. highly trained and he solo audits per the tech who knows a great deal about gods-implants, it has taken him countless sessions to clime out of those items… He was a big time god.. implant item and nothing more. LRH was one of the best implanters in the universe he new that gods exist because he created that personality-valance-concept =knowledge. Once upon the time to buy such a implant and to download it and to become superior to others was very popular.. Buying a valance-implant was normal those times and no one thought what will be if one have not erased it before bought and downloaded a new personality.. let say: monk… scientist,…. farmer….etc…
If you have questions than you have the answers too.. You cant have a question without knowing the answer all ready… but you can deny knowing the answer.. and that is the lie..
Marildi: “I would say to the degree one understands it [Scientology, the philosophy] one would be to that same degree unlikely to commit abuses. In my view,”
So it follows that absolute understanding of the subject equals zero possibility for the person to commit any abuses with it – which in turn means that there is absolutely nothing wrong in the subject… the subject is in fact perfect according to you. This may well be the most fanatical viewpoint on Scientology I have read to date.
LOL. I think it is clear that Geir some unmet expectations here!
Alanzo
Geir, you think it’s fanatical only because you don’t agree with a very basic Scn principle, i.e. that the higher the Understanding, the higher the ARC level – and the higher the ARC level, the more “unlikely” the person would be to commit abuses. I used the word “unlikely” because there is also the possibility that the Axiom “Considerations are senior to mechanics” can come into play.
You’ve already made known your strong disagreement with the validity of the ARC triangle, a viewpoint that is strangely inconsistent with the fact that, according to you yourself, in so many words, your own ARC and Understanding were raised enormously by auditing – a tech that is entirely based on the principle of the ARC triangle. So call me fanatical if you wish, but to me your viewpoint is contradictory and incongruous.
I have seen for myself that the ARC triangle exists in life. You assert that you haven’t. But in the previous long discussion we had about it, I found that most of us – including you – had several basic MU’s, which you never disputed when I pointed it out to you but neither would you admit to having had them. I should have called you on it at the time instead of letting it slide.
In any case, I’m sure neither one of us wants to rehash that whole discussion. So just call me Fanny Fanatical and I’ll call you Geir Preaching to His Choir. 🙂
“IF YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL KNEW THE TRUTH AND YOU WERE PROCESSED
TOWARDS THE TRUTH, YOU WOULD BE FREE. ONLY LIES DEGRADE YOU. THIS
IS THE LESSON OF SCIENTOLOGY.” (Scn 8-8008)
Marildi…
“You’ve already made known your strong disagreement with the validity of the ARC triangle, a viewpoint that is strangely inconsistent with the fact that, according to you yourself, in so many words, your own ARC and Understanding were raised enormously by auditing – a tech that is entirely based on the principle of the ARC triangle. So call me fanatical if you wish, but to me your viewpoint is contradictory and incongruous.””
Marildi you have my agreement on you comment to Geir. I also noted that the commentors dont point those contradictions of Geirs out to him. …
Wow Marildi, looks like strong ‘case’ you’re building on Isene.
Elizabeth wrote:
Marildi you have my agreement on you comment to Geir. I also noted that the commentors dont point those contradictions of Geirs out to him. …
I never hesitate to point out Geir’s contradictions to him when I see them. I think my record is pretty clear on that.
I don’t see any here.
Alanzo
Marildi; Your logic here is very weak. Read my response again – your statement does in fact point to Scientology being PERFECT. That is an extremist view by the very definition of extremist.
As for my disagreement that the ARC triangle is an absolute and ultimate truth; Yes – I do disagree with that. And I don’t hold the opinion that every and all tech is invalidated simply because the ARC triangle doesn’t hold true in every case under the Sun, Moon and stars. Your implication that there is some inconsistency in my statement adds to the case that your views are extreme and fanatical.
Thanks Alanzo for putting the questions there for Marildi.
Geir: “Read my response again…As for my disagreement that the ARC triangle is an absolute and ultimate truth; Yes – I do disagree with that. And I don’t hold the opinion that every and all tech is invalidated simply because the ARC triangle doesn’t hold true in every case under the Sun, Moon and stars”
I think you are the one who should re-read. Neither I nor LRH said that “the ARC triangle is an absolute and ultimate truth”. That is Straw Man and that is the way you depict my views as extremist.
As well, you back pedaled on what you have said in the past about the ARC triangle, where you made it clear that in your view it is MOSTLY not true – and now to fit your argument you’ve altered that into a vague statement of “doesn’t hold true in every case”. Furthermore, what I said wasn’t an “implication” of inconsistency; it was a straightforward, up-front layout of how your views are inconsistent and contradictory.
Other than that, I’ll just let our posts speak for themselves, because from what I recall you have rarely ever conceded a point. For sure not to me. So I don’t expect you to do so now. I think Dragos may have been right about the Scandinavian character. This was his comment on the “Up to lately” thread, when he was describing a Scandinavian athlete:
“When he told me ‘tommorow is the race’ I’ve had a glimpse of his eyes. You cannot imagine how they were, Geir. Exactly like a tiger who thinks about the next day hunt… And cold as the flash of an army bayonet… It’s definitely something from inside, a power within, something deep in their mind, their education, their training during the childhood and teenage, something other people except Scandinavians simply don’t have… And his eyes, yes…like a warrior.”
Interesting ad-hom on a via.
The point here is not how much or how little I revere the ARC triangle as truth. It is the fact that you indicated that Scientology as PERFECT (re-read your statement above and my logical analysis of it). And that is an extremist view.
I agree whole-heartedly that we should let the above posts stand as an example.
I also notice that your extremist view does not hold up to Alanzo’s probing.
Geir, that Ad Hom on a via (my quoting Dragos) was an indirect but nicer way of calling you a hardnose . Just as you, more directly, called me a fanatic – also Ad Hom.
And your “logic” escapes me once again. Laws are laws, physical universe or otherwise. You wouldn’t call scientists “extremists” and “fanatics” as regards physical laws just because they consider that certain reliable PREDICTIONS can be made based on certain physical laws. And you wouldn’t criticize them for thus coming across like they think science is “PERFECT”. Furthermore, their laws are no less a matter of theory, as opposed to Actuality, than the laws of Scientology.
I will grant that Scientology laws (Axioms and other basics) have not all been proven scientifically – yet. But there is plenty of anecdotal evidence as regards standard tech – one example being your own experience, by your own testimony! And, to repeat, that tech is based entirely on the principle of ARC. Moreover, just as it (the tech) PREDICTS, it raises ARC – as it did with you.
You yourself have indicated agreement with various phenomena described in Scn that science hasn’t proven – e.g. paranormal phenomena described not just in Scn but elsewhere. So why call me a fanatic because I agree with the phenomena of the ARC triangle? I would say you do so because that happens to be a Scn principle that YOU “disagree” with, although you are just as certain as I am about some others. But in my case, rather than certain you call it fanatical.
I am calling it fanatical to hold a logic that concludes that Scientology (not only one principle – but the whole) is perfect. It is equally fanatical to hold the view that Chemistry or Physics are perfect. You couldn’t find a serious physicist anywhere that was unable or unwilling to point out the three main flaws of his subject.
“You couldn’t find a serious physicist anywhere that was unable or unwilling to point out the three main flaws of his subject.”
Maybe I am not understanding what you mean. Please give me an example.
Flaws in physics: Gravity cannot be reconciled with the other forces. Physics (or any natural science) is unable to account for consciousness.
Your examples: “Gravity cannot be reconciled with the other forces. Physics (or any natural science) is unable to account for consciousness.”
On the first example, you mean to say that there is a theory of physics that doesn’t reconcile gravity in some way, even if only by means of an assumption? My understanding is that all theories have at least one assumption or they wouldn’t even be going “outside the box”.
In any case, what you said to me was “You couldn’t find a serious physicist anywhere that was unable or unwilling to point out the three main flaws of his subject.” So for the example I asked for, you should now be naming a physicist who has pointed out 3 flaws in his own theory (i.e. not others pointing out the flaws in his theory).
As for the example of no natural science being able to account for consciousness, most scientists don’t even consider that to be part of the subject of science, from my understanding. But that is beside the point of what you were claiming – that “a serious physicist anywhere” would be able to point out 3 main flaws of his own theory.
I am not asking you to find faults with your own theory – I am asking you to find areas of improvement in Hubbard’s theories. That you would equate the two concepts here is a bit surprising, but perhaps telling.
I wasn’t the one who equated the two concepts. YOU were the one who altered the concept when you said, “You couldn’t find a serious physicist anywhere that was unable or unwilling to point out the three main flaws of his subject.”
The SUBJECT – not HIS OWN theory.
Okay, my misunderstanding. But the misunderstanding was because we weren’t talking about the subject of philosophy in general – it was the specific philosophy of Scientology. So i don’t get why you brought up the idea of a physicist pointing out flaws in the general subject of physics.
Wut? I was only talking about your ability – after years and years of studying Scientology – to be able to point out the main flaws in Another Person’s theory (Hubbard) in order to improve upon it. You are derailing.
I’ve already answered by saying that as far as I can see the philosophy is consistent though not complete, and that the tech is not perfect and specifically stated that I would be in favor of further research on it to improve it. How much clearer can I be? Yet you keep asking.
I told you too that I’ve talked about outpoints in the past, but there again you seem to have missed that, even though it seems very important to you that I talk about the outpoints. But since you seem to need it repeated, I’ll say again that the general outpoint I have come to learn from experienced auditors is that due to the fact that the tech was formulated in an attempt to have it work on everybody, and since people do differ and not everyone fits into the “one size fits all”, some people have a rougher time of it. And possibly there are even cases who got standard tech and never did get good results. I just don’t have personal knowledge of that being the case and that is one reason actual testing is needed – to ascertain all the variables involved.
I have also pointed out that the tech does fit a majority of people and quoted you yourself as saying that almost everybody you know had good results. Based on that alone, I wonder why you don’t put more time and attention on the plus points rather than on the outpoints as you do, just as you wonder why I don’t speak more about the outpoints, although in my case my not doing so is consistent with my overall viewpoint.
Because Scientology does not deliver my two main purposes in life – and I want those delivered… by something – by an improvement to Scientology, perhaps. And – more importantly – I see the general products created by Scientology since its early years up till now as being insignificant, riddled with bad apples and with some heavy bad results on the way. And I want to salvage the good from the bad that created this And I cannot think with all the bad being just “misapplication of a perfect or highly workable philosophy and technology”. I see the bad results as systemic, rooted in the technology and the philosophy themselves. And this I see it as my responsibility to salvage the good by stripping off the bad rather than defending the whole and calling “FLUNK!” every time someone dares to challenge the core.
And I will take the opportunity to thank you for helping me formulate a conclusion to the OP – a conclusion that will find its way to a new blog post.
But, are you unable or unwilling to name three SPECIFIC shortcommings of Scientology?
Simple question. A simple answer will do.
Geir: The SUBJECT – not HIS OWN theory.
Chris: Caps from Geir is awesome! (sorry man, it’s all in good fun!)
Marildi: My understanding is that all theories have at least one assumption or they wouldn’t even be going “outside the box”.
Chris: Theories are self-defining boxes. Each step of science has made the box bigger and it is my reality that it always will. This is my box. And the trick of creation to me seems to be that there is always another box. A few people writing here claim knowledge of intangible things; however, I challenge those claims not as lies but as to the exact definition of intangible. Remember quantifiable qualities? The human experience seems to be quantifiable but never intangible.
Scale of Debate Tactics Utilized by Scientologists on the Internet
Address the Point with Relevant Disputation
Address the Point with Irrelevant Disputation
Submit Non Sequitur Points that Have Nothing to do With the Point Under Discussion in an Attempt to Divert Attention Away From the Point
Change the Subject Entirely by Derailing the Discussion with Troll Techniques
Ad Hom
Insulting Ad Hom With Name Calling
Ad Hom on a Via
I swear, after debating Scientology on the Internet with Scientologists for 12 years now, I could write a book with each one of these as the heading of each Chapter!
Alanzo
Allen: I could write a book with each one of these as the heading of each Chapter!
Chris: I would buy a copy.
Marianne, if you tell me how you see that “static” can be an MU, I might be able to find a reference that applies. Meanwhile, here are a few more definitions that could be helpful, from 8-8008:
THETA: The only known Static. (See STATIC.)
THETAN: The energy and space-production unit for the body. A Static with the ability to consider, postulate, and have opinions, that has, through postulates and considerations, developed a differentiation from the Static, theta. The thetan is the ‘I’, the individual, that force, not a part of the physical universe, which is directing the organism.
AFFINITY: A scale of attitude which falls away from the co-existence of Static, through the interposition of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.
Marildi
“…co-existence of Static” could be a wording for “non-duality/no-separation/oneness=one source. Only by introducing the concept/feel of/identification with the body can we speak about “the energy and space-production unit=thetan”. That is the “thetan” seems to be a concept in the mind (theta pervading the body “locates itself as I “)….with this concept gone,
we have what I keep saying “awakening”. Awakening is when “static” is in a bigger abundance than “mind”. This “static” is mainly perceiving, has a “flow”, changing as if not
in contact with the “layer of considerations”. It is both motionless and changing at the same
time. This is what I see now. That I said it could be an MU was based on some of my experiences with OT persons. In those instances, looking back, I felt that “interposition of
distance by their creating a strong ” I ” in themselves (OT5, 6, 7 come to mind now). I don’t
mean it to be an evaluation.
Marianne, we could also interpret “co-existence of Static” to mean individual thetans co-existing or commingling. And a thetan definitely does not have to be associated with a body to exist as a distinct entity in itself. Do you remember 2ndxmr’s description of his experience between this lifetime and last lifetime? (I forget even which thread it was on.) I got that he had no sense of “identity” with the last lifetime or any lifetime, but that he did have awareness and ability.
My current sense of it is that the same individual thetan – i.e. a “theta line” of awareness – carries forward from one lifetime to the next, as well as in between lives, and is something entirely separate from facsimiles or “layers of considerations”, which is basically how LRH defines “self”, not thetan. And I find that your description of Awakening fits in well with the concepts of thetan and static.
It may be that some people, possibly 2ndxmr is one, actually have an Awakening between lives but are put right back into “identity” as soon as they assume a body. The body itself would key in identity. As for the OT’s that you mentioned, I don’t think it is even expected that they achieve anything beyond “a strong ‘I’” as you put it. Awakening is not the EP of those levels. But some of them apparently have had one anyway. Probably very few, though, and apparently simply because they were high enough in awareness to make that jump, like you did.
p.s. Marianne, you said, “Only by introducing the concept/feel of/identification with the body can we speak about the energy and space-production unit=thetan”.
The ability to produce energy and space is there, with or without a body.
Regarding “thetan” Marildi: The ability to produce energy and space is there, with or without a body.
Chris: Example?
Marildi you have forgotten that I have total understanding on the spiritual entety and what is… awakening? good one…. usually people use that concept when they experience a keyed out condition a realization that they are spiritual being… but that cognition do not erase the BANK.
”“the energy and space-production unit=thetan”. You are talking about some thing… machinery which produces something… lets melt some sand with chemicals we have see through thing called glass.. that is making something out of something..
Hubbard: THETA: The only known Static. (See STATIC.)
Chris: Really, Mr Hubbard? How could that be?
Mr. Hubbard: THETAN: The energy and space-production unit for the body. A Static with the ability to consider, postulate, and have opinions, that has, through postulates and considerations, developed a differentiation from the Static, theta. The thetan is the ‘I’, the individual, that force, not a part of the physical universe, which is directing the organism.
Chris: Sir, a “Static” with attributes would not be static. What is emotion and tone if not wavelength?
hehehe… go for it…. MT’s comments have more holes than swiss cheese. That is what you get, ”confusion” when not having experience..
Chris: “Sir, a ‘Static’ with attributes would not be static. What is emotion and tone if not wavelength?”
You’re forgetting this part of the definition: “except by consideration”.
Marildi: You’re forgetting this part of the definition: “except by consideration”.
Chris: Not in forgetting mode. In challenging mode.
Mr. Hubbard: AFFINITY: A scale of attitude which falls away from the co-existence of Static, through the interposition of distance and energy, to create identity, down to close proximity but mystery.
Chris: Sir, the co-existence of Static is at odds with individuality, isn’t it? And Sir, while I am asking, why is it that individuality is so very important as the goal of OT, while individuation is viewed with gloom?
crickets
Al: crickets
Chris: If only you could go back in time and re-do the Tony Hitchman interview. What would that look like?
Alanzo interviewing L Ron Hubbard?
I don’t think he would participate. That would be like a dream come true for me.
By the way, Tony Hitchman was a Scientologist when he did this interview with LRH, yet we were all told that he was a newspaper reporter, weren’t we?
And didn’t LRH conclude right around the time of this interview, from all his research, that there was no God? How would a person find out about God in Scientology when there is no God in Scientology – just thetans?
Why would LRH lie like that?
Alanzo
Chris: “Sir, the co-existence of Static is at odds with individuality, isn’t it?”
No. Definition of exist: to exist together, at the same time, or in the same place.
Chris: “And Sir, while I am asking, why is it that individuality is so very important as the goal of OT, while individuation is viewed with gloom?”
Where does LRH state these things? You need to give the sources of your statements, and context is important too. Otherwise, what you say is no more than your interpretation and opinion as to what he said. Makes for no discussion.
Marildi: Where does LRH state these things? You need to give the sources of your statements, and context is important too. Otherwise, what you say is no more than your interpretation and opinion as to what he said. Makes for no discussion.
Chris: dis·cus·sion /disˈkəSHən/
Noun
The action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas. A conversation or debate about a certain topic.
Synonyms:
debate – argument – disputation – dispute – controversy
Marildi, you and I differ in the way we discuss. I mostly use definition 1., and you mostly use definition 2.,. For you discussion is a debate, a war to be won. For me, I get other points of view and share my own for the purpose of sorting out what is consistent about my own ideas and what is not. The result of my discussing is routinely the changing of my opinion. For you, I don’t see a modification happening.
Above, when you demand “the source” I didn’t think I needed to give you the source for your own Hubbard quotes. As for my opinion? I am the source of that.
Chris: “Marildi, you and I differ in the way we discuss.”
Yes, we certainly do. I have the “strange” notion that if we’re going to discuss what LRH said we should state what he said. You think it’s enough to give your opinion about it based on your interpretation of what he said.
Marildi: Chris: “Marildi, you and I differ in the way we discuss.” Yes, we certainly do. I have the “strange” notion that if we’re going to discuss what LRH said we should state what he said. You think it’s enough to give your opinion about it based on your interpretation of what he said.
Chris: YOU quoted LRH, then I commented on your LRH quote. I sometimes disagree with LRH’s Standard Tech.
I agree with Chris.
Everyone has a right to their own interpretation of what LRH said, including you, Marildi.
Your OWN interpretation.
Alanzo
Thanks Chris for the definitions for disˈkəSHən, is very helpful.
Well, thank you – my cut & paste got a little screwy but I tried to get the idea across.
I looked it up thinking only of the 1st definition and was surprised at the “debate” form of the word.
So we can discuss with different purposes. That is clear to me now, though I had a bias the other way.
Who was the first idiot who said thetan is a unit???
Eliz: who was the first idiot who said thetan is a unit???
Chris: uh, that would be LRH.
🙂 🙂 🙂 plus hehehe lets linch the bogger..
Chris
Did I tell you that I like you? (“uh, that would be LRH”) ROTFWL
MT: Did I tell you that I like you? (“uh, that would be LRH”) ROTFWL
Chris: Laughter, the best placebo! Like you too.
The very idea of declaring people SPs and PTSs and disconnecting from them tells me that Scientology is not fully workable.
.
Go beat a different drum… all the people who left scientology know that… so what is your point?
Why not point out what it works about it. because it has TECH with is brilliantly put together and DO work.. but you never have used it so you dont have reality on that..
Your negative input do not help much when people are looking for solutions. And dont point toward your blog… If it would be so good so helpfull and workable than by now you truly SHOULD HAVE ACHIEVED THE POSITIVE THINKING STAGE. and you have not.
The only positive thinking you write-post is when you quote Buddha. and I believe Buddha did not use your invention.
You claim your invention works but you still only see negative in every person. so in fact the answer to eliminate the aberration is not in the tech you invented since you are sitting in a large pile your self.
Again, Elizabeth –
Go beat a different drum… all the people who left scientology know that… so what is your point?
Why not point out what it works about it. because it has TECH with is brilliantly put together and DO work.. but you never have used it so you dont have reality on that..
Your negative input do not help much when people are looking for solutions. And dont point toward your blog… If it would be so good so helpfull and workable than by now you truly SHOULD HAVE ACHIEVED THE POSITIVE THINKING STAGE. and you have not.
The only positive thinking you write-post is when you quote Buddha. and I believe Buddha did not use your invention.
You claim your invention works but you still only see negative in every person. so in fact the answer to eliminate the aberration is not in the tech you invented since you are sitting in a large pile your self.
Are you addressing this to me?
If so, what is it that is my “invention” that you are writing about?
And the POSITVE THINKING STAGE – I should have reached a positive thinking stage about a spiritual con that continues to deceive people?
Here, I’ll be positive about it for you: It is so wonderful that so many books are being published now exposing the con of Scientology so as to inoculate the whole society from it. If L Ron Hubbard had his way, no one would have ever found out about the lies in his biography, the lies about the abilities of Clear and OT, and the lies he told about “rising above the bank” and developing the tech all by himself. They would have never found about the overboardings and the cruelty, and the baby watches for OT’s who go insane, and all the other ways he tried to fair game people into silence when they told the truth about the toxic spiritual deception that is Scientology.
The courage of people to stand up against all the fair game and other tools of coercion and deception that Hubbard created to keep his con going, and their ceaseless efforts to get the truth out to people about Scientology so that others may not be deceived any longer is very inspiring. It shows how great people can be when they choose to help others.
My heart truly flutters when I think of it.
There, is that positive enough for you?
Alanzo
No Alanzo, it was not directed to you. It was directed to Vinaire and the invention referred to is KHTK.
Oh.
Nevermind.
ALANZO……
Scientology could not give people their ”acceptation” because they were not selling such…and they were not aware of individual ”acceptations” they were selling” the tools” only and it was up to the person who bought that tool to go prospecting and find their acceptation their own belief, values, realities.. what is real to them and what was their own dream.. to bad for those who did not understood duplicated that fact… the tech is there all over the net… but one has to use it.. so lets not put all the blame in one basket… Where is responsibility for self, for ones universe, for ones own actions? Where scientologist are and point is victim and blame…
Elizabeth –
I do not understand what you are saying. Is it that you believe that I am blaming Ron for creating a spiritual deception, and using this knowing deception of others to get rich?
Instead of blaming Ron for this, are you saying that this is something that I should take responsibility for? Are you saying that all these knowing deceptions of his, like the abilities of a Clear and an OT, those are all his problem. And what I should do is to take the “tools” he has given us to reach clear and OT and take responsibility for my own application of them, and to go on to Clear and OT myself with them?
It does not matter that these “tools” are actually deceptions, because what is true is what is true for you. So if you accept these knowing deceptions as “tools” from Ron and make them true for yourself – you can reach truth with them.
Is that what you are saying?
How is this different from deciding to be utterly deceived?
Alanzo
to be in communication with you, to have the same reality as you be in same page, same universe with you that would be shit…
Elizabeth wrote:
to be in communication with you, to have the same reality as you be in same page, same universe with you that would be shit…
Enough said.
@ Alanzo
I have posted this down here because it is too hard to find the right reply link.
Ok. So we have unmet expectations as a source of criticism.
I have just ransacked the dictionary for a word that describes this particular aspect of criticism. Weirdly, I cannot find a word that actually describes this process or its effects in a clear meaning.
From my computer programming days, there is the concept of error-checking, which produced bug lists, which were debugged. That’s on the purely programmatic side. On the human side, we employed user feedback and complaints. Both were checked against scope and specifications. We used to do a drill at the Mission I worked at of running the lines to find trouble spots and improve them.
The feedback mechanism of the mind-body-spirit is ever present, probably even when one is sleeping. Something is troubling or is not working as expected. One attempts to troubleshoot, which is to isolate or identify the non-working or troubling element. This is simply intelligence at work — i.e. resolving problems related to survival. Outcomes are reviewed for integrity. This is normal analytic, reasoned behavior.
This is often a matter of fidelity. In this sense, adherence or faithfulness to the original (intent, plan, scope, specifications, agreements, concepts, etc.)
Fidelity can become confused with loyalty. Now you’ve got analyzer trouble as fidelity and loyalty and utility go into conflict. This is the state of being troubled.
You order a chocolate sundae. The waiter brings you butterscotch. You notice the difference. You say: I did not ask for a butterscotch sundae. What is the word for what you are doing when you do this?
Correction?
Maria……. my 10 cent… that UNMET acceptation in true reality has happened… but in the spiritual universe. than the LIE enters and the lie is:: one must do this,sign up for this, pay for that, go there, study that and that and that.. attest to that than you will get your acceptation.. it will be yours… Hehehe…the only reason one do not have what one wants because the belief exist that is has to be in MEST form, has to have agreement on that by every one, has to have a certificate hanging on the wall on which it say yes.. you have it…the individual again believed in his own trick which he put there him-self…. sweet deceptions of self..I do not know therefore I don’t.. I do not have therefore I don’t, I am therefore I am… I am on idiot therefor I am… love the stuff..
Elizabeth –
The mind is a endless river of shit.
You can wade out into it every day and pick things out of it and inspect them all you want and you will not be doing anything other than standing in the middle of a endless river of shit and picking things out of it.
There is no wisdom there. There is no “theta universe” in it. If you want to make that river your home, then you can. But I try not to go down to the river any more and gaze at it, wondering what wisdom there is in there for me today.
Auditing taught you that the endless river of shit contained the truth. That what you picked out of it, and held up for “as-ising”, would give you truth if you could just as-is enough of it. But it is endless.
As-ising an endless river of shit is a pointless activity.
Just to let you know.
Alanzo
From your reality what I read and how you see others… well…. you have a long way to clime up just to reach the shity river where I am in… so we both know what our reality is of each others universe….
Yes, I have a long way to climb up just to reach where you are at. I know.
I’ll keep trying to get there.
Alanzo
Assessing, analyzing, objecting, correcting, rectifying, protesting.
In the context of staff contracts or the militant side of the Sea Org, this would apply:
A conscientious objector is an “individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service” on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, and/or religion.
Conscientious: 1. controlled by or done according to one’s inner sense of what is right; governed by conscience; principled: a conscientious judge. 2. careful and painstaking; particular; meticulous; scrupulous: conscientious application to the work at hand.
Related Words to Conscientious: assiduous, diligent, indefatigable, persevering, sedulous; exhaustive, thorough, thoroughgoing; alert, attentive, observant, vigilant, watchful; accurate, exact, precise, strict; critical, demanding, discriminating, exacting, fastidious, finicky, particular; cautious, chary, circumspect, gingerly, guarded, heedful, mindful, wary; deliberate, plodding, slow; studied, thoughtful; all-out, determined, dogged, intensive, patient, tenacious, tireless, zealous.
Maria: . . . The feedback mechanism of the mind-body-spirit is ever present, probably even when one is sleeping.
Chris: My own feedback mechanism is especially present during sleep and to seems most efficient just before waking.
Yes, me too Chris.
I am inviting you all to listen tonite on KFI 640 a radio program called coast to coast am, Jenna Miscavige Hill, niece of David Miscavige will be feature in a program titled “Inside Scientology” pass it on to everyone. It should be interesting. Go to http://www.coasttocoastam.com
Geir: 2013-02-13 AT 23:14 There is of course always the question of “what does work mean?”
Chris: I say yes. Scientology works within its own closed and self-defining system. It is by definition incomplete but within its own frame of reference, it is consistent because its consistency is self defined. This statement is for me useful for many religious, legal, civic, business, and social endeavors.
I am finding this to be a workable and workably truthful way to approach my life. Within the framework of Scientology it does not lie and is for its own practical purposes consistent. Without the framework of Scientology it ceases to be consistent beginning with its lying and then moving on axiomatic point by point until it seems as inconsistent as any other cult belief system is now or has ever been.
Scientology fails the test of “Theory of Everything” as has every stab at a theory of everything failed. Theories of everything must fall short because of the infinite and fractal Nature of this universe. Godel has helped me learn that “everything” in its absolute sense is an irrational word for it attempts to encompass a universe which is infinite. Theories of everything will, at this writing, always be incomplete. I qualify with “at this writing” so to leave the future open to another mental giant whose gaze might pierce deeper.
To one mental giant Chris.. yes scientology as in whole is a theory.. but some part of it is usable so that is not theory but something which works and that is in the form of simple questions and questions can be asked and that is the point.. using questions as a POINTER and that can pin-point any thought-concept-considerations- group agreements which one care to confront..or have the guts to confront..have a desire, the need or simply want to confront in order to know.
And there are no giants here just little old me…who have confronted the concepts what is called MEST U.
PS: Theory… complite or not complite that too is a individual reality if yes or no… no one can say what is or what is not there for others.
Even any concept ”theory” which for some is just that a theory, the same concept can be very real to others. So who is to say what is real or just a theory?
My comment is meant to validate Scientology within its own context. For those of us who practice it within that context is has value. For those who try to use it without that context, it has inconsistencies and subsequent problems.
You have used your version of Scientology in your own way and in your own time and within your own context to a good subjective result. That is commendable. Others might follow your example as I did also to a good subjective result. This is no theory, it is a result.
For those who attempt to use Scientology theory outside its context, fail. It is a microcosm, a self-defining system, consistent only within itself. Outside its metes and bounds, its thetans, BTs, OW’s, engrams, reactive and analytical minds have little use or meaning anymore than the virgin birth, ministry, martyrdom, and ressurection of the Jesus myth have meaning outside the metes and bounds of Christianity.
I wonder why this is, this contextual relevance, and why does it seem to rule everything?
Chris,
Noam Chomsky, the linguist and philosopher has said that any natural language is just such a system that is consistent within it’s own framework and thus the language you speak determines how you see the world and everything and everyone in it, and how you think about it. Your thinking is always constrained by your language.
The Navajo, the Japanese, the Norwegian, the Eskimo, the Arab, the Chinese sees a different world than you do from the start because what they see and experience is filtered through the languages they speak.
Orwell makes this point in his book “1984” – that to control thinking control the language. If there is no word for something in the language, that person will not have the idea of it.
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
Chomsky is possibly the most quoted man in the world. He has wriitten over 100 books and delivered innumerable lectures and talks.
Also, all that you mention, the BTs, the O/Ws, the engrams, etc etc etc, all those things are not “scientology”. According to Hubbard, they are all “para-scientology”.
So then, what is “scientology”?
Oh, I think few here would be splitting hairs like Hubbard in these matters. Also his own use if the word was far from concistent.
I see Scientology as the whole of the philosophy plus all of Ethics and Tech. The whole Bridge.
Sure, let’s not split hairs. Let’s just split logical fallacies….. 🙂
Valkov: So then, what is “scientology”?
Chris: I think I am following your comment about language but not sure about the question. My opinion about Scientology as well as other all encompassing world views is that to the degree that they are closed; self-defining, and within their own context, they can be viewed as consistent. Their inconsistencies show up only once I compare their tenets to factors outside their self-defined system. I think this is what you mean by language? Like the old joke about rules at work: 1. The boss is always right; and 2. If the boss is wrong, refer to rule number 1. Within this context, rule number 2 defines rule number 1 as consistent, therefore it is.
So does Scientologoy work? I think the idea of it — the one on one counselling to improve a person’s awareness of his relationship, usefulness, abilities and relevance to his environment — is a good one. Solo auditing is also quite a good and progressive follow up method. For it to ever become a branch of science and to become useful to man on a larger scale than a few cult acres, it would need to open its doors to scrutiny and improvement. Possibly the next generation or the next might make good use of the useful parts of Scientology.
But at present, as a closed-end and completed belief-system, it is going nowhere.
In a 1950’s lecture, Hubbard called those things “para-Scientology”.
But he since that time he came out with OW Theory in HCOB form, devoted months of BC lectures and training to “handling” OWs, created Grade 2, and put sec checks all throughout standard, normal, every day, Scientology. Then he came out with BTs and issued OT Levels to “handle” them, too.
Scientology is definitely anything anyone pays for as a Scientology service created by L Ron Hubbard.
If you can’t defend Scientology, you can always re-define the indefensible and most abusive parts as “not Scientology” to avoid confronting the flaws. And yes, I know, Hubbard did this, too. But that only shows that this tactic of hiding the failings of Scientology to one’s self and to others was taught to Scientologists by L Ron Hubbard.
Alanzo
Judging by the wackos that the church has attracted, I find it really hard to believe that it was LRH’s fault for what happened to that Church. I agree some policies that I know were tough and against freedom. Yes, but it seems to me like necessary evil, considering how many iznogouds I have met that had been or were associated with the Church.
Damn, even if I was offered a full COS Bridge for free I would say no for sure. They are unable to give something without taking something else more important back, and I dont mean money.
S…wackos are persons whos reality is different and because of that they dont have ”goup agreement” that their reality is equal to the groups therefore it has ”less value”’
But their reality is not better or worst …. it is simply IS.
Hm, I didn;t have that definition in mind. How about people that are obsessed with controlling others? You know, the implanter type. How would you call them?
S….. I call that too ”different reality” I hope you dont believe that you have alway been good and you never played the same game as they have… You see the implants could not work on you if you would not dabbled a bit in it yourself… We dont have angels on this planet….
Yes, what if I have bought a little valence too? Shouldn’t I talk?
My point was the other thing that I said about policies and LRH etc — that they might be needed at that time.
I’m wacko too, by the way 😛
Spyros
What you are writing about fake ARC is correct! I sometimes shouted on the phone at “high ranked” ones, sometimes said fuck off – interestingly it had effects like others around me got less calls asking to purchase something or for donation. The most extreme one was when one
asked me to give him my credit card details saying that everyone does that on Earth. I answered that he should get out of the “everyone” valence, also the “agreement” postulate. Reported it to ethics after that. With these examples I just wanted to show that anyone can “correct” another’s lack of data or skill, much like in the TR-s. The TR-s are for USE in life, not only in the courseroom. I must also say, that I rarely experienced things like the above (perhaps only on 6-7 occassions !!). While I studied or audited, I was absolutely satisfied!
Yes, to break it down to pieces a bit more, one should truly be willing to send/receive thoughts (the less limits, the better), truly like the other being and be willing to be liked, and truly be willing that his truth is known by the other being –also the other way around. ARC has much to do with honesty, in my opinion. The more the lies the lesser it is, and to put it in other words, the lower the tone level is (as it measures affinity).
I decided that TRs were only for sessions and stopped using them for the same reason. During some of my trainning I felt forced to create ARC in order to pass the drill. Also noticed people using TRs without really doing it (example: saying “I understand you” without really understanding, and saying it just to stop you from talking).
I experienced the above many times myself on all flows. Sadly, I also experienced it on flow 0 after a while, which was the most destructive one –I hid my truth from myself.
Be true!
Spyros
I love communicating with you! Your first paragraph above – yes! Thanks for the specification! While reading it, I had cognitions – I see the nuances and the mechanics of “my” responsibility and Responsibility as such in the examples I gave above! (web of life, roles, characters like ED, confidence…were just “rolling”).
Thanks!
“Spyros
I love communicating with you! Your first paragraph above – yes! Thanks for the specification! While reading it, I had cognitions – I see the nuances and the mechanics of “my” responsibility and Responsibility as such in the examples I gave above! (web of life, roles, characters like ED, confidence…were just “rolling”).
Thanks!”
Thanks you! & you’re always welcome. Eager to read about the cogs…. 🙂
Spyros
“willing to send/receive thoughts”, “truely like the other being and willing to be liked”
Can you see the Flow of Life in these ideas? (also: will, to, true. be, like = the Flow)
I find nothing wrong with thoughts, beliefs – they can “float”, come and go….the problem is
the energy that “glues” them to the person and the body. Can function as a nice way of ruining bodies instead of a gun.
“I find nothing wrong with thoughts, beliefs – they can “float”, come and go….the problem is
the energy that “glues” them to the person and the body. Can function as a nice way of ruining bodies instead of a gun.”
Yes. I think that in order to make them stick on you, you need to resist them and thus form a ridge.
Also spiritual comm is possible without the usual energy manifestations and comm lines. But it has to be done out of the material universe.
Spyros
Yes! “out of the material universe” (no lines, no thoughts). Can you write about such coms?
I know it may not be easy to put it into words, I have problems with that too. Only if you like!
Marianne, by out of the physical universe comms I meant thoughts or any sort of a mock up.
Imagine mocking something up and simply showing it to another being. It doesn’t take any energy or any traveling. Since you are both basically static, there doesn’t have to be distance. In a similar manner you can mock up an idea and show it to another person. It’s actually very simple. The ability to mock up is of course a basic prerequisite for anything.
Spyros: “Yes. I think that in order to make them stick on you, you need to resist them and thus form a ridge.”
2x: Bingo! You’ve nailed it. Flows and ridges are the key to TR0. When you can just be there comfortably (at least as theta) and confront, and can let what is happening happen and flow past without sticking in it or ridging on it, then you’ve got the product of TR0.
Btw, pre GAT TR0 and OT TR0 were “coached” by the course sup and typically a student was only flunked by the sup when he’d fallen asleep for a while. Dope-off is a common thing to work through, but being asleep for a length of time is probably not dope-off and needs to be handled i.e. the student needs to get back onto the drill. Physical manifestations were never flunked by the sup in my day, they were just something you worked thrrough.
As an anecdote, the first time I went “blinkless” it was an amazing feeling – so comfortable it was like my eyes were fully relaxed open in the same – but opposite – manner that they could be fully relaxed closed while sleeping. At that point I could easily have done 2 hours more, but 45 minutes later course ended. I stayed blinkless through muster, wins and leaving the org. I stayed blinkless while driving home through traffic – until a guy cut me off – then “Blink” and back to “normal”. But that was a fantastic experience because until that happened I was pretty certain that blinkless TR’s were in the category of wishful thinking.
For the record, I’ve never been blinkless that long again but I don’t view blinking occassionally as being an indicator of out TR’s. The “blinkless” may be just an interesting anomally.
2ndxmr and Spyros, the idea 2x gives here of simply not resisting was the one I originally expressed on this exchange but he has described it much better. So now I’m not so sure things do get “as-ised” – necessarily. From the start, the only thing I knew (and know) for sure was how it “feels” to just be there and have things appear and disappear and kind of roll over me.
I remember one time having a very funny bullbait coach and my body would actually restimulate with a slightly visible “roll” of laughter – and the Sup doing the checkout didn’t flunk me (a great Pro TRs Sup at Flag named Vittorio) because I as a being was neither resisting nor flowing with it, and the body reaction came and went. It was really a powerful feeling to be able to hold my “position” and not be thrown into another “position” by the “environment” – and I knew with certainty that I could do it from there on out any time I intended to.
Also, the thing about being there comfortably “at least as theta” is another good point to keep in mind. (Spyros should have had 2ndxmr for a Sup!) And here’s a reference on “blinkless” from 5 Jul 89 “Coaching Trs 0-4”:
“When a student gets really good on TR 0, he is said to have “blinkless TRs.” However, a blink is not a flunk on TR 0 and “blinkless” is not a requirement. Nobody has a right to put any attention on whether somebody is blinking – it is whether or not he is confronting.
“Blinking is really a symptom when one is confronting with his eyeballs.
“What is required for a pass on TR 0 is two hours of good, acceptable confront. Totally blinkless wide open staring eyed TR 0 and TR 0 Bullbait are not a requirement for pass but any truly competent auditor can do it.”
What I remember clearly from the Pro TRs checksheet was that part in the above excerpt about two hours of “good, acceptable confront” – i.e. not perfect, just “good, acceptable”.
2ndxmr, I see your point about counter-creating energy flows and thus forming ridges during TRs.
Other than blocking free flowing energies there is also the condition of looking at created (not because of TRs) ridges and thus releasing new energies and significances. And I think that is a trip to the end of all cases. I mean, for as long as static perceives an alter-isness, not-isness or an is-ness, that which is perceived tends to as-is. Consequently that means there is isnt really any condition in which the static can view the MEST universe without causing TA action, and that’s because the MEST universe or one’s first dynamic case, is not an as-isness. Do you see my point? To assume that one can view an is-ness without TA action is similar to assuming that being has sort of been lobotomised, Marildi. In other words, it perceives but it doesn’t really perceive what is there (robotic confronting). That can be done by perceiving through a via, such as eyeballs (or it can be done in various other ways.) And even in that case, you cannot fully incapacitate the static. Even that condition will as-is sooner or later if the static insists to just perceive.
Spyros:”Consequently that means there is isnt really any condition in which the static can view the MEST universe without causing TA action, and that’s because the MEST universe or one’s first dynamic case, is not an as-isness.”
I think your description fits the definition of the creation of emotion: TA (change) caused by interactions of is-ness and alter-isness, creating an energy flow. When that energy flow is in the band of emotions we are familiar with (happy-sad, etc) we have an almost immediate sense of it. When the energy is out-of-band of the familiar emotions, we call it a sixth sense or somesuch other term.
Interesting, I was not aware of this definition of emotion. I have much to learn about manifestations of spiritual energy. I’m a little bit perplexed over some things. I have observed some things such as healing with such an energy, but I cannot explain why it happens…
Spyros, on the subject of healing, here’s a quote from 8-8008 for you to read and then watch the video (easy homework this time :P):
“In that the beingness of an individual is actually extended for miles in all directions around him, if not much further, any idea or thought or past thought (as there is no past) is part of his beingness…”
Interesting video and 8-8008.
I know many practice various types of energy healing, so maybe not all are the same.
I sometimes notice that when I simply ‘am’ and look at something, some energy is created between me and that something, and it seems to have healing properties to the body. So it’s probably an energy that is the result of interaction between me and mest. It may be the so called ‘life energy’ or ‘affinity’.
2X: When the energy is out-of-band of the familiar emotions, we call it a sixth sense or somesuch other term.
Chris: That is a good way to put it.
2X
“sixth sense” – pure love and knowledge by perceiving without any fliter ( I ) not retaining what is perceived or “known”
This is also very important about TRs. With TRs I handled a big amount of shyness that I created when I communicated closely with others. But TRs, the way I did them, took something from me that was way more precious. During TRs I developed a mechanism to hide my thoughts and some energy phenomena from myself –in order to not react and get flunked. I have done TRs for many hours, and when I left the Church, I did them again from the beginning. And The EP was that yes I could communicate with another being without reacting, but I had also sort of disconnected from myself. I could not perceive my thoughts!
Still when I engage to as-is something, this mechanism appears and hides everything from sight. It is really a pain and hard to get rid of, because I was creating it over and over during many hours (over 100). This is typical GPMish black SCN, and I hope that it only happened because I got some squirrel version of TRs done.
Honestly, if I had a choice now, I would trade my shyness for my capacity to as-is, anytime.
Interesting. How do you think the problem you observed here can be rectified?
Geir: “Interesting. How do you think the problem you observed here can be rectified?”
Good question. I have thought of the following:
1. Stress should be put to define ‘OT TR 0’. It is called ‘OT’ because one ought to do it as a spiritual being, not as a body.
2. According to the SCN axioms, when Static views something, that something vanishes (as-ises). During the process of as-isness incidents, somatics, postulates and so on can come to view to get as-ised. That can produce physical reactions. By flunking physical reactions, you ask of the person to stop as-ising and instead to suppress (not-is) that which he would view. Consequently the capacity to as-is reduces. The fact that one views and as-ises a somatic, doesn’t mean he is not in present time, that is a lie and an invalidation. Simply don’t flunk spontaneous OT TR 0 somatics.
3. Don’t leave students there to bake forever. Pay close attention, acknowledge and never fail to pass a good point in TRs. My sups had consideration that unless hours passed in TRs, that TR wasn’t adequetely drilled. Needless to say I have over-over-overun (at least) the 2 first TRs. Overunning restimulates vast amounts of masses and can mess a case up for good. It gives a sense a vanity that the case will never get handled.
If I think of more, I will let you know 🙂
Great improvements.
Geir: “Great improvements.”
Thanks!! 🙂 I thought of another one:
4. This is particularly about the ‘hard TRs’ or else called ‘pro TRs’: It should be true that a thetan can comfortably be here and perceive for unlimited amounts of time. But is it true for the body? Specially if the chair isn’t super-comfortable, how long untill the blood circulation gets blocked? What if physical pains arise because of a physical misfunction, that is not some reactive mind restimulation? I cannot define with certainty for how long it would be OK for a body to sit completely still. But I am certain that the answer wouldn’t be ‘forever’. Besides you don’t need to sit still forever to run a session. No auditor runs sessions forever. I would worry if such a thing happened.
This is precisely the exchange I am looking for! Find a fault – then find a solution. This serves as a superb example.
Marildi: Are you reading this?
Spyros: “But TRs, the way I did them, took something from me that was way more precious. During TRs I developed a mechanism to hide my thoughts and some energy phenomena from myself –in order to not react and get flunked…And The EP was that yes I could communicate with another being without reacting, but I had also sort of disconnected from myself. I could not perceive my thoughts!”
OMG, Spyros, I’ve read over all your posts about TRs and I wish I could tell you how it made me feel to read about your experience :(. Let me assure you, 100%, that the way you were supervised on TRs was completely out-tech. The most basic and worst outness, from what I can tell, was that you were not coached properly to get the actual EP of OT TR 0 – the TR that is the very foundation of all TRs and communication. That EP is simple this: “BE there and not do anything else but BE there”.
Obviously, that would not include you needing to set up a mechanism – or a via of any kind – and your doing do so indicates poor supervising and coaching, without a doubt. (And btw, even now you could get a TR’s Correction List to handle that mechanism, if you should ever so desire.)
For one thing, it seems you got some false data as regards as-ising while doing OT TR 0. I agree with you when you said, “The fact that one views and as-ises a somatic, doesn’t mean he is not in present time, that is a lie and an invalidation.” However, to as-is means “to view anything exactly as it is without any distortions or lies, at which moment it will vanish and cease to exist” (Tech Dict); whereas, the only thing it says on the TRs bulletin about OT TR 0 is to BE there and NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE BUT.
Nevertheless, I have to admire any success you had, or even attempting to as-is things during the drill, even though it wasn’t doing the drill. 😉
You also said, “I could not perceive my thoughts!” Well, it’s not hard to understand why that would be if instead of YOU being there, there was a mechanism in your place. Right? 😛
Also, you asked very good questions as regards “a thetan can comfortably be here and perceive for unlimited amounts of time. But is it true for the body?”. And all such questions should have been answered by giving you the applicable reference.
All I can say is that considering what you went through in your Scn experience, with TRs and the other things you’ve commented on, I really give you credit for still being able to see and not reject the basic truths. I bet you were a Greek philosopher back in that golden era. And I probably knew you. 😀
Marildi: “I bet you were a Greek philosopher back in that golden era. And I probably knew you. :D” <——– LOOOOOOOOOL I cannot tell. But I know I haven't always lived here. I have a love/hate relationship with Japan, and I've also been applying Buddhist principles and I also know some form of metidation 'instictively'.
I assume too that TRs were not supervised properly. But the thing is that it was not the sup's fault. They were supervised like that by more than 1 sups that suped me. To give you a hint, the first TRs course that I did was 'success through communication' which is an RTC made-up course.
Yes I know the sup's idea that it is my fault for not just being here. But let me ask you something: If one can do it without restimulating and going through any case, what is the point in putting there to do it for hours?
Also, you implied that I got something wrong about 'as-is'. I agree with the axiom's definition. What did I get wrong?
And yes, I set up that mechanism myself and it was asked of me to do so. And I know others have done so too, that's why they gave me the impression that I talked to a wall when they used TRs, and 'understood' me by ignoring what I said.
Spyros, I don’t have a TRs pack and just now couldn’t find one online. So take this as verbal data. First of all, I’m not sure it’s correct to say that “If one can do it without restimulating and going through any case…” I don’t think the point is that nothing is going to turn on; it’s to simply BE there in spite of what might turn on. What do you think would occur with a somatic, for example, if one did nothing but continued to BE there? Hint: that which you resist… 😛
The only reference I could find that may be a similar idea is from Ability Issue 54 [1957, ca. early September]:
“Various nervous traits can be traced at once to trying to confront with something which insists on running away. A nervous hand, for instance, would be a hand with which the individual is trying to confront something. The forward motion of the nervousness would be the effort to make it confront, the backward motion of it would be its refusal to confront. Of course, the basic error is confronting with the hand.”
As for the hours of drilling, if I remember right it was on a tape lecture on the Pro TRs course where LRH explained that in 2 hours various things will turn on that wouldn’t turn on in a shorter period of time. And my thinking is that a student needs to be able to last about 2 hours in a session.
On the subject of as-ising, isn’t that doing something other than just being there? You probably have done meditation. Not that it’s the same but maybe there is something comparable. What does someone meditating do when thoughts or whatever come up?
Marildi, first of all know that I don’t take offense if you point out that I did something wrong (just saying). And I don’t mean to pity myself mentioning past case of mine. And I also don’t make any court here. I do it to point out arbitraries that I have observed in order to correct them. I know all case can be as-ised, so I have no excuse to not do that and instead protest about it.
I dont have any TRs materials available either. I have red volumes and that long bulletin that contains TRs (OT 0 – 4), should be there. But I dont remember the date and I’m bored to locate it 😛
My idea is that when you flatten a process or a TR, whatever case comes up, should get handled (as-ised). That is the purpose in doing it for periods of time. Something comes up, you as-is it, you reach EP, and you go to the next one (you don’t overrun it either), and so on, and then you go to the first one again and go through the drills again –like the in CCHs– untill you reach full EP for the whole set of TRs. I don’t understand how you (plural) figure out that if one simply IS here, doesn’t get any case restimulated. Don’t solo auditors restimulated their body’s case while they themselves are in present time? The mechanism with the nerves that you quoted is one of the almost infinite things that can come up during TRs, and doesnt negate the masses nor that you cannot have a body in such an uncomfortable position for unlimited amounts of time, without causing uncomfortable conditions. I wouldn’t need to do TRs to have my body hurt for standing still like that for too long. So it doesn’t have to do with sitting across another person and not confronting that person either.
There are so many kinds of mediation. I don’t know them all. I certainly dislike and disagree with chakra meditation and general types of meditation that focus on the body. The one I used to do was like zero-perception and OT TR 0 but with some twists, and the twists ruined it. Squirreling is an old thing haha 🙂
The axioms don’t mention to be ‘there’ in order to as-is, but rather to be nowhere. See definition for ‘static’ (no position in spece and time) then see that static views things (as static not as something else that is located somewhere) to as-is them. I made that point in my ‘1.’ and most important arguement 🙂
Spyros: “I do it to point out arbitraries that I have observed in order to correct them/”
Yes, I understand. But I don’t think the arbitraries you have mentioned are part of the materials of the course, and that’s the point in the discussion to determine. Do you agree? (You better :P)
Spyros: “My idea is that when you flatten a process or a TR, whatever case comes up, should get handled (as-ised). That is the purpose in doing it for periods of time.”
That is true for a process, but it doesn’t happen to be the activity or the purpose of TRs. Their purposes are stated specifically on the TRs bulletin. Here’s a link for it: http://www.suppressiveperson.org/sp/archives/534
Spyros: “I don’t understand how you (plural) figure out that if one simply IS here, doesn’t get any case restimulated.”
Again, that is not at all what is being said. Things can and do get restimulated. The whole idea is to continue drilling until you gain the ability to BE there to a major stable win – in spite of things getting turned on. TRs are not case actions; they drill abilities. And incidentally, power is defined as “the ability to maintain a position in space”. 😉
Btw, is the zeri-perception actually the same as OT TR 0?
Spyros: “Don’t solo auditors restimulated their body’s case while they themselves are in present time?”
Sure, as with all auditing, things are purposely restimulated in order to view them and by viewing them exactly, they will as-is. That’s auditing, which is a doingness. With OT TR 0 the only thing you “do” is to Be there.
I’ll have to peruse the Axioms to see if I can find what is applicable. Good idea!
Hasta manana, amigo. 😛
Marildi, I am careful to not throw accusations without a fair reason, and if I do that, I bitterly regret it.
I can now say with certainty and with a wide F/N that TRs, the way I experienced them, were intentional implants. Keep in my I joined my local Church in ’98, so I Don’t know what was going on before I joined.
Please, look at the definition of self determinism and the definition of other determinism. One is to locate matter and energy in space and time or to create space and time in which to locate matter and energy. Other determinism is to be locatED in space and time as if you were energy and matter. Look at the axioms. See that -like we said- static is nowhere and in no-time. PDC: A psychotic lives in the past, a neurotic is present and a sane person in the future.
Is OT TR 0 alligned with those very super basic principles of Scientology? Yes, it is alligned –in reverse. Want more proof? I can analyse it forever. But if one accepts a piece of Scientology that counters it’s basic principles, what is that?
About power: It is very different to hold a position in space, than to consider that you are yourself located in space and time.
To ability to be here, is not an ability at all. It is a lie. You can have a viewpoint here or there or anywhere else or anytime. But you will never be anywhere. You are not the viewpoint. That ought to be clear in OT TR 0, as it is misalligned with the axioms again.
Marildi: “But I don’t think the arbitraries you have mentioned are part of the materials of the course, and that’s the point in the discussion to determine. Do you agree?” <—— No, of course they are.
Goodnight and yes to peruse the axioms and the Qs and other basics, more than the less basics. If one doesn't accept the SCN axioms, then we don't have much basis for a logical discussion over what is on-source and what is not.
Better ban TRs off the planet, that let this go on –my unhumble opinion.
Good point. Added to the OP (#28)
Geir: “Good point. Added to the OP (#28)”
Thanks for listening. I wanted that known. I’m going to post on fb too, with LRH quotes to back it up (what is ‘OP (#28)’? 😛 )
Oh. Mix-up of comment. “Good point” to you. The rest was for Per’s comment on my latest blog post 🙂
Marildi: “Btw, is the zero-perception actually the same as OT TR 0?”
No, not really. Nor was that type of meditation that I mentioned. Apparent small differences can make a big actual difference when you deal with these matters.
Good morning/afternoon, Spyros. Today I see where I was looking at the process for as-ising that is done in auditing and mixing it up with OT TR 0. In auditing, you do things like going through the incident again, etc., which is a doingness and not just “being there”. And I was looking at OT TR 0 as simply a matter of not resisting whatever turned on in order for it to not persist. That’s what I meant when I wrote “What you resist…”, which ends with “…you get.”
But you are absolutely right that what is occurring is an as-ising. Per the Axioms, persistence is brought about by alter-ising – which is actually doing something rather than just “being there” with whatever may turn on. Simply viewing it and “being there” with it is to duplicate it and as-is it.
That method of simply “being there” can actually be done in auditing too. I remember times when I “comm-lagged” in answering the auditing question because I was simply being there with whatever thoughts or feelings, etc. I perceived. I didn’t need another command to complete the job of as-ising. There were auditors who tried to TR 3 or TR 4 me when I did this but the good ones, applying the tech, remained quiet (no doubt because they saw that the TA was moving and the tech maxim in such a case is to do nothing).
That said, the purpose of OT TR 0 isn’t the same as auditing, i.e. its purpose isn’t to get case gain, even though that does occur! Its purpose is for the student to gain the ability to simply be there when something turns on, or when something is perceived in the environment, e.g. things people nearby may be saying, or noises of other kinds, etc. But environmental things get drilled specifically on TR 0 and TR 0 bullbait.
When you think about it, the ability to just be there is an utterly powerful ability. At this moment I can’t think of any better ability, maybe some just as good but not better. 😛
marildi, at first glance I must disagree with what you told Spyros about TRs vs. auditing.
Of course ‘as-isness’ happens in the course of doing TRs. The person would never get anywhere if it didn’t.
Also TRs are (or were, when I did them), a “major case action” similar to auditing. That’s why one could not do a TRs course and get auditing at the same time.
And Spyros, I did the STCC somewhere along the line, and thought it was a good course. All the basic Comm Course TRs were there in it, and it had some additional ones I thought were very good. And I believe it had LRH’s full approval.
Valkov: “marildi, at first glance I must disagree with what you told Spyros about TRs vs. auditing.”
Chris: Thoroughly backed by “Source” and Standard Tech, between the two Scientologists that are currently writing on this thread, we have our first splinter.
Spyros:
Are you talking about this phenomena as described by Dennis Stevens?
[http://exscn.net/content/view/69/98/]
“As I got to know Ron better and its only because we were meeting socially in restaurants and so forth –night clubs– As I got to know him better I realized things about him. I noticed in the beginning Ron –I don’t know whether other people noticed it because I don’t think I ever mentioned it to anyone, oh, except to Ann (she agreed with me) – was that Ron didn’t experience people. When somebody’s taking to Ron he didn’t experience them, he confronted them. Now there is a difference. If somebody’s talking to me I experience them, I don’t confront them.
Now I’ll better (possibly) explain that. It’s a technical thing. Literally to confront means to ‘front with’ [See appendix 1]. Now Ron in all his life only fronted with things. In fact your training drill [is] called confronting. He called it confronting. And I think Ron only ever knew how to confront people. He always fronted with a subject, he never experienced it.
I can confront people. I can front with things and I can experience. When you’re experiencing you’re not fronting with anything. You’re knowing them, you’re experiencing them and its quite different from confronting. Ron evidently didn’t do that. Ron, in all his personal dealings with people, he always confronted them.
He used to confront them when he was talking to them and he was listening to them. Whatever was happening Ron always was confronting. And that was the fren—s [?], it was a mock-up. A glowing mock-up you might say he used to put there to confront people with. That’s what you used to sense when he walked into a room. It was the confront, the thing he fronting with.
When I first spoke to Ann about this she almost had a line charge, she had a tremendous cognition. She’d spotted it but she didn’t quite understand it. She said: ‘Yes, right, its exactly right isn’t it. That’s exactly what he does.’
He’s a confronter. He puts [a/the] subject there for you to look at and that’s what you see. He doesn’t experience you, he confronts you. If you knew that about Ron –If you knew the inner most part of the man’s personality that he never experience, that he always confronted. Maybe it was a weakness in his personality. I don’t think Ron ever really experienced anything. He sure as hell confronted, he confronted a hell of a lot (chuckle). I don’t think he ever really experienced anything. I don’t think he was capable of it. But he was one hell of a confronter.
[…]
I didn’t know it at the time we talk[ed] socially and he used to talk about his early auditing experiences in the USA with his various auditors. He never had much success with auditors auditing him. Was two reasons for this, was of course that he was a very fast moving preclear –a very quickly moving preclear. And he moved rapidly up and down his time track. He could move much, much faster than the auditor could follow. The other reason was the subject of confronting.
Now I don’t think Ron ever really experience his engrams in Dianetics, I think he confronted them. He used to go into a pitched battle with his engrams. He used to confront them. It was a part of his personality you see. Just like socially he would confront, I think he used to confront his track too and it used to get him into some difficulties in the session with the auditor. There he was confronting his engrams and he shouldn’t have been confronting them –preclear’s supposed to experience his engrams, he’s supposed to examine them, that means to experience them, to know them. He’s not supposed to be in there confronting them with anything. He’s supposed to be simply –the auditor might want to do a bit of confronting, but the preclear’s supposed to be experiencing his engram bank, not confronting it. It’s a fine technical point but I can assure you that is the way it is. If you don’t get very far with [as] a preclear in Dianetics or Scientology you’ve set out to confront your bank.
Ron used to talk about confronting your bank but it was a mistake –the only thing he ever knew how to do. He didn’t know how to experience because he was a confronter. The only way he knew how to handle life was to put something –was to front it with something– put some energy mass there and use that energy mass to front life with while he sat in the background and charged up the energy mass. That was the way Ron was as a man. Now, as I said, if you knew that about him –you understand that about him– you really understand, because all his behavior then starts to make tremendous sense.”
Yes, although I never met Ron, that is the mechanism I’m talking about. You just put something there instead of yourself to supposedly confront. I know I have seen it in many SCNists, including myself. But I can change my mind 🙂
Maria: “. . . The only way he knew how to handle life was to put something –was to front it with something– put some energy mass there and use that energy mass to front life with while he sat in the background and charged up the energy mass. That was the way Ron was as a man. . . . ”
Chris: That is an interesting and controversial look at Hubbard. I can see how they would write that, but I am not so sure. Possibly they are saying that LRH “objectified” events that he should have been subjectively experiencing then possibly that might be right. These people who knew LRH personally would know better than me and only LRH would know for sure.
Chris…. in his case because he was so saintly the valance he used was called what? power, presence, big-ness…etc. What we use ordenary low lifes like you and me…hehehe just valances… our bigness is ignored.. if he would confronted everything so well than his life would have not ended in such a condition..so his bigness is a concept and the pope too is holy .. but is he really?
Elizabeth: “. . . so his bigness is a concept and the pope too is holy .. but is he really?”
Chris: Good points. LRH created big effects and collected up many true-believing groupies. I know, since I was one. Because I now understand his “Tech” to work consistently within the walls of Scientology but to the degree that I put distance between that time and now I see the lot of it as inconsistent.
We create a structure that we call a life and then wear it around ourselves. Sometimes, like the hermit crab, we don’t even build the structure ourselves but sometimes borrow an old one (valence.)
LRH’s structure still works within the context of Scientology but outside that structure, it becomes less meaningful.
Spyros
Thanks for your com.! Awesome! Don’t have time now, will get back to it in the evening!
Spyros: “My idea is that when you flatten a process or a TR, whatever case comes up, should get handled (as-ised). That is the purpose in doing it for periods of time.”
This is basically quite correct as per my understanding of the TRs. I did these in the 1970s mainly, and into the 1980s.
Achieving the EP of any TR is a “process” of getting there, fast or slow.
A problem that Spyros is pointing out is the practice of flunking what comes up rather than letting it run out through as-is-ing. I find that an interesting take that I have not thought of before.
By the way there is a freezone group that doesn’t flunk the 2 first TRs –just an encyclopedic datum 😛
Spyros: “By the way there is a freezone group that doesn’t flunk the 2 first TRs –just an encyclopedic datum.”
Here is a reference on that point, from HCO B 18 Apr 1980 “TR Criticism”
“All too often students and coaches tend to get into trying to get the student to do something with his body, like trying to hold it still, trying not to blink, trying to hold a poker face, etc. These of course violate TR-0, as then the student is not confronting the coach, but has attention fixated on his body (to such a degree sometimes that he can be oblivious of the coach). Not that the student should be allowed to writhe and twitch on TR-0, but the emphasis needs to be first and foremost on getting the student to confront the person opposite him (the coach). Then later in the TR, iron out physical manifestations, twitches, blinks, etc. (but if physical manifestations persist, OT TR-0 is unflat and must be flattened).
“Although OT TR-0 isn’t coached by the coach, TR-0 does require some coaching, in order to get the student to sit there and confront – which is the purpose of TR-0.”
The above is clearly not how you were coached. Also, I remember the Pro TRs film and the students doing OT TR 0 were going through all sorts of contortions and weren’t getting flunked.That film was directed by LRH, so we know it wasn’t someone’s alter-is of original materials.
Good afternoon Marildi. Thanks for doing all this research for this topic 🙂
I totally agree with your last message, and I haven’t come across that bulletin before. Really interesting.
We still have a disagreement that we haven’t solved. I dont like to make you wrong, but you alter-ised the axioms a little bit. You said “Per the Axioms, persistence is brought about by alter-ising – which is actually doing something rather than just “being there” with whatever may turn on.” Where did you see in the axioms that static has to be here in order to as-is? Again, I’m saying static is nowhere and in no-time, no? I mean don’t believe me. Look at the axioms 😛 Since it’s nowhere, wouldnt the consideration that it is somwhere bring about alterations?
Sorry for my brief reply. I got trolled and I’m a little pissed now. I may be more chit chatty later on. 😉
Spyros, I think there may a simple semantics problem between you and I on the subject of “BE there” and I would bet that we aren’t in any true disagreement at all :P. To start with, let me say that besides the kind of bad experience you and others have had with TRs, there are also many people like me who got great gains from them and had no bad effects whatsoever.
Btw, I’m pretty sure Geir has had the same positive experience as I and maybe he will speak up and confirm that. I got that Valkov has already done so. Maybe even some of the posters who generally do not agree with the principles of Scn would still be willing to admit they had gains from doing TRs. And where good results have occurred I think you and I would agree that it was because of the fundamental principles in Scn being applied, since we agree that those cover the fundamentals of existence. 😉
Okay, here’s my idea on the subject of “BE there”. First of all, you are right that static has no position in space – but as you also know it can assume a position by simple consideration (the definition of static includes no location, etc. “except by consideration”. And according to The Factors, in order to view anything one must do just that – assume a position in space, which defined as “viewpoint of DIMENSION”, i.e. distance from one point to another (viewpoint to dimension point). Here’s a link to The Factors if you want to look at them in a new unit of time, although you probably don’t need to: http://community.freezone-tech.info/muster/2011/10/31/the-factors/
You say you are getting trolled? Where, on your facebook page? Bummer. 😦
LOL Marildi, I take it for granted that a SCNist, or a person interested in SCN has some positive opinions about SCN. Which is why I don’t take time to explain what is positive with each seperate part of SCN.
I did mention that I had gains by doing TRs but I don’t think it is such an important part as you say. I think in the world of SCN great important is granted to TRs and O/W write-ups because they are cheap services. If people processed regularly I think they wouldn’t pay as much attention. Just my opinion.
Marildi, a viewpoint or a point of view is a creation and it is not the static itself 😛 did you know you could have as many viewpoint as you want? Or even take the point of view of another being? If you want, I can search for refferences (when it comes to OT data, I’m not bored to search 😛 ).
Spyros: “I did mention that I had gains by doing TRs but I don’t think it is such an important part as you say…”
Actually, TRs are simply a matter of drilling the communication cycle. And the ability to communicate I would say is very important in the game of life. Wouldn’t you agree?
Spyros: “Marildi, a viewpoint or a point of view is a creation and it is not the static itself did you know you could have as many viewpoints as you want? Or even take the point of view of another being? If you want, I can search for references (when it comes to OT data, I’m not bored to search).
Here is my understanding. By “viewpoint” is meant a point from which to view and it can also be used to mean the being who views from that point. (ref. The Factors). So if you take the viewpoint of another being it means you would be occupying the same point of view, i.e. occupying the same location that other being has assumed. Or we could also say that you were occupying the same space as the other being (total affinity).
As for having “as many viewpoints as you want”, here’s the reference supporting what you say:
“Any being is a viewpoint, he is as much a being as he is able to assume viewpoints. Thus in any society we would inevitably have a statement of the infinity of viewpoint such as ‘God is everywhere.’ Beings instinctively assign the most beingness to that thing which would be everywhere and when Man desires to assign an unlimited power or command to anything he says that it is everywhere” (Scn 8-8008)
hahaha Marildi, you play kung-fu with me. No matter what I say you a make a move and you point out how awesome SCN is deep down or not that deep down, lol.
M:” And the ability to communicate I would say is very important in the game of life. Wouldn’t you agree?:
S: Definitely.
M: “So if you take the viewpoint of another being it means you would be occupying the same point of view”
S: As per LRH,You can actually be another being or any dynamic –see Route to in Infinity –espacially the tape ‘beingness’. It doesn’t mean that you snap terminals with another being. It means you are the other being.
M: “Like LRH said, trouble comes about when there are no results.”
S: Tell that to those who make money delivering expensive SCN services, and imply it may have something to do with them. You’ll probably get declared type 3 or something –never miss such a withold unless you’re holding a chainsaw in your hands to protect yourself.
M: “But I’m really glad you are one who, in spite of your bad experience, still thinks that TRs “can be transformed (or maybe be brought back to their original form) and be fun and fully beneficial without side effects”. :)”
S: Thanks for the ack, but I really don’t have many bad experiences in PT. I mostly have a hard time explaining my past experiences, because of unwillingness to be received.
🙂
Spyros: hahaha Marildi, you play kung-fu with me. No matter what I say you a make a move and you point out how awesome SCN is deep down or not that deep down, lol.
Chris: <a href=http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/kudos<Kudos Spyros.
Spyros: “hahaha Marildi, you play kung-fu with me. No matter what I say you a make a move and you point out how awesome SCN is deep down or not that deep down, lol”.
Well, thanks. 😛 I guess you know that kung fu means “hard work”. And in Wikipedia it is described as “a Chinese term referring to any study, learning, or practice that requires patience, energy, and time to complete”. Perceptive, aren’t you? (hahaha :D)
Spyros: “As per LRH,You can actually be another being or any dynamic –see Route to in Infinity –espacially the tape ‘beingness’. It doesn’t mean that you snap terminals with another being. It means you are the other being.”
For sure I have come across the idea of “BEING the dynamics”. And maybe the following quote supports the idea of being another being. It’s from that same chapter of 8-8008 I quoted above:
“For the purposes of processing, and possibly for many other purposes, space can be considered to be the equivalent in experience of beingness. One is as alive as he has space and as he can alter and occupy that space.”
Also, in one of David St Lawrence’s blog posts, there’s an excerpt from a lecture where LRH says that thetans can even create other thetans. The excerpt ends with:
“You recover an individual’s knowingness, one of the first things you would recover is the fact that he has occasionally multiplied himself.” http://workabletechnology.com/?p=424
Since you mentioned “snapping terminals”, have a look at this definition and see if you think it applies in any way to our discussion about OT TR 0 and as-ising:
SNAPPING TERMINALS, the reason an engram comes into being and expresses itself on a preclear’s body is a lack of communication, the communication has become solid. It expresses itself as an engram, as a facsimile, as a lock, as a secondary. This expression comes about through absence of two-way communication. The moment that one runs two-way communication in upon the process, the spot has a tendency to go back to its original location. This is the phenomenon known as snapping or closing terminals. (PAB 51)
LOL on the chainsaw metaphor (yes, yes, I know, you meant it literally :P).
Spyros: “I mostly have a hard time explaining my past experiences, because of unwillingness to be received.”
I hope you weren’t referring to me but if so, tell me about it. 🙂
Marildi, I mentioned kung-fu meaning the skill to take a counter-action (countering SCN in my case –although that is not really true. I preffer to say that I point out arbitraries) and turn it to work in your advantage. But yes I don’t doubt that you are hard working or anything else. And since you are honest with me and dont try to invalidate me when I disagree with you to force me to agree, I like to chat with you.
M: ““You recover an individual’s knowingness, one of the first things you would recover is the fact that he has occasionally multiplied himself.”” <— I perfectly agree.
M: "LOL on the chainsaw metaphor (yes, yes, I know, you meant it literally :P)." <— Indeed I did. You see -to extend my SP-like criticism- I would sort of understand a full organisation with 50 staff or so to charge expensive services (no I don't really underdtand it. Prices are way too expensive and violate the relevant HCOPL which says to charge for 24 hours of processing the lowest average salary), as it would have to conserve itself. I fail to see the point when single persons charge as much as class 5 org (or even more), and still be critical of the COS. Plain hypocrisy.
M: "LOL on the chainsaw metaphor (yes, yes, I know, you meant it literally :P)." <— Yes, I did!
M: "Spyros: “I mostly have a hard time explaining my past experiences, because of unwillingness to be received.” I hope you weren’t referring to me but if so, tell me about it. :)" <——– Not you or anyone in specific. I was more like reffering to myself, as I'm way too careful sometimes to not shake one's stable data in SCN and hurt them, and I allow them to believe in idiocies. Of course I am no always-right tech-master, but some black SCN is way too black to be left like that. It is my duty -as a being- to point it out.
Spyros: “I mentioned kung-fu meaning the skill to take a counter-action (countering SCN in my case –although that is not really true. I prefer to say that I point out arbitraries) and turn it to work in your advantage…I like to chat with you.”
I thought that was what you meant! I’m like a Martial Artist! But when Chris told you “kudos” and later Geir said “Yes. She does that” I got that they considered what you said a put down of what I was doing, so I invalidated my original understanding. And then I proceeded to do the usual kind kung fu action of tossing it back at you. 😀
I like to chat with you too! For one thing, with you it’s a clean comm line with nothing dubbed in on either side. Now that I think about it, you know what it is?? It’s Scientology! LOL 😛
S: “…some black SCN is way too black to be left like that. It is my duty – as a being – to point it out.”
M: In my case it’s not just the Black Scientology that the CoS commits. I feel a much stronger “duty”, as you put it, to point out when people are talking about Black Scn – and calling it “Scientology”! I have tried to express and even understand myself why I feel the need to speak up, and now I think you may have hit the nail on the head – it’s my duty as a being. I will have to look more at that… As I said, you and I are not necessarily speaking out about the exact same things, but what you said about duty indicates. Kudos to you for real, Spyros. 😛 🙂
Goodmorning Marildi 😛
You know there is an issue with correct timing and missing messages. I don’t always receive a notification that I have received a reply. And just for the record, I never ignore replies. You said you threw something back at me after Geir and Chris said that they said, but I haven’t received anything. It is hard to spot all messages when there are over 1000 in a single page, the way they are.
M: “M: In my case it’s not just the Black Scientology that the CoS commits. I feel a much stronger “duty”, as you put it, to point out when people are talking about Black Scn – and calling it “Scientology”!”
S: Exactly, and to be logical about it, a person that has been trained to apply -evem a little- black SCN in the Church, doesnt mean he/she immediately sees the light after he/she leaves the Church. So some Qual is needed, and maybe it could be a website –I just thought about it. That would be excellent.
M: “I have tried to express and even understand myself why I feel the need to speak up, and now I think you may have hit the nail on the head – it’s my duty as a being. I will have to look more at that… As I said, you and I are not necessarily speaking out about the exact same things, but what you said about duty indicates”
S: “It may be that quest for truth and also the basic impulse ‘to learn’. We are supposed to cooperate to achieve that, thus the comms.
Thank you too 🙂
Good Morning Spyros,
Yes, there definitely is an issue on not receiving all email notifications. But I don’t think you missed any of mine because you’ve responded to each as far as I recall. Look through that part of the thread and you’ll see them all, I think.
S: “…to be logical about it, a person that has been trained to apply -even a little- black SCN in the Church, doesn’t mean he/she immediately sees the light after he/she leaves the Church. So some Qual is needed, and maybe it could be a website –I just thought about it. That would be excellent.”
M: What you are talking about is what I’ve tried to get discussions on – a Qual type of action. And your idea of a website just for that purpose is a great one. I wonder if Valkov knows of such a thing. There we could have discussions like the one we’ve been having about TRs and help each other understand the principles and references better. I asked Geir once about doing that kind of thing but up to now he thinks it’s more important that the outpoints be known.
One incomplete comm cycle between you and me that I meant to get back to you on was about zero-perception. You said there are small differences between that and OT TR 0 and I wondered what they are. Also let me know of any incomplete cycles from your side. I try not to ignore replies too, unless they are just “comments” (in both the TR’s sense and otherwise. ;)).
I’m already tired and am going to have to sign off early tonight. Talk to you tomorrow. 🙂
Sleep well, Marildi. 🙂
Keep in mind that the ‘Qual’ I reffered to, would be totally self determined –not grabbing by the throat people who misapply and putting them to study. It would be a source of data, First of all not all agree over what ‘misapply’ means. Second this is the independent field and no authority should play authority, in my opinion, as -in this manner- it would cease to be an independent field. So, I dont see any difference between what I and Geir says –to point out arbitraries. I just imagined it in a more organised way. there have been many independents that have pointed out out-tech and out-ethics in their websites. Maybe all could sort of unite and make a website just for this purpose.
Zero perception does not require a twin. It is not a comm drill. It is -in essense- the application of the SCN axioms. One perceives as static (very important) without considering self to be located in space and time, without any figure figure or any sort of thinking, without any tendency to avoid perceiving, and without any vias.He simply perceives present time. The result is as-isness. It is an unlimited technique, with the meaning that whatever contains time, gets as-ised.
Mornin’ Spyros,
Okay, now I’m finally going to reply to your comments from yesterday morning (your time). There were too many “live” exchanges going on today (my time), including with you :P, for me to get to your previous comments before I ran out of time. And I agree with you that the exchanges without a lot of comm lag are the best.
S: “So, I dont see any difference between what I and Geir says – to point out arbitraries. I just imagined it in a more organised way.D”
That is the key word – arbitraries. The conflict between me and Geir and other critics is that they often do not see various outnesses as arbitraries but consider them to be part of the basic principles and tech – and I don’t agree. Having a discussion to try to determine whether or not they are arbitraries (like you and I have been having) is what I believe should be the focus – rather than continuing to list the outpoints that have already been listed so much that there is really no one on the blogs who hasn’t heard them all already.
I do understand that some people still want to vent and maybe you are one, which is okay with me. But as I say, that isn’t my own interest area. Besides, you don’t just vent – you also know the basics well enough to have an informed discussion, and you do so in an open-minded way. You;\’re even thinking in terms of a “Qual” in the field and that is a much more positive approach than just venting.
Now on to you next comment (you are keeping me busy :P).
M “The conflict between me and Geir and other critics is that they often do not see various outnesses as arbitraries but consider them to be part of the basic principles and tech – and I don’t agree.”
S: I see you point and I must agree that Ron was a well intended man, and the group is infested with implanters and needs to get wiped out. Critics serve that purpose. On the independent field one must be careful to differentiate between Ron’s tech and the implanter’s tech (assuming he/she claims to apply pure SCN), or else it will get wiped out too.
Sypros: “On the independent field one must be careful to differentiate between Ron’s tech and the implanter’s tech (assuming he/she claims to apply pure SCN), or else it will get wiped out too.”
This is my sentiment exactly! 😛
M: “I do understand that some people still want to vent and maybe you are one, which is okay with me.”
S: Sometimes I vent to discharge as 1st Dynamic but usually I do it for the 3rd. I’ve never vent against LRH btw, because I know he wouldn’t mind if I did that to him, so we don’t ridge.
Spyros: “Sometimes I vent to discharge as 1st Dynamic but usually I do it for the 3rd. I’ve never vent against LRH btw, because I know he wouldn’t mind if I did that to him, so we don’t ridge.”
This may be my favorite comment of yours yet. 😛 🙂
M:”This may be my favorite comment of yours yet. 😛 :)”
😉 😉 I am upstat! lol
p.s. On the other subject:
Spyros: “Zero perception does not require a twin. It is not a comm drill. It is -in essense- the application of the SCN axioms. One perceives as static (very important) without considering self to be located in space and time, without any figure figure or any sort of thinking, without any tendency to avoid perceiving, and without any vias.He simply perceives present time. The result is as-isness. It is an unlimited technique, with the meaning that whatever contains time, gets as-ised.”
M: Thanks for the explanation! It seems to me to be exactly like my understanding and experience of OT TR 0 except without a twin. What do you believe is different in the actual practice of each (irrespective of the wording in the drill bulletin)? 😉
M: “Thanks for the explanation! It seems to me to be exactly like my understanding and experience of OT TR 0 except without a twin. What do you believe is different in the actual practice of each (irrespective of the wording in the drill bulletin)? ;)”
S: Marildi, if that is how you did OT TR 0, then I’m trulyglad for you, and envy your karma for not drawing SCN motivators in. The major differences that I can tell is that 0p (zero perception) does’t ask you to be somewhere and in some time yourself, but to perceive that (present time) from the viewpoint of static. Also there is no flunking, thus you dont invalidate physical reaction nor anything else, as that would be an additive. You just perceive, nothing else.
Spyros: “The major differences that I can tell is that 0p (zero perception) does’t ask you to be somewhere and in some time yourself, but to perceive that (present time) from the viewpoint of static.”
That last part is what I think is actually meant by “be there” – be in present time from the viewpoint of static. That’s my experience, and what I have understood from some others it is their experience too
And yes, “You just perceive, nothing else”.
M: “That last part is what I think is actually meant by “be there” – be in present time from the viewpoint of static. That’s my experience, and what I have understood from some others it is their experience too”
S: That’s some karma again 😛 I’ve done TRs with 3-4 different sups. Nobody ever explained ‘Static’ to me. I did it as a body, as I was instructed. To ask Static to be in present time is like asking a PC game player to be inside the game he plays 😛
M:”And yes, “You just perceive, nothing else”.
S: No evaluation/invalidation as in the case of getting flunked or realising youre not here and now –you are not anyway.
Spyros: “No evaluation/invalidation as in the case of getting flunked or realising youre not here and now –you are not anyway.”
M: OT TR 0 being the ultra basic of communication and, IMO, of Truth, it may be one of the worst errors for Scn to have strayed from those early bulletins, the ones I quoted about not coaching OT TR 0 unless the student is taking way too long, or has had to be put back onto it because of not being able to pass the higher gradient of TR 0. It seems to me that at that point it probably would be helpful to indicate with a flunk that the student is doing something rather than just being there. But as you indicate, flunks can be done in a harmful way. This is definitely one of those things a Sup should take a good look at and use judgment on. And it’s a great point you make for those who are now delivering courses outside of the CoS.
M:”OT TR 0 being the ultra basic of communication and, IMO, of Truth, it may be one of the worst errors for Scn to have strayed from those early bulletins, the ones I quoted about not coaching OT TR 0 unless the student is taking way too long,”
S: Yes, It is ultra basic, and it’s misapplication cost me a lot. Sorry, I jumped over those quotes of yours.
I would kindly put back a person that doesn’t do the drill if he allowed himself to dream too much, for that way he wouldn’t to the drill at all.
Spyros: “I would kindly put back a person that doesn’t do the drill if he allowed himself to dream too much, for that way he wouldn’t to the drill at all.”
M: Exactly. As with everything in Scientology, it takes two things – conceptual understanding of all factors involved as well as the intention to help. (And I’m sure that you and I would make good Sups. ;))
M: And I’m sure that you and I would make good Sups. 😉
S: I would sup the cr@p out of them! 😛
Yes. Seriously, I have supped. And the beyond the barriers of study which were minor, the major barrier was my dogmatic adherence to the checksheet, and the fact that a student blew during TRs. You see I dramatised what I had experienced myself onto others.
“S: Yes, It is ultra basic, and it’s misapplication cost me a lot.”
S: Meh, didn’t mean to make it sound that whiny. It’s just that I saw it was a very important thing for me, and major abberation –how I used those ridges afterwards.
S: “Meh, didn’t mean to make it sound that whiny. It’s just that I saw it was a very important thing for me, and major abberation –how I used those ridges afterwards.”
M: Do you know what process is needed to handle them?
Marildi: “Any being is a viewpoint, he is as much a being as he is able to assume viewpoints. Thus in any society we would inevitably have a statement of the infinity of viewpoint such as ‘God is everywhere.’ Beings instinctively assign the most beingness to that thing which would be everywhere and when Man desires to assign an unlimited power or command to anything he says that it is everywhere” (Scn 8-8008)
Since reading it in a new time period, I’m wondering now and the question is…. How does that line up with the word “everyone”, every place, all people, like everywhere? Or does it?
deE: “Since reading it in a new time period, I’m wondering now and the question is…. How does that line up with the word “everyone”, every place, all people, like everywhere? Or does it?”
Chris: Good catch. Say more about the inconsistency you seem to be looking at, if any.
deE, I’m interested in this subject but didn’t exactly get what you meant. Can you say more or re-phrase your question?
I’ll try Marildi, “Beings instinctively assign the most beingness to that thing which would be everywhere.. ”
Using the word “everywhere”, would that be in the same context as “everyone”. Like a generality?
deE: “Using the word “everywhere”, would that be in the same context as “everyone”. Like a generality?”
“Everywhere” would mean the same as omnipresent.
omnipresent means present in all places at the same time; omniscient means infinitely wise or all-knowing; omnipotent means having unlimited power (thesaurus.com)
So, not a generality in the way we usually think of as a generality.
2ndxmr: “So, not a generality in the way we usually think of as a generality.”
I see, thanks 🙂
One can say “everywhere” meaning all places, but, everybody/one meaning all peoples, has to be specified and evaluated. Was just word nit-pikin’ I was.
Marildi sorry. The facebook (yes) trolling was so absurd, arbitrary, idiotic, sneaky, fuckin argh, that injured my sense of reasoning and I’m having gaps in logic.
I’m not shunning TRs as a whole. But I believe something is really out, the way I did them. And like I said I observed many people being robotic after they had done them. I think that can be tranformed (or maybe be brought back to their original form) and be fun and fully beneficial.\ without side effects.
Spyros, it is a huge understatement to say that there was something out in the way you were made to do TRs :P. And the same could be said as regards people who became robotic after they had done them. This is the very kind of thing that makes people leave Scientology and become highly critical of it. Like LRH said, trouble comes about when there are no results.
But I’m really glad you are one who, in spite of your bad experience, still thinks that TRs “can be transformed (or maybe be brought back to their original form) and be fun and fully beneficial without side effects”. 🙂
Marildi, sorry to interfere but I have a disagreement wiyh
Spyros, it is a huge understatement to say that there was something out in the way you were made to do TRs :P. And the same could be said as regards people who became robotic after they had done them. This is the very kind of thing that makes people leave Scientology and become highly critical of it. Like LRH said, trouble comes about when there are no results.
I think from what I saw, was the robotic ones are the one who stay and the independent thinkers which it isn’t working on or are having trouble with, are the one who leave. Just an opinion. 🙂
edElizabethn, that was the point I was trying to make when I said ‘implant’. Robotic TRs in life=less ARC=less self determinism. Yet, that is considered a win in the COS. Just try to get communication across to such a person. To me often it felt like I talked to a wall. I think they mostly fancy the Church and mostly dwell therein. Not all churchies are like that of course. But yeah, you see it when somebody tries to ‘handle’ you. How he shuts his ARC and pretends a fake ARC using TRs. It’s sad, at best.
Me”How he shuts his ARC and pretends a fake ARC using TRs. ”
Yeah its bitty late — I meant ‘how he fakes ARC by the use of TRs’ 😛
Gottcha Spyros! Plus know what you mean and I agree.
“how he fakes ARC by the use of TRs’” 😛
deE: “I think from what I saw, was the robotic ones are the one who stay and the independent thinkers which it isn’t working on or are having trouble with, are the one who leave. Just an opinion.”
Actually, what I said was “This is the very kind of thing that makes people leave Scientology and become highly critical of it”. By “This” I was referring to the fact that TRs were being done robotically and THAT was what made them leave, not that they themselves were robotic.
Marildi, Gottcha, thanks.
Isene
“the problem of flunking what comes up rather that letting it run out through as-is-ing”
It can “paralyze” a lot of energy in the body, can result in “fixed” thoughts and fixed thoughts
(concepts, beliefs) will affect the body. The body is in the sphere of life flow, when there is a stop coming from another, there comes about a little solidity both in mind and body. Also, it may very well be the case, that another’s energy is also retained in that stop….the opposite,
being more and more creative is losing that solidity of the stop until one IS that genuine creative flow….
Very nice points about the energy manifestations in doing TRs Marianne, and they ring many bells for me.
In order to stop my body from reacting and getting flunked, I created a sort of a concealing energy –sort of like numb. I had been wondering for years how that got into my body. I dont drink, I dont take drugs nor do anything weird with my body, and voila –TRs. I also sort of not-ised myself in order to not create pictures because if I did I knew some smartass tech-master would come and tell me that I am not in present time…
Spyros
I’d like to give you a rare example when an “out-tech” was used to help me out while doing the “Upper-Indoc.” I say out-tech, as you are not allowed to get “auditing” during the Tr-s.
I was really flying all along and there were the Mood drills. I got “stuck” on 3.0. No matter what, I couldn’t get above it NATURALLY. Of course I could “hide” behind it and go higher but I ! decided it was not OK and ! started to CRY ! naturally, on purpose! I wanted action! Help! So I “pulled in” a number 1 Clear auditor who sat opposite me and asked me to Create
3.0 as long as it blew….about 30 minutes. With that one action I also blew something on aesthetics. So, it was done, complete! Thought to mention it as a good example that the student is the most important!
MT, this sounds like an application of the principle LRH stated as “Whatever the person is doing obsessively or compulsively, have him do it on a self-determined basis”.
I don’t think this was ‘out-tech’, I think it was in the nature of an ‘assist’, which is not a major auditing action of the type which would be at cross purposes with completing a TRs cycle.
Here’s a good description of the use of the principle by Theo Sismanides:
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/faith-healing/#comment-256029
Marildi: ” The conflict between me and Geir and other critics is that they often do not see various outnesses as arbitraries but consider them to be part of the basic principles and tech – and I don’t agree.”
Geir: No Miraldi – Me and some others see many outpoints as arbitraries and some outpoints as rooted in the tech or even the basic philosophy of Scientology. You on the other hand will fight to death to avoid any cracks to be shown in the basic philosophy. You will justify, rationalize, red herring or in any other way “prove” that there are none, and cannot be any outpoints rooted in the basic philosophy at all. You admit there are (some) incompleteness to the philosophy, but there can absolutely not be any inconsistencies found. Even if found.
I find your views to be philosophical fanaticism, an extremist view on Scientology that I have not found in people highly trained in Scientology.
I understand I have broken your b@lls latey talking about static over and over, but I found that ‘it’ solved my problems. I think it would be best to view things from a neutral point of view –out of the game. Really the conflict between people that defend their being SCNists or anti-SCNists or other things, can be endless. The capacity to create new thoughts never ends.
I don’t always views things as being outside of the game, but when I do, it truly, really, awesomely works 😀
Spyros: I think it would be best to view things from a neutral point of view –out of the game.
Chris: “Nothing” more neutral than Static.
Chris: “Nothing” more neutral than Static.
SP: Static is total nothing, with infinite potential to create anything.
Spyros: Static is total nothing, with infinite potential to create anything.
Chris: So we say !
PS: I can’t abbreviate “Spyros” to “SP,” — I just can’t. LOL
Geir: “No Miraldi – Me and some others see many outpoints as arbitraries and some outpoints as rooted in the tech or even the basic philosophy of Scientology. You on the other hand will fight to death to avoid any cracks to be shown in the basic philosophy.”
You conveniently forget that I too have said many times that I “see many outpoints as arbitraries”. And I see you immediately slip in right after that a generality that “some outpoints are rooted in the tech or even the basic philosophy of Scientology”. What you choose to characterize as my “fight to the death” is my persistent attempt to get you and others to do more to support your generalities than to merely hurl insults at me one after the other, as several of you have done in quite a few comments today alone.
I have to admit, though, that it makes me smile to see that I’ve created quite an effect on you all. You’ve admitted to my power! 🙂
Be all that as it may, for some time now I have been leaning in the direction that Spyros so well expressed in a comment today: “The conflict between people that defend their being SCNists or anti-SCNists or other things, can be endless.”
Marildi: “I have to admit, though, that it makes me smile to see that I’ve created quite an effect on you all. You’ve admitted to my power! 🙂 ”
Chris: Well, you’ve quite earned that smile. Thanks for the Three Stooges clip.
Hi Valkov. I agree with all you said.
When did you do the STCC? I did it on ’98. I remember a bloody excercise where you were supposed make the other forget what he wanted to tell you but saying irrelevant things. I find it dishonest, and didn’t like it when it was done to me( out of TRs). Also, the greens that do that course have no idea what a thetan is. I did it while I was fully aware of being my body. Also I had very intense pains that were always present during my TRs after that. I think the coursepack says ‘BASED on the works of L. ron hubbard’, but im not 100% certain.
Hello Spyros, I’ll have to check my STCC coursepack to see when I did it. It was pretty early. I’ll also check to see which drills I liked and benefited the most from.
There were 2 or 3 that were just what I needed/wanted. But the course had the basic OT-TR0 and TR0.
Some people take much longer to get the full EP of TRs. I was one of those. I did TR0 on and off for years before I got it. Part of the problem for me, I think, is when I first did the CommCourse, I did a version that did not have OT-TR0 on it. We started with eyes-open TR0 so it was a lot harder, steeper gradient for me.
Let me get back to you.
I see. You know I’ve heard stories from people that practiced SCN in the 70s and I hear completely different things. It seems it was very light back then. Some guy once told me that SCN was also ‘in fashion’ –I dont know if that’s correct english, but I think you got my point.
You know I had a kind sup (the first one), but I also think she had been taught to act weird with students. She generally didn’t grant much beingness. She kindly pushed you to do things. And I was never agreeable with that. I had so many things to say about TRs or maybe some comment about my course and she wouldn’t listen. It was all Q&A for her or MUs. Generally, there was a one-way flow. I think it is done on purpose –for the same reason that the COS is ru by the RTC. You shouldn’t be allowed to be much at cause over the COS –that is called suppression 😛 And yeah under such circumpstances, TRs couldn’t function fully well either, I suppose.
Spyros: “hahaha Marildi, you play kung-fu with me.”
Yes. She does that.
There is an emphasis on flunking the student on the TRs. That emphasis comes partly from the Supervisor’s code where the supervisor is to “Flunk the student’s mistakes ruthlessly, and use good ARC while doing it”, and party from other materials. It may be a better way – to not “FLUNK!” the student, but instead coach him through the issues he is facing and letting him as-is whatever he is facing.
But to improve this practice just a tiny, tiny bit like this, could seem to open the door a to invalidation, and that could lead to more invalidation of the tech…etc. And what would we have then? We would have invalidated a Stable Datum that holds some underlying confusion in Check (but fortunately not Mate).
Geir, I got what you mean. I’ll tell you what I think: Ever since I left the Church I have been posing questions -mostly to myself- about what is truly by LRH and what is not. I use 3 criteria to judge it. One is the date of the issue (is it before or after Ron left and Dave got a hidden data line to him?). The other is whether or not it is in allignment with the rest of the data I have by LRH –and above all the basics of SCN. And the third and most important is of course, how workable it is. In my 1st dynamic experience and in what I have observed in others, there is an -even partial- violation of the 2 last points in doing TRs. I cannot tell about the first. But I know with certainty that the success through communication course in specific, is a relatively new course, and I dont really trust it.
I assume it is up to any one of us to make up his ‘mind’ about it. I consider TRs that produce robotic attitude to be for some reason or another, to be squirreled up, for the obvious reason. It could be the text itself, or the coaching, or the student not applying the text well enough, or everything together. If I took the responsibility to train people by myself, I would certainly deliver something that would give me a valied EP — (V)GIs, F/N, Cognition, 3 times same comm lag, and I wouldn’t mind as much if others would say it is not on source. What is on source anyway? The RTC has been altering Ron’s materials ever since it took over. That shouldn’t be ignored, and people ought to examine it. KSW 1 was 1960-something. There is no authority anymore to tell us what to do. The RTC was a fake authority, and Ron is not in SCN anymore. So I say we take responsibility to determine what is SCN and what is not ourselves.
“Flunk the student’s mistakes ruthlessly, and use good ARC while doing it”
I also consider about this point that discarding student’s comm as Q & A isn’t good ARC, and adds up to other determinism. Even if flunking is incorrect, if it is done with true ARC, the damage should not be as bad.
Spyros: “I also consider about this point that discarding student’s comm as Q & A isn’t good ARC, and adds up to other determinism. Even if flunking is incorrect, if it is done with true ARC, the damage should not be as bad.”
Here are some of the points on the Supervisor’s Code I thought you might like:
3. The Supervisor should remain in good ARC with his students at all times while they are
performing training activities.
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
15. The Supervisor should never neglect to give praise to his students when due.
16. The Supervisor to some degree should be pan-determined about the Supervisor-student
relationship
21. The Supervisor will be a stable terminal, point the way to stable data, be certain, but not
dogmatic or dictatorial toward his students.
M:”3. The Supervisor should remain in good ARC with his students at all times while they are
performing training activities.”
S: Had occasions that this occured, others that it didn’t
M:”8. The Supervisor should be able to answer any questions concerning Scientology by
directing the student to the actual source of the data.”
S: Most of the time occured.
M:”15. The Supervisor should never neglect to give praise to his students when due.”
S: Applying the code of honour, I shouldn’t need that 😛 But it’s nevertheless positive.
M:”16. The Supervisor to some degree should be pan-determined about the Supervisor-student
relationship”
S: That is a LOL –never happened to me.
M:”21. The Supervisor will be a stable terminal, point the way to stable data, be certain, but not
dogmatic or dictatorial toward his students.”
S: Yes, all were -sometimes- dictatorial and definitely dogmatic more or less and often nice too (confusing? yes).
To put it in a few words, my comm was often not received, instead it was invalidated. I was put to look up MUs and others things more than once, just to find out I had no MU, and fall in apathy after that and want to leave the course, because I treated like there was something wrong with me solely because I had a disagreement. Fuck that –it’s not SCN.
When you have a student who studies for consecutive hours (often with long perdios without a break) and he puts his attention away from what he studies for a while, doesnt mean he has MU! Find your own MU. (addressed to my past sups 😛 )
Spyros: “When you have a student who studies for consecutive hours (often with long periods without a break) and he puts his attention away from what he studies for a while, doesnt mean he has MU! Find your own MU. (addressed to my past sups 😛 )”
You reminded me of my first course at a Mission. There were two Sups. One was the Mission Holder who was an interned Class VIII auditor. I was on the Comm Course and had no study tech. One day, after I had been reading theory for a while, I got up and started walking around the course room looking at things on shelves, etc. The Class VIII Sup came up to me and asked how I was doing. I said fine, and she had no problem with allowing me to continue until I felt ready to go back to reading, I didn’t know it at the time but she clearly understood that I instinctively was attempting to balance the significance with some mass.
The other Sup was trained as a Sup only (probably the Mini Supervisor Course) and the memory of her that sticks out in my mind was a time when I asked her a question and all she had to say was “What do your materials state?” That was clearly out Reality with a new student. I seriously thought to myself that she was like a robot, and that was before I had ever heard the term used in Scn. Unfortunately, she wasn’t the only Sup I ever came across who didn’t have conceptual understanding of the whole of study tech.
So you were spot on where you said in the above comment, “Find your own MU. (addressed to my past sups :P”
LoL Marildi, this way I will never get away from discussing about SCN. I’m feeling like writting a whole 50-page essay with all these ideas.
M:”The other Sup was trained as a Sup only (probably the Mini Supervisor Course) and the memory of her that sticks out in my mind was a time when I asked her a question and all she had to say was “What do your materials state?” That was clearly out Reality with a new student. I seriously thought to myself that she was like a robot, and that was before I had ever heard the term used in Scn.”
S: I’ve had so many incomplete comm cycles/cycles of action like this. Sup being unable or unwilling to answer and prompting me to read something. That usually implied that I had some MU somewhere. In a similar manner those ‘ethics’ officers prompted me to study other irrelevant stuff (that didnt solve the problem) or write down O/Ws (that didnt solve it either) just for having a different point of view than them. You see Marildi….3 universes….3 different truths…that is the truth in SCN….there is no truth. But if you accuse someone each time he tries to take some responsibility for his state, you end up running psychotic breakdown rundowns in the end. Have you read that one? One of the things you run is being accused of something you have not done. Shows you why people like to go psycho in the COS…
Sypros: “You see Marildi….3 universes….3 different truths…that is the truth in SCN….there is no truth.”
Right, Spyros, the three universes are a different level of “truth” than Basic Truth, which is defined in this Axiom:
AXIOM 35. THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC.
A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wave-length, no time, no location
in space, no space. This has the technical name of “Basic Truth”.
M:”AXIOM 35. THE ULTIMATE TRUTH IS A STATIC.
A Static has no mass, meaning, mobility, no wave-length, no time, no location
in space, no space. This has the technical name of “Basic Truth”.”
S: Yes, agreed. It is the only thing we always have in common –ourselves 😛 Still static is nothing….it is potential…creator of things… 🙂
Marildi said: So you were spot on where you said in the above comment, “Find your own MU.”
Chris: I do not understand how you can go back and forth on Standard Tech in this way. Promoting the consistency of Standard Tech while nattering about a supervisor who followed what Ron told her to do seems arbitrary to me.
Spyros’ experience of trouble studenting was not my experience nor a standard experience of “being studentable.” Sufficient rest, food, barriers to study held in check, no PTP’s or PTS’ness, dictionaries, demo kit, clay table; even after a full day’s construction work, I flew through evening and weekend study for years. “That’s it for break!” called by the Sup was met on my part with, “Well, I guess I better.” Breaks taken preemptively to body rudiments going out the way you pull over to get gas for your car before it runs out. My break-times were spent munching and drinking and thinking about what I had been learning and how exciting it all was to be on the path to cracking the secrets of the universe. I always had my buzz-on and wide awake and alert going home from study.
No looking away from course pack. No talking. No 2D flow with students (almost all SCNists are most of the time students –so no 2D with SCNists, unless boss says so). No disagreeing with materials. No stopping to mock up what you had read. No getting pissed at how you’re not granted beingness. No nervous reactions. No tendency to leave. Put your head over the coursepack and read endlessly. If problem then MU. If it’s not MU, play with your demo toys. Now repeat after me: I am a free being.
Of course, our schools in Greece are f@cked up in a similar manner, but at least we got a break every 40 minutes or so.
Spyros: Now repeat after me: I am a free being.
Chris: LOL, good one. But without knowing what went on, you are nattering about your studies equals MU, etc.,. That is the Standard Tech of it. Agreed that your study needed a sort out, and learning about you from your writing it seems you don’t easily get put in the box.
Chris: LOL, good one. But without knowing what went on, you are nattering about your studies equals MU, etc.,. That is the Standard Tech of it.
SP: Hahaha I never advocate ‘Standard Tech’.
Chris: “Agreed that your study needed a sort out, and learning about you from your writing it seems you don’t easily get put in the box.”
SP: Yes, indeed. That’s why some with the backup of ‘Standard Tech’ have labeled me bad in both the COS and the Freezone –I like to comm with beings that make sense, even if they talk about their own illusions. I like to connect, and I like my self-control respected. I also offer the same.
Spyros: I like to comm with beings that make sense, even if they talk about their own illusions. I like to connect, and I like my self-control respected. I also offer the same.
Chris: That is a good, clean, and wise way to walk in life.
Chris: That is a good, clean, and wise way to walk in life.
SP: Thanx. I have also noticed you are nice and calm even when I set myself on fire in here –buddhism, or just your own attitude?
Chris: I can’t abbreviate “Spyros” to “SP,” — I just can’t. LOL
SP: Hehehe actually I’m two times SP –one in the COS and one in the FZ, because not only ‘Spyros’ contains ‘Sp’ but also my initials –Spyros Polkas.
Spyros: –buddhism, or just your own attitude?
Chris: My attitude is in motion. I try to be mindful of that (and try to only ever be tough on Marildi!) as I know that I may set my own self on fire with the very next comment that I make as a spectacle for everyone to enjoy!
You have not been here long enough to have seen me change — dramatically.
Marildi and I used to be “Team Scientology” and we sparred incessantly with Valkov, Vinaire, Bunkai, Alonzo and a few others. The constant debate provided information and conclusions which provided me reasons to change my mind. This blog has been my vehicle. Likewise, my sparring with Vinaire changed to cooperation and I blog quite a bit with him at vinaire.wordpress.com. I also have a blog irchristo.wordpress.com which doesn’t amount to much but I publish a few things of interest to me there and have some monumental (hahaha) articles in the works.
If we hang around together, you will see me change some more.
Chris: “as I know that I may set my own self on fire with the very next comment that I make as a spectacle for everyone to enjoy!”
SP: LOL
Chris: “Marildi and I used to be “Team Scientology”
SP: That makes sense. I remember there used to be a fz auditor with your surname, was it you? I remember it because there used to be a former GO who said that all FZ who delivered were implanters and so on, and he had a thomson in his list of bad people too.
I try to not hold on to ideas tighly, unless i know it is because I do it (then I can also let go, because I let go)
In present I’m not with ‘Standard Tech’. I used to be. My difference with you is that I dont think that it’s Hubbard’s creation –but it’s based on Hubbard’s creations. When you deal with little delicate stuff even a little twist can make huge difference.
Sypros (to Chris): “My difference with you is that I dont think that it’s Hubbard’s creation –but it’s based on Hubbard’s creations. When you deal with little delicate stuff even a little twist can make huge difference.”
Very insightful of you – that can be so true. The “little delicate stuff” not well duplicated can be given even “a little twist” and even that sometimes makes a “huge difference”. Not always, but it can. Often, though, even slightly wrong tech can get good results – depending mainly on the actual intention behind it. Fortunately, built into the tech are the methods to correct both big and small errors.
Anyway, Spyros, sorry to keep ack’ing you when I know you’d rather be a playful little devil, but damn you are sharp sometimes. 😛
M: “Anyway, Spyros, sorry to keep ack’ing you when I know you’d rather be a playful little devil, but damn you are sharp sometimes. :P”
S: Marildi, I hereby declare you guilty of acking me, and demand that you make amends to me (prefferably in green paper form) to make up for your overts 😀
M:”Often, though, even slightly wrong tech can get good results – depending mainly on the actual intention behind it.”
S: Yes, true. I assume that in many cases, that’s why one is still a member of the COS.
M: “Fortunately, built into the tech are the methods to correct both big and small errors.”
S: Hmm I guess it depends on what ‘the tech’ means. While being a member some groups, I wasn’t allowed to argue much with their tech. My disagreements were seen with suspicion. You see they thought that only a person with MU, O/W, MWH, victim of black PR, or PTS/SP would argue with them.
“What is true is what is true for you” ahem ahem
Chris: “I do not understand how you can go back and forth on Standard Tech in this way. Promoting the consistency of Standard Tech while nattering about a supervisor who followed what Ron told her to do seems arbitrary to me.”
No, you missed the point and demonstrate another example of not having conceptual understanding of the whole. The supervisor rotely followed only one part of study tech and one part of supervisor tech.
Wow…Marildi what a priceless information! Chris go to the corner, you have been corrected!
and my life is now complete having such a priceless knowledge in my possession and I no longer have to search the universe for knowledge…I am at peace..
As much as I don’t want to put a dog in this race, when I look at the comments directed at Marildi I am a bit bewildered at the direction things are going. When I look at the “basic philosophy” of Scientology I see it being summed up by “man is basically a spiritual being; he is seeking to survive; his survival depends, as well, on the survival of others, this planet and however much of the physical universe that must remain before we are able to attain a state where we don’t need it to continue positive development as spiritual beings”. (To put it in as few words as possible.)
The huge amount that Ron wrote was mainly to codify a path to attain that basic philosophy.
What I see lacking in the arguments and counterarguments is an established agreement on what the basic philosophy is. If everyone has there own idea of the basic philosophy, as I have mine, arguments and counterarguments may have more common basis than difference.
Right now we have the glorious gift of hindsight that allows us to spot the outpoints in the path that got us to this point. While I wouldn’t trust the current church to take me along any similar path to what I walked, I still see the “basic philosophy” there that could take many to a much higher level than they start from. I still see that wonderful point in time when I entered the path as being a model that could take current day seekers successfully along the same knowledge path. I was very fortunate to have had brilliant sup’s who weren’t robotic and handled my questions with good references, tolerant smiles and personal insights that, if they didn’t answer my questions, at least told me I was free to think what I thought and encouraged me to develop my understanding.
I think it is that early environment – common to Marildi, Chris, myself and others – that gives a good reason to argue that the BASIC philosophy had enormous validity.
I will agree that there are policies that are fully capable of creating sheeple, and questioners of orders and inconsistencies will go the way of Spyros Polkas (SP thrice 🙂 ), at least in the cuurent CoS. I neither agree nor disagree with attest questions such as “never again…”. I believe there definitely will come a point when the being cannot be permanently overwhelmed by anything, but we have an immense amount of knowledge and ability to attain before that happens. The mistake that often happens in the transfer of knowledge is the missing knowledge – the as-yet-undiscovered knowledge that then requires a revisit of earlier knowledge.
For example, we can easily teach someone that 2+2 = 4 by counting fingers and the person can be stable with that knowledge forever, but when the person tries to answer 2.1 + 2 = ? with that limited earlier knowledge, he will come up with an incorrect answer. It doesn’t invalidate the earlier knowledge, it just points the need for expanded and expanding knowledge.
Certainly KSW1 put a stop to expanding knowledge coming from other than Source – a flaw I could live with as long as Ron was on-lines and pc programming was in the direction of gain. Since finding out the history of tech changes in the 80’s, and seeing serious changes to the tech in the 90’s, I am willing to use the basic phoilosophy of Scientology as a limited guideline towards expanded knowledge. As I do I am mostly amazed at how accurate the early axioms, Q’s and Factors were. Where I have gained knowledge and ability those gains have aligned with what I then find in the basics (Axioms, etc.) or I have use the basics to attain the gain.
So while I agree that absolutes are unobtainable and that attest questions with words like “never again” shouldn’t be used, all I see is relatively minor errors that in no way alter the basic philosophy as I have written in my own words and paraphrased from a reference I won’t bother seeking. In this era I judge personal understanding to be paramount and Scientology as a valuable, basic guideline to that.
2ndxmr.
Did you ever questioned what is Agreement, what it really means?
I have, it do not mean if we made or have on agreement than we see the something and experience the same thing it simply meas I am OK with what you experience how you see your universe and by giving your agreement you state it is OK by you what I see and have.
But the agreements will not give the exact reality,far from it and agreement will not give you the entry into the other persons universe.
When one is having disagreement IN REALITY one only has that disagreement with self and never ever with any one else!
Example I read what Marildi say, my own reality on her statement I argue about how I see it and not hers!!!
We cant disagree with any one but with our own conflicting considerations on what we read!
No one needs to be protected here in this blog… Marildi or sweet Marianne or me, or any other blogger here who posts or just lurks in the background: we all have the ability to remove the other persons heart in one second surgically or without… dont believe otherwise, if you do than you are on the wrong path because on this one that reality do exist.
There is no such a thing in this universe as only good or only bad because this universe was created and stands on the fact- minus and plus the everything has good or bad side.
Sweetness eternal love [Mariannes valance] only can be reality if one knows and have experienced deep hate loathing because one only can know the good, be good if evil has been created- experienced.
Spirituality can only be experienced if one knows experienced what is solid and unmoving.. without one the other side dont exist therefore neither side could have been know of.
@Elizabeth,
I largely agree with you that agreement is from a personal perception but I disagree that a disagreement in Reality occurring between terminals is only a disagreement with self. On that we can agree to disagree, or just disagree 🙂 which is just your definition of agreement (…it simply means I am OK with what you experience…).
E. “There is no such a thing in this universe as only good or only bad because this universe was created and stands on the fact- minus and plus the everything has good or bad side.
Spirituality can only be experienced if one knows experienced what is solid and unmoving.. without one the other side dont exist therefore neither side could have been know of.”
Those are important points to understand and keep in mind when evaluating actions and knowledge, for sure. It may even be that one cannot fully attain the knowlege of one side without having been the other side. In other words, pan-determinism is most likely to occur with individuals who have experienced both other-determinism and self-determinism to the fullest.
Eliz. Your post reminds me of something I learned, or read but certainly experienced. A dichotomy like. Simply the deeper or lower you can experience enables you to the greater heights. Not sure I’m putting this plain enough i.e., one knows sorrow and to that degree he knows bliss.
Relating to your evil and good also.
Speaking of RTC alterations. I have seen various that have been posted on freezone website. And I’m gratefult hat some got into the trouble to point them out. I once fell onto a tragically funny one. I was studying a wordclearing method (9 i think) using a greek course pack that had been released after 2010, and I got a little stuck and I checked for MUs and didn’t find any misunderstood words. So knowing about alterations I decided to study the same bulletin on an english coursepack that had been released around ’80 or so. And after I finished (I finally studied it well) I sat and compared those two and I found that a phraze had been taken out from the latter version –that phraze said “it is done with ARC”. It reffered to that method of wordclearing but it gives you an impression how the RTC wanted and actually turned the Church into a some sort of a fascist party, in some occasions. It’s tragic that -for instance- some people do the upper indoc TRs, and after that they figure out that they can go and boss people around just because they can. That in some cases is called ‘8C’ in the Church. There’s a major confusion between pan and other determinism. Sad.
Spyros: I found that a phraze had been taken out from the latter version –that phraze said “it is done with ARC”
Wow, that was great that you took the time to find it that important missing data.
deElizabeth: “Spyros: I found that a phraze had been taken out from the latter version –that phraze said “it is done with ARC”
Wow, that was great that you took the time to find it that important missing data.”
😉 😉
Spyros
Great cycle with Geir! Sure you can do it without me. So shall I? Yes, a little. “…I developed a mechanism to hide my thoughts and some energy phenomena from myself – in order to not react and get flunked”. Some energy phenomena….hm. that is actually the live flow of life. It is that animates the body, it is out of which the creative thoughts appear. With the flunks it gets stopped. You get a less flexible body and mind. What can you do to as-is this massive, accumulated stop? To get the flow of life flow free?
Marianne: “Spyros
Great cycle with Geir! Sure you can do it without me. So shall I? Yes, a little. “…I developed a mechanism to hide my thoughts and some energy phenomena from myself – in order to not react and get flunked”. Some energy phenomena….hm. that is actually the live flow of life. It is that animates the body, it is out of which the creative thoughts appear. With the flunks it gets stopped. You get a less flexible body and mind. What can you do to as-is this massive, accumulated stop? To get the flow of life flow free?”
Yes Marianne, Geir noticed that I was lonely so he jumped in 😛
I use 2 techniques to as-is my stuff. One is called zero-perception (spiritologie technique) and it means direct perception as static without any vias or additive thoughts etc It (me) as-ises anything from pictures to any ridge on any dynamic. Sometimes I was having difficulties doing it, so I looked at it and my TRs came to surface. Really heavy stuff (Also, I had very intense pains during my TRs.).
Maybe this blocking of the energy of life explains something that I get from time to time (a feeling of lifelesness –it is not a picture) When I fully look at it, I will know for sure. But it rung a bell. Thanks 🙂
Spyros
I see…I mean Geir’s jumping in! Carry on with him too! Zero-perception method looks effective. What is the other one? As to as-is that machinery (which has come about through
resistance and stop of what “there was”) 2 things came to mind. 1. create the machinery consciously in present time until EP 2. listen to Adyashanti ‘s True Meditation. CD3. You can google it. I did that earlier, it’s very similar to OTTR0. Body too automatically gets handled by Life, that is You in this way too. (my example)
Marianne: “Zero-perception method looks effective.”
This sounds very much like “blowing by inspection”, which is a method I have used for many years. I found that what I was doing was “lookiing” at the thought, the pain, misemotion, or whatever and that was literally all it took to blow it. The key thing was to be aware that I WAS looking at it i.e. it (the thought, pain, etc.) was its own thing – it wasn’t “me”, it was observable and, being “observed”, it would blow.
2ndxmr: “This sounds very much like “blowing by inspection”, which is a method I have used for many years.”
That technique sounds familiar. It’s a SCN technique right? I must have read about it. Long ago I used to try to locate and perceive things to as-is (not some specific process) but I sort of got confused while doing it (restimulated and didnt fully handle stuff). I found it is important to perceive as static, without considering self to be located in space and time, and not look for charge to as-is –actually not create any thoughts whatsoever. Whatever ‘is’ gets handled this way.
2x: “. . . it was observable and, being “observed”, it would blow.”
Chris: Does this tie in for you to the wave collapse of the double slit experiment? If so, how?
Chris: Does this tie in for you to the wave collapse of the double slit experiment? If so, how?
2x: Chris, that may be a fantastically clever connection to the process!
In R3R (engram running by chains) we have a question “Is that erasing or becoming more solid?” which is asked when the auditor sees certain meter and pc phenomena.
The “becoming more solid” part could be likened to the collapse of the wave function while “erasing” could be the return to the probabilistic state. An interesting point here is that a restimulated engram will destimulate in 3-10 days if not further restimulated. In essence the restimulated (but not erased) engram can return to the probabilistic state and there is a probability of re-condensing it if it is not fully viewed and the postulate found. (Just to keep all things and terms in the “workable” framework 🙂 )
That concept completely aligns with the concept of Quantum Inertia that I’ve proposed as the guiding force in the stability of matter i.e. things will continue being in the form they are (wave-like or particle-like) until acted on by an outside force – like restimulation. I mentioned above that the restimulatable item might be sitting in a probabilistic state – which is a meta state between wave and particle (solid). I believe the QM meta state (probabilistic state) for matter and energy is short (portion of a Planck second) and cyclic (the repeating cycle being “condensed state”, “probabilistic state”, “condensed state”, …) however this meta state for a being would not have to conform to any particular cyclic period i.e. it could remain probailistic forever (not keyed-in) or key in, then key out later, then key in, etc., etc.
Well, all that may not fit into your framework, but it certainly does for mine, so thanks for the intuitive thought.
2X: Well, all that may not fit into your framework, but it certainly does for mine, so thanks for the intuitive thought.
Chris: It fits a framework I’ve been thinking of just fine. It fits many frameworks. When I proposed that I thought I’d read your work enough to think you might run with that ball, though it was ok if you didn’t. If you are pleased, so am I.
Chris: It fits a framework I’ve been thinking of just fine. It fits many frameworks.
2x: About a month ago when I was thinking about a model for the creation of the universe by thetans, I saw that the framework could fit Vinnie’s contention (to a degree) as well – that we are condensations of former beingnesses that dissolve at death only to recondense…
While I find flaws in his mechanism, the flaw in my initial thinking when he proposed the mechanism was that I was viewing MEST as something different from theta. That led me to disagree with him because he was saying MEST recondensed to the individual (to theta, soul…) and I was contending that theta was different from mest so couldn’t possibly dissolve and recondense as another individual.
The cognition I had that theta could create a universe by creating what we call the Higgs field and then stimulating that field to condense to matter, energy, space and time led me to re-evaluate many things. The biggest re-evaluation is how we define space. I won’t get into it here as this thread is already too long but, suffice it to say, the real space is a space the thetan makes and it likely has an electromagnetic character. Combining EM fields (spaces) in definable geometries produces the standing wave of field pattern we call the Higgs field. So MEST, from this point of view, is really just condensed space; is really a condensed attribute of theta, and could therefore be a medium that would respond to some degree the way Vin was proposing.
Not that I’d ever fully agree with Vin. 🙂
2X: however this meta state for a being would not have to conform to any particular cyclic period i.e. it could remain probabilistic forever (not keyed-in) or key in, then key out later, then key in, etc., etc.
Chris: I see your “meta state” for a being as almost exclusively probabilistic. Of all God’s creations, I see beings as the most complex and fragile and thin. I am guessing that there might be quite the “wind-up” between cycles of being with not-being using almost all of the time with the wave collapsing at the last possible instant. There seems to be something here to know about.
Chris: “I am guessing that there might be quite the “wind-up” between cycles of being with not-being using almost all of the time with the wave collapsing at the last possible instant. There seems to be something here to know about.”
2x: There could be a fairly long wind-up time or could hav been earlier on the track. My own personal recall is decently continuous over the last 3 LT’s and has an unencountered gap of 30-50 years since the early 1800’s. That gap could be a wind-up time but was more likely just not yet observed LT or LT’s.
Definitely more to know.
2X: I believe the QM meta state (probabilistic state) for matter and energy is short (portion of a Planck second) and cyclic (the repeating cycle being “condensed state”, “probabilistic state”, “condensed state”, …)
Chris: I didn’t express my idea very well. “Portions” of a Planck are currently meaningless in QM. However, this is not a problem to my way of thinking. It seems to me that there is a cyclical clock speed to the universe and it is quite fast, such as the Planck second. If we allow only for mass-less photons to cycle every Planck second, and furthermore to allow their propagation point to be discretely ,em>at every cycle we account for a few things:
1. The speed of light is now understood why it is constant for all frames of reference. 2. For not just not just a constant speed for light but for a single speed of propagation for all matter throughout the universe. 3. Every other thing cycles less frequently than every Planck second. However, everything moves at the speed of light for that Planck second. Did I say “move?” I should say instead, “appears in its new location” as often as needed to account for the rate of its movement. 4. Accounts for Heisenberg’s uncertainty, for now we can see that as time is sliced thinly enough; at that moment when we locate our particle, it’s velocity becomes zero. 5. Observation is in there somewhere, but it may not be quite what we think, else the mystery would dissolve.
These things may not fit into your framework, but check it out and see.
Chris: I didn’t express my idea very well. “Portions” of a Planck are currently meaningless in QM.
2x: We are largely in agreement but I’ll just expand a bit on the Planck cycle idea. A Planck cycle would IMO be constituted by an eXpansion and Contraction (XC) cycle of at least one space (assuming multple spaces comprise the Higgs field). That particular XC cycle may not be the same period (frequency) as the XC cycles that define the medium that we call space and what photons traverse. The Higgs field is most likely 11 or more dimensions. Which of those dimensions form the medium for photon propagation is a question but my guess is that light speed and the Planck cycle are two different things, perhaps a 1000:1 ratio (based on the EM spectrum versus the Planck second).
Getting back to portions of a Planck cyle: I think one phase (like the expansion phase) would be the “probabilistic” phase and the contraction phase would be the “condensed” phase. The explanation of that will take a bit longer and I have to get back to work.
2X: (the repeating cycle being “condensed state”, “probabilistic state”, “condensed state”, …)
Chris: I think that “condensed matter” belongs to that particular mathematical set of the universe belonging to manifested physics. The universe would contain many zero-points. If we were viewing this graphically in the complex plane, then I think there may be other iteration points which “tend away” from the zero point and maybe these can account somehow for dark matter and energy.
Short version: In the beginning, the iterations were faster at or approaching the speed of light, though the physical universe seems to be expanding, and that acceleration is increasing; man is moving slower due to the lengthening “not-being” between “being.” Or written another way, the moments of not being increasingly outnumber the moments of being. I see this in aging of people, and I see this in aging of the universe.
2X: In R3R (engram running by chains) we have a question “Is that erasing or becoming more solid?” which is asked when the auditor sees certain meter and pc phenomena.
Chris: Possibly then there is a human clock speed for processing information which can be “over-clocked” resulting in the “engram.” Written another way, the engram can be said to be a memory of a time when events happened too fast.
In your R3R example, possibly we are seeing a demonstration of choked data which could not be fully processed into information, but which waits in a queue until it is fully processed. Thus the question, “Is that erasing or becoming more solid?” As the input data is addressed, it may come out of queue. As it is addressed, the data becomes more vivid or solid as it becomes information. Once the input data can be processed into into information it can be erased and the memory as information can be filed as experience.
2X: In essence the restimulated (but not erased) engram can return to the probabilistic state and there is a probability of re-condensing it if it is not fully viewed and the postulate found.
Chris: Yes, the postulate gluing the engram, and also Hubbard’s “computation” and “service facsimile” together.
I read a lecture by Capt. Bill Robertson who harped on the “incomplete cycle of action” being at the root of case. He promoted that if one were to “go back” and complete all their cycles of action that they would erase their case.
This conversation about blowing by inspection; R3R engram running, mental processing speed and cache, computations, service facs, and the collapse of the wave function seem to me neatly related in this context and to be in agreement with Hubbard.
Marianne, the other spiritologie technique is to as-is considerations -until EP- by a method that resembles creative processing (like the ‘1.’ you mentioned before 🙂 ). Again it is addressed to all dynamics so you don’t just run it with a 1st dynamic point of view, but an 8th. (If a charged consideration is something like ‘my senior tells me off’, you run that too, and not just to feel OK with the fact that your senior tells you off, but to fully as-is that he tells you off, so that he doesn’t tell you off) It is based on the for-some-‘theory’-for-others-‘fact’ that all is-ness is the result of considerations (also explained in ‘Consideration and Mechanics’ in ‘Scientology 0-8’). It is called ‘mirroring’ (because you sort of reflect yourself –your creations), and can be run solo, and actually I cleared myself using that one (solo).
I like SCN 8-8008 creative processing too (yes, orgs stopped to deliver cp after 10 years or so, but it doesn’t make it unworkable. It just takes some skill and free creativity potential to deliver), but I don’t know anyone who would be willing to run it with me. Actually, nobody delivers processing beyond Clear where I live. It’s a shame because it’s such a powerful technique and addresses all dynamics too. And actually one of the reasons why I started to write on this topic here was to point out that for as long as there is case created in any form, on any dynamic, there is always a way to deal with it –SCN or not. It is such a lie that only processes that are delivered on the current COS Bridge are considered valid.
I assume that the CD that you mentioned can be found on youtube (?). I’m going to check it out. Thank you 🙂
Spyros: “It is based on the for-some-’theory’-for-others-’fact’ that all is-ness is the result of considerations (also explained in ‘Consideration and Mechanics’ in ‘Scientology 0-8′).”
The word “theory” has two basic definitions:
1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein’s theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate. Antonyms: practice, verification, corroboration, substantiation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory
When I use the word “theory” with regard to Scn, I am using definition # 1, not definition #2. JFYI 😉
Marildi, about ‘theory’: It is fine, I just didn’t want to open another topic debating whether the proposition that all isness is the result of considerations is true or not at that point, because it would take attention off the point I wanted to make. By the way, what you and me consider true about considerations, is not considered true by all SCNists. I know that by experience.
I got into SCN because I wanted to. Nobody took me by the hand and actually I was annoyed when some tried to take me by the hand. So, no outness, could make me identify the good with the bad and say that it is all bad. Beyond SCN or anything else, I have my own purpose and I put it above those things, and so I can use what I see to fit my purpose or discard it, without having my purpose shaked and snap all terminals into one mass 😉 😛
Spyros, ditto on all you said. (Although you may be one of only two or three here who would believe me. 😛 😉
2ndxmr
“blowing by inspection”, “zero perception”, whatever name,,,,yes, I do it too, that is Life as Flow simply “burns” the phenomenon…and there is more and more Flow and less and less to be “burnt”. I am happy that you joined in, I missed you.
Another thing which inhibits truth (as-isness) and the reason is very obvious:
Many, or most or almost everybody in SCN share the consideration that talking about flow 1 and (some) flow 3 is bad. In other words, if somebody (specialy in SCN) did something to you, or if you witnessed somebody else (of high status) doing something to another, you shouldn’t talk about it.
If you talk about flow 1, it means that you play victim and you are a wimp, and you do it because you have O/Ws. And if you talk about flow 3, obviously you do it to 3rd party. I mean if you imply that an ED is a bad guy for screaming at another without a fair cause, there is obviously something evil going on with you.
Imagine the alter-isness of a thetan thinking that what happened to him equals that he has done something to another in order for that to have happened to him. And imagine how he lowers his confronting and as-ising towards that. And Imagine the forgetfuleness that is the result of that.
There is that Div 6 course –Personal Values and Ijntergrity. I think overall it is a very nice one. I agree with the Dynamics, intergrity, the code of honour and the differentiation between ethics and moral. But why did you stick that O/Ws write-up in the end, David? How come you are so certain that I am a sinner?
Ever since your first days in the Church, some make sure you will never dare to blame the Church or important people therein about anything. If you do, it means you are guilty of something. And you let that happen, because you don’t like to have another O/W write-up. Am I lying? Maybe that wasn’t the case in your Church. It was the case in my local Church with all the people.
You know, O/W writeups is a very limited technique applied only in very specific situations. It is neither a thing that all ought to go through, nor some panaccea. Yet, whenever you have an issue and ask for ‘ethic’s’ help or worse, if you are forced to get ‘helped’ you get to write your O/Ws. I mean if you have an issue=you are guilty of something -major alteration of both the tech and your case.
I have said before there are some neat stuff written in older issues of SCN that aren’t considered important anymore by the COS because they’re old (Tech Degrade). In older times Ron used to call SPs ‘merchants of chaos’. In one issue (sorry I can’t recall nor have any way to locate it like this) he mentions that such a person (merchant of chaos) wants you to think that your motivators are of no importance, and your overts are of terrible importance. So, don’t buy this cr@p.
There are FOUR flows. And all ought to be as-ised. And you shouldn’t block yourself from communicating about ANY flow. People that are really dirty wouldn’t want you to communicate freely to hide their shit. A person that 3rd parties isn’t one who just mentions something. It is a person who intends to 3rd party to cause conflict –something that the COS does very well indeed.
Chris 2ndxmr
I read your discussion and I don’t know whether it helps or not, I put it here. It looks like from experience that what we call Life-Flow is in a probabilistic state. Also, that MEST is condensed space. When I said earlier that my “mind” collapsed, it meant that space was totally confronted and a kind of different from the “so far mest” energy” started to take control over my body and the “analytical” thinking function ( I wouldn’t call it a mind as an “entity”), also, perceiving is in different ways. The Higgs looks like “zero points and multiple space dimensions”. I know very little physics words, if I use something in a different way from you, I don’t mean to confuse you – neglect them. And I will be learning them.
Marianne: “what we call Life-Flow is in a probabilistic state. Also, that MEST is condensed space.”
I think Life-Flow was natively in the probabilistic state. In the state where we exist as man we must have some element of condensed state as we seem stuck to the physical universe. These ideas of state (probabilistic / condensed) may be very helpful in sorting out the nature of the being and the restoration of ability because it is beginning to unravel the mysteries of creation and origin (the awakening). It is certainly easier to begin to see origin / awakening from the context of a probailistic state than it is to say “the universe always existed”.
I have been working on an expansion of these ideas. Too long to post. If you are interested in them, please email me at 2ndxmr@hushmail.com
2ndxmr
Thank you! Besides the hot stuff of everyday life and some “spiritual practice”, this is what I am interested in now! Just on time! Sending you an email.
2ndxmr
when you experience the other persons universe that is still your experience, your reality, on the long run there is only one universe which exist for you… your creation-experience. one can to experience other persons moment that split second of now… We say I experience I feel you, hell no.. cant be done.
Elizabeth: “We say I experience I feel you, hell no.. cant be done”
I would tend to agree with you on that. Looking at what goes on at the theta level I speculate that each thetan is a complex set of vibrations. These vibrations are the equivalent of emotions and thought. A thetan occupies or makes a volume of space from which it perceives. It is possible, then, for two or more thetans to occupy the same space. We could call that Affinity – the willingness to share the same space – but the emotions generated by each thetan may have nothing to do with what we think of as affection or love.
In order to duplicate the reality of another thetan, an exact copy of the vibrations must exist for each, and an exact same interpretation of the vibration, as well. I expect one thetan could make a copy of the others vibrations but that still does not mean the vibrations will be interpreted in the same way. In other words duplication of vibration doesn’t imply understanding, especially if the thetans do not share a common universe. However, when the universe is shared, like sharing this physical universe, then there is a much better chance that the vibrations are understood – especially if they can be interchanged as pictures. The reason for pictures would be to have a common “language”.
So even when sharing the same space it may be quite difficult to feel exactly what another feels. It comes down to interpretation which most likely would be affected by individual experience. The more common the experiences of the thetans, then, the more likely they will be to share a reality.
2ndx….. right you are.. but here is what I have found out,, seen, experienced, gotten solid reality of: At first it was a bit difficult to accept but i gotten used to the idea and the reality of it. By now I am totaly fine with it, and in fact I love it.
2 or 3 theans have the same viewpoint…. hehehe how about, if your space is clean of all considerations- agreements.. than create a view point in this case have a new cognition, cognition is pure since not altered mass nothing but nothing cant stop it… any idea how many other awarnes becomes aware and experience that cognition and have that reality that it belongs to them? 🙂 I have seen that incradible occurance… and not only once.
One enegy -mass let say a star is being born that mass of energy IS experienced by unimaginable number of beings and most likely most of them have totaly different reality, sensation, feelings, names for that one item, but that item is part of their so called track..
The masses of energy is experienced by all but only the thoughts- considerations the wording how one named that energy mass is different.
When one as- is that item that item is still there but only My connection is erased as-ised and I had a cognition on that but how you see that same thing is still there for you..till you will as-is the connection, that experience.
So to me it was fun to find out to know that i have no idea just how many of us sleeping in one bad and how many of us say it is my bed, and how many of us say I am Elizabeth Hamre.
And I love it, I truly do..
Elizabeth: “any idea how many other awarnes becomes aware and experience that cognition and have that reality that it belongs to them?”
I have long expected an entanglement of theta as similar cognitions are had at virtually the same time and generally separated by half the planet in distance.
What you have said here puts a big “Wow!” factor into the picture. The cognition literally fractures a space and new awareness units are created but their first and primary awareness is the cognition that created them. From that point they continue development through new experience – from a shared bed to a solar birth.
Crackers… There’s always one who wants crackers . 🙂 (joke)
Thanks for sharing that, Elizabeth. Truly amazing and enlightening.
2nd… nonono the cognitions DO NOT FRATURE THE SPACE OR UNIVERSE… no… the cognitions do not contain have mass. cognitions are without mass therefore can
penetrate anything since there is no solidity than a cognition can not be walled in, be stopped.
The sustenance of a cognition cant be explained with words, because any sustenance can be stopped. If it is hard than can shatter fragment other mass but cognition penetrate “saturate”
It penetrate everything, any reality.. but the person who has lot of considerations because those considerations have mass the person is stuck to that heavy mass [solid concepts= devil is evil] and cant see perceive the light.. different reality…. so he has to as-is lots of heavy mass and as he goes getting audited he will locate that cognition-knowlkedge which till than was covered up by crap.
So BINGO— I am the light!!! he cognites !!!! hurray! he just found somebodies cog.. could be mine hehehe… and why not?
Elizabeth: “nonono the cognitions DO NOT FRATURE THE SPACE OR UNIVERSE”
I’ll have to figure out a different way of saying it. Awareness units becoming aware is not an easy concept to convey with words.
Yes, thank you for the cog.
2ndx….
my understanding: long before there were thoughts, thinkings, concepts created, or there were any considerations, there were awarness but not labeled as it is now and understood by any one that they were aware
of something. No one is thinking in the spiritual realm..
In other word One was in total PT… in ”now” at all time.. same as now, since that never will change but the so called”’ thinking” having concepts complicates and the reality of NOW what is very difficult to comprehand for most , for those who believe in concepts as Time-present-past-future.
Splitting awarness to me is having attantion –or got attantion stock on something longer than other person, again that too only exist if one operates in the conceptual universe.[ i wonder if i said that right? since I never used that term ‘conceptual universe’ before]
Elizabeth: “nonono the cognitions DO NOT FRATURE THE SPACE OR UNIVERSE”
I think I’ve got a way to articulate this now.
What I experienced from your data was a cognition that felt like a break or bubble in my space. What I believe I was sensing was an automaticity that created a copy of the cognition. That automaticity is triggered by surprise. This could be the mechanism that causes a thetan to duplicate itself: the being is surprised by something and the automaticity causes it to create a duplicate which it can view and analyze (at least view). This automaticity could be likened to a convulsive wave going over a body. When it is theta experiencing this phenomena, the wave can alter the space; create a bubble sort of space that breaks from the thetans space and is viewable as different – while at the same time being the same as it is a copy of the thetan cognition at that moment of creation.
This mechanism could explain how the “indigo” could quickly fill with copies of the first awakening being: the first awakened getting the emotion of surprise at even the idea of awakening, automatically making a copy, and so forth.
I have no reality on your reality my universe has become very simple place… it is irrelevant how many beings duplicate anything. the only thing matters to one is as-ising ones connections….
2ndx ….. you are lost in the maze of implants….
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:28 PM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> I have no reality on your reality my universe has become very simple > place… it is irrelevant how many beings duplicate anything. the only > thing matters to one is as-ising ones connections…. > >
Elizabeth: “2ndx ….. you are lost in the maze of implants…. ”
It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find implant mechanisms in this area. That was one of the first thoughts I had – that an implant to limit the automaticity would be a good way to keep the indigo from overfilling with thetans creating duplicates faster than rabbits.
Regardless of the implants that have to be handled on the way out, it is worrthwhile looking at the origins for reasons for the implants.
in the ‘maze’… is more than one.. .it is worthwhile to erase even one. because if not that will hold one… I have encountered on my path SP’s of different kind what you have written about… nothing to do with reality here… so sometimes when you feel up to it and interested give me a call…. 604 467-5328 Hitler or Stalin or any of those persons you have named they are not SP’s far from it.
2X, looks like you and Elizabeth may both be right, Elizabeth as regards implants and you as regards to sensing “an automaticity that created a copy of the cognition”, and perhaps “surprise” is a matter of being thrown out of PT into an automaticity:
“In response to the rhythm of the physical universe, undoubtedly assisted by overts and implants and convictions of the need of recording, the thetan began to respond to the physical universe in his creations and eventually obsessively created (by means of restimulatable involuntary intentions) the passing moments of the physical universe. But only when he began to consider these pictures important could they be used to aberrate him.” (Understanding the E-meter)
That may be, but as a mechanism for creating a copy, it works. You’ve got to ask yourself, if the begiining started with one being, how did all the rest come about?
Elizabeth wrote about the birth of a star and countless beings being there to bask in the energy. Where did they all come from?
lol, so you tell me i am the original being in this universe and all you folks are here because me have had a very heavy sex life? [spiritual or otherwise?] lol lol lol I can tell you i been observing the universes growth since than and a bit more and I could tell you who really I am… but would you believe it?
Elizabeth: “I can tell you i been observing the universes growth since than and a bit more and I could tell you who really I am… but would you believe it?”
Sometimes realities are too different to immediately understand. Sometimes, given time to process the initially unbelievable data, understanding dawns and that understanding eliminates the need for “belief”.
Personally, I tend to “believe” little but I will also suspend dis-belief while I accumulate and process data. In the interim I am reluctant to invalidate another’s data or claim.
That’s the best offer I can make.
lol… thanks.. it do not make any difference if you know or not… absolutely not…. you have no idea that in my reality what i said to you has no meaning what so ever… none.. I do not take seriously any reality no matter who say what and most of all my own… simply because I do understand…
There is no copy of the cognition… there is only one cognition and no one makes a ”” copy”’of it… You guy did not duplicated what I have written. humans do attempt to make copies what they see… but since they cant duplicate they have altered reality of the original in their possession and that is the reason people have different reality on everything… If any one could totally duplicate something than it would disappear for them why we have MEST????
2ndx..
“new awareness units are created but their first and primary awareness is the cognition that created them
No new awarness units created, not in my reality, what i am aware of, experienced and ”seen” is the awarness was there all the time they just have become aware of different reality, in this case the cognitions, My bed mates cognite as I cognite, i had many thousands of them so have they and that is how the universe gets cleared and not just this planet, of the black tide=aberration.. But in my reality the game is continuing but just taking different direction… not better or worst… just different…
Brilliantly stated! 🙂
2ndx
”The reason for pictures would be to have a common “language”.
Way off reality.. The eyes see…. as a camera do: flat, pictures it takes and nothing more.
The spirit is aware of and experience that object let say bush. large bush. Your eyes see only what is able to see right front of it and nothing more, same with looking at a house. What do you see? Flat surface the rest what you see is seen by the spirit it self, and the knowingness what the eyes see is added to that flat picture..
You dont have ”common language” becouse what the eyes see. Some of the common reality simply exist because of the knowledge one has ”seeing that picture”‘
And some has more reality than others because they can experience that energy -mass-vibration more then others.
The spirit ”SEES everything without the ”eyes” but it just depands on how much that spirit tusts it self or only trust that flat picture. EXM;; I see a bush.. No.. he has seen everything about that bush down to the last sell, that is how one sees. So the picture is apicture is a picture a flat photo.. the rest we add to it… and you really dont have any reality how my camera is taking those pictures…
Elizabeth: “So the picture is apicture is a picture a flat photo.. the rest we add to it… and you really dont have any reality how my camera is taking those pictures…”
I have used pictures or mockups very successfully many times with animals, especially my pets. The picture could be of pouncing on a mouse which will get the cat to go to the door and go hunting. Once, as a test to ensure this wasn’t just random coincidence, I had my cat jump up on a chair, then jump down – up, down, up, down, up, down – 3 times like that. After the third time the cat turned and gave me a look like “What the hell?” and I realized I’d taken it to the level of overt action.
The point is, it is my reality that I can put a picture or a thought in a location with a vibrational frequency that can be duplicated by the recipient. This is especially true with animals as I find their tone levels are easier to pick up and stay relatively constant. The picture is a 3-d picture not a flat picture. It’s as if I’d see it from their viewpoint.
I understand what you’re saying about seeing every cell in a plant as opposed to just the external features of the plant. That would be expected as theta ability improves and one can “Know” by pervading the space (being aware of all points of the space).
2ndx… If I compare where humans are on the awarness scale and the four legged ones or winged, or simply slidering critters, I put the human awarness to minus, sub level to any cat or dog or bird… Some people would hate me for saying this and say that humans are inteligent they can learn… big deal, animals don have to learn they simply know… they do learn from parents but their communication is superior in comparison to human’s ability.. ours is nowhere…
Elizabeth: We say I experience I feel you, hell no.. cant be done.
Chris: I’ve got to agree.
Chris
” I feel you – can’t be done”. Yes, it can be done. 1. two “beings” can “disappear” in pure no-thingness”. 2. two “beings” can “vibrate together”. 3. two beings can “flow” together.
EVERYBODY LISTEN: MARIANNE FOUND THE KEY, THE MAGIC WAND..which will free us all!!!
If two being can desapear into nothingness well hell… than we all can…!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we have the answer, finally!!!!!
We can forget scientology, screw sessions, forget confronting…searching-through learning, blogging, fuck the solidity the MEST and all the thoughts consideration.. the whole idiatic no-understanding and not knowing, lets forget the questions we have and the answers we want..Fuck it all
AT THE COUNT OF THREE lets cordinate our vibration sand lets us flow out of this hell hole into the nothingness;;
READY!!!!!!! 1…….2…….3…… BLAST OFF!!!
Shit, I am still here, I am not well cordinated or must used the wrong vibration flow….. MOOOOOOOM my thingy is broken!!!
goddam Elizabeth, I don’t know if you or George Carlin is funnier!
Ch… and who is he? do you think, he and I we could vibrate together and flow into nothingness? i have not shared vibration since my last divorce that was in 96, but i was told this vibration is the same as bicycling, once you know how you never forget it..
Elizabeth: goddam Elizabeth, I don’t know if you or George Carlin is funnier! Chris… and who is he? do you think, he and I we could vibrate together and flow into nothingness? i
Chris: Click on this and see George Carlin.
Chris, that George Carlin vid was more than perfect. What a guy. Met him in a nightclub and was invited to his room with others and he was the nicest guy and kept us laughing. What a bright kind person he was, beyond his words.
deE: What a bright kind person he was, beyond his words.
Chris: That’s a great memory! Thanks for sharing it.
Ch.. I looked him up.. naaaah , I dont think he is ready for experiencing my vibration.. he would have a heart attack… kill over on the spot..
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 6:44 PM, elizabeth hamre wrote:
> Ch… and who is he? do you think, he and I we could vibrate > together and flow into nothingness? i have not shared vibration since my > last divorce that was in 96, but i was told this vibration is the same as > bicycling, once you know how you never forget it.. > >
MT… I want you to know that you were not mis-understood about 2 being vibration. Sexual climax the word for that act.. while one is having a climax that person not disaperared into nothing-ness… nooooooo. Ask Marildi what LRH said-written where is sex on the tone scale. and what is sex period ..and its meaning..
If we would be disapearing while having a climex, this planet would be MINUS PEOPLE! something like that…
I believe LRH had some unhandled trauma regarding sex. Probably also some issues on eating. And a few loads of it regarding psychiatry. Just sayin’
Geir…. you are tooooo kind when you saidhe had ”few”’.. If one really wants on example of a powerfully aberrated person LRH fits that example well.
Sex.. the act it self hold many realities.. we know that.. but one do not vanish into nothing-ness when one is experiencing climax..
oncein session i have seen a concept when the ”climax” that energy mass was created to catapult the being out of energy which no longer was wanted the catapult served to gain different level of reality.
When i have seen that I felt shock? since that reality was so alien to me that time.. But that enegy than was much more powerful than now and the being was also less heavy? Locked in? So than it worked.. but that was waaaaaaaaaay back..
On the Chart of Human Evaluation, sex is at all tone levels but the attitude and activity itself vary greatly from level to level. It’s on the Know to Mystery Scale that sex is low on the scale, and that is because it is the way the person tries to know, rather than trying to know at higher levels:
“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’.” (Creation of Human Ability)
M…. thank you.. I knew you could pull up the info.. you are good…
Marianne is probably talking about something that isn’t actually sex, though it has been compared to sex. It’s a spiritual joining, described in this video:
…M… the video did not come in with the email… thanks again… but if that is what she talking about that still not working.. I knew few people who do believe that through sex they will achieve what ever… outside of having circles under day eyes and have back aches, and into group sex to highten their sensations plus smoking pot well.. that is where they are at..
Me being ignorant about many different topics and i claime that State too dont work either since it will not catapult one into nothingness.. 🙂
E. in that video, he wasn’t actually talking about sex. He said it was called out-of-body “sex” because sex is also a sharing but on a physical level. But the joining of two spiritual beings was not a physical thing at all. Watch it again if you want and you’ll see what I mean.
I could not find the link to the video and cant go through over 1300 posts
It’s not a link, it’s the video itself. Just go a few posts up from this one and you’ll see it.
Gotta run out for a while now, will be back later.
Oh yes.. i have seen it before and this video i would beliefe if I would see proof that those two really shared or just agreed with words.. By now i dont trust word.
Marildi: “He said it was called out-of-body “sex” because sex is also a sharing but on a physical level. But the joining of two spiritual beings was not a physical thing at all.”
Chris: I posit that there is not out of body sex. Neither a joining of two spiritual beings except as a physical thing.
I don’t see why two beings cannot manufacture sexual emotion and flow it towards each other, in or out of the body or apart from a body or bodies.
Check out the words ‘succubus’, ‘incubus’. Both are sexually active disembodied beings. But of course by medieval times pretty much any kind of spirit was portrayed as degraded, demonic, or evil.
It ties right in with the Know to Mystery Scale, right? What’s right above Mystery?
Valkov: What’s right above Mystery?
Chris: uh, bullshit? We are writing about these theety-weety (see, using Scientologese) concepts like they are real outside the bubble of Scientology.
Valkov my dear the only mystery is in this universe what you say there is because there is no mystery.. just denial of knowing..
Wrong again! Sex is just above Mystery. Bullshit would belong in the next level up, Eating.
If you looked up those words from the 14th Century AD, it might strike you that that was long before what you call the “scientology bubble” existed….. they originated outside of that ‘bubble’.
Ch… I am with you on that… only mass can intermingle with mass [only if it is thin-light] and one can indentify with with the mass and say–consider-agree that we are one..
Eliz: Me being ignorant about many different topics and i claime that State too dont work either since it will not catapult one into nothingness.. 🙂
Chris: Good point.
Marildi I been thinking… even if two being is joined in spiritual ‘belief’ ther still can only ”feel” their own individual sensations… what ever they believe that sensation is regardless if they are in or out.. but this is my reality only …
Eliz: even if two being is joined in spiritual ‘belief’ ther still can only ”feel” their own individual sensations… what ever they believe that sensation is regardless if they are in or out.. but this is my reality only
Chris: Your statement strikes at the deepest considerations of how and why and what we “experience.” I see it this way too.
CH…….. now we both can stand on the soap box and trumpet our reality to the world.. but first lets have lunch and double wisky with branch water…
Marildi: . . . Marianne is probably talking about something that isn’t actually sex, . . .
Chris: Oy vey! Again with the explaining away what other people are saying? Elizabeth explained something in a certain way according to her reality and you are giving her the “Frenchman’s wave?” Did you get what she explained because right or wrong, there was something there to “Know” on the “Know to mystery” scale and it was kind of involved.
Marildi
Campbell is right….there is a lot more to it. Thanks for the video.
Marildi
“On the Chart of Human Evaluation sex is at all tone levels but the attitude and activity itself
vary greatly from level to level.” The way I see it now., sex and creativity go hand in hand. In the root of an artistic creation,there is a subtle orgasmic feeling. Also, when one creates an original idea. Also in some out-of-body spiritual experiences. To me it seems that “Life-Potential” has an inherent “energy” which when “creates” itself into “form”, that “instant” of creation is both organic and orgasmic. Though it is very mild. Once the “creation” is “out”, the “feeling” ceases to be but when another person is really-really viewing e.g. an artistic masterpiece, in the core of it one can find that initial “energy” which is not different from the person’s “core energy” (nonduality, oneness experience).
Marianne: “The way I see it now, sex and creativity go hand in hand.”
Did you know that “Creativity” was the last definition LRH gave to the second dynamic? That is the definition on the Life Orientation Course.
And even in the 1951 Chart of Human Evaluation, in the column of “Sexual Behavior” at the highest level it states: “Sexual interest high but often sublimated to creative thought”. 😉
Btw, that’s why I said in a recent comment that I find this subject that you and 2ndxmr (and sometimes me too) have been discussing is “exciting!”. 🙂
p.s. I wanted to at least reply to this particular comment of yours, but I won’t have time to answer the others from today until later.
M:”Did you know that “Creativity” was the last definition LRH gave to the second dynamic? That is the definition on the Life Orientation Course.”
S: Marildi, all dynamics contains -or not- creativity. That thing is 99% an RTC datum. It cannot be that all that time he said 2D is about family etc and in the end to change it. Also combine this with that fact that the SO forbids procreation, and the other datum that a person with an SP valence hates life and procreations as well…
Spyros: “Marildi, all dynamics contains -or not- creativity… It cannot be that all that time he said 2D is about family etc and in the end to change it.”
Hey, Spyros, how can I get any work done with these kinds of comments that I can’t resist replying to? 😛
I don’t disagree that creativity is in all dynamics. And we could also say that the first dynamic is in the second and third, etc., or that MEST is in most other dynamics, and so on. LRH noted that the dynamics were “arbitrary” divisions made in order to break up the whole of life into comprehensible parts so the parts could be looked at and thus the whole could be understood.
And yes, 2D is still about family and the *creation* of offspring. But as I noted, even in 1951 on the Chart of Human Evaluation, LRH wrote that at the highest level on the chart sex is often sublimated to creative thought. So even back then, he was aware of the broader meaning of creativity on the second dynamic. 😛 🙂
Marildi: Hey, Spyros, how can I get any work done with these kinds of comments that I can’t resist replying to? 😛
Spyros: Good! Then I achieved what I wanted 😛 I don’t really argue with what you mentioned and I co-create. My only little disagreement is that in my universe I don’t need to have 2d or 3d along with 6d, or other mixing of dynamics. 6D in particular is not the one and only form of MEST. It’s just MEST with which, to some degree we agree, so it gives the delusion that it is one. But there can be an infinity of MESTs. Just saying…
Still after all that data I see a firm division between creativity and family in specific, and judging by the behaviour of the COS, I would say it tries to be both family and group for some people, especially in the Sea Org.
Spyros: “Still after all that data I see a firm division between creativity and family in specific, and judging by the behaviour of the COS, I would say it tries to be both family and group for some people, especially in the Sea Org.”
Me: You won’t get any argument from me about the CoS (or anybody else here :P).
Here’s another quote that I like as regards creation (of thought) on the second dynamic:
“Even beyond the fathering and bearing and rearing of children, a human being does not seem to be complete without a relationship with a member of the opposite sex. This relationship is the vessel wherein is nurtured the life force of both individuals, whereby they create the future of the race in body and thought.”
NIce, eh? 😉
Marildi: NIce, eh? 😉
Spyros: Yes. But can you imagine what that did you my buddhist timetrack and service facs? 😛
Spyros: “Yes. But can you imagine what that did you my buddhist timetrack and service facs? :P”
Actually, I don’t know enough about Buddhism and its ser facs. But sounds interesting. Anyway, if it did something for your ser facs I’ll take I win. 😛
You’re gonna love this quote if you haven’t seen it before:
“All that is wrong with any case is a service facsimile. Discover and reduce the service facsimile and its chain, and the auditor changes the nature of man and promotes him. An individual who has no service facsimile will not accumulate facsimiles to his harm or become restimulated by others. The heart of auditing is the service facsimile.” (Advanced Procedure and Axioms)
Isn’t that amazing? Seriously. 🙂
M: “Actually, I don’t know enough about Buddhism and its ser facs. But sounds interesting. Anyway, if it did something for your ser facs I’ll take I win. :P”
S: I didn’t want to tell you, but I had read that about 2D, before you mentioned it 😛 In Buddhism, the way I know it, the handling for everything is ‘nothing’. But a created nothing. Whatever happens, you meditate. You mock up nothingness. You have a sexual impulse, you meditate. You have problem, you meditate. You don’t comm much. You only take care of very basic things, and the rest of the time, you mock up nothing. That can also be used as a solution to a confusion. thus, the service fac. Buddhism like SCN has undergone some major alter/not-is. So one may not fully arrive there –to the actual nothing which means ‘no creation at all’. Instead he may be left with an impulse to escape life with a created ‘nothing’. And that can get grim. “The road to truth can be a dangerous one…”
M:“All that is wrong with any case is a service facsimile.
S: Yes. So important. specially the one about nothingness that I mentioned 😛
M: No biggie. I can see that the is an “alliance in life”, just not the only dynamic that would fit that definition. 😛
S: Fine. I’ll see if I can find it.
Thanx for chatting and sleep well 🙂
S:”I would say it tries to be both family and group for some people, especially in the Sea Org.”
S: Also consider the definition for family -by LRH- “alliance in life”. Makes so much sense that it is the COS! Why? Because if one had an ally in life other than the COS, the COS would lose some grasp on that person. The ethics department in particular, that has become a psychology advisory department, would almost run out of business.
Spyros: “Also consider the definition for family -by LRH- “alliance in life”. Makes so much sense that it is the COS!”
Again, no need to preach to the choir (me) about the CoS. It went into overrun for me long ago as it has been going on way, way longer than needed to get the point. 😉 😛
I’m not familiar with the definition of family – “alliance in life”. Do you remember the reference?
Marildi: It went into overrun for me long ago as it has been going on way, way longer than needed to get the point. 😉 😛
Spyros: haha I don’t mean to overrun. I just point out inconsistencies between LRH and SCN as COS or COS-minded people. That’s the differentiation I tried to make with my first messages, and got ridged and trapped in the process 😛
Marildi: I’m not familiar with the definition of family – “alliance in life”. Do you remember the reference?
Spyros: Sorry, but no. Most of the data I have, come from lectures or bulletins so it’s hard to tell sometimes. But if you are really interested, I will check some possible spots that I have ‘in mind’.
Spyros: “Sorry, but no. Most of the data I have, come from lectures or bulletins so it’s hard to tell sometimes. But if you are really interested, I will check some possible spots that I have ‘in mind’.”
No biggie. I can see that the is an “alliance in life”, just not the only dynamic that would fit that definition. 😛
I gotta call it quits for the day anyway. Always fun chatting with the little devil, though. 🙂
The way it is possible
It’s a nondual experience. That is no-thingness “experiences” itself as no-thingness. Vibration “experiences” itself as vibration. The Flow “experiences” itself as the Flow. Two “beings” can “get lost” by being these experiences. Only after the sensation of the “mind” and “body” come back, there is a “recall”, but not necessarily, the beings can also “become” aware of “present time mest environment” – in both cases duality has returned. The no-thing, vibration, Flow “parts” of the mind make the “recall” possible as they are the same substance. As the mind enters, the explanations can be different to varying degrees depending on thought-structure, value, personality, ego differences – which, in retrospect, can make the pure experiences look like as if they were “created” by the “beings” – but they were not. All this can be experienced.
I see sex(duality) and creation go hand-in-hand way up the “tone-scale”.
I can also put it in a different way….these experiences show the early non-dual (one) consciousness’s/life-force’s abilitity to non-create and create. As “we are” still that “substance”, which “knows”, “remembers” itself in all “forms”, these experiences can be accessed. And a way more…possibly all.
Marianne.. I do have reality of the MEST universe..
Thank you…. I really got the vibration and all what is happening… By now I dont have to get another person to get vibrate with me in order to gain a moment of pleasure… tone 40 is LRH ‘s reality and what that is, is a total nonesence… anybody who believes in Levels is stuck in some concept… But you still not answered my question what do you mean by AC whitour R and how that works.
Oddly, this is the whole Scientology timetrack from the beginning up to present time. But written in 1952…
“…But the man paid little heed. He tried to form companies to make the golden ball available to many. But the people in the companies said, “It’s mine!” ‘It’s power!” “It’s gold!” and “The man will kill us all!” and so they fought amongst themselves and threw dust over the golden ball and tried to dent it.
And at last the man sat down in a desert place and sent his word about that anybody could use this ball that wanted it. And they sent officers and thieves and lawyers at him to say that nobody could use the ball.”
http://www.freezone.org/LRH/a_story.htm
Here’s something very relevant to the OP:
The EP of the PTS rundown is described in “HCO BULLETIN OF 31 DECEMBER 1978RB, Issue I:
“The PTS Rundown is run to the end phenomena of a pc who is getting and keeping case gains and never again roller-coasters.”
Could anyone, ever, attest to having achieved this EP?
I haven’t done it, and I can’t speak on behalf of all, but why would an SP want to make you PTS-proof? This EP seems like an effort to make churchies oblivious of their PTSness.
Geir, I think the reason that EP sounds radical is that many people have extended the meaning of “roller-coaster” to mean the ups and downs in life. Here’s the actual definition:
ROLLER-COASTER, 1. a case that betters and worsens. A roller-coaster is always connected to a suppressive person and will not get steady gains until the suppressive is found on the case or the basic suppressive person earlier. Because the case doesn’t get well he or she is a potential trouble source to us, to others and to himself. (HCOB 8 Nov 65) 2. a slump after a gain. Pcs who do not hold their gains are PTS. (HCOB 9 Dec 71RA) 3 . gets better, gets worse, gets better, gets worse. (SH Spec 63, 6506C08)
In other words, it specifically has to do with losing session gains.
Good point M. I too thought it was more general.
I used to drool over that RD because I allowed people to take my self determinism in the name of goodness (friendship, ethics or whatever was ‘good’). It was a hard road out. I have located 3 SPs that held 3 posts in my local org. I could never locate them while under their influence. They f@cked me, (not literally) and still I not-ised my thoughts that they exhibited SP attitude. So I needed a good one, to wake up.
Yes, that term is a good example of Scientology “slang”, among other common MU’s that create confusion. As a word clearer I ran into a lot of that!
The more I hear about your org, Spyros, the more I can believe it was infested by SPs. My first Class V org I have realized was one of the best. But later when I was in the SO at a Class VI org and then at Flag I had some of my hardest lessons in Scn about how the tech can be misused and abused. Btw, I consider those lessons to be invaluable.:P How else could I have learned so well the ways that Scn can go wrong – and from what I know the primary reason is bad intention.
It was actually when I was staff at a management org that I really started learning about what was happening in Scn. While I was still on staff at a service org, there was some reason I had to go into that particular management org, and just walking into the place I “felt” the heavy entheta. I said to myself “Wow, I would never want to work here!”. Well, not too long after that, wouldn’t you know, I was “urgent directed” to that very org. And my first impression was 100% right. As a Scientologist I was literally ashamed of those people. But somehow I justified it all. Again, valuable lessons. 😉
Well, them 3 had enough authority to ruin everything. I dont know if we had more. The Church is really an SP magnet, and they aim for high status (reminds me of that ‘man and the golden ball’ story). Considering how anti-authoritarian Ron was in his texts and lectures…now it’s only enough to utter the title of your post or some other title to always be right –c@nts!
A bit before I left my COS I nearly joined Flag too. I was in very bad ARC with my local one and thought that maybe the ones abroad werent as bad (later on I found that many had similar experiences to mine). On the other hand the idea of the SO gave me a bad feeling because I had the impression that the people were very obedient to their seniors etc I can cooperate and even do things for something/someone I want, but it has to be fully my decision each given time. I wouldnt obey somebody just because he has some status.
Your perceptions and ability to be your own orientation point were better than mine. 😛
Spyros
“the church is an SP magnet” – just an instant thought. Can it be a case, that as one’s “space” gets clearer and clearer, going up the Bidge, that person will attract SP-s? Also, this question can be examined from the aspect of quantum physics. (also, SP is based on considerations).
Marianne: “Spyros“the church is an SP magnet” – just an instant thought. Can it be a case, that as one’s “space” gets clearer and clearer, going up the Bidge, that person will attract SP-s? Also, this question can be examined from the aspect of quantum physics. (also, SP is based on considerations).”
Spyros: Yes, it’s all postulates/considerations. One usually attracts SPs to put him down. In my experience, the less one dramatises SP valence in 1st dynamic, the less the other dynamics dramatise it too –so less SPs. The Church attracted SPs because of it’s own overts (KSW 1).
Marildi: “The more I hear about your org, Spyros, the more I can believe it was infested by SPs. . . . How else could I have learned so well the ways that Scn can go wrong – and from what I know the primary reason is bad intention.”
Chris: This is a base comment which was spoon fed to you by L. Ron Hubbard via Keeping Scientology Working. It is a huge Ad Hom against and extremely unfair to the many thousands of staff members, including yourself, who with nothing but good intentions tried in vain to make a mish mash of knee jerk administration policies into the world’s premiere organizational technology.
Chris: extremely unfair to the many thousands of staff members, including yourself, who with nothing but good intentions tried in vain to make a mish mash of knee jerk administration policies into the world’s premiere organizational technology.”
I agree with you. In the ’70’s my org was thriving in Miami and all staff were a good intentioned bunch and they all were admired for their work.
deE: “In the ’70′s my org was thriving in Miami and all staff were a good intentioned bunch and they all were admired for their work.”
Chris: Exactly my observation as well. It took L. Ron Hubbard’s own personal counter-intention to quell that fire. I could never ever write a story filled with such irony as the “Story of Scientology.”
Chris, my reference to “bad intention” wasn’t to the vast majority of staff members. The context about the management org should tell you that I was referring to management terminals.
Btw. the last good many comments of yours to me reminded me of a video I think you’ll resonate with 😀 :
Marildi: Btw. the last good many comments of yours to me reminded me of a video I think you’ll resonate with 😀 :
Chris: LMAO! Could that possibly last any longer?
Chris: LMAO! “Could that possibly last any longer?”
LOL – I figured we could at least have a good laugh together.
And I think we’ve already proven that it could last longer. Hahahaha 😀
Chris: This is a base comment which was spoon fed to you by L. Ron Hubbard via Keeping Scientology Working.
2x. Here’s what worked in the 70’s:
Dianetics books were sold, read and talked about. People went into Missions because they had read Dianetics, not because they were well situated and glitzy. Missions sold the comm course, HQS, Student Hat and Standard Dianetics courses. Keeners could do the PRD (Primary Rundown). Missions were a fun place to be. They delivered auditing actions like Life Repair, Grades, and Standard Dianetics. People initiated visits to the reg to figure out how they were going to get to Clear in x time. Wins were incredible. Public not on course or receiving auditing would go to Friday night graduation to hear the wins and visit. Our mission was closed on Saturday, meaning that a lot of partying got done Friday night! People completed courses and worked out how to go to the Org for training as Levels Auditors. Proportionate pay was enough to keep staff willing to be staff. People asked to join staff. Applicants were rejected if untrained or had personal outpoints.
Damn it was a good time.
When it stopped working:
Sometime in early 1980. New policies emerged. The mood changed with the staff. Ethics got heavy. Staff departed. The GO got heavy handed and had stable terminals declared. In the space of a year the Mission was gutted, never to recover, but later forced to become an Org. No more partying Friday night as there was post and course on Saturday. Academy hours increased and left no time for personal time, including dinner after work.
Conclusion: The beingness of the organization changed from being one of “working toward a product” to one of “working toward a stat.” That changed the atmosphere from one of “play” to one of “work”. Thetans like to work but need time to play, as well. Take all opportunities to play away and it turns into a slave labor operation and slave / slave-driver mentality. At that point the gains have to be astonishingly good to make up for the loss of livingness. The odds were against that. The rest is history.
2x, beautifully told. That was almost exactly my experience too. You are a gem. 🙂
2X: Sometime in early 1980. New policies emerged.
Chris: My recollection of the Story of Scientology is similar to your own with exception to the date locate which I put at 1977 when I first became a Scientologist. There were a few momentous occassions such as the Mission Holders Conference, but my impression of COS was new and more creative ways of implementing KSW especially by bring in more cash. Yes, handing staff a suppressive “games-condition” like Ron’s megalomaniac “Birthday Game = 5.4X the Stats!” was no fun. It seemed greedy and arbitrary since nothing to get the public “up the bridge” was ever implemented, only demands for more sales of increasingly more expensive services. I lay the responsibility for this squarely at the feet of Hubbard who spoke sooth when at the end of his life told Sarge Pfauth that he ” . . . had failed.”
Chris: “Yes, handing staff a suppressive “games-condition” like Ron’s megalomaniac “Birthday Game = 5.4X the Stats!” was no fun. It seemed greedy and arbitrary since nothing to get the public “up the bridge” was ever implemented, only demands for more sales of increasingly more expensive services.”
2x. Now there’s a nail hit squarely on the head. I tended to not-is the Birthday Game (BG) and instead work towards getting the best product I could. Yes, the BG could have been a seriously big monkey wrench as all kinds of false stats and stat pushes became the order of the day. The demands for 6 point affluences on 3-week periods were best met by crashing the stat every 4th week, then taking 3 weeks to build it back up. Stat graphs looked like roller coasters with long-term emergency trends. Yet those 3-week affluences won BG points and the game.
2X: The demands for 6 point affluences on 3-week periods were best met by crashing the stat every 4th week, then taking 3 weeks to build it back up.
Chris: LOL! We suppressives were everywhere then and not just in my org?
Human beings are able to find ways to game any system. And Russians specialize in it because of having lived under tyrannies for centuries.
Valkov: “Human beings are able to find ways to game any system. And Russians specialize in it because of having lived under tyrannies for centuries.”
Chris: No sir, not according to L. Ron Hubbard. This is why he coined the term, “games condition.” A “game” is a particular condition requiring goals; barriers; purposes; freedoms; something to win; something to lose. A games condition is not a game because it is missing one or more of these component parts.
Not so, or perhaps SO not so! The definitions of “Games condition” is too long for me to copy it out here. However I will say that by “gaming the system” I mean just the opposite of a “games condition”. “Gaming” means self-determined obviation of a system in order to attain desired goals the system puts obstacles in the way of achieving other wise.
I think you were just wiseacre-ing off the top of your head. 🙂
Valkov: I think you were just wiseacre-ing off the top of your head. 🙂
Chris: hehe
I know that. But “never again”? No one could honestly attest to that.
Well, it says never again loses the case gains gotten in session. I guess we would have to understand exactly what that means. For me it would mean, for example, that a certain EP was gotten from a process or an ability gained from a whole level, and the pc who had been losing those gains before wouldn’t do so again after the PTS Rundown. It wouldn’t mean he couldn’t get sick or something like that after a session.
Sure. But no one could honestly attest to any EP that contains “never again”.
The phrase “never again ” was probably meant in a relative sense (i.e. some particular frame of reference) but I have to agree that such an absolute-sounding phrase was probably ill advised as it can be taken literally. An experienced auditor/CS could probably give a more accurate wording for the EP.
Marildi: The phrase “never again ” was probably meant in a relative sense (i.e. some particular frame of reference) but I have to agree that such an absolute-sounding phrase was probably ill advised as it can be taken literally.
Chris: This is the type of reasonable take on simple and easy to understand English wording that cost my friend, Lisa McPherson, her life. Probably her handlers had the same weak certainty and bad intentions to deliberately squirrel Scientology processes. Retrain on 7, 8, 9 and 10.
Isene
Agree with you. Attesting to “never again” means agreeing to it as a consideration. It can be the source of “self blame” then on. Also, it gets one stuck in time.
Geir, that is at best an inference, isn’t it?
Or from another angle, your statement itself contains some ‘absolutes’…..
Valkov wrote: “in response to isene:Sure. But no one could honestly attest to any EP that contains “never again”.
Or from another angle, your statement itself contains some ‘absolutes’…..
Chris: Semantics. Of course, lots of people attested to this EP. The salient point being whether anyone achieved this absolute goal which LRH claimed seeking such a goal was the ultimate trap. Pick one.
Semantics, Yay for semantics!
Here are some defintions of “absolute”. Which ONE do you suppose LRH had in mind when he wrote “absolutes are unobtainable in this universe.” ? Sounds like a noun,in his sentence,doesn’t it?
ab·so·lute (bs-lt, bs-lt)
adj.
1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.
2. Not mixed; pure. See Synonyms at pure.
3.
a. Not limited by restrictions or exceptions; unconditional: absolute trust.
b. Unqualified in extent or degree; total: absolute silence. See Usage Note at infinite.
4. Unconstrained by constitutional or other provisions: an absolute ruler.
5. Not to be doubted or questioned; positive: absolute proof.
6. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being a word, phrase, or construction that is isolated syntactically from the rest of a sentence, as the referee having finally arrived in The referee having finally arrived, the game began.
b. Of, relating to, or being a transitive verb when its object is implied but not stated. For example, inspires in We have a teacher who inspires is an absolute verb.
c. Of, relating to, or being an adjective or pronoun that stands alone when the noun it modifies is being implied but not stated. For example, in Theirs were the best, theirs is an absolute pronoun and best is an absolute adjective.
7. Physics
a. Relating to measurements or units of measurement derived from fundamental units of length, mass, and time.
b. Relating to absolute temperature.
8. Law Complete and unconditional; final.
n
1. Something that is absolute.
2. Absolute Philosophy
a. Something regarded as the ultimate basis of all thought and being. Used with the.
b. Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.
It looks like we need Maria to find this in an older dictionary such as LRH might have learned it from!
Also it looks to me like we need some derivations….. 🙂
Marildi: “The phrase “never again ” was probably meant in a relative sense (i.e. some particular frame of reference) …”
Geir: When you are able to swiftly justify a phrase like “never again”, I can see no hope for you in finding any improvement to anything LRH ever wrote – even if what he wrote was stark raving mad. Justifying an absolute statement like “never again” to mean something relative could be the most extreme example I’ve seen. Example collected.
The phrase “never again” violates the basic Scientology logic that absolutes are unobtainable. So this is a major, and important, outpoint to pull the string on. And this kind of absolutism, or totalism is strewn throughout the Scientology LRH developed in the 60’s.
Why would LRH violate basic Scientology in his EPs, a very foundation of the tech?
His research into goals on the BC, for instance in producing the process SOP Goals gives a clue to what he was doing, While developing that process, he said that goals control a person’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. And he also said on the BC that an absolute goal will keep a person trying to achieve it forever. Why? Because absolute goals are unobtainable, and so a thetan will become totally trapped if he adopts an absolute goal. This comes straight from the BC, during the time of the development of SOP Goals, around 1961-62.
This is just what LRH was saying to auditors on the BC.
But there is a lot more to this found outside of Scientology. Specifically in the concept of “totalism”.
From http://www.rickross.com/reference/brainwashing/brainwashing19.html
This is from a breakdown of the book “Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism” by Robert Jay Lifton, first published in 1961.
Food for thought.
Alanzo
Here’s some food for thought –
Al, is your criticism of scientology somewhat totalist in nature?
Geir, I believe that when it comes to me as, you can’t see the forest for the trees.
Speaking of “improvement of anything LRH ever wrote”, has anyone ever posted anything on this blog that was an improvement on something LRH wrote?
Perhaps we need a summary place to assemble those posts.
Valkov wrote:
Here’s some food for thought –
Al, is your criticism of scientology somewhat totalist in nature?
Let’s see, I wrote about Hubbard’s reasons for creating SOP Goals, and I gave a quote from a book that I would think you would be familiar with. But you completely ignore all this — which contains lots of stuff for you to legitimately address which would be on-topic and to the point – yet you respond this way.
Should I consider you a real contributor to the discussion, Valkov, or just ignore you?
Alanzo
I would ignore me.
As for why would LRH say something like “never again” – wishful thinking?
Valkov: – wishful thinking?
Chris: That’s my theory, too. Wishing he had a big thetan sized pot of gold.
Val, putting up such an EP for people to attest to is insane – because according to the admin technology, they will HAVE TO attest to it – through qual or ethics measures. Simply; all the pc will have to lie to be able to attezt. And all auditors and C/S’es will have to be dishonest to accept the attestation.
Marildi: ROLLER-COASTER, 1. a case that betters and worsens.
Chris: Excellent example of Scientology Standard Technology which can be interpreted subjectively and at will by the C/S, D of P, and ethics officer applying it. Wrong whys abound; rank evaluation and invalidation are the orders of the day; PCs who have trouble due to faulty auditing get labeled PTS.
Statistically? (Anyone can speak up and volunteer their own success story) Please name anyone who was a roller coaster case who is now an OT8? Or at least, still an active and contributing Scientologist regardless of COS affiliation. This is not me saying that there is no help or no good result ever. I am saying that the activity of labeling PTS is faulty; prone to confirmation bias; and utterly destructive of people’s relationships. “Can We Ever Be Friends” is like the battle cry of the avid PTS/SP Detectors and Routers, and unless the mark of that attack will knuckle under the “handling” or “non-handling” of the “PTS person,” the answer is a resounding “No.”
Chris: “PCs who have trouble due to faulty auditing get labeled PTS.”
In it’s own abbreviated and slightly circular way , this is quite exactly correct. It fails to identify the SP, but if there is “faulty auditing”, it means someone messed up, and there is, according to theory, an SP involved in the situation somewhere.
Because, “in the presence of suppression, people make mistakes.” This could be a very distant connection indeed, or it could be closer to home and present time.
Ultimately, it is some piece of knowingness that has been suppressed somewhere along the track, and that is actually what PTSness IS.
The entire Bridge is ultimately supposed to be the process of getting de-PTSed.
I seem to recall LRH saying in some Bulletin that there is PTSness that is not resolved or undone until one has completed OTIII successfully.
That’s my take on “PTSness”. Not my fault if the term has been profusely misused and abused; all that now needs to be defused!
Valkov:
Because, “in the presence of suppression, people make mistakes.” This could be a very distant connection indeed, or it could be closer to home and present time. Ultimately, it is some piece of knowingness that has been suppressed somewhere along the track, and that is actually what PTSness IS. The entire Bridge is ultimately supposed to be the process of getting de-PTSed. I seem to recall LRH saying in some Bulletin that there is PTSness that is not resolved or undone until one has completed OTIII successfully.
Chris: “We build our house around and we live in it while it is under construction. And sometimes we don’t much build our own as we move into one constructed by someone else.”
There now you have given a world view and then I gave another world view. They are both fine, self-defining, and self-fulfilling within their own context. Within their own cocoons they can be consistent. From a short distance away the inconsistencies can begin to pop up, and from very far they can each become irrelevant.
Being OT-picayunish, I have the ability to pick on your world view and also on the one I gave. If I want to show off then I can pick on this third one I am writing right now separate from the first two.
There would be a perfectly good and 100% standard technical voodoo reason for a person making mistakes in the context of a Cajun swamp. We each see what we see and build up a life around ourselves based on the consequential construct.
The “only” mistake we can make about that is to not recognize that is what is going on. Becoming too serious about our own particular brand of world view leads to a fixation on ourselves, solidity, and the loss of a sense of play. So there I’ve given yet another world view and firmed it up with the qualifier — only. Now I’ve drawn the line of exclusivity showing that my particular world view is more correct and firmly true than another one.
The blackest Scientology that I know is that Scientology which grows a person into the most exclusively individual thetan that can possibly be. But not to worry, if we cannot sort out our existence in life, then death is waiting to lend a hand.
I like how you used the word “defused.” I like to think that is what I am doing — defusing my world views. Yes, I still live like my world views matter, but I am trying to put my world views in context so as to not obsess about their “truthfulness.” This is defusing.
In the back of my mind I have long wanted to assemble a concordance of quotes from various philosophies. “A universe is a whole system of created things.” One might as well say, “An elephant is a whole system of created things.”
Expanding on my previous post, here’s something I posted at Marty’s:
“Once one falls away from Native State, one creates one’s own ‘ignorance’ by Not-Knowing and starts the Wheel of Karma turning for one’s self. One is then PTS. I believe this is also what some call “Original Sin”.
So there is a basic truth there; but “Ask not for whom the bell tolls…….”
LRH also stated it as “The basic aberration is denial of self”. To whom then, is one basically PTS?”
Chris hehehe… and more hehehe… we are PTs to our own none confront.. we cant be PTs… If we take responsibility for our universe that we created our reality our experiences than we can not hold other responsible for our feelings, reality, how we see the univese.. since we only see what we created. That is the reason SP dont exist… What you see, feel, know that is your creation…
And what you Not-see, Not-know, and Not-feel all also all of your own creation, right?
V….”And what you Not-see, Not-know, and Not-feel all also all of your own creation, right?”
Yes… on 2, but not on ‘ Not-feel’ since I dont have reality on that..
Elizabeth: “. . . What you see, feel, know that is your creation…”
Chris: As I look over what, if anything that I know about truth, I ask myself the question whether there is a higher truth; a more clear world view than this one, and I find that I can’t think of any higher truth.
Chris.. my dear. What one feel, sees knows in the” moment of now”” that is the only truth one has, there is no other…when one looks for different reality and find one than that is the only truth existing in that moment… and while one is looking than ”’the looking” is the only truth existing…. the truth is alway in the moment the ”now” and you ask what are the rest of those thoughts, concepts which existing in your universe and you know, that is a good question hehehe.. and more of the same 🙂 when you think of those concepts, thoughts than in that moment that is the truth existing only… One only can experience one moment. The universe is a very simple place, exist in the moment… NOW.
Elizabeth: The universe is a very simple place, exist in the moment… NOW.
Chris: I think there is a “thinnest” slice of now, and I am looking for it.
🙂 now this is fun… yes Chris it is so ”thin” that is the reason is so difficult to ”see” The simplicity of it makes it difficult to comprehand..
Eliz. Oh, I really like that. ” If we take responsibility for our universe that we created our reality our experiences than we can not hold other responsible for our feelings, reality, how we see the univese.. since we only see what we created. That is the reason SP dont exist… What you see, feel, know that is your creation…
So who believes in or created SP? Hmmnn
Valkov: “. . . One might as well say, “An elephant is a whole system of created things.”
Chris: For me, this piece of your post is the most insightful. It is both true and tautological. This is my reality of this universe. But its hard to put two different realities together and make them mesh. Also it’s not important to do so if two realities are merely researching an esoteric meaning of life. If you and I were trying to do a project together then it would be important to make our realities coincide, but blogging? Not so much.
Valkov: “. . .LRH also stated it as “The basic aberration is denial of self”. To whom then, is one basically PTS?”
Chris: Quoting Chris, “LRH missed the boat on ‘denial of self’ being the basic aberration. I think, and you can quote me on this, ‘The basic aberration is the fixation on self.’ Buddy, you can take that one to the bank. “
Of the top of my head, any FIXATION is exactly a ‘games condition’. This means a person has lost his self-determinism in some way and is trapped in that FIXATION.
That is not how I understand what LRH means by his statement. I thought what I wrote earlier in that post made it clear by creating the context I was referring to.
The ‘self’ he refers to is what exists at The Beginning. Fixation happens later, and ‘fixation on self’ means the poor devil can’t even freely be himself anymore, much less the rest of the Dynamics.
Ron says in a PTS/SP lecture that one has to consider first that evil exists…in the absence of this consideration there is no evil. Yet, based on affinity, one can agree to
another’s consideration also and thus see it as one’s own. Example: son loves father, father is angry and says to his son that he is arrogant. Son “believes” he is arrogant and also displays the energy wave of father’s anger from then on.
Elizabeth says: since we only see what we created. That is the reason SP dont exist…
Yep. The SP does not exist right up until the instant you create the SP, and then, whaddya know, SPs exist after all! After that you can see them all over the place if you are looking for them! Everywhere you go, there they are!
Maria: “Yep. The SP does not exist right up until the instant you create the SP, and then, whaddya know, SPs exist after all! After that you can see them all over the place if you are looking for them! Everywhere you go, there they are!”
I guess Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and that H. feller were just reglar folks like us, huh? Nuthin’ wrong with them that a little spilt blood wouldn’t make betr. Us fools. Thinkin them as bad guys. It was all us, all the time that was the problm. Dang, if’n we’d only nown.
2X : I guess Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and that H. feller were just reglar folks
Chris: I can’t follow what you are trying to do. Are you trying to understand, make something understood, or what? If Saddam is an SP, then who else? Do you want to label people or confront things or what? I am a certified SP, so I should know. Are you? No? I thought not. Same name calling, different day. If you want to know SPs you should consult a real one.
Chris: “I am a certified SP, so I should know.”
Sorry to have to indicate this, Chris, but your cert for declare isn’t worth the price of the paper it was printed on (which was probabaly of a higher value than the pay of the schmuck who put it together). Get your badge of honour by earning it: continue and refine your philosophy treatises.
Now characters in the class of Saddam, Idi and Schickelgruber, they knew how to create pain, devastation and fear. Those boys knew how to suppress. So when someone starts writing that an SP isn’t created until you create him in your reality, I see at least one Flow missing in the evaluation – others to others, Flow 3. What part of that evil can’t be confronted? Maybe in the theta universe there is no evil, but in the manifestation that we call Earth there is plenty of evidence of the good-evil balance heavily weighted towards evil. And man being evil to man is not the same as the cat being evil to the rat. Evaluation of the validity of viewpoints (comparison of good-evil) should not be beyond any of us.
2X: Schickelgruber
Chris: I’m not arguing about putting down “Ol’ Yeller.” But blogging about understanding seems to need more than terse labels. Wouldn’t that be Schickelbruber’s game? or a Republican or Democrat’s game? Labeling to me seems to be the small game. No one called Ol’ Yeller evil while putting a bullet in his head. And I guess I don’t understand what you mean by, “And man being evil to man is not the same as the cat being evil to the rat.” Evil is relative, conditioned, and impermanent and would be good fodder for another thread.
Maria: Everywhere you go, there they are!
Chris: I checked with Tom Cruise and he confirmed.
Maria, i had fun on Flag in 82. I finished NOts and before i left i have written in my reality in my bad english what out point i have experienced while being there and that I have signed and said ”Put this in your pipe and smoke it””
The fallowing morning the ethic person walked up to me and said that Elizabeth we delare you a SP.. I started to laugh and that really confused him so he said it again.. Still laughing i told him that is your reality and not mine so therefore I know I am not.
One month later they have called me 2 on the same line and they told me that they have looked over my folders and they realized i was not on SP…and PLEASE DO COME BACK!!!! this time i told them to go fly kite. now i would say different… hehehe…
There are no SP… just different realities and ours just dont fit into theirs.. we consider because of our view points we going by what is right or wrong.. therefore what they do is bad or good.. boring..
2ndxmr — Like I said, everywhere you go there they are! We can make lists of them. We can adjust the meaning at will, everything from mass murderers to restimulative assholes and people who blow from the Sea Org. Oh, and Geir too along with everyone on this blog.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki (225,000 dead,) the American Civil War (750,000 dead,) U.S. military engagement in Iraq (between 150,000 and 1,200,000 million and no way to confirm,) Korean War – (1,200,000 dead,) Vietnam War (5,100,000 dead,) Chairman Mao (40 to 70 million dead,) and on and on it goes.
But I think it ridiculous to call the perpetrators of this level of death tolls SPs. They are not suppressing people, they are mass murdering people under the sanctity of war, civil or otherwise. They are not simply lessening the reach of a pc, causing him to lose his gains and you sure as hell cannot say the only power they have is to restimulate!!
Saddam is small change in this gallery grotesque at a mere 100,000 in the civil war with the Kurds. The U.S. Presidents in charge of the wars I listed above and the military leaders of the opposition should have all been executed just as Saddam was. But hey, we do not see all of them as SPs. Nope. The Americans are the good guys! Not at all suppressive. And certainly not mass murderers like Saddam. You see, when you create them as SPs, there they are! And when you do not, they are — heroes… patriots… good guys… saviors of the world… But not SPs.
Yep. Elizabeth summed it up pretty damned good.
Maria: “You see, when you create them as SPs, there they are! And when you do not, they are — heroes… patriots… good guys… saviors of the world… But not SPs. Yep. Elizabeth summed it up pretty damned good”
I smell smoke and I see mirrors but I don’t see the reflection of Saddam in the mirror in front of G dubya, even though GWB had his own outpoints. I hear your arguments, especially Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but that was a think of 70 years ago. Since then, unlike Saddam, American presidents haven’t gone off gassing enemies, let alone dissident areas of the country. If you don’t think there was suppression and gross brutality in Iraq under Saddam then I guess I’ll have to leave that argument there.
As far as Scientology SP’s, I will agree with you. That title is largely just a matter of viewpoint, though as far as suppression goes, I put the issuers of the declares into a category of being far more suppressive that the recipients of 99% of the declares. The intent is to diminish the recipient and the lies used to do that just about stagger one. From a 3rd viewpoint I simply rate the general declare process as stupid yet suppressive.
2nd x… long as one belief that there is value, and have agreements, takes side, than that person judges that is because one is stimulated by ones very own belief.
than one still sees the victim and there is blame too.
That is all fine.. Ok by me.. But where one puts the responsibility, who has it?
I will not hurl stones in any direction, toward any body because I know that I too have been a very very bad puppy…We all been there….every one of those so called”victims” did the same to others and will do the same again they will repay… hehehe.. and the hammster cage spins..
Dear girl… when you agree with the reality I have pleases me to no end, not because i personaly need that.
Your agreement is with the knowledge and the knowledge is there because the sessions and the confrontations of the universe = cognitions.
The knowledge what i have is not from books, but from cognitions.
It proves that Auditing works and I said that hundreds of time… data of any kind on any subject is avalaible but one has to have the want, that burning desire to find those answers to those questions one has.
Marildi; What do you think about Marty’s statement that ” The propensity to find and assign blame is woven into the woof and warp of Scientology, making it perhaps one of
the most difficult character deficiencies to remedy in a veteran member.”?
I have fallen behind on Marty’s recent posts so I don’t know how he supported that conclusion. Do you?
On a few threads back he made a somewhat similar statement about Scn writings. He said that anyone who even questions a Scn writing is an SP – according to LRH writings. I asked him to specify a Scn writing that stated such a thing and the only answer I got from him was HCO PL “The Anti-Social Personality, The Anti-Scientologist”. I reviewed that issue, just to be sure, and disagreed with him because it says no such thing. Of course, the CoS may stretch it to mean that (a BIG stretch) but that wasn’t what Marty was saying. He claimed the PL itself indicated anyone even questioning a Scn writing was an SP. He never replied to my stating that, though.
Generally I’m in agreement with Marty’s viewpoints and respect him a lot, but I don’t think he’s always right. (So you can see you’re in good company as far as who I will disagree with ;).)
M: “He claimed the PL itself indicated anyone even questioning a Scn writing was an SP.”
Perhaps ‘Scientology writting’ needs to be specified. I personally discard any writting that I dont cosider to be by LRH, as squirrel. I don’t understand how some people say DM is SP, and the COS is horrible and this and that and stay ignorant in that he altered texts. Maybe it has to do with the fact that some people have been applying such texts on self and others. I have too. But I can confront some overts…
Spyros: “Perhaps ‘Scientology writing’ needs to be specified.”
In the context of his blog post I got that Marty meant an LRH writing, and that was the reason I asked him to be specific and name one since I’ve never come across any such thing. If he had then named one that could be questioned as being written by LRH, it would have been different. However, what he finally named was a PL that I’m sure was written by LRH – but which did not support his claim in any way. In reply to him I basically said that, but he had no response to that reply. Here’s where the exchange starts, if you’re interested (it was mainly between me and a few others but Marty finally answered and specified that particular PL at the end of the thread): http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/sitting-in-judgment/#comment-254811
M:”In the context of his blog post I got that Marty meant an LRH writing,”
S: Ah good then. I misunderstood that he meant all LRH materials and regardless of dates etc.
M: “Here’s where the exchange starts, if you’re interested”
S: I would like to but I must quit messageboarding for a while to focus on something. You know this sort of comm that I leave comm cycles open, makes me gather charged comm lines and draws my attention. Above that, SCN is a way too interesting subject to leave alone like that 😛 But I must –at least for a while.
M: “Your perceptions and ability to be your own orientation point were better than mine. :P”
S: Maybe, but I didn’t Clear anyone either 🙂
Spyros: “I would like to but I must quit messageboarding for a while to focus on something.”
I totally understand! I have been trying to do the same and haven’t yet succeeded very much in cutting down the time I spend on blogs.
There are a few comments from you that I’ll try to answer later today but won’t expect to hear back from you until you’re ready. Meanwhile, I’ll miss you. 😛
M: “There are a few comments from you that I’ll try to answer later today but won’t expect to hear back from you until you’re ready.”
S: OK I’m not that strict 😛 And specially at this time…I dont intend to take any case action. Say what you want.
M:”Meanwhile, I’ll miss you. :P”
S: Instead of missing each other we can keep in touch, unless you only write in message boards. (facebook, email, such stuff?) I’m not going to isolate myself from the world. Its just that message boards=loooong comm lags which makes me hold things in suspension…
Spyros: “OK I’m not that strict 😛 And specially at this time…I dont intend to take any case action. Say what you want.”
M: Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate a bit for me? (I’ll be here, live, for this comm cycle at least. :P)
M: “Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate a bit for me? (I’ll be here, live, for this comm cycle at least. :P)”
S: Yes, I meant that I can talk, since at this time I’m not going to process or anything, its late 😛
Spyros: “Yes, I meant that I can talk, since at this time I’m not going to process or anything, its late :P”
Oh, got it. But damn! The gods are against us today. The reason I said earlier that I would reply to your other comments later is that I need to leave soon :(.
Let’s see how it goes when we both have time to be online during the same period of time, like the beginning of your day and the end of mine, like sometimes happens. That way we’ll avoid comm lags much better. In other words we’ll, “Make it go right!” LOL 😛
M: In other words we’ll, “Make it go right!” LOL 😛
S LOL Oh dear lords of darkness, that cheesy teewee…
Sure, lets talk when we can. My body is drained too, so I should better go. And remember, time is the primary lie !!(dunno how that fits or solves our problem, but its like a response to the brick you threw at me before) 😛
Gnight!
LOL, I knew that “Make it go right!” would create that effect on you. 😀
Tomorrow/tonight (you/me) you’ll have to tell me which brick I threw. Or maybe you mean you’re learning my kung-fu ways. 😛
G’night. 🙂
M:”LOL, I knew that “Make it go right!” would create that effect on you. 😀
Tomorrow/tonight (you/me) you’ll have to tell me which brick I threw. Or maybe you mean you’re learning my kung-fu ways. 😛
G’night. :)”
S: Yes, that 1,1 tone 40 gave me a feeling like that of the Joker’s in Tim Burton’s first Batman movie. by ‘brick’ I only meant that “Make it go right!” phraze. It felt like you threw a brick on my face (much resistance hahaha)
Sleep tight 🙂
Spyros: “Yes, that 1,1 tone 40 gave me a feeling like that of the Joker’s in Tim Burton’s first Batman movie. by ‘brick’ I only meant that “Make it go right!” phraze. It felt like you threw a brick on my face (much resistance hahaha)”
Funny! That brick I threw I knew would hit your devilish sense of humor. 😉
Among other things, I worked in the translations unit of that org, and every once in a while they sent us new ‘corrected’ english LRH materials to ‘correct’ our greek versions too. How much more obvious can it get? Wakie wakie it’s 2013!!!
LOL 😀
Marildi: I have fallen behind on Marty’s recent posts so I don’t know how he supported that conclusion. Do you?
Chris: Geir never stated it was a recent post.
Geir, I see that you’re talking about the post Marty put out today. I just now read it and what I think about it and my sentiments in general couldn’t have been expressed better than in this comment on that thread:
Carcha | March 1, 2013 at 11:47 am | Reply
“The most-missing is an understanding of what Scientology is. Or phrase it that the major outpoint is a lack of understanding of what Scientology is. That’s evident in the population at large, and you’ve been effective in bringing about a better understanding of that by differentiating between the Co$ and Scn itself, the philosophy and technology. And that’s very important. But there is also substantial misunderstanding amongst even veteran Scns of what Scn is. Evidence this topic, an apparent and probably temporary flap between veteran individuals who seem to have different interpretations of what Scn is or isn’t or is supposed to be or isn’t or does or doesn’r, rar, rar, rar.
“Scientology is a deep subject. It is the culmination of thousands upon thousands of years of very deep thought, and is, in my view, very simply: a definition of a thetan (being), a being’s basic characteristics and functions, and a definition of a technology to enable a being to live better along all Dynamics. It’s really pretty simple that each of us assume responsibility for our own lives and actions, and that includes assuming responsibility for the proper and good use of the data and tech of Scn.
“Is there a better way to say that? Sure. I’ll come up with a better way tomorrow, probably. And so will you. And eventually, Scn just goes “Poof!” because you look at it for exactly what it is. You see that the tech is in fact yours, and when you audit someone it’s up to you to keep the communication open and let him solve his own problems with the bit of help you give him by directing his attention. You do get to a point where you master the tech and can use it freely. And you know he will too.”
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/03/01/the-blame-game/#comment-256672
Marildi: Carcha | March 1, 2013 at 11:47 am | Reply “The most-missing is an understanding of what Scientology is.
Chris: “The propensity to find and assign blame is woven into the woof and warp of Scientology, making it perhaps one of the most difficult character deficiencies to remedy in a veteran member.” — Marty Rathbun
Good quote. Glad we agree.
Marildi said: That is the key word – arbitraries. The conflict between me and Geir and other critics is that they often do not see various outnesses as arbitraries but consider them to be part of the basic principles and tech – and I don’t agree.
Chris: Arbitraries? Writing thousands of words of particular descriptions of inconsistent, conflicting, and damaging examples of Standard Tech is arbitrary? Because your writing is so very confirmationally biased, it takes on not just the color but the fact of a party line. Once again, many people spending hundreds of hours to field one another’s statements and questions and using an group expertise of Scientology which I think is of a high quality, is not arbitrary in any sense of the word. To write that these words have been arbitrary is demeaning to these writer’s honest and thorough efforts.
Alternately, your writing more than any other’s has relentlessly presented the inconsistencies in L. Ron Hubbard’s Standard Technology of the mind to me in a way that examining those inconsistencies has been unavoidable. Whenever I have felt mentally lazy, you have been right there like a good personal trainer to motivate me to look. Without the sparring that we have done, I would not have progressed in leaving Scientology behind. For me, the engram of Scientology is erasing rather than becoming more solid.
You will remember that I didn’t begin writing on Geir’s blog as a critic. I think it is believable and indisputable when I say that your efforts have been instrumental in helping me become one. Truth be told? I believe that you have been instrumental in making Geir take a harder look at Standard Tech. Graph that.
“Defender of the Faith,” you are Scientology’s worst nightmare and I thank you.
Interesting view. I would tend to agree with you, Chris, when you say that Marildi has been instrumental in making me take a harder look at inconsistencies in the tech. When I am faced with seeming absolutes (as in “there are absolutely no possibilities for any wrong in the basic Scientology philosophy”), I query.
This is similar to the PR mess that the CoS finds itself in – they tout a perfect image. The media responds by querying, by questioning, by investigating. And when lies are uncovered, all hell breaks loose.
I would agree with LRH when he says that “absolutes are considered unobtainable” – but Marildi seems to disagree with that one statement when she touts the Scientology philosophy as being absolutely free of faults/inconsistencies. And in that she has found a fault in the basic philosophy 🙂
So, here’s the proof of her logic being faulty:
LRH says “absolutes are considered unobtainable”. Which means that even his own philosophy and technology are not free from faults or inconsistencies. He sees that. Marildi does not.
Isene
“Absolutes are considered unobtainable”.
Absolute : 1. perfect in quality or nature,complete
2. not mixed, pure
(also: unconditional, infinite, total)
Obtain: to succeed in gaining possession of as the result of planning or endevour, acquire.
From this follows that how the hell can, which is already pure and complete (Life), be gained possession of by any endevour? It is like the dog chasing its own tail!
A philosophy is a product of Life. A product is an is-ness, that is by the axiom, must contain a lie to survive. The “lies” in this case seem to be considerations themselves. As scientology’s main purpose is for the “Truth to be revealed” (at least at OT8), the philosophy and considerations connected to it eventually have to be as-ised too. On the way up the Bridge, or after. Of course, they can be re-created again, consciously.
Marianne: “As scientology’s main purpose is for the ‘Truth to be revealed’ (at least at OT8), the philosophy and considerations connected to it eventually have to be as-ised too. On the way up the Bridge, or after. Of course, they can be re-created again, consciously.”
That is exactly what I have stated too! As for OT 8, however, from testimony of those who were insiders in the CoS and privy to what all occurred, OT 8 was at best truncated by Miscavige, and in any case it apparently does not necessarily “reveal Truth”.
I have quoted where LRH himself has said that eventually Scientology has to be as-ised, and that is my personal knowingness as well. Like you, I’ve also said that it might occur anywhere on the way up the Bridge or after. And it seems we agree too that Scn can greatly assist one in the direction of Truth, and that considerations can be recreated in the Game of Life. 🙂
M……
“””””I have quoted where LRH himself has said that eventually Scientology has to be as-ised, and that is my personal knowingness as well.”””
When Are you going to do the as-ising? you are so solidly in it that nothing can blast you out of it…your Personal knowingness on th e matter dont seem to work.
I haven’t yet reached the point of being able to as-is Scientology. And neither have you.
But now I’m going out for the day. Have a good one, everybody. 🙂
M.
Oh, but I have… long time back.. I have left those ”considerations” since that too had to happen sometimes and I have discovered reality of which LRH had no clue of… since his teaching or reality only contained thoughts-concepts.. but there is more to the universe than thinking.
If I would not passed that reality-thinking I too would be stuck in the content of his thoughts as you are..
You said many times that Vinay was stuck… we all said that but you went further of being stuck ”in scientology” really means..In fact there are no words which could express your solidity and how is that, you have become, you are a recording machine which puts out data at the push of the button, that is robotic behavior.
By the way I do have great admiration for Vinay.. because he is brilliant… he could create something but you only can correct, and quote..machines do that.. of course you can attack any other reality that too is built in the machines system to protect the content of the machines information.
You can attack me any way you like…I am fine with that..
Eliz, I am laughing like hell. 🙂 🙂 You have certainly hit my indicator button to what I have felt, but you put it in exact words I can relate too.
M… if you go to David St L… -as blog you will see my name under the heading: beyond scientology.. and that is the fact that my realities are beyond …..and some recognized that.
Only planet Earth contain the knowledge the collected concepts of what is ”scientology” outside of that in the universe there is none, and that concept that collection of thoughts about that subject or any other subject because they are implanted materials only exist an planet Earth and anything learned here: will vanish with the bodies death.
There are reason one do not remember from one life time to the other who one was before and
FIRST a PROCESS HAD to BE “”invented and learned””and “”drilled”” “”practiced”” before one is able to recall the so called ”past” who really one is..
The Confronting by concentrating on the Item it self can buy pass the power of the implanted material which holds the person in place solidly..
You know the material but you have no reality on it which is usable and which is garbage… and most of it is nothing but conflicting concepts … which causes great conficts in those who were looking for spirituality… and they cant find the way because the dead ended avenues Your LRH put there. He made a maze..
Marildi: ” . . . I’m going out for the day. Have a good one, everybody. :)”
Chris: You too Marildi. I’m late on this because of going to my niece’s birthday party – It was good blog therapy to go do something “normal” with my Earth family. I hope you had a nice day.
Chris: “I hope you had a nice day.”
I did. And thanks. 🙂
Elizabeth
“since his teaching or reality only contained thoughts, concepts”….
What is spirituality to you? Sincerely asking you…
In reality? you go from your reality 180 degree you will find mine.. You see Marianne.. The universe I know do not end on the all love-all affinity heavily implanted platform.
Thank you, Elizabeth.
MT .. no need to thank me for anything… what ever you read into, understand what I write about is your reality and only based on your reality.. and that works for every body…that is the fact…
I cant see how you see your black cat and You have no idea how I see mine… and no amount of communication or even going into agreement will not and can not change fact… because even we agree how we see that cat is black we still dont really know how the other person view that cat… no agreement will give one that reality.
Geir: “I would tend to agree with you, Chris, when you say that Marildi has been instrumental in making me take a harder look at inconsistencies in the tech.”
It might surprise you fellas but I feel likewise in return – you have been instrumental in my taking a harder look at the claims of critics because I have seen too much lack of their actual duplication of Scientology – on top of a lack of ability to have a fair discussion and one based on reason. There have been many of examples of this, from various critics, but I’ll use one right in this comment of yours, Geir.
You wrote: “I would agree with LRH when he says that ‘absolutes are considered unobtainable’ – but Marildi seems to disagree with that one statement when she touts the Scientology philosophy as being absolutely free of faults/inconsistencies. And in that she has found a fault in the basic philosophy.”
With the above statement you illogically equate “absolutes” with “consistencies”, the word I have used to refer to Scientology philosophy, a specific, finite body of knowledge – i.e. a consistent, coherent system within itself. And by you so doing, you also contradict your own agreement with Gödel that a system can indeed be consistent although not complete. Ironically, with your intention to show “the proof of her [my] logic being faulty” you proved your own logic as faulty.
Furthermore, although I have specifically stated many times that I do NOT say the tech is perfect, only workable (as based on its successful history in the 70’s before drastic changes came about). And in fact I’ve said more than once that research should be continued, a statement you choose to ignore apparently because you are so intent on fitting me into a box of your own making. This particular example is an example of unfair and/or biased discussion.
LRH’s statement and Gödels are not the same.
It would contradict LRH’s statement to say that Scientology, the science of knowledge is a finite and absolutely consistent system. It would not contradict Gels to say so.
Where did LRH say that Scientology is an ABSOLUTELY consistent system. It would not contradict Gels to say so.
And are you saying that there is no such thing as a consistent system? I sure hope not. And that is all I’m saying about Scientology philosophy. So let’s not be playing semantics games.
p.s. I didn’t intend to include the sentence “It would not contradict Gels to say so.”
Marildi: And are you saying that there is no such thing as a consistent system?
Chris: You’ve already been given the “go” that Scientology is consistent within its context, now what are you trying to do? Being acked for understanding your opinion doesn’t also mean that I agree with it nor that either of us will change if you keep hammering away.
2 thumbs up. 🙂 🙂
Marildi: And in fact I’ve said more than once that research should be continued, a statement you choose to ignore apparently because you are so intent on fitting me into a box of your own making. This particular example is an example of unfair and/or biased discussion.
Chris: Agree to acknowledge that you have an opinion but just not agree with it.
Uhhhh, you have to demonstrate duplication of her opinion before you ack it, or it doesn’t count, because she will know it if you haven’t duplicated her.
Women always know.
You should know that, you are married.
Valkov: You should know that, you are married.
Chris: Face-palm! How could I be so dense?!
Chris, I like many sentences, but this one is tops: “For me, the engram of Scientology is erasing rather than becoming more solid.”
With the strict keepers of tech it is like seeing the wall of scientology that one can’t get through. In the little time I’ve been on this blog I have seen changes in you and sure that we all do it in one way or another also. I have benefitted greatly from this blog. Change is life, and every day is different and we learn, love it! Good on ya! 🙂
deE: In the little time I’ve been on this blog I have seen changes in you and sure that we all do it in one way or another also. I have benefited greatly from this blog.
Chris: Wow. Thanks Dee. Of any comments that I would enjoy, yours is an important one to me. I came to this blog wanting to learn and to change in a beneficial direction; I meant to change; I have changed; and I continue to change. Sometimes we play and sometimes we argue. Admittedly, sometimes I have unmet expectations, but in spotting them I seem able to simmer down those disharmonies and focus. A good example is my recent tiff with Marildi. A person of good intentions and one of the best studied Scientologists that I have ever known. We are simply Our iterations (my use of a math term to describe how life changes by bit by bit) were together and then they diverged. No great surprise there. That’s the way life iterates. Admittedly, I wanted to share and to be understood and when I was not acknowledged in a way satisfactory to me, I began to argue and to force the issues. Well, that was a pigheaded mistake bred into me by my earlier training. I have spotted this happening a few times and have been able to make gradual changes. My hope and current goal is to develop tolerance bred of understanding rather than exclusively of etiquette.
Chris: “Admittedly, I wanted to share and to be understood and when I was not acknowledged in a way satisfactory to me, I began to argue and to force the issues. Well, that was a pigheaded mistake bred into me by my earlier training. I have spotted this happening a few times and have been able to make gradual changes. My hope and current goal is to develop tolerance bred of understanding rather than exclusively of etiquette.”
Me: Thanks for that, Chris. 🙂
Like it Chris and Marildi! And the root of all this goes back to our first love-and-fun creations to be accepted and appreciated by another (ideas, valences) for the sake of a game!
What Chris said. I do think some of us bring out each other’s ‘pigheaddedness’ by not sufficiently understanding each other’s prior conclusions. Essentially, each other’s ‘baggage’ which may not seem like ‘baggage’ to each of us. But previously formed conclusions are in fact always ‘baggage’ when new data enters the picture.
Essentially, discussions are not taking place in a ‘new unit of time’, considering new data. Thus it seems some of the same things get said over and over again.
Guilty as charged.
Valkov. Guilty as charged.
Chris: Me too. We all seem to have the inclination to want to share and push our own world viiew.
Marildi: Me: Thanks for that, Chris. 🙂
Chris: You are very welcome. Now we should find new topics no matter how electrify
Chris: Now we should find newer more productive topics no matter how electrifying we find arguing about Scientology.
No nonono. Flunk. There wilbenoDev-T. You 2 can take a break then back in the chairs and OT-TR0 to make sure you have that in…. 🙂
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT:
Marildi has received a pass and graduates “TR-Scientology Bullbait.” She has earned the certificate of “Secondary Mover-Unmoved” accompanied by the lavish accoutrements generally associated with that title including the option of changing her name to “Peter” for as Jesus of Nazareth said of his disciple, Peter, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Holy Bible, KJ Ver.Matt.16:18).
As my friend, she has kept a good humor throughout our sparring but on the subject of Scientology she has made her position well understood and I grant her the beingness to maintain or not to maintain any position or opinion about that she ever chooses without suffering any more slings or arrows from the likes of Me about Scientology.
Well done, Marildi ! *** !APLAUSE! ***
I also admire Marildi’s ability to hold a position in space, despite all reasons not to. Her intelligence and her clear writing style are like 15 inch armor plate, which no idea can penetrate.
She has a bone certainty on Scientology which takes my breath away.
As a lifetime recipient of the Alanzo Pass, and now a proud holder of the Scientology Mover-Unmoved Certificate, Maridli has attained a freedom to continue growing in any direction she wishes, or in no direction at all.
Well done, Marildi.
Along with Chris, Alanzo salutes you.
Alanzo
I hereby join the cheerleaders.
Chris, Alanzo – Incredible!!! Also, I am not sure that Isene won’t kick her out of her holding a position in space! Isene, do that as eventually space is a barrier!
I too join if I may… have you though about why Marildi remains solidly with her what ever that is? There is nothing else there…her universe is void of other reality…she never ever talked about anything else…and now Spyros is here the two will be at the same subject till eternity..pounding the hell out of it …..the continuity of your blog because of them is solidly esteblished..
I’ll too join that group. Cheers! 🙂
Personally, I think marildi is just stubborn as hell. I’d like to see her natal chart, maybe there are some zodiac configurations in it that would account for it.
Like maybe Scorpio Rising? Combined with something in Leo?
Val: Personally, I think marildi is just stubborn as hell. I’d like to see her natal chart, maybe there are some zodiac configurations in it that would account for it.
Val, now that would be interesting. Your guess sounds good. I’d like to know her life cycle number too. 🙂
Valkov: Personally, I think marildi is just stubborn as hell.
Chris: LOL!
Valkov: “Personally, I think marildi is just stubborn as hell.”
Et tu, brute? 🙂
Seriously, Val, since you and I have agreed on almost everything, I would like some specifics where you see that I am just being stubborn. I’m interested as I trust your motives.
marildi, it was not in reference to anything in particular you have posted; it was in reference to your style and persistence here on this blog.
It was in comparison to other people, many of who might have said “Oh, the hell with it!”. You are remarkably persistent and quick!
Geir is kinda the same way; but it is my sense you 2 are bringing out the ‘pit bull’ in each other, which makes me think there is something unperceived and unacknowledged persisting. There is a ridge that seems to me to have been growing and hardening to some extent that is hampering duplication. Individuation has happened and is persisting. Each of you seems somewhat inclined to push your own viewpoint on the other.
Now Geir is apparently ‘blaming’ you and me for not helping him enough with ‘building a better Bridge”?
What’s up with that??
I have to admit I don’t always follow Geir’s reasoning, but I just shelve it for later reference or pondering. It doesn’t mean I am wrong or he is wrong, it just means I haven’t understood what he said.
As he says, I assume his universe is as he says, “consistent but not complete…..”
That makes it possible for me to be right in my own right, in my own universe without ridging up at something he says.
Of course being little more than a wog, I do ridge up at times but not as often or as much as in the past. I have this blog as well as Marty’s to thank for that.
Val: “Now Geir is apparently ‘blaming’ you and me for not helping him enough with ‘building a better Bridge”?
What’s up with that??”
No, he is not. What’s up with duplication these days?
Here’s my simple take on the whole scene of Scientology. There is nothing more in there for me regarding this. No blame, no need to be right – nothing else. Here goes:
1. The current scene in the world of Scientology is a mess. Lives are getting ruined.
2. Scientology evidently does not produce a consistent way of handling people’s issues.
3. Scientology does not provide a way to deliver my two main goals in life (exterior with full perception & no memory loss between lives).
4. I want the root cause of #1, #2 & #3 discovered in order to fix it.
5. I want #2 and #3 debugged – i.e. to “build a better Bridge”.
6. If that means using whole chunks, only part or nothing of Scientology, then be it.
Isene: “2. Scientology evidently does not produce a consistent way of handling people’s issues.
3. Scientology does not provide a way to deliver my two main goals in life (exterior with full perception & no memory loss between lives).”
If you wrote it as:
2. Current Scientology…
then strong disagreement on point #2 would probably disappear from Marildi and me, at least.
As for point 3., that is for us to sort out.
#2 is evident from statistics – since its inception, some 95% of the people who did some service have left. That goes for the early years as well from the accounts and statistics I have researched.
Valkov: “but it is my sense you 2 are bringing out the ‘pit bull’ in each other, which makes me think there is something unperceived and unacknowledged persisting. There is a ridge that seems to me to have been growing and hardening to some extent that is hampering duplication. Individuation has happened and is persisting.”
I sense this too, what is it?
What it is? very simple… the bloggers here realized that they finaly can speak up, express their reality and they are not punished and they are still can be here and continue posting. freedom of communication is wonderful, one really can show ones color…
Valkov: Now Geir is apparently ‘blaming’ you and me for not helping him enough with ‘building a better Bridge”?
Chris: I don’t follow your criticism. Many of us have spent considerable lives “building a better bridge” but if you see a better bridge needs building and have an idea about that and want to see that then the only thing left to do is begin building a better bridge. All you need is an advertisement in Craig’s List and a corner set up in your living room to audit and a PC, someone you pick up at the grocery or gas station or doctor’s office, church, whatever,., … This is really pretty simple and no blogging is required.
Valkov: “Geir is kinda the same way; but it is my sense you 2 are bringing out the ‘pit bull’ in each other, which makes me think there is something unperceived and unacknowledged persisting.”
I’ll tell you what it is, Val. It’s Geir’s held-down 7. 😀
Kidding aside, it’s probably true that I am stubborn he is hardnosed and these are comparable. The mistake we’ve made is not to apply HCO B “You Can be Right”. I don’t know the date and couldn’t find a copy to quote from but the basic idea is that you don’t keep pointing out how the person is wrong. That’s the worst thing to do because it just makes them all the more determined to prove they’re right. And on top of it, even if you do start to see what the other person is saying, you’re reluctant to admit it because you are pretty sure they will mock you and rub your nose in it.
According to that bulletin, what you should do instead is to get them to tell you what is right about what they are doing or saying, being genuine about it, of course, and because of that they will be “free up” enough to look at the outpoints for themselves.
Take it as verbal data, but hat’s my understanding of the idea in that bulletin.
Marildi: I’ll tell you what it is, Val. It’s Geir’s held-down 7. 😀
Chris: So here we go again. If we want to steer away from the rank ad hom that we say we don’t admire, then we should get behind the wheel.
Chris, it looks like you didn’t see the rest of my post. This is one of the issues with email notifications lately. The email for my post apparently didn’t include my whole comment, only the first line. I can see from the email notification of your post that that must have been the case because above your comment is just that one line, and normally the email notification has several lines of the post being responded to. Anyway, my whole post is at 2013-03-04 AT 09:09
I also know for a fact that I haven’t received some email notifications, and a couple other people have said the same although others say they’ve had no problem. I use Google Chrome, if the browser has anything to do with it.
Marildi: I use Google Chrome, if the browser has anything to do with it.
Chris: Can you try your wordpress settings? Possibly? Blogs that you are following? I also am using chrome browser and having good success with it.
Marildi: Et tu, brute? 🙂
Chris: LOL! (slap! there’s really no end to it!)
Here’s a question for Marildi, Valkov and other strong proponents of the basic Scientology philosophy and tech:
What are the chance that not one of the outpoints we see in the CoS today can be traced to any faults in the basic philosophy or tech of Scientology?
Isene
Good question and you may be right. Words like “attest to “, “attain” come to mind now.
What’s with all the make-wrong? There is nothing wrong with Scientology – depending on what you understand Scientology to mean.
V…. We are having a goooood time.. 🙂
If we would agree on everything than we would all be in Mariannes universe sitting on the affinity-cloud playing the harp and than how would we get that daily amount of dopamine?
Of course, that’s why I am making you all wrong for your make-wronging!
Dopamine.
🙂 oh why not.. making others wrong and what are the reasone for that: a list long be made long as one leg and every reason presented can be valid… it is remarkable how we can twist the meanings of the words in communication how we can justify…. what a game!
We would play hide and seek! 😀
Sure Maria we can do anything you like: you can roast me over a fire, find me in which planet I am hiding just, what ever we want… there is no timitation but I also want to play the piano as Ziggs do and to dance like Will!!! look at this video…
Maria; http://youtu.be/1QQzbCmlZM4
Oh yes! That would be much more fun that playing soccer! Better than hide and seek too.
Now , when one clears away all that shit… one has the choice what ever one wants…
sing like Zara http://youtu.be/s5AmxdSnJUM or Vitas ,http://youtu.be/r3yfFOq_CFQ or play piano like Ziggs, or Maksim http://youtu.be/m8oTg-is-8w or do all plus what ever, be boulder and dish out wisdom now a talking boulder was alway been a great hit with the population people come to listen to you from far and wide or be stupid and be nothing no one… in fact that is the most difficult achievement to accomplish almost impossible… i think that never been done before but many tried including me.. 🙂
Just thinking… it is what we play…. when one say “stranger” I do not know that person, What is that? knowledge well hidden behind the word I do not know, in this case he/she is a stranger….
Elizabeth
Knowing you are joking, you surely miss many things about me! “Marianne’s universe sitting on the affinity-cloud playing the harp”. Wow! When did YOU dance wild last time (body included)? I did that in a ball, do it at home many times! When did you help a professional singer with her energy to sing naturally a song and at the same time you sing too? When did
you help a massage therapist get in tune with her therepy while you were getting a massage on your body? I can go on and on….it’s not about me, my experiences! Life is complete form “bottom to top” – you miss me on LOVE too! Yes, one part of it is loving beings,that is flowing some pure energy (“my stuff”) into them (“their stuff”) of our “common source”into several games we play but besides that can you find ANY object – like this computer…which was not a being’s idea-illusion based on a love-creativity flow? I find the “fire” and “love” in the core of any ( ! ) emotion I or another displays, in the core of any thought…spiritual is not a “path, concept” – it’s ALL! “Dopamine” included! As you write, we here “vibrate”, we have/are “energy flows” -yeah! It’s very exciting to feel them and love-enjoy them! Including yours, Elizabeth! Stimulus-experience-learning-joy! Wherever I am! Once you wrote “love is not THERE”…right…but it’s quite an experience when the same “space” is “shared” with “another”…also the “creations” of the moment may they be whatever, from fear, pain…..to “cloud 9″…beyond the mind realities….just infinitely LOVE.
Thank god that infinite love is in your space and not in mine… I love to experience everything but not that Heaven where you live…. that to me to be there, would be pure Hell.. How i see this universe and experienc it: is a roaring violent creation… even the sweetest thing like a flower sucks energy from other living thing and becomes that sweet magnificent flower which grows out from the dust of the dead …. This universe devours feeds on its own self.. that is the beauty of this universe….
I feel what you mean…
Marianne I dont joke about you, I joke about what you believe in… because you see everything through ”love filters”’ and the universe is more than that..
I know that you are not joking. Me have been throught that”sucking” “phase”. Sucking energy from others or others sucking energy from me. As I experienced it, I let go of all value-energies, deep down to basic survival needs like food, shelter. There was a point when one asked me “what will we eat if there is a real world crisis?” my answer was and I was ready to do that (still I am) to go and find edible plants in the forest, drink spring water.
Most rich people live in their value-solidity, most knowledgeable people live in their I-know-I-am-right self-created fear-of-life-solidity, very dfficult “places” to help them get out of – but I can and enjoy doing so. By being able to be absolute zero as “my-self” and being thus able to “flow” the pure “energy” of love towards them…so their solidity is less and less….this pure energy is not mest energy…it is “pouring”, limitless. If this pure-energy-love is a “filter”….well, sure it will go…but this is “where I am” now…..as you also write, “roaring energies” – I love experiencing-creating them. Sure you have a hell of a good time! Me too mostly. (and…I have been through hate, fear, terror, lightening energy – to be able to get the “flow”)
Valkov: ” . . . There is nothing wrong with Scientology – depending on what you understand Scientology to mean.”
Chris: That’s seems right to me. A question comes to mind, based upon this standard that you write, do you see anything wrong with any technology of any kind anywhere at any time?
Yes. Windshield wipers that build up with snow when it’s snowing and build up with ice when its freezing.
It’s a pet peeve of mine, since I’ve had more than one job that involved driving around in all kinds of weather.
🙂 Mine too hehehe since I used to comute to Seattle and back to BC weekly in all kinds of weather ! 🙂
Valkov’s statement is a variation to the True Scotsman fallacy where one can simply define Basic Scientology Philosophy (BSP) to mean those parts where one cannot find a fault. Like 2x did. Just continue redefining and you will be sure to have your BSP in pure, working order.
I would propose, for the sake of fruitful discussion that we define Scientology as the whole Bridge and all the tech and philosophy that support and underlies it. Because – LRH had the purpose to “free man”. His Bridge (and foundation and support) was his means to achieve that. And whether there are deliberate or accidental flaws in that bridge is more important to discuss as they relate directly to his (and most of those who enter Scientology) ultimate goal for the subject.
The only problem with that is that we’d do away with the True Scotsman fallacy,
@Isene
(From the beginning of this thread:)
“Geir: No Miraldi – Me and some others see many outpoints as arbitraries and some outpoints as rooted in the tech or even the basic philosophy of Scientology. You on the other hand will fight to death to avoid any cracks to be shown in the basic philosophy.”
Now:
Isene: “Valkov’s statement is a variation to the True Scotsman fallacy where one an simply define Basic Scientology Philosophy (BSP) to mean those parts where one cannot find a fault. Like 2x did. Just continue redefining and you will be sure to have your BSP in pure, working order.”
Isene: “I would propose, for the sake of fruitful discussion that we define Scientology as the whole Bridge and all the tech and philosophy that support and underlies it.”
Alright then, since you want to retract your initial argument point to look for cracks in what I would view as the BASIC philosophy, and you want to look at Scientology as a whole – the whole bridge and all the tech and supporting philosophy – fine, lets look at it that way.
We can agree that it’s incomplete since it stops at OT8 and I’ll agree we can stipulate that it works (you say) for about 50% of your friends, which is your best-case figure. So what does that imply to you? Just that it doesn’t produce the advertised results in its current form? Or that it never did and never could? You need to be specific on that point because I can argue about results and percentages of success during the late 70’s and 80’s. As far as post GAT, and especially after the 3-swing F/N I could certainly see how a non-workability argument could be posed and argued. The fact that it would work 50% of the time on your friends is even suprising. The observation that it didn’t work on 95% isn’t suprising.
You also bring up that there are no Clears by the original definition in Dianetics. Granted. The state has been redefined to fit phenomena and a particular ability because continuing to run it after those results appeared was not beneficial to the case. I think you must accept that there is a point where dianetic auditing must cease. Considering that the initial estimations of abilities of Clear was made when nothing beyond dianetic processing was yet conceived, I find it understandable and acceptable that such estimations were made. Saying the results were achieved, if they weren’t would not be OK.
The problem I consistently see coming up in these exchanges is that there is little or no recognition of the fact that Scientology is an evolving subject. I ask you, what evolving subject is complete and perfect in 30 years? Rocket design? Genetics? Medicine? If we can agree that it’s evolving then we should be able to agree there will be errors made all along the way. If the biggest error was the assumption and claim that there could be a standard tech that would be perfect and get results 100% of the time then the simple thing to do is admit the error and propose the handling.
The biggest mistake that you, Geir, or anyone else generally critical could make is to assume that the current state of the CoS provides a fully representative view of the general workability of the tech, the supporting philosophies and the whole Bridge. It doesn’t. That differentiation simply has to be made in order to make a fair evaluation of the subject. Anything less is like saying your life has no value because of the transgressions you’ve committed and failures you’ve had.
As far as the real potential of Scientology, I’ve worked with at least 50 people who were so good at their posts that if an autonomous org was put together by that crew it would deliver products at such a high success level and high ARC that public would be dragging their friends in for service. There was a day that happened. It could happen again.
You are preaching to the choir here, 2ndxmr. You should ask these questions of Valkov and Marildi.
I saw that the True Scotsman fallacy was in danger of being effectively applied and decided it would indeed be more fruitful to discuss a workable path to the original goals. And we fully agree on the incompleteness, the errors and that it SHOULD be a field in evolution, in progress (except that KSW1 put a stop to that). And all this is precisely why we need, as you say, admit to the errors – and to get moving to “build a better bridge”. As it stands, the bridge is incomplete and dangerous for many to travel.
So Geir, who or what is actually stopping you and other interested parties from doing exactly that – building a better Bridge? Tinkering with what exists and improving it? Just do it!
Certainly not me! All I do is post my understanding of certain concepts of Scientology as I assimilate them from listening to LRH lectures, mostly. I am a “danger” to building a better Bridge”? Please! Less than Al is a “danger” to the existence of ANY Bridge at all, for sure!
Especially as I am not a particularly “tech trained” person. All I can do is read, listen, try to understand what I read and hear. And that’s all I do. If my understanding doesn’t always agree with yours, oh well.
That just demonstrates that no-one’s understanding is all-encompassing, doesn’t it?
If I listen to a lecture and get some understanding out of it, then I have done that. I have gotten some understanding out of it. It is my understanding I now have. If it turns out no-one else has listened to that lecture, I think I can relatively safely assume that they do not have an understanding of it. However,eventhatis not necessarily true I have even had the experience of reading a post on a blog that gave the exact cognition in an LRH lecture, only he hadn’t listened to the lecture – he had gotten the cognition(perception) in the course of some auditing on New OT VII.
To me that validates LRH. Just as people getting the “clearc ognition” or any of the lower Bridge EPs, independently validates LRH.
Anyway, who or what is stopping you from proceeding towards your goal? If it is marildi, she ought to cease doing that. If it is me, how? Since I perceive myself as mostly posting my little backwater ‘insights’ into the materials as I understand them from my armchair.
Who is actually helping you get that done? Al? Give me a break! He is all wrapped up in discussing the evils of ideology in general. Andmanyof the points he makes are pretty good and perceptive. But what does any of that have to do with “building a better Bridge”? Nothing. The problem is not ideology in general, it is any particular person’s attitude and unthinking acceptance of any ideology.
Geir: “You are preaching to the choir here, 2ndxmr. You should ask these questions of Valkov and Marildi.”
Those questions have already been answered, at least by me (I’ll let Valkov speak for himself). This is another great example of how you filter out anything that doesn’t fit with your determination to paint me according to your own fixed idea, which for some unfathomable reason you refuse to let go of no matter what or how often I’ve commented otherwise.
This is what 2ndxmr stated: “The biggest mistake that you, Geir, or anyone else generally critical could make is to assume that the current state of the CoS provides a fully representative view of the general workability of the tech, the supporting philosophies and the whole Bridge. It doesn’t. That differentiation simply has to be made in order to make a fair evaluation of the subject. Anything less is like saying your life has no value because of the transgressions you’ve committed and failures you’ve had.”
I have tried over and over – as you very well know – to get across that “the current state of the CoS” is not representative of the workability of the tech. 2ndxmr, myself, and even Chris as a critic, have commented that in the 70’s up right up until certain changes were made, the workability of the tech was quite evident.
Your post above is an example of why I say you do not discuss fairly.
Another example of your unfairness – and bias – is that you will rarely point out the outrageous outpoints in critics’ comments but will jump on any little molehill in a proponent’s comment and make it into a mountain. Again I say, you are not seeing the forest for the trees.
You know very well that I have never stated anything near “that the current state of the CoS is representative of the workability of the tech.”
But I cannot fathom that not one single outpoint can not be traced back to Scientology proper. Can you, Marildi? This is the core of the discussion right here. All else is game play.
Geir: “You know very well that I have never stated anything near ‘that the current state of the CoS is representative of the workability of the tech’.”
Maybe not in so many words. But over and over you have used the word “Scientology” without indicating in any way what you meant by it and thus leaving the clear impression that you were including the subject itself. That has been my objection, because in effect it belittles the workability too.
As further evidence of your attitude, the only time I can recall that you have come out strongly against those who “seem hell-bent on proving that there cannot, must not be any shred of workability to the subject”, which I quote from your blog post “Why is it important to some that Scientology doesn’t work?”, was on that blog post itself. Tellingly, you wrote that post with reference to the comments on your OT 8 post and ESMB – in other words you came out strongly when challenged on your own personal gains. By contrast, such radical comments here, as long as they aren’t personal to you, you disregard and overlook, thereby giving tacit approval to. This is another example of how you don’t play fair or with good reason on the subject of Scientology.
Geir: “But I cannot fathom that not one single outpoint cannot be traced back to Scientology proper. Can you, Marildi? This is the core of the discussion right here. All else is game play.”
Again you are vague in your wording, as to what is meant by “Scn proper”. It’s tedious for me to keep doing so but I will repeat, as I have many times before, that the tech is “workable”, not perfect, just workable. And I have even specified some outpoints, never acknowledged by you, by the way.
In addition to all that, I have said that the Scn philosophy is consistent within itself, but not complete. This is the case with theories in general, that within themselves they are consistent. If you think there is something inconsistent in Scn theory, why don’t you say what it is instead of trying to make it sound like I’m so biased or whatever because I see it as consistent and don’t know of any outpoints in the basic philosophy?
See my latest blog post. I have spent sufficient time discussing with you.
I love you regardless.
Love you too. Regardless. 🙂
Marildi: This is another great example of how you filter out anything that doesn’t fit with your determination to paint me according to your own fixed idea, which for some unfathomable reason you refuse to let go of no matter what or how often I’ve commented otherwise..
Chris: I don’t think that is fair. You haven’t been “painted,” you’ve written your opinion. I’ve written my opinion. We each agree the other isn’t moving toward the other with regard to the consistency of Scientology outside of the bubble of Scientology. We should find a new topic.
I don’t know if you are familiar with the debates surrounding the evolution of the Soviet Union, Communist China and all the other real life applications and manifestations of the basic philosophy of communism, but there are many parallels here which illuminate some of the problems in the Scientology debate, too.
Whenever a failure of communism, such as the repressiveness and poverty and starvation in the Soviet Union would come under discussion, someone would try to say “But that was not TRUE COMMUNISM!” There was always some impurity, or alteration, which could be pointed to and shown how communism WORKS, but the reason it doesn’t work in the Soviet Union is because of the Soviet squirrels.
The reason it doesn’t work in China is because of the Chinese squirrels.
ETC ETC ETC
In this way, the true believer can always cling to the “knowledge” that communism WORKS!, even though every time it has been tried it has failed.
Communism is an ideology that one adopts, and invests a certain amount of his own self-identity in, and thereafter sees the world as the ideology says he should. The communist becomes invested in communism, and if it fails he feels that HE failed. And so he must keep the hope of his life, and everything he believes in, alive by holding this purity of belief in his mind that will never die.
Scientology ideology works this way once adopted and the person begins calling himself a Scientologist, as well.
These mistakes have already been made many times and by many many hopeful people throughout history. The mistake is adopting an ideology to do your thinking for you. Once you do that, and you start calling yourself an “ist”, you are fucked. You become so invested that you can not, will not, see the failures that are happening all around you. You can not think objectively any more.
It’s just a good thing that the Scientology ideology was caught soon enough before too many people died.
Alanzo
Up until the last drama sentence, you had my full agreement – because it seems to me that the same type of investment or pot commitment goes for critics as well. When a critic has invested enough in criticizing a subject it must thereafter be ALL BAD BAD BAD.
Al: The mistake is adopting an ideology to do your thinking for you. Once you do that, and you start calling yourself an “ist”, you are fucked.
Chris: Excellent analogy and examples!
Alanzo: Once you do that, and you start calling yourself an “ist”, you are fucked. You become so invested that you can not, will not, see the failures that are happening all around you. You can not think objectively any more.
What a good analogy with communism 🙂
I would write more often but, particularly on this thread, it take very long and is slow on my 10 year old comp. New one some day soon.
2ndxmr wrote:
As far as the real potential of Scientology, I’ve worked with at least 50 people who were so good at their posts that if an autonomous org was put together by that crew it would deliver products at such a high success level and high ARC that public would be dragging their friends in for service. There was a day that happened. It could happen again.
Why did it stop happening?
2x: “There was a day that happened. It could happen again.”
Alanzo: “Why did it stop happening?”
The events from 1977 to 1982 are pretty well known now:
Negative events:
– Snow white
– Misidentification of Clear
– Mishandling of valid Clears (they were put onto Grades)
– Expanding the grades checklist and enforcing the running of all processes without checking
– Mission devastation
– Rapidly rising prices
– Disestablishing tech lines trained by Mayo
– Bulk declares on a disaffected field
– De-emphasis of HQS, original Comm Course and Life Repair
– SO missions that would suck the best staff out of the org and “replace them”(hah!) with weak or untrained personnel
– Elimination of Cnfessional Auditing, replaced by Sec Checks
Positive events:
– NED technology
– Purif
– Mayo tech training program up to point of disestablishment
– first releases of NOTs
– (late ’82?) HCOB Checking Questions on Grades Processes
– Grade Chart that put NED after the Grades
Worst long-term strategies implemented in THAT timeframe:
#3 GO paranoia
#2 Rising prices
#1 The Birthday Game (thank you Chris for highlighting this event)
Even worse long-term strategies:
#4 Int events (distract the hell out of staff)
#3 IAS
#2 Ideal Org programme
#1 GAT
2ndxmr –
Are are you saying that this never actually happened?
Alanzo: “2ndxmr – Are are you saying that this never actually happened?”
Al, I don’t know what “this” is referring to.
It would be so cool to have many many groups that deliver their own thing –non ‘standard tech’. And not call it SCN.
It would be cool because they would do whatever they saw as right to do, without comforming to a chain of command.
There could be risks, but could not get much worse than the current state of ‘standard tech’, in my not-that-humble opinion 🙂
Amen.
Isene wrote:
Up until the last drama sentence, you had my full agreement – because it seems to me that the same type of investment or pot commitment goes for critics as well. When a critic has invested enough in criticizing a subject it must thereafter be ALL BAD BAD BAD.
I’m sorry Geir. While I am certainly addicted to the last sentence ZINGER! and can not seem to write a post, ever, without one, this drama sentence is quite true.
Had Scientology achieved anything near governmental power, which was always the ultimate goal, we would have seen a LOT more deaths than we have so far.
Alanzo
Alonzo: Had Scientology achieved anything near governmental power, which was always the ultimate goal, we would have seen a LOT more deaths than we have so far.
Chris: As I read down your comment, my reply was forming in my mind, but then I got to the end and you already wrote it! Nevertheless, given enough power, the Scientologists whose conscience would not allow them to participate in wholesale assassinations and roaming death squads, would be replaced by Scientologists without such compunctions.
Geir wrote:
Up until the last drama sentence, you had my full agreement – because it seems to me that the same type of investment or pot commitment goes for critics as well. When a critic has invested enough in criticizing a subject it must thereafter be ALL BAD BAD BAD.
Also, just to clarify, once again, I am not saying, nor have I ever said that Scientology was ALL BAD BAD BAD.
There are good things in Scientology, mostly developed by others than L Ron Hubbard, although he did develop some good things, too. But Hubbard, as the chief architect of Scientology, placed those good things as bait on a hook for people. Each good thing in Scientology leads to a bad thing.
FOR INSTANCE: (See how I am taking the time to provide a specific example after I give a general rule about how Scientology is generally constructed?)
The TRs teach you great things like being there when someone else is speaking to you, and to really listen to them and to do your best to understand them. And then acknowledge them really well so they really know you understood them. It DRILLS IN these skills so you can really use them in real life. And often, the TRs are so GOOD that they change your life completely for the better.
There is no doubt about this, and I have never said otherwise.
Ever.
BUT – The TRs, and the communication skills they provide to a student during an auditing sessions, are used to create and maintain a trance or hypnotic state in a PC. And during these auditing sessions, false memories are created and the pc is told that the mind, without aberration, is a perfectly accurate computer which files exact records from your own past and which you bring up to discover all kinds of things about your “true” self as a “thetan”.
See?
The TRs are GOOD. They are fantastic. But they are used in Scientology to implant false memories, and to create a false time track which can be then manipulated as a form of brainwashing and mind control.
So yes, absolutely there are good things in Scientology. But those good things, lead to bad things when used in the way Hubbard constructed Scientology. It is a very very unfortunate thing that the way Hubbard constructed Scientology, the good almost always leads to bad.
So as you are continually saying, the good has to be recognized, and the bad has to be discarded.
But then it is not Scientology any more. It is something else.
It is too bad that L Ron Hubbard corrupted his own subject in this way.
And here is my Dramatic Zinger!
But he did.
Alanzo
So why don’t you, Al, help Geir build a better Bridge? Instead of endlessly whining and lamenting and denouncing Hubbard from being such an evil guy? All that is your second postulate, you know? That’s why it persists. It’s not the basic.
You have never actually decompressed and faced your own experience in Scientology and with Scientologists, and the confusion you must have felt when you realized you were being had. Try putting it ALL on your blog. Or even here, or on Marty’s blog.
Al: And here is my Dramatic Zinger! But he did.
Chris LOL
Alanzo: “BUT – The TRs, and the communication skills they provide to a student during an auditing sessions, are used to create and maintain a trance or hypnotic state in a PC. And during these auditing sessions, false memories are created and the pc is told that the mind, without aberration, is a perfectly accurate computer which files exact records from your own past and which you bring up to discover all kinds of things about your “true” self as a “thetan”.”
Al, that is so incredibly off the mark. I don’t know if this observation was your own from the time you delivered Book 1 or whether you’re trying to carry this idea up to the realm of Scientology auditing, but “trance”!?, “hypnotic state”!?. Have you ever seen someone who actually was hypnotized by a professional hypnotist? If you have – and I have – you would know you’d have to apply a world of out tech to get a pc into that state. In 4000+ chair hours I’ve personally delivered I have never seen a pc approach the state of hypnotic trance. I don’t even see a possibility of it happening with proper TRs and even less chance where the TRs are poor. What you’re talking about occurring is a complete alteration of any tech I know of and any TRs I know of. (If I’d ever had a hint of such a thing happening in our org, any so-attempting hypnotist [I wouldn’t begin to call such a person an auditor] would have been shut down instantly and sent to cramming for a thorough investigation of what was going on.) Anyone trying such a stunt would have to work very long and hard to regain a trust level of delivering a session let alone having an unmonitored session.
Just when and where and how did you come up with that idea, anyhow??!!
2ndMXR –
Have you ever studied materials on hypnosis which had nothing to do with the writings of L Ron Hubbard?
Hubbard lied when he said that auditing was the OPPOSITE of hypnosis, and that the state of being IN SESSION was not a hypnotic state.
Read this article in a new unit of time, without any teachings of L Ron Hubbard in mind. The article is made up mostly from the works of James Braid and some of the other founders of the subject. And their descriptions of a hypnotic state match the state of being IN SESSION pretty much exactly.
Again, Hubbard lied about hypnosis to Scientologists. What he taught them about it is false.
Entertain that idea as you read this article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis
Then report back.
Alanzo
Alanzo: “Again, Hubbard lied about hypnosis to Scientologists. What he taught them about it is false. Entertain that idea as you read this article.”
Well, Al, I read the article in detail down to the History section at which point I scanned for any other information. Result? I have no idea how you make the comparison between TRs and hypnosis. It ain’t there, Al. I am interested in how you think it might be, so if you can find a few co-joined sentences that in any way approximate TRs, report back.
2X: ” . . . report back.”
Chris: The classic cliche’ Hubbardian implant command. I couldn’t resist.
Chris: The classic cliche’ Hubbardian implant command. I couldn’t resist.
Ju need to hwork on jor hweelpower, Krees
2ndmxr wrote:
Well, Al, I read the article in detail down to the History section at which point I scanned for any other information. Result? I have no idea how you make the comparison between TRs and hypnosis. It ain’t there, Al. I am interested in how you think it might be, so if you can find a few co-joined sentences that in any way approximate TRs, report back.
From what I have read of your posts, I can see that you are intelligent and you are good hearted and you are probably trustable with the tech as an auditor.
But Hubbard, as a follower of Crowley and a trained hypnotist (see evidence from 1945-early 1950’s from Forrest Ackerman and others) he either lied about the nature of hypnotic states or he misunderstood them himself.
The TRs are used to place a PC IN SESSION. “IN SESSION” is defined as “interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor”. When TRs are used to deliver ONE COMMAND and run ONE INCIDENT at at time, with no distractions to those, this brings about a hypnotic state in the pc.
There is nothing wrong with hypnotic states, despite what Hubbard said. They are produced in human beings during all kinds of activities such as meditation, prayer, good sex, reading a good book or seeing a good movie. They are characterized by intense focused concentration on ONE THING to the exclusion of all other environmental stimuli. They are NOT a state of unconsciousness. They are a state of hyper aware focus on one thing to the exclusion of other things.
Hypnotic states can be some of the most therapeutic states humans can engage in. The realizations and the knowledge which can result from hyper awareness onto one thing to the exclusion of other things in the environment can be life changing, and change your whole outlook on life.
Hypnotic states have one serious vulnerability, though. While you are focused on ONE THING to the exclusion of all else, external ideas ideas can slip in and act as suggestions which are not evaluated by the subject. The person can MIS-OWN the idea and think that it was his thought, or his conclusion, when it was not.
I believe that Hubbard knew this and used it to soften up Scientologists so that his other socially coercive techniques he built into the Scientology environment could work more easily on them.
These conclusions of mine come from studying and speaking to many hypnotists and hypnotherapists, and from studying the history of hypnosis and its development OUTSIDE of any ideas by L Ron Hubbard, as well as studying FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME and the literature which was developed by those who reported on it in the 1990’s.
The bottom line is that either:
1. Hubbard did not understand hypnosis and hypnotic states and simply forwarded his teacher Alistair Crowley’s misunderstood ideas about them. There is some evidence for this.
2. Or he did understand hypnotic states and he lied to Scientologists about them to re-position his hypnotherapy of Dianetics away from hypnosis – which was a scary thing in the 50’s – and to knowingly place them in more suggestible states so as to exploit their mental and spiritual vulnerabilities to take everything of value from them that they had.
From other patterns LRH displayed throughout his life, I lean toward door number 2.
But you can take your pick.
The bottom line is that the teachings in Dianetics and Scientology are false with regard to hypnosis and hypnotic states. And in order to be a responsible practitioner of Dianetics and Scientology, an auditor must study the subject of hypnosis outside of Scientology to understand the vulnerabilities and the dangers to the pc of running Dianetics and Scientology auditing processes on them.
If you simply take Hubbard’s word for it because “no one else understands the mind” then as an auditor whose pcs entrust their minds to you, you are being extremely irresponsible.
This is my opinion based on a lot of study which is all available to you on the internet and in a few printed books. All you have to do is take responsibility for the minds of your pcs and study up on this – outside Scientology.
I have learned that this is an exhausting subject to present to a Scientologist who has never studied hypnosis outside of Scientology, and this post is as much as I am willing to expend. The ideas I have referenced will get you started.
But it has to be your own study which comes from your own sense of responsibility to what you are doing with the minds of your pcs. No true professional should study just one man in his chosen field.
So good luck.
And happy trails.
Alanzo
@Alanzo
Thanks for the expansion.
If there ever was a time when hypnotic suggestion would have been easy to enter into the auditing process it would have been with early dianetics and its ad hoc approach to locating and running incidents. If anything, the trend toward muzzled auditing would have been to prevent any auditor suggestion or evaluation from entering the case. Even when Book 1 Dianetics was revived in the ’80s it was much more muzzled and had a patter to follow. As well, the “canceller” was there as a protection mechanism.
Overall I think LRH did everything possible to eliminate or mitigate the possibility of hypnotic suggestion from the auditing process. Maybe he did know or think that it could happen in certain settings by either knowing or unknowing error and sought to minimize the chances. However that story unfolds I know there is not one shred of a moment where I have ever seen an indication that anyone would perceive that type of control to be warranted or desired.
I will take your advice and study up on the field. It is a bit more of an interest item at this point.
All right 2ndmxr –
This website provides a very good context to begin a non-Scientology exploration into hypnosis, hypnotherapy and their problems.
The False Memory Syndrome Foundation website:
http://www.fmsfonline.org/
And you can talk with hypnotists and hypnotherapists here.
http://hypnosisonline.com/forum/
Many very interesting things to learn about the mind, and how to be a responsible and ethical hypnotherapist.
Alanzo
Geir, one does not have to ‘cherry-pick’ the good parts in order to find Scientology materials to have ‘nothing wrong’ with them. It is just a consideration as the other “V” would say. Where is he when we need him? 🙂
The other thing is, there is no-one here who knows “ALL” of it. The best any of us can do is tell how we, each one of us, experienced and experiences it, what we got or didn’t get out of it. That will always be from a limited individual viewpoint + our assemblage of others viewpoints as they are posted.
Out of that may come a relatively valid group agreement. That is ‘science’ after all, isn’t it? Relatively valid conclusions which will be altered as new data comes in and is analyzed? Scientific conclusions are not ‘truth’. They are approximations based on best available data. And that is based ultimately on perception, which is based on ability to perceive.
So my comment was not necessarily based on the “true scotsman” thing.
I believe that we are cause over what we experience, and thus I believe that despite of SPs, squirreling or any other abberations, the basic reason for not finding a way out of our case (differentiate between ‘case’ and ‘reactive mind’ or other things that reffer to the first dynamic alone) is that we are afraid that if we let go of our chains –our being victims, we can do horrible things. Victim means reduced awareness and reduced ability etc If the power of postulates is true, imagine the destructive things we can do –with a single postulate. Isn’t that horrible?
People insist that the mechanics of the mind exists. And that they are there and solid, despite that LRH stated otherwise with SCN. We not-is that. We love dianetic mechanisms. We also like to make ourselves guilty of God, gods, the almighty and only-one MEST universe, other people, SPs, squirreling and the list is endless.
If Ron thought that it was the past technique’s problem, he was wrong. It’s not the technique’s problem, it’s the person’s problem. Even if you could push a button and make one full OT, and for free, odds are most people wouldn’t take it.
Spyros: “We also like to make ourselves guilty of God, gods,…”
I meant We also like to make ourselves VICTIMS (not guilty) of God, gods etc…
This isn’t about SCN alone, but any possible tech that could actually as-is chains –case.
I personally don’t practice SCN anymore, and although I’ve had great ‘wins’ with what I currently do, I see how I stop myself from having more. Oh I’m feeling uncomfortable and what time is it and I need to piss and this and that. What is this other than denying to as-is case? And why would I deny to as-is case?
About the 4 flows
We can talk about 4 flows only in case the concept of “terminal” is still there. In lack of such concept, there is only the FLOW. Life. Tone 40. (nonduality, one-source-of-life).
LIFE-SOURCE
Life, source cannot be explained logically by the analytical “thought particles” as they are products of Life. With a closer look at them, these particles don’t even “exist” – QP. That they seem to exist is an is-ness, that is a “lie”, an “apparency”. Game-dream-reality-separate-circle.
As Ron said, it is the aesthetic flow that “keeps” “attaches” what’s below. The Analytical way of thinking in my view is rightful for constructing new products for life – that is a practical tool. Otherwise, like to understand experience, it is useless. Other examples can be given for that.
Marianne, I dont suck energy from anyone.. I dont need to and that concept is a inplanted idea.. We cant suck energy in reality that is impossible… we can experience energy but that is all. Your space is safe.. and will not be harmed by me or any one… your universe is yours alone and no one can change its content but you.. your fears are unfounded…
How uptone is it to choose your friends based on their tone level, like you have nothing to do with it?
What does upstat mean when you work for an SP?
How responsible is it of you to call another out-ethics?
Do birds fly?
Did you boss tell you that tone level 20.0 – Action reffers to a thetan completely independent of a body that can create infinite ammounts of energy at will?
Sorry mate, I think you are tripping. Scientology is like alternative psychology. Here, take this test. We will tell you what is wrong with you. Then we will make you feel guilty for being responsible and also raise your ARC with robotic TRs. We are loyal to L. Ron Hubbard, and if you say otherwise you’re out, you lowly dog.
This is the E-meter it measures mental mass. Mental mass is the product of the reactive mind that nobody ever located anywhere but are certain that it exists. And we hate psychology because they claim they know about the brain when they don’t. When you feel bad, sell your car and we’ll fix you. We want to help you. You are a thetan, not your body, believe me. Static is unattainable, but you are a thetan. You come from theta-land.
I have good capacity to victimise myself, and I don’t need Ruth Minshull to tell me how to do it.
If you stand next to a low-toned person he draws you down to his own low tone level and he is bad bad bad bad and you are such a victim. Yes, it has nothing to do with your considering so, nor with your making him wrong for his condition, like you have nothing to do with it. Uptone is tee-wee and when a low-tone comes around, you must be the total effect of it. He vibrates ow, and because you are the total effect of the MEST universe, you vibrate low too. It’s very uptone to be the effect of that, and disconnect from all non-Scientologists that are in so low-toned, and it has nothing to do with your considerations. Thank you. Now you on the road to OT.
S… you got to be kidding: vibrating low because one is standing beside who is doing that: vibrating low? you only will vibrate low if you are restimulated and cant hold your own space… or dont have any and because of that you use somebody elses in order to experience something! victim-blame … delicious spot on the tonescale..
Elizabeth: “you only will vibrate low if you are restimulated and cant hold your own space… or dont have any and because of that you use somebody elses in order to experience something!”
Spyros:I guess being restimulated and doing things with space, negates the fact that one does it to himself. And that he wouldn’t do it, unless he knew how to do it.
Elizabeth: “victim-blame … delicious spot on the tonescale..”
Spyros: That’s what you creted, about me. What would blame-victim-blame be, anyway?
The tone scale wasn’t put there to teach one ‘how to choose his people’ but to observe and handle. To audit better in particular. What victim-blame? Isnt to consider another ‘low’, a victim-blame? Isn’t that what I pointed out? You were again very picky over which part of my message you criticise. And you missed my final point. I hope you were kidding, or else I may assume you just wanted to make me wrong.
I didn’t criticise the people that thought what the book said, but the book itself. It is obviously meant to make victims, and people that blame other ‘low’ ones (especially, non scientologists)
And no, that I reffer to Ron doesn’t mean I play tech-smartass. How many times have I said I’m not SCNist? Obviously I wouldn’t say that if I wanted status and followers. And obviously, I dont deliver either. But since we reffer to this SCN thing in this topic, I find it useful to reffer to what he said, in order to have a common ground to base logic on.
S.. I do not have the need to make you wrong. I have edited it see how its read’s this time..
S… you got to be kidding: vibrating low because one is standing beside who is doing that: vibrating low? one only will vibrate low if that person is restimulated and cant hold their own space… or dont have any and because of that, that person use somebody elses in order to experience something! victim-blame … delicious spot on the tonescale..
Elizabeth: “S.. I do not have the need to make you wrong. I have edited it see how its read’s this time..”
S: Sorry, I had some big MU there. I’m now glad you said so 🙂
No problem, since we all swim up-stream long as one has the body.. than one is not swimming at all but watches the universe as it sliding by…
M: Do you know what process is needed to handle them?
S: I only discovered it recently with zero perception. I looked at some ridges and circuits. It was grea liberationt. There is still some left so i’m moving on.
S:” I only discovered it recently with zero perception. I looked at some ridges and circuits. It was grea liberationt. There is still some left so i’m moving on.”
M: Really glad to hear it. Do you know the expression, “You can’t keep a good man down”? To me it’s a non-Scn way of saying that intention is paramount. 😛
Yes, I agree. And thank you 🙂
I can’t stress enough how important those things were. Some were not just something that restimulated occasionaly. Since OT TR 0 concerns the being itself in it’s basic form, what I created stayed with me forever after.
“Since OT TR 0 concerns the being itself in it’s basic form, what I created stayed with me forever after.”
Yes, it has the “OT” in it because it is the being. You said before that “There is still some left so I’m moving on.” I got that you meant there is “some” but not a lot and that you are continuing the process. Did I get that right?
M: “Yes, it has the “OT” in it because it is the being. You said before that “There is still some left so I’m moving on.” I got that you meant there is “some” but not a lot and that you are continuing the process. Did I get that right?”
S: Yes, that’s right. I could start to analyse it logically, but that would only be to alter-is 😛 To be brief, it has to do with charging my comm lines. Thanks for concern 🙂
2ndxmr
I would like to describe to you a phenomenon and also I have a question that you may give me an answer to. Pretty sure that I have been operating on the Flow (life force, theta) for some time. There was a discussion on “dopamine” “love” the other day. Besides that I noticed some kind of a “glue” that kept me attached to the “thought” component on the blog. Could go to its “core” but something was still there. That something I would call now “electricity” “magnetic force” and “gravity”. The substance of thought itself. All of a sudden, just by “observing” and thus “differentiating” between the Flow and this “glue”, the “glue” has disappeared. Seems with it that “layer” too, which may be below the Higgs. I am writing about it because as I see it now, that “mess” Geir says has to do with the “structure and substance” of thought itself, and also it may be that which “keeps the being” attached to the Universe itself, also the “ego”. Looks like electricity, “lightening” has to be “as-ised” so that the being cannot be “influenced” by any thought any more and “blow them by inspection” from then on, thus the Flow can now move even smoother. By thought I did not mean reactive-thought, but thought itself. I wonder if I could put it down well to be understood and also what you say to this.
MT…. that glue you have experienced is not the same kind once can sniff or the other kind made out of boiled horses skin[ the horse was removed earlier] but it is called in scientology as KEY- IN….restimulation…
2ndx-ner might sugar coats that expression for you but i cant.. I been using that word toooooo long for discribing aberration-hits., brick fallen on the head.. etc…on extra filter was placed on the few other million which was there all ready and that filter caused a overload.. hehehe…
Elizabeth
No Key-in whatsoever…there is “no-one” to Key-in…no filter. Knowing that it is useless to mention it again….
Marianne: “…The substance of thought itself. All of a sudden, just by “observing” and thus “differentiating” between the Flow and this “glue”, the “glue” has disappeared.”
(Our excellent librarian, Marildi, can probably find the exact LRH reference on this, but to paraphrase,) Ron said that function governs (or takes precedence over) structure. Function is like the Flow. Structure is primarily the brain with its chemicals like dopamine – a reward chemical, a glue.
Marianne: “All of a sudden, just by “observing” and thus “differentiating” between the Flow and the glue, the “glue” has disappeared….” That says it all about function versus the mechanics of the mind.
I expect cognitions also cause a dopamine release but I also expect that there is a difference in the effect on a being: I’ve never heard of anyone saying they were addicted to cognitions. I would expect that that is due to cognitions separating the being from the mind.
You never heard the being addicted to cognition…. why did you not ask.. what has happened by having tens of thousand of cognition to me? I could tell you a thing or two… plus what happens to one when the mest is as-ised and there are no cognitions to be had or just once in a while and not every day as I used to have. some days I have had half a dozen or more… You have no idea … none at all… not one of you have any idea what happens when one audits one whole life time…
2X: I would expect that that is due to cognitions separating the being from the mind.
Chris: I wouldn’t describe my own cognitions in just that way – as separating from the mind. There is a big assumption that the self is not the mind underlying that. I have now been all the way down that road and am not so sure that we should nonchalantly maintain that assumption.
My own experience would be more like the analogy of bringing a view into focus; or another one would be two identical platens on top of an old style overhead projector – moving the two on top of one another so that the overhead image becomes no longer a double but one single image. Regardless, we write about cognitions using metaphor and we should keep that in mind and not assume the metaphor is the thing. For instance, when we talk of as-ising the mind, and we talk of blowing charge, we talk about it as though we know just what is going on, but I am not sure that metaphor is laid out quite right.
If we dare to even think about using scientific scrutiny on Scientology, we need people like you to help hold us to that.
Chris… you are right…. and after a while scientology – the words – their concepts how LRH used them lose their meanings.. the concepts how he has described things was his, how he has seen his universe… they mean totally different for me. I might write using those words but they dont have the same meaning as LRH was talking about..
2ndxmr
Thanks!
Marianne I am STILL WAITHING for the explanation !!!
Marianne, you used the word glue and LRH uses the word “sticky” in the following quote. See if you think he is talking about the same thing you are:
“Run the aesthetic band only. The incident is gone. Run out the heavy electronic incidents and all heavy facsimiles go, for only an electronic can keep a thetan aberrated and form a base “sticky” enough to cause other incidents and locks to stay in present time or restimulate.” (Scn 8-80)
Marildi
Thanks!! True! Looks like I as-ised this “electronic-lightening” “line” whose “origin” is the LIFE Flow which is going through the Higgs wherein it “becomes” electronic and then flows on as such “to the MIND (thought layer of all beings) and body., vibrations…will try to write it clearer later, I have no time now.
Great, Marianne! Now I wish I had posted the paragraph before that one too. Here are the two together:
“The aesthetic wave is all you want out of the incident. This gone, the rest vanishes. It is like having a heavy curtain hanging by a thin strip. Cut the strip and you cut down the whole curtain.
“Run the aesthetic band only. The incident is gone. Run out the heavy electronic incidents and all heavy facsimiles go, for only an electronic can keep a thetan aberrated and form a base “sticky” enough to cause other incidents and locks to stay in present time or restimulate.” (Scn 8-80)
.
I’ll add this quote too, which I think you may have expressed before on one of your posts:
“To make theta hold a facsimile of emotion or effort, or even reason, the facsimile itself must contain an aesthetic wave. The last alone can hold the recordings of pain, grief, exhaustion, aberration and force in upon theta.” (Scn 8-80)
Marianne: “Looks like I as-ised this “electronic-lightening” “line” whose “origin” is the LIFE Flow which is going through the Higgs wherein it “becomes” electronic and then flows on as such “to the MIND (thought layer of all beings) and body., vibrations…”
That makes a lot of sense. I have been looking for a long while for the mechanism that would cause theta to stick to a physical universe. The basic requirement would be a vibration that a thetan would resonate with. That could well be the Higgs as that is the background vibration of this universe. This would especially be true if, as I’ve posited before, the Higgs is the product of a multidimensional spacation exercise by thetan-creators.
What could occur is that a thetan entering the universe would be the unknowing effect of this vibration set up by others. It could be that the Higgs is like an aesthetic band wave that attracts the thetan and gives a stimulation. Sort of a space dopamine. Maybe to a thetan initially entering the universe it is aesthetic almost to the equivalent of orgasmic. That would at least give some logical reason to the spiritualists who sought to use sex to transcend – sex being a lower toned harmonic of that initial stimulation.
That could explain that “sticky” feeling too. 🙂 (My bad.)
When Marianne was previously talking about the “glue” I thought she was talking in terms of a dopamine / reward feeling that would keep the thetan returning to a reward-providing scenario or activity. This more electronic -aesthetic based phenomena would make more sense.
This is a very stimulating discussion. 🙂 (My bad.)
But seriously, it is exciting (no other word for it) because the simplicity of it seems to be that the whole of existence, from the Higgs field on up, is a matter of the interplay of energies and the involvement of Static. I’m sure you’ve seen this excerpt but here it is again for you and Marianne:
“Any difference of potential played one against the other creates energy. Aesthetic waves against a static produce energy. Aesthetic waves against analytical waves produce energy. Analytical waves against emotional waves produce energy. Emotional waves against effort waves produce energy. Effort against matter produces energy.
“The last is the method used on Earth in generating electrical current for power. The others are equally valid and produce even higher flows. This is a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter.” (Scn 8-80)
Marildi: “But seriously, it is exciting (no other word for it) because the simplicity of it seems to be that the whole of existence, from the Higgs field on up, is a matter of the interplay of energies and the involvement of Static”
It certainly appears it could work that way. And it would be very exciting if we could get some confirmation of this either from track recall or by reversing the process and seeing an ability recovered through understanding the mechanism. A thetan may have to be operating at a significantly higher level than we are now before being able to disconnect from that vibration.
Thanks for pulling out the applicable LRH reference.
how thrilling you guys just found different words-concept for aberration… but your definition will not erase those energies … and I know you have just reached another dead end…
Hubbard: Aesthetic waves against a static produce energy
Chris: Sir, please take another look at that.
🙂 if one talks of one energy: aesthetic than that goes against another energy mass it will not create no new energy mass. The entity just experiencing one experience and have awareness reality-consideration on that experience than moves into a different energy mass and since that is new the entity ”believes” that he created new energy… no… just put a thought, a consideration, given a meaning for that experience… and it is possible that the entity did not even pulled in a new energy mass but just ”re-named’ the anchor where he operates from… When one is talking about energy and nothing but energy that is the basic of the universe since nothing else beside that is real. PS;; each cognition the person has is like a thumb print from the body it is unique therefore recognizable by the person who had that cognition.. One simply knows and aware of it that belongs to ”self” when hears it or see it in print.. even if only partially presented. Very interesting phenomenon and I have not looked into it what really happens but we know when it is pirated and used.
Hubbard: Effort against matter produces energy.
Chris: Sir, there’s a huge conceptual gap between energy being moved about and creating energy.
Hubbard: “The last is the method used on Earth in generating electrical current for power. The others are equally valid and produce even higher flows. This is a gradient scale of beingness, from the zero-infinity of theta to the solidity of matter.”
Chris: Sir, this appears to be technobabble. Could you please provide the raw data please.
2ndmxr:”That would at least give some logical reason to the spiritualists who sought to use sex to transcend”
S: I think they were just looking for an excuse to get laid.
2ndmxr:”– sex being a lower toned harmonic of that initial stimulation.”
S: Body sex is so much lower than a thetan’s admiration, and doesn’t as-is shit 😛
S…..” Body sex is so much lower than a thetans admiration, and doesnt as-is shit ”
i love you for saying that…!!! sex has nothing to do with admiration and admiration do not as-is a thing.. Admiration IS A SOLIDIFIER. and no one can see and understand that? When one admire something than that person do everything possible to recreate that admired thing into solid item… Look around you what people do when they admire….. just look… ask you self what have you done because you have admired something or somebody!!!
Reply Comments
Elizabeth: “i love you for saying that…!!!”
Spyros: Thanks. I love you too!!!
Elizabeth: “Admiration IS A SOLIDIFIER. and no one can see and understand that? When one admire something than that person do everything possible to recreate that admired thing into solid item”
Spyros: I see you point. I think it is because the being is trying to have that admired thing, by making it solid. But what if someone simply admired without adding any other thought?
Elizabeth: “Look around you what people do when they admire….. just look… ask you self what have you done because you have admired something or somebody!!!”
Spyros: Hehehe you know I go through this…
S….. you admire because you all ready have thoughts on that item.. admiration is a item… same as not liking, hate-ing, loathing,
Elizabeth: S….. you admire because you all ready have thoughts on that item.. admiration is a item… same as not liking, hate-ing, loathing,
Spyros: Yes, bullseye item pick 😉
Eiliz: “Admiration IS A SOLIDIFIER. and no one can see and understand that? When one admire something than that person do everything possible to recreate that admired thing into solid item”
New food for thought shall I say. Now I’m devouring it slowly and I’m seeing it. Supuh! 🙂
Yes, Dee admiration is just that, it is not on the top of the tone scale as LRH put it but at the very bottom. Just think we even get married to the guy because we admire him…!! put a buch of flowers in the vase because we ”admire ”it, read books because we like how it is written, listen to songs over and over because we admire, we admire how somebody looks behaves, dresses, and we admire million other things. Admiration do not take one to spirituality but leads one back to MEST… to get more of the same..
Eliz: it is not on the top of the tone scale as LRH put it but at the very bottom.
In looking at it I see what you mean, wow what a din dong!
It’s true what I admire becomes more solid. Take a rose bush, for light example. I could flow enough admiration towards it and it could suffocate or make solid (to extreme) or I could look at it smell, enjoy it and let it be or as it it. Make sense, hard to put to words.
Admiration then seems to be trying to make an effect on that person/thing.
Elizabeth, I think I got it now. I don’t know everything about admiration, but I think it is the primary manifestation of energy. During that primary manifestation the being was still in a good enough shape to LOOK, as itself, and thus to as-is. Which gives the impression that the as-isness occured because of the energy of admiration. But it wasn’t the energy. It was the being that looked, and as-ised. It makes sense now, considering that those data about the as-ising properties of admiration were written before the discovery of the SCN axioms.
“S: Body sex is so much lower than a thetan’s admiration, and doesn’t as-is shit ”
S: Lower=reffering to wavelengths. Not that there’s something wrong with it. I just have been told stories by people about tjhe healing properties of sex –tantra etc….I think it’s just dramatisation of admiration, when it is used to heal.
Perhaps the confusion here has to do with the confusions inherent in the word admiration.
The word “admire” has been shifting in meaning for a long time now.
It comes from the Latin “admiri;” to wonder at. It is formed from the same root word as for mirror, mirage and miracle.
Mirror: mirror (n.) early 13c., from Old French mireoir “a reflecting glass, looking glass; observation, model, example,” earlier miradoir (11c.), from mirer “look at” (oneself in a mirror), “observe, watch, contemplate,” from Vulgar Latin *mirare “to look at,” variant of Latin mirari “to wonder at, admire” (see miracle).
This notion that it is some kind of particle is very strange, perhaps from the LRH definition of it as a “species” of attention, which would be an energy particle. But check out the following and I think that the error was in trying to identify it as a particle.
Attention is defined in its verb form attend: attend (v.) c.1300, “to direct one’s mind or energies,” from Old French atendre (12c., Modern French attendre) “to expect, wait for, pay attention,” and directly from Latin attendere “give heed to,” literally “to stretch toward,” from ad- “to” (see ad-) + tendere “stretch” (see tenet).
They are very different in meaning. Attention seems to a kind of particle that you put on things. And you could have attention units. And putting attention on something validates it and you get more of what is validated. Attention can be good or bad, happy or sad, and its opposite, invalidation is really non-attention.
Admiration seems more like an “aha” an amazed, whaddya know! OMG! It is interesting to note that both smile and laugh are both related root words to admire.
Maria: It comes from the Latin “admiri;” to wonder at. It is formed from the same root word as for mirror, mirage and miracle.
Spyros: Awesome! Maybe one admires that which reflects (like a mirror) ‘him’self . Thus the as-isness.
2x
You get me! Thanks for that! I have been feeling a little “alone” these days (that’s the mechanism behind when experience/knowingness comes first). No matter that Elizabeth says it’s a “dead end” (not giving any real explanation of the why, thus not helping any change), the manifestations appearing around me show REAL RESULTS. Will join you later…thanks 2x….
Marianne I am waithing for your explanation!!!!. you are ignoring my request because you do not know the answer? this is the 4th time I am asking you… and I do have my reason why i insist on explanation
Marianne: “the manifestations appearing around me show REAL RESULTS.”
The concepts we are encountering are new to us at least, and can take a while to articulate and sort out. In the mean time, be your own counsel and trust your own evaluations. In many ways we are like infants just learning to crawl. The ideas we have about crawling today may change tomorrow as we learn better ways to crawl, and we have to be prepared for that, too. Nevertheless, we can enjoy the good feeling from whatever we learn, when we learn it – even if we are the only one who ever feels it.
Dears, X is here to put you on the right track 😛
After SCN 8-80, postulates/considerations were put above all energies. For without postulates/considerations there can be no energy –no anything at all. It’s explained in the PDC and also “A thetan creates by postulates” and “Cosndierations are senior to the mechanics of energy, matter, space and time”.
Elizabeth
I answered it after the second time you asked. Had no time after the first one. It is almost at the end of this thread.
2ndxmr
Also, it looks like that there is a “layer” of consciousness (not in the Universe) where “pure ideas” are born. Kind of “birthplace” of creativity. There is only AC there, no R. An idea can “go through” a layer to “become a thought” which now has the physical laws of MEST. Looks like not only considerations are the “problem” but rather those energy manifestations which accompany them (charge). How do you see it?
MT….
Elizabeth : if there is AC than there is reality. without reality one can not communicate, how could one communicate if one do not have reality? or may be you can explain it to me how that goes, after all I know i am not the brightes star in the universe..usuly when I am reading your posting the weigh of stupidity is heavy on me.. i am in fog.. and that is caused by not understanding what i am reading..
MT…..”Looks like not only considerations are the “problem” but rather those energy manifestations which accompany them (charge). How do you see it?””
Elizabeth : you NEED TO TAKE A BASIC COURCE I recomend the HQS cource. Ask any one in this blog what they have learned by taking that ”small cource”’
Than you would not be asking basic questions,
Marianne here is a reference stating that there can be thought that is “well above 40.0”:
“Thought is the highest level attainable. It is of two varieties; one is clear thought established by will which is from 10.0 up on the tone-scale, to well above 40.0; the other is thought established by counter-efforts as in homo sapiens and governed entirely on a stimulus response basis. The first could be called self-determined thought; the second could be called reactive thought. (Scn 8-8008)
And here is a definition of “charge” from the Tech Dict:
Charge: the stored quantities of energy in the time track. It is the sole thing that is being released or removed by the auditor from the time track. (HCOB 13 Apr 64)
thank god you only repeating what LRH said and that dont matter much.. thought of higher level ? there is no such a thing… there are no lower value or higher value to thoughts…
Hubbard: “Thought is the highest level attainable. It is of two varieties; one is clear thought established by will which is from 10.0 up on the tone-scale, to well above 40.0; the other is thought established by counter-efforts as in homo sapiens and governed entirely on a stimulus response basis. The first could be called self-determined thought; the second could be called reactive thought. (Scn 8-8008)
Chris: Sir, this sounds like technobabble to me. If I could see your calculations so that I could review this it would be appreciated. Waiting for your reply. Sincerely, Chris
Elizabeth
You say that one can only experience what one creates….
YOU write “when I am reading your posting the weigh of stupidity is heavy on me ….i am in fog” ” and that is caused by not understanding what i am reading”
= YOU create in this case the second sentence…word by word YOUR experience-reality …
“Understanding” the AC is impossible….it can only be experienced/aware of….that is the “sphere” of the UNKNOWABLE by the MIND….
Marianne here is your opportunity explain how AC works without the R… tell me me I am very open.. your explanation can lift me out of the ignorance .. I am on ardent student and I spent a life time searching for different reality…So please explain..very much looking forward reading your reality.. I am not joking this time… And please dont tell me that you can not find the words,,, since one knows about something than one can describe that knowledge with words.
Marianne I dont have button on calling my self any name.. I been been every thing used millions of valances and have the experiences… I have ignorance of imesurable amount and brilliance-knowledge too… I am just fine with everything since I can play any game… No problem, I am not stuck being smart or floating an pure love… so you can point out what I write thinking that you make me wrong with my own words but you cant and I have written those words I know what I meant by them… your reality will not change that..
No I wont take that answer…. because if that is understandable by the mind than it is understandeble by the spititual being and can be described with words… sudenly you cant find any because you cant explain it.
”’““Understanding” the AC is impossible….it can only be experienced/aware of….that is the sphere” of the UNKNOWABLE by the MIND”
I never seen such a load of crap what you want to pass an here. You have no explanation because you do not know the answer… tomorrow– later today I will write up why I know what you write is not from experience but learned stuff compiled from books and from my blog…Your spiritual experiences is ”talk.. book talk.. you have learned how talk ”spirituality” and nothing more.. you been repeating many of my cognitions.. in your words of course but I know my cognitions when I read them. and the question I have demanded because you have written statement-comment of AC and no R after me posting my cog.. but you have miss understood it and now you say it is ”unknowable” .. you are a phony..
You see i dont mind any one to read my cogs,[my blog is public] and have reality on them of their own it is OK by me… totaly fine.. But you are a phony and you are not what you say you are…
An excellent example as a foretaste of the “shift of dimensions” – thank you for this, Elizabeth!
Elizabeth
“My” blog…”My” cognitions….I haven’t read your blog for months…before that I went there mostly AFTER some experiences….I haven’t been reading books either….no interest now and no time…you can say whatever you want….there is no fixed viewpoint here…and I don’t
feel like writing about “my case”….”experience, science, change and results” are my interest….I haven’t been here to “prove”, “convince” not even intentionally “change” anyone’s viewpoints here….change doesn’t work that way….and there IS CHANGE here…
Come on guys, don’t fight. Whatever you say I know that my truth is the only truth, and that I know the one and only reality, and that I am always right, and also that I am the Intergalactic Lord Xenu. So, I’m going to put you all on the right road. 😀
Spyros
There is no trace of fight in me…
Fine, it was a joke. I’m not evaluating 🙂
Marianne I am waiting for your explanation… so please do……
I can’t, it’s a complete failure. All I can say is that there is no stimulus, no item, no this, no that, no beings…yet there is “comunication” (without message, not in a telephatic way), the closest word could be by “knowingness” but it is also not right….there is affinity but not in the sense of love…
I understand that some may think that Ron was naive enough to leave actually dangerous materials in the hands of some bloody c@nt –DM. For this reason Geir, please, delete my message above, if you can (as well as this one) as I don’t want to make people mock up that they’re feeling sick.
Nah – no need 🙂
Fin 🙂
But we have to be careful because imagine what would happen if those confidential materials became widely available to the public. You would type ‘Scientology’ on google and you would get OT 3 as result. Horrible. Imagine what would happen to the world, if South Park mocked that incident in public, or what would happen is Star Wars Episode III was by 70% a copy of that incident. We would have to disconnect Scientologists from the whole world. 😛 😛 😛
Rather than commenting on the deep level thread somewhere up here on this mammoth page, I leave it down here as a fresh discussion.
Regarding sex; I quote from Hubbard:
Pain and sex were the INVENTED tools of degradation.
Here are some other lines from that bulletin, HCOB “Pain and Sex” 26 Aug 82:
“They [pain and sex] may have applications but they are used by destructive beings in great
volume to cave others in…
“Sex is a lock on and perversion of the ‘joy of creation’ which involves a whole being and expands him, but by using just one wavelength, sex, this CAN BE [my emphasis] perverted and he contracts.”
.
When I read the above, I got that LRH was talking about sex when it occurs as a purely physical action, which would be “using just one wavelength”. But when the whole being is involved, the “joy of creation” is actually what is occurring.
Well, my quote from that bulletin stands out as one paragraph and says precisely what it says and nothing else. No need for interpretations or justifications.
You’re not really defending this are you, Marildi?
Are you married?
Do you actually believe that sex is an alien implant?
Are all mammals implanted with the same implant? Does it make their “thetans” introvert too?
Cows and horses and pigs and cats and dogs and squirrels and birds and bees?
Come on, Marildi!
I’m waiting for Marildi to respond to me with “Bees aren’t mammals”.
Alanzo
Alanzo, I simply looked at the context of the whole bulletin and compared the data to what was real to me, which quite simply is this: Sex with love (a high-level theta experience) is not comparable to sex as a purely physical act (a body experience). And in reading that bulletin I thought the latter (a body experience), for all I knew, might very well include being keyed into an implant.
Also, Marty wrote something relevant to the subject a while back:
“I saw some fairly extensive notes of LRH that he wrote in his final years. He quite explicitly stated that the entire problem with breach of monogamy (beyond the physical risk of STDs) is the breach of trust and the lies connected with it. He said nary a word about whole track implants and the like (i.e. Pain and Sex). For the robots who want to accuse me of “verbal tech”, what am I to do? DM will never publish the writings to which I refer – he is way too sick on the 2d for them to see the light of day. Am I to just keep what I observed to myself? When pigs fly. You can take it or leave it.” http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/second-dynamic/
So LRH contradicted himself again when he said sex was an implant?
LRH was not really the least aberrated guy on the “second dynamic”. Not a good pick for a guru on how to have a happy, loving sex life, really.
Just stick with The Basics: We’re mammals. We procreate through sexual reproduction. Our family structure helps to provide and protect females during their 9 month gestation period, and to raise children during their long maturity cycles.
Leave out the alien implants. Sex is a lot more understandable, and wholesome and nurturing, that way.
Alanzo
Alanzo: “So LRH contradicted himself again when he said sex was an implant?”
Chris: “You just will not get it. DM made LRH write those things and so it wasn’t a contradiction because he didn’t mean to contradict himself at all. You sure get desperate when your back is against the wall!”
Alanzo: “LRH was not really the least aberrated guy on the “second dynamic”. Not a good pick for a guru on how to have a happy, loving sex life, really.”
Chris: “Does anyone here know what HCO quals are? Does it seem ironic at all that LRH wasn’t qual’d to work in HCO?
Marildi via Alanzo: “Bees aren’t mammals”.
Chris: Well, they aren’t! Bees and ants are more like good Sea Org members… keeping their proboscis to the grindstone that way. Bees and ants have had their implants removed.
HaHaHa….invented BY WHOM ? This is such a stupidity that neither my mind nor me can make any sense of it! I’ll let it settle for a while, perhaps I”ll find its parts to as-is it for others’ sake too! Still HaHaHa…….degradation….I’m dying of laughter!!!!
I appreciate how Geir devided the question ‘Does Scientology work’ into many individual questions. And he provided his estimates. That’s a good basis.
Scientology – that’s a rich meal with different courses, including a lot of ingredients.
As we see today that as a complete meal it is not throughout tasty and easy to digest it would make sense to analyse its single courses and ingredients, asking in each case:
– is it tasty?
– is it good for the body?
All substances should be identified which are hard to digest or even poisonous.
After a thorough analysis all bad ingredients should be eliminated and all valuable stuff should be kept and even improved.
And altogether: All ingredients should be banned which only serves suppression or / and the protection of the Church.
Interesting:
In the German rather sophisticated magazine DER SPIEGEL there was an article about the limited success of psychotherapy.
The magazine, usually being very friendly with Western medicine and psychotherapie, and with the tendency to make fun of alternative ways of curing body and mind, for the first time admitted that psychotherapy is far less successful than its reputation.
http://www.spiegel.de/gesundheit/psychologie/psychotherapie-hat-kaum-bekannte-risiken-und-nebenwirkungen-a-869344.html
And the article published some statistics:
One example: Almost 50% of all patients suffering from depressions did not report any success after the therapy was over. Some even suffered from stronger depressions.
It says that according to a new German approach psychological methods should be identified which rather damage than help.
And similar to package information sheets which comes with every drug, informing about risks and secondary effects patients should be also informed about advantages and disadvantages of psychotherapeutic methods.
For a long time psyches prevented access to independent information on the effectiveness of psychotherapeutic methods. They rather wanted the public to trust that psychotherapy would cure a patient. Like the church wants us to trust that the tech works if we just follow exactly its recommendations.
Meanwhile we have woken up. Trust was yesterday.
Why don’t we start a survey ourselves in which we investigate about the success of each single Scientology method / technology?
Has the Church done that?
Of course. If you ask them they’ll show you Millons of success stories.
Ha, ha.
I wish there were independent scientific studies on the effectiveness of e.g. Assists and on the Study Tech.
I tried to find out about the study tech, called representatives of Applied Scholastics. But there is nothing!
Strange …
IF the study tech works – and I assume it does – why didn’t the Church initiate such independent studies? Positive results published could not only have helped to improve the Churches’ image but also helped people all over the world to improve their ablitiy to study.
danielovictorius, this thread got so long and cumbersome that the discussion has been carried over onto Geir’s new post thread “Scientology – does it work? (cont.)” https://isene.me/2013/03/07/scientology-does-it-work/
I think you wrote a good comment here and you might want to copy-paste it onto the new thread.
Reblogged this on 31 Factors.