Scientology or not

Here’s a summary – again after lots of discussions lately:

  1. The current scene in the world of Scientology is a mess. Lives are getting ruined. I want the root causes found and handled.
  2. Scientology has not provided a consistent way of handling people’s issues and evidently does not provide a reliable way to deliver my main goals in life.
  3. I want #2 debugged – i.e. to “build a better Bridge”. If this means using whole chunks, only part or nothing of Scientology, then be it.

To those who find me hard to discuss with, stubborn or tough – it is only due to my insistence on the above. I tend to insist on getting the intended results, and let any method go down the drain if needed. I tend to run over holy cows.


(Hugh at Gapingvoid.com)

230 thoughts on “Scientology or not

    1. Excuse me, but is this the “Dio” who has been posting as “Dio” for a year or so on Geir’s blog?

      Because if it is, there seems to have been a shift in viewpoint, if I am not mistaken.

      Is it?

      Alanzo

      1. Alonzo,

        You say:

        Excuse me, but is this the “Dio” who has been posting as “Dio” for a year or so on Geir’s blog?

        Me: As far as I know there is only one Dio and that is me.

        Alonzo you say: Because if it is, there seems to have been a shift in viewpoint, if I am not mistaken.

        Me: You are mistaken. I have not shifted viewpoints. It is you who have finally begun to catch on to what I have been saying along, because I have noticed a shift in your viewpoints and postings. You have come up tone on many columns. You are starting to make sense.

        Keep up the good work.

        Dio

        Is it?

        Alanzo

            1. Just to keep things straight, the Diogenes who occasionally posts on Marty Rathbun’s blog is not the same person who’s calling himself “Dio, short for Diogenese” here.

    2. Dio –

      Me: You are mistaken. I have not shifted viewpoints. It is you who have finally begun to catch on to what I have been saying along, because I have noticed a shift in your viewpoints and postings. You have come up tone on many columns. You are starting to make sense.

      Keep up the good work.

      Why thank you.

      I’ve been drinking lots of rum and popping lots of pinks and greys.

      Alanzo

    1. Not really. But I don’t think the names are so important in this idea. The point is, let’s trash the bad in scientology (a lot of stuff), let keep the gems and improve the imperfect. all this as opposed to trashing all scientology (throwing out baby with bathwather) and starting from the very beginning. Many have done so, but not all the people are alike, are we?

      1. I guess this begs the question…who determines what’s bad and what’s the gems? I know what I’d keep and what I would toss from my own but may not be true for others.

        I would love to be on that committee….

        1. gaeagle: I would love to be on that committee….

          Chris: It would become political as the AMA except worse — this whole subject may need to stay in the field of religion.

          1. Interesting point Chris. I often wonder about the science vs religion aspect of Dianetics and Scientology. Under the umbrella of a “religion” they can move at will unchecked–which can be good and bad. If a science, then we’d never have experienced the gains we did because everything would be different. Damn if you do and damned if you don’t.

            If the whole of D&S was a science, people wouldn’t be wigged out by a weird “religion” and it wasn’t a religion started by “science fiction writer L Ron Hubbard”.

            If it could have been put into a separate category (like Emotional Freedom Techinque for example), the results would have caused a massive growth I think.

            Perhaps you can see farther down the road than I can, but I don’t see a situation where Scn or Independent Scn or anything with the word Scn expands or is deemed a worthwhile thing will occur in my lifetime. Sad…

            1. gaeaglefan1023: “If a science, then we’d never have experienced the gains we did because everything would be different”.

              Why not? Please expand on that.

            2. In the beginning, I was wigged out a bit by the religious slant of Scientology… but I was getting what I wanted and so continued over first that disagreement; the ARC triangle disagreement; disagreements on the manner in which I was “handled” rather than spoken to, etc.,.

              Years later I was surprised (?) at the resulting fiasco of discordant relationships and dog eat dog environment of Scientology? Wow! Talk about having my head in the sand.

              Scientology never ever had an issue of its concepts of theta-mind-body-product being popular. Everyone ate it up. It was very fresh and chic and modern and relevant as opposed to the dead religions.

              But the underlying motivation; the rot at the core was L Ron Hubbard’s obsessive lust for wealth and power, and that is what killed it. It has had every opportunity to prosper as an open; vibrant; healing method of helping people if only that had been its real goal… Scientologists had that goal but were thwarted by the Church and underlying the Church was the Tech of Controlling People. I don’t think that a wholesome and consistent philosophy of helping mankind can evolve that way at all.

              And now is it too late for Scientology?

            3. Marildi, to answer your question science is regulated, religion is not. In healthcare I often say “Doctors treat tests, not people”. Meaning if your “tests” are normal, then there is nothing wrong (or its in your head and you need to see a psychiatrist).

              Or go to a hospital…if your magnesium is not low, then would never tell you to take it. Wait til its too low, then prescribe it. That’s the “science” side of healing.

              So if it was a science, it would have been regulated. We never would have received what received because it would be regulated by powers that be. Remember in Dianetics where LRH kept saying “the patient.” That sounds like practicing health care to me. So Scn was born and it was a “religion.” No regulation with a religion.

              I got more wins from the Purif than probably anyone else I know who did it. But they said the purif wasn’t for the body. Really? Well if your treating the body, your practicing medicine so to speak.

              That is the whole convulted mess in my humble opinion. If it could have been “something else” I think it would be growing to this day. 🙂

            4. Thanks, Tom. I’m not sure I follow exactly. Is Buddhism, for example, which is also a philosophy and a practice, regulated?

              But if you mean that Scientology couldn’t be included in the field of medicine, which includes psychiatry, without the detrimental effects that go with being regulated, I would have to agree.

            5. Hi again Miraldi,

              To answer your last post about Buddhism, you are spot on with what I was thinking. A headache is a “medical condition” If you treat a headache, you are practicing medicine. Ridiculous I know, but that’s how it goes. If you treat the “person with the headache” by giving them nutritional support, then its not practicing medicine.

              I feel that by making something a religion (which a chiropractic technique recently did) then you remove yourself from that. I’ve read where LRH made Dianetics into Scn for tax reasons and that may be true, But I believe that he made Scn a religion so they could have no limitations on what he wanted to do. Great chatting with you!

            6. Tom, got what you said. And I agree that this aspect should be given due consideration in the development of a new and improved practice of Scientology. Good chatting with you, too. 🙂

        2. Chris…Love your post from 21:23. I think George Carlin summed up religion pretty well. When we have our steak dinner, we’ll have to put ol’ George in and watch him.

          1. haha – thanks Gaeagle. Appreciate your appreciation.

            Physics-wise, religion will not take anyone OUT to anywhere at all. Never did and won’t anytime in the future and the reason is that religions are closed-complete systems. They operate within their own little atmospheres and they stir the pot alright but nothing goes out. Correct me if I am wrong, but isn’t the goal of all religion to “rise above the bank” or to “go out of the body to be with god” somewhere? Or any variation of that?

            George Carlin? Using only humor, George falsifies the whole god as a separate and ever present and all knowing and all powerful entity in the following 9 minutes and 37 seconds and the resulting 5-star cognition is that the “emperor is naked.” From there we can begin to begin.

    2. Depends on what your definition of “scientology” is. Geir sometimes says I purvey a “True Scotsman” fallacy by saying things like this, but as one who says there is actually no RWOT, and that a person himself/herself creates what s/he experiences, he should know better.

      I view it as an inquiring attitude, just like science is supposed to be.
      ‘Science’ is never finished; but it builds on what has gone before, ever changing but built none the less on unchanging principles.

      “No man ever steps in the same river twice” This means things are constantly changing, and even though the river has the same name, the same location and even the same appearance, it is not the “same” river. This is even true of your body. The cells of your body are replaced almost completely every few months. It flows like a river. Both science and scientology need to do the same.

      This is often attributed to Zen, but it is actually Heraclitus. Heraclitus was a contemporary of Gotama Buddha’s, in Greece, about 500 years before Christ.

      I think they were part of a team who came here on an ‘uplift mission’.

      I’m telling you this because I think you need to look outside of Scientology
      for a while. Take whatever of value you found in Scientology or learned from Scientology, and go. Keep your eyes open.

      I think you got into Scientology because of love and a desire to contribute value to a desperate world. Your sense of betrayal must be like Al’s, extreme.

      Only you can find the answers you seek. As the poet said, “The road you carry, you unroll before you.”

      As another one sang, “Hear the old prayers, find the wise players”.

      Have you heard of Marianne Williamson? I hear she’s very cool. Who knows

      where you will find what you’re looking for?

      You need to go shopping.

      Yours truly,

      Swami Valkovananda

        1. Another way to say it is, “When you’re living with your eyes open, yet perhaps seeing with your eyes closed, you are living scientology.” I have met a lot of “natural scientologists”. They were just aware people who had their shit together.
          Hubbard had some very ambitious goals, taking advantage of modern communications and media he had available to him he actually accomplished more than most do in a lifetime, but reportedly in the end he felt he had failed. I think he was depressed from having had too many strokes, and being a little hard on himself as he watched his life pass before his eyes near the end there.

          As one gets older, some review is inevitable, and one never measures up in his own eyes.

          Youngsters, take heed. And if you are no longer quite as young as you were, take double heed.

        2. Valkovananda: “Only you can find the answers you seek. As the poet said, ‘The road you carry, you unroll before you.’ ”

          Chris: Circular and tautologically pure, this fairly duplicates the way my life seems to me.

  1. Here is a video of John McMaster, a research auditor of LRH, and how the Power Processes were originated and tested. How LRH used an unnecesary command, which was removed.
    It was touted as being the case cracking process for SP’s. John was the first certified CLEAR. He was later declared a suppressive person by LRH.

    Alan C. Walters “build a better bridge!”ed. His work on knowledgism will answer some of your questions.

  2. Scientology and Independent Scientology are copyrighted stuff, only the government can provide the needed control there to prevent that lives would be ruined.

    The technical advances found in the LRH materials should be tested and sorted out in the so called free zone Scientology using only as source of reference the Scientology materials and practical skills to be used freely ( and uncopyrighted ) by those interested . The basis for this is to not make business on the natural laws on the human mind.

    May be the Scientology materials and skills can be used to assist in the creation of a better world but in first term this greedy religion should be forbidden to use the courts to protect itself as bussiness.

    On the OT powers, only science can with certainty prove their existence using not only psychotherapy and suggestion but chemistry and electronics. imo

      1. Chris, thanks, an electrifying post this seems to be but I guess that Geir´s goals can be achieved only with the assistance of the truth that only science can provide and the law back up to protect these scientists.

        1. Yes, and the truth is that scientology isn’t working anymore. It, the name, has become a stigma in society and cannot continue as once conceived. The only possible way is for major change, I don’t see that happening. Someone could start a new system using the workable and discarding the unworkable, and as such be accepted by persons interested in change, greater abilities or help. That, without all the nonsense of the cofs would be very helpful. I think it will evolve in time.

    1. Don’t make science a God, as it evolves and constantly proves itself wrong -or not completely right- when done with honesty and when not done to make itself rich, or to support political manipulation such as the idea that Aryans are superior race or that bad commies are dangerously crazy and need a little juice inside their heads to fix them…

      Currently, it’s ability to perceive things is limited to certain wavelengths. Has science perceived a person’s imaginations? How does it know it’s the effect of chemical reactions ? That’s some dogmatism there. Don’t tell me about neuron indications. I’m not talking about indications. I’m talking about the real thing.

      1. Spyros, what is your level of education in science ?, your comment seems to me biased. What I propose is the very same thing that LRH did , but now done by more inteligent and ethical persons.

        1. My bad. I wanted to forget for a few minutes that science has become an authoritarian subject where only people that have been thoroughly indocrinated into it, and have degrees, are allowed to have opinions. I would ask in a similar manner ‘What is your degree in Scientology?”. But I don’t like that valence. Plus, that wouldn’t be actual Scientology for me.

          I learned various scientific stuff at school such as ubber complex physics, chemistry and algebra that I never used, and can’t remember a thing. I can’t tell you which level, as our levels in Greece are different. But say around ten years of general study. Not that it matters –just an encyclopedic datum. I personally learned way more out of school, where I was not blackmailed with bad marks, and no future professional status, and so on. That is actual education for me.

          1. Excuse my trolling. I get a little pissed about the endless pointless hours I spent at school and haven’t used 5% of what I learned. So, I get a little jumpy. So, no, I don’t have a degree in science.

            All I wanted to say before is that science is not to be considered a master of thinking, like religion once was. That’s all. Of course I like to use it. I love my computer and so on. So, no real conflict 😛

    2. Mostofthecopyrights ontheoriginal books have expired.That’s one major reason for GAK – a re-write(alteration) of the books so they could be copyrighted again. But only the new versions are copyrightable. The old originals are now public domain.

      That’s how I understand it.

      1. None of the copyrights of the CO$ are bonafide, (without fraud or deceit).

        Therefore all CO$ copyright claims are non binding, null and void and therefore cannot be with validity and force in law.

        Everything the CO$ says or does is also not without fraud or deceit.

        Everything they say or do contains some hidden form of lie, or covert diabolical, sinister intentions.

        Everything they say and do is a trap.

        Dio

          1. The copyrights in place are valid but they only copyright what COB had altered; The copyrights on all the rest expired and went into the public domain.

            1. As I understand it, there was big flap when someone forgot to renew the copyrights on time, so many of LRH’s works fall under category box #2 of that chart:

              Published 1923-1963 and never renewed The work is in the public domain

            2. There may well be certain publications that would fall into that category, but to claim that all of Scientology is in the Public Domain is not true.

              It would be a really cool project to track down and list on the net all the publications that are now free.

            3. From Pierre’s blog,

              http://pierreethier.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/scientology-myths-and-copyright/

              “In mid 1983 the Corporate Church of Scientology started a massive program to register LRH material. This is the reason most copyright filings have a date of 1983 forward. By then most of the HCOBs written by LRH
              prior to 1978 had fallen into Public Domain. To get around this the HCOBs were issued into tech volumes and then a copyright was gotten to cover the whole book. But, if you look at the individual HCOBs in the tech volumes, the copyright is missing on each individual one. This is because most of the original works are
              individually not copyrighted anymore and fell in the Public Domain!”

              There was a lot of discussion on Marty’s a couple of years ago that had to do not with “copyright expiration” as such, but that they had failed to enforce copyright violation, which apparently has legal consequences. I don’t recall the term used; if I can find it I will post it. I believe Logan had some posts about it.

        1. If you mean by making copies and selling them, I don’t know exactly. I would look into it a bit more, but I think so. I will try to get more information.

  3. In between, I AM working on the newly organized (kind of) material on study. Not able to find enough time though. Stay tuned.

      1. Chris, I’m done, but I don’t have your e-mail and I don’t want to do link whoring here any more. Can you just drop me a line to vit dot profant at Google’s?

  4. On #1. The current scene in the world of Scientology is a mess. Lives are getting ruined. I want the root causes found and handled.

    I think most of the root causes have been found, but getting them handled is another thing. The handling the cos needs to do won’t get done, or can’t. So one needs to handle in one’s own universe and look for alternatives for abilities wanted or use what they have and keep improving by whatever means they can. Having confidence in yourself to use what you have and to move forward, while enjoying the freedom too.
    🙂

    1. deElizabethan: “The handling the cos needs to do won’t get done, or can’t.”

      S: Yes, please, nobody should depend on that. Even if some good person(s) could deal with that now, iIt would take eons to clear Scientology’s name in the major part of the ‘western civilization’. The Clear planet goal is a joke, imo. It’s like saying ‘The Second Coming’.

  5. “Fear of Change is Death” That’s currently what’s happening to “Scientology” except possibly out in the field, imho.

    1. It seems to me that for the COS changed (badly) so much at some point that it died and is now rotting, but labelled alive and it also thinks that it is still expanding. It is holding on to the past so hard. And the past doesn’t change.

      New creations are needed, for some. Or maybe a total backroll into SCNs primary state, for some others.

      There is an infinity of solutions to be applied. But in any case, in order to create, one should perceive present time and quit holding on to some past.

  6. Please clarify with some examples what “People’s Issues” are and what kind of metrics would show success of said issues. Scientology’s “abilities” are not very measurable.

    Please also clarify “my goals.” Does this mean “Exteriorization With Full Perception”?

    Are you asking to find out how to do something that is currently impossible? Is that what you want to build a better bridge for? To achieve what is currently impossible?

    1. IMPOSSIBLE: “Exteriorization with full perception of Zener cards in the presence of a professional magician who is trained to debunk psychics.”

    2. I believe his other ‘goal’ or desired EP was to go into his next life with full memory of this one. And maybe previous existences too.

      Well, he he he, Geir may have to go sit non-stop under the Bodhi tree for 40 days and 40 nights, and BINGO!

      Better plant a Bodhi tree in your yard, Geir. If they’ll grow in Norway. 🙂

      1. iamvalkov: “I believe his other ‘goal’ or desired EP was to go into his next life with full memory of this one. And maybe previous existences too.”

        As per the Route to Infinity lectures, the goal was tone 40 and out of this universe. As per SCN 8-8008 and the PDC and other lectures from that era, the final EP was full self determinism over all dynamics. And that included pan determinism of course (the term wasn’t used back then), and it included full self determinism over MEST too and over the 7th dynamic too. In other words fully at cause over everything. Keep in mind that according to the PDC again, the Tone levels above 4.0 are not theta-plus-body levels. It is misinterpretation to consider -for example- that the operation of a body during work is tone level ‘Action’. It is verbal datum, and never mentioned by LRH. Also, yes, the tone levels are created tone levels, and they don’t have to be an is-ness. And there can be more tone levels than those on the tone scale.

        1. Spyros, thanks for the summation. I haven’t listened to those lectures. Those EPs/goals are all very well, but presumably, even if one achieved all that, one would still have the choice of assuming a body again and going into his next life with full memory of previous existences if he wished to have it.

    3. Katageek, if I may enter this, SCN had it’s own EP of the Bridge which is obviously not achieved with current ‘Standard Tech’. The EP is certainly not being cheerful about your problems. It is a good EP. But the actual EP is obscured. Take ‘Total Freedom’ for example. What would that mean for a thetan? A happy life and then death and so on?

  7. Root cause: Condemnation or denigration based on inability, refusal or failure to recognize, experience or utilize Scientology as superior to all other methodologies, philosophies and mental or spiritual sciences.

    Root cause: Unwarranted assumption of authority to interfere with individual rights, purposes and self-determinism.

    I might think of some more but those are what immediately come to mind.

    1. Root cause: Continual attention on wrongness. This validates wrongness. You get more wrongness. Must find wrongness. Must get rid of wrongness. Must stomp out wrongness. Must not be wrong. Fear of being wrong. Must punish wrongness. Must fix wrongness. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You were wrong.

      1. Maria, this is what I wanted to express fairly recently when I tried to make the point that the focus shouldn’t be so much on the outpoints but rather on the plus points. You are right – putting attention on the wrongnesses validates them. That’s and auditing principle too and it’s the datum I was trying to recall. The closest references I could come were the chapter “Accent on Ability” in Dn 55 and the PL “Purposes and Targets” which points out the problem with focusing on “stops”. But you came up with the most directly applicable datum. Thank you!

        1. Marildi: “Maria, this is what I wanted to express fairly recently when I tried to make the point that the focus shouldn’t be so much on the outpoints but rather on the plus points.”

          Chris: Your writing is confusing using outpoints — various inconsistencies to falsify what is not consistently workable with simply having a negative and kill joy attitude. For instance, just as an example, if we acknowledged that Scientology is a closed belief system and that KSW is the cork in that bottle. Then we falsified KSW for its absolute authoritarianism which indisputably has and will continue to block Scientology from working. This would not be being negative, it would be rational.

          Focusing on plus points as you write sets one up to fall for confirmation bias.

      2. Maria: Root cause: Continual attention on wrongness. This validates wrongness. You get more wrongness. Must find wrongness. Must get rid of wrongness. Must stomp out wrongness. Must not be wrong. Fear of being wrong. Must punish wrongness. Must fix wrongness. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. You were wrong.”

        Maria, you got that wrong! Ophs, I mean Right!

      3. Maria: You were wrong.

        Chris: Love it! One of my truly best moments auditing was (how do I put this?) in looking into the void and seeing my own face looking back. Writing it like that doesn’t really demonstrate anything or communicate anything of importance. However, that would be the moment when (somehow) I embraced my own wrongness and rightness; sort of wrapped my arms around that dichotomy and accepted myself. Even writing it like that is unsatisfying to me. It was a tremendous leveling within my own thoughts. E-meter? 3 divisions of blow down and F/TA. Pleased for days, er uh, actually it’s still with me almost two years later. I only had to write about it to rehab that point.

      4. But Marildi –

        When the wrongnesses are actual brainwashing and mental and spiritual abuse, focusing on the wrongnesses act as a very valuable warning to the public so they won’t be harmed.

        When someone has murdered someone else, it’s important to focus on the wrongness during the trial so that the murderer can be put away and not murder anyone else. Sure, the murderer also bought his daughters ice cream on the weekends, but he murdered people. So we have to focus on that wrongness long enough to protect the public from him.

        Alanzo

        1. Al, how long is ‘long enough’? And, how many ‘endangered public’ do you suppose there are reading this blog?

          Are you in fact addressing phantoms that may not exist, instead of constructively interacting with the regulars who post here and try to have productive discussions?

  8. Indeed, results above all.

    I say if somebody likes to stick with LRH, instead of waiting for all orgs to become Saint Hill size, and thus have a safe enviroment for OT 9s and beyond (LMAO):

    * Study directly by LRH. Ignore what orgs do, and ignore checksheets as they’re not made by LRH. Spot and as-is all verbal tech you have received and all misapplications you have observed and done yourself.
    * Make sure you have pre ’80s versions of texts and lectures.
    * SCN is not supposed to work in the future, but it the now. If it doesn’t, make sure you do it correctly, and if it still doesn’t give EP, you’re using the wrong tech. It’s up to you to evaluate whether it’s LRH’s wrong tech, or your own fault for now having actual LRH tech.
    * Don’t be afraid to study and use older LRH tech that has been invalidated by the COS so that you will depend on their semi-workable Bridge to Total Bullshit. Study and see how many Bridges LRH himself had created in the past –and to what EP.

    If I played SCN, I would do it like that. I’m sure it would be great.

      1. Interestingly enough, in the 3-4 years I have been posting, starting with Geir’s original TheScnForum, I have always posted in “how it looks to me now” fashion, and have slowly plowed my way through actually very little of LRH lectures and books. I have always posted simply my understanding of what I was hearing/reading,about Scientology/LRH.

        The interesting thing is, I have never from the start, ever called myself a “Scientologist”. And still don’t.

        That is a label Al worked very hard to stick to me, because to him it was like sticking a tinfoil hat on my head and a “Kick me!” sign on my back. To him it was the ultimate invalidating insult. I guess he learned that kind of thing while he was in the CoS.

        But he and I have since agreed that he is a moron, so it’s OK.

        1. Sorry, Valkov, my mistake.

          I could have sworn you were a Scientologist.

          It’s probably all my my “case”, my MUs, and my chronic tone level on true Scientology that made me think that.

          Alanzo, The Moron

        2. 🙂 🙂

          I used to call myself that, it’s OK, it’s a label. My purpose is not a label, but the effectiveness of it. I could use SCN again. If I did, I would do it in a much different fashion than before, but I would also need a like-minded twin. But I don’t invalidate it as auditing tech. I’m happy with my spiritologie now. I’m independent. I have ‘wins’. I approach my long term case goals (no case at all).

          Still, in SCN there is tech to handle specific aspects of case, that I’m not aware of being available in the current Bridge. I know some neat processes. If someone is interested to deal with something, and doesn’t know how, I can give you refferences. We’re not really doomed, unless we think so.

          1. Part of the reasons why some tech is not available in the current Bridge is that some people just can’t run some processes –as auditors nor as audited persons. So, the last Bridge is Time Track-based, because it was more ‘real’. This doesn’t mean that other processes are less effective. It would be gross to consider that. Actually, creative processing worked much faster than running incidents –yet, some (few) couldn’t run it. And there had to be a Bridge that everybody could do. People still love DMSMH. It is the worst, slowest technique in DN and SCN, and people love it. It is more ‘real’. And somewhat resembles psychoanalysis. That doesn’t make it more effective. It is a good Div 6 book, but the technique in comparison to others is painfully slow.

  9. It may have deserved a separate blog post, but enough of the Scientology posts for now (perhaps) – and so I put it here:

    WHY SCIENTOLOGY SHOULD REMAIN A RELIGION:

    Because it wouldn’t survive as a science. While Scientology is the body of knowledge partly developed and mostly codified and structured by L. Ron Hubbard, a science is a branch of human knowledge developed by many. While Scientology’s evolution as a subject was terminated by Hubbard’s death, a science is a continual evolution. While Scientology is true to its dogma (tech) as dictated by Hubbard in his policy letter Keeping Scientology Working, science is never true to any dogma and habitually thrashes dogmas and holy cows.

    Examples: Christianity is (to varying degrees) true to the Holy Bible – its dogma. Islam is true to the Koran. Etc. The science of physics is not true to Newton’s teachings, or Einsteins, or the next bright genius. Christianity is about studying what has been written (the Bible). Physics is about finding the next thing to write. Christianity is centered on one man – Jesus. Islam on Mohamed. Scientology on Hubbard. But physics is not about one man, nor is it about one hundred. It is about the continual search for the truth regarding the physical universe.

    If Scientology was a science, it would be taken apart, dismantled, distilled, improved, enhanced. And after a while would no longer look like the body of knowledge published by Hubbard. Just as physics no longer look like the publishings of Newton.

    Scientology is a religion and should rightly remain so.

    1. Geir, I think you are playing devil’s advocate or some such, and that you actually believe something similar to what I do, which is that it was a mistake for Scientology to become a religion. Scientology should have remained the way it was described in early books – that is to say, in physics terms.

      All activities of life, including thoughts and emotions, were seen to be manifestations of energy in space and time. Those energies, not traditionally included as part of the physical universe, were recognized as no different from physical energy, although in a range of wavelengths that were higher and lighter.

      Just as every other body of knowledge has developed with succeeding additions to it that were built on the discoveries of the past, I think Scientology, like science, should carry on with its research and discoveries and still be called Scientology with all due accuracy – just as science has expanded enormously over the centuries and yet continues to be called science.

      By standing on the shoulders of LRH who stood on the shoulders of many others, I believe that eventually Scientology could be the unifying theory of physics and metaphysics, simply as a result of its basic premise, the one on which everything else in the philosophy is built – i.e. the recognition and inclusion of the spiritual being, the key variable not given its due in physics and science.

      Using the word “postulate” the way scientists do and the way Scientologists do, how about the above as a postulate?

      1. I mean every word of what I write. To have one man’s branch-off of knowledge labeled as a science would be rather odd. Just like Newton would have forked “Newtonism” and the followers would have built on that specifically. It would be excellent if LRH would just have contributed to Philosophy instead of branding his specific philosophy with a name and then locked it down from being tinkered with – even declared people as Suppressive Persons and Enemies of Mankind and hinted at shooting the people he thought of as squirrels (those who tinkered with his branch of philosophy).

        1. There are many branches of philosophy, just as there are of science, and Scientology is one, as is Buddhism, for example. Furthermore, different branches of science continue to be built on, such as biology, for example, while still calling it biology.

          The main thing I am saying, however, is that I think research should be continued from where LRH left off so that the invaluable discoveries and developments he came up with can be built upon and not get lost. We don’t want to throw away the baby with the bath water and neither do we want to essentially lose the baby by blending it with all other babies of philosophy and technology and thus lose sight of the unique contributions to knowledge and technology of the “Scientology baby”.

          Let’s put it this way, I think some people might be interested in research from that angle. That’s all. Your mileage may differ. And the fact that LRH in his time “locked it down” has no bearing on anything now. We are free to build on Scientology as we wish.

          1. Marildi: And the fact that LRH in his time “locked it down” has no bearing on anything now. We are free to build on Scientology as we wish.

            Chris: Yes, good point. LRH is dead. COS is on the ropes. In your heart, are you hoping for a world without insanity, without criminals and without war based on militant Scientology? . . . and it is militant. Doesn’t confer, doesn’t discuss; doesn’t compromise or change at all its integrity.

            If I understand you then I do get what you wish for: the dream of utopian Scientology world where men could rise to greater heights and the able could prosper and honest beings could have rights… Am I close at all?

            There is an alter-ego aspect of my relationship with you and the other writers here. We share a lot and I am really trying to remember that as the discordant words pour out all inconsistently at odds each other.

            1. Chris, sorry but once again my communication to you has not duplicated and understood. The early Scientology, or core or basic, is what I consistently refer to – and that was not a militant philosophy. If you can duplicate and understand that much for starters, we won’t always be talking apples and oranges.

            2. Marildi: – and that was not a militant philosophy

              Chris: And if you can duplicate and understand that every person ever connected to the subject in the time period that you specify including John McMaster and Nibs Hubbard are both gone from the subject and also say that it was a militant philosophy then we can begin from there. I hear you. You want it to not have been the way it was but it was the way it was.

              My own tautology is more smoothly circular than your tautology and therefore I must declare myself the winner. If we can’t discuss, then at least we can compete.

      2. Marildi: I think Scientology, like science, should carry on with its research and discoveries

        Chris: There is no R & D connected to Scientology. Like other religions, it is complete.

      3. Marildi: I believe that eventually Scientology could be the unifying theory of physics and metaphysics…

        Chris: That is a nice thought, but my feeling that because of Godel’s incompleteness, this is an impossibility. Not because the opinions are so different, but because religion and science mechanically don’t join. They are very mechanically different philosophies and each have different admin scales. Scientology is defined as complete and science is defined as incomplete. One is a closed set and the other is an open set. One, because of its completeness will be forever inconsistent. The other works through its inconsistencies always toward a more consistent technology but by definition will forever remain incomplete.

        Now you have written something, and I have written something. You were eloquent and respectful and I have been respectful. Let’s look at this two-strokes; this two way comm. Did I duplicate with understanding the particle that you sent and have you duplicated with understanding the particle that I sent back?

        Where does this comm cycle go from this period -> .

        1. Chris: “Scientology is defined as complete…”

          The particle you didn’t duplicate and understand was the earlier one: I’ve stated several times that Scn philosophy is within itself consistent and thus not complete, and that the tech is neither totally consistent nor complete and that it can and should be improved upon towards greater and greater consistency and completeness.

          1. Marildi: The particle you didn’t duplicate and understand was the earlier one: I’ve stated several times that Scn philosophy is within itself consistent and thus not complete

            Chris: I think we are not connecting on what Godel means by complete and incomplete. I have written to you routinely about the consistency of Scientology as it pertains to itself and within itself. Scientology is by any definition complete so you are ignoring this when you say that it is incomplete. You also ignore the many inconsistencies that have been pointed out in the Tech which back up this completeness, and yet we still write to one another the same things.

    2. Geir, I think you are confusing or not recognizing or neglecting the difference between “science” and “technology”, when you say it is not a “science”, but then refer to the “tech”. Any engineer knows there is a difference.

      “Scientology” is not a science, it is an applied philosophy. Maybe Maria has already gone into this, but what is needed is to use the definitions that LRH was using and thinking with. But it is based on one of the types of scientific methods of inquiry – observation.

      The tech was based on empiricism, which is more than anyone can say about the existence of bosons! 🙂

      1. Your ignorance and opiniontaion combined regarding bosons are blissfully shameful 😉

        Scientology can be argued to be both a science and a technology combined. But as stated and written by LRH it is a religion and for the very good reasons that I have pointed out above. Catholicism is similar in that it contains both a fundamental philosophy and a technology. Same with Islam and most other religions. They too, are a complete body and claims to be the ultimate way just as it stands. Yep – Scientology is a religion and as it stands has no merit or place among the sciences with peer review and all that.

        1. There are elements within Scientology that can and will be and are being pursued in the sciences, however, this is generally undertaken as discreet, testable elements. Once pulled out of the main body of knowledge, they are no longer standing within a particular system but are investigated as essentials that can be utilized within various systems. Thus they are no longer Scientology but principles or theories that serve to yield further progress or facilitate prediction. i.e. if they are used in the body of work of physics, and are applied to physics, then they become a part of that body of work.

          1. I believe LRH said something similar. From 8-8008:

            “One lives and learns of life but life is not comprehensible to him, no matter how much he lives, unless he knows the science of life itself…

            “The physicist and the fission bomb expert know physics but not the humanities. They do not conceive the relationship and thus physics itself fails.

            “Into all these things — biology, physics, psychology and life itself — the skills of Scientology can bring order and simplification.”

      2. Valkov, regarding science and technology. Are you of the opinion that one can have Scientology philosophy as an evolving science whereas the technology can be frozen as in KSW? As in, we should keep the technology of building air planes frozen anno 1920 despite the science of physics evolving in leaps and bounds parallel to it?

        1. No, I am of the opinion that we should continue to fly in the best-flying airplanes we have, until we develop better-flying ones. That requires continuing to build them in ways that we know will make them flyable, rather than changing them in possibly arbitrary ways that will make them worse rather than better.

          LRH used real life as his ‘lab’; this almost certainly resulted in casualties.

          What, where, is anyone’s ‘lab’ for improving ‘scientology’? I’m just not for dilettantism when messing with human lives.

          1. Valkov: What, where, is anyone’s ‘lab’ for improving ‘scientology’? I’m just not for dilettantism when messing with human lives.

            Chris: I don’t follow if you are promoting to experiment or not to experiment?

          2. Val, you said, “No, I am of the opinion that we should continue to fly in the best-flying airplanes we have, until we develop better-flying ones.”

            I agree. Here’s my idea of a constructive use of science with regard to tech: Basically, scientific methods would be used to gather statistics as to the workability of standard tech – first determining and defining what exactly “standard tech” is (by a group designated to do so), which most likely would be what was practiced in the 70’s and 80’s, IMO.

            In addition to that, there are already Independents, such as David St Lawrence and Pierre Ethier as well as others in the Freezone, who have either amended or added to Standard Tech and these could be researched for workability as well. And thus “the best-flying airplanes” could be determined. Obviously, this type of scientific research isn’t what the posters on this blog are necessarily going to be involved in.

            1. p.s. You also said: “That [flying in the best-flying airplanes we have, until we develop better-flying ones] requires continuing to build them in ways that we know will make them flyable, rather than changing them in possibly arbitrary ways that will make them worse rather than better.”

              I agree with that too. To my way of thinking, any arbitrary ways of changing the tech would be by not basing it on the philosophy, which is what core Scn tech has been based on. And that basis would have to continue if indeed we mean to evolve “Scn tech” as such. (I have no disagreement with research not based on the philosophy, but that would be something other than an attempt to evolve and improve Scn tech per se.)

              On the other hand, if there are arbitraries in the philosophy itself, then that is what should first be improved upon, and it would follow that the tech based on that would thus be improved as it would be based on greater consistency of truth.

              Geir and others believe there are in fact arbitraries or flaws in the philosophy, while some of us have yet to see that demonstrated. And if my understanding is correct, that is what the blog discussion is supposed to be about – to consider those principles and to do so from a scientific approach. This attempt hasn’t worked in the past and to be truthful I don’t know if it can be done.

              At this point in time, I tend to believe that we may have no choice but to let Independent Scientology take its course and have word-of-mouth be the ultimate judge of what works best, whether it be “standard tech” or other techs based on it. The other factor that will determine what will be successful in the free market and thus determine Scientology’s future is the type of management tech that is used. That will in itself influence tech results and thus word of mouth and thus the eventual success or lack of success of the different “techs” – and whether or not Scn will have a significant influence in the world in the foreseeable future. My 2 cents.

    3. Higg Boson according to the Co$

      Higg Boson according to Valkov (2013-03-04 at 21:09)

      Higg Boson according to Isene (2013-03-04 at 21:16)

      The rest of the readers

      Do you understand the Higg Boson?

          1. Good comeback, Ferenc! And funny too! Also words of wisdom in cartoon form. We should all take note. 😉

    4. This, Geir, is what I was trying to communicate to Marildi ealier. Scientology can’t “cut it” as a science, but its a religion all day long, but being a religion its too weird for people. I can only wonder if they crap never worked its way in to Scn what it would be today. Meaning no IAS, Superpower, WISE, Ideal Orgs…just people training to be auditors and people receiving it. Pity

    5. Talk about two-valued, either/or ‘logic’! It has to be one or the other only because of the Western cultural mindset and inability to differentiate any further than the two categories.

      Where do you put any psychotherapy? They don’t fit in either category – Neither does chiropractic, Reiki, yoga, or a myriad of other practices.

      Just about all these distinctions are political in nature, involving ‘professional’ groups trying to protect their own turf.

      It is debated whether Buddhism is a ‘religion’ because it has no belief in God! But it is unquestionably better off legally classified as a religion in these cultures, as is Scientology which also doesn’t worship any God.

      Is Marxism a religion? It also revolves around ‘a person’ who wrote what has been turned into a doctrine and a dogma.

        1. No. Is Buddhism a ‘science’? Is Christian Science a science? Is yoga a science? Is Psychoanalysis a science? Freud certainly was trying to move study of the mind in that direction. Was he a ‘scientist’? He was an ‘investigator’, for sure.

          We live in an age of ‘scientism’. Science is a Holy Cow. Even Psychiatrists pay lip service to it.

          I think the existing categories are insufficient. If I must choose, I guess I would choose ‘religion’ for practical purposes, not because I think it is like the monotheistic religions at all. I guess if ‘religion’ is the category good enough for Buddhists, why not?

          “His Holiness Valkovananda” sounds kinda catchy to me. H. H. Valkovananda, the Scourge of Scientists. “Hi Gyatso you old devil, howya doin? Let’s gohave a rice beer. “

  10. I just received this newsletter from Evolving Wisdom:

    So I copied and posted it here for what ever it is worth.

    Why is it that no matter how many workshops we take part in, retreats we attend, books we read and meditations we do…we don’t feel like we’re expressing the highest human capacities available to us? The ones we most need to really live our fullest potential, day in and day out?

    Many of us sense there’s a bigger, bolder and better life to be lived–not only for us personally, but for everyone.

    We’ve even had glimpses of a way of being human that embodies rare integrity, freedom, wholeness and beauty–and we dream of the life and world that could result from sustaining that ideal.

    Yet, after years or even decades of working on ourselves, many of us have begun to wonder whether these higher potentials we sense are truly within reach.

    If you can relate to this dilemma, we have some important news.

    A group of pioneers at the leading edge of consciousness research are uncovering the fundamental obstacle that stands between us and the authentic, enlightened life we sense is possible.

    And one of these pioneers has developed a simple, accessible process to help us move beyond it.

    That pioneer is spiritual teacher Craig Hamilton, and we’re excited to be writing today to invite you to a free global seminar he’ll be leading next week:

    Activating the Impulse of Evolution: The Simple and Radical Shift that Can Liberate You From the Patterns of the Past and Unlock the Door to an Authentic, Enlightened Life

    In this online seminar offered at no charge, Craig will share the missing piece that most modern spiritual approaches don’t address, and that holds the key to an enormous next step in our personal and cultural evolution.

    What Craig and his colleagues have discovered is that most of us are held back from our greater potential by a deep-rooted undertow pulling us down from the heights we could achieve. This persistent barrier to our optimal growth is the ancient, hardwired programming of our evolutionary past.

    Think of our basic human nature like the operating system of a computer. The fact is, we’re still running the “software” of our primitive ancestry.

    We operate (often unconsciously) from “inherited” instincts, assumptions, and responses that have been encoded into humankind for millennia–vestiges of an ancient animal past.

    And just like glitches in old “buggy” software, these unproductive patterns form an invisible ceiling preventing us from reaching our true potential.

    In fact, this innate and primitive “conditioning” is the key reason that most of our efforts at change fail–whether as individuals or as a society.

    The key to breaking this “sound barrier” in consciousness is learning how to awaken and activate a latent spiritual capacity that lives within each of us, but that usually remains dormant, just beneath the surface of our awareness.

    This often hidden dimension of our being is a boundless source of inspiration, passion, creativity and clarity–and when we learn how to tap into it, we rapidly find ourselves on the other side of everything that previously stood in our way.

    It’s that powerful because this latent capacity is nothing less than the impulse of evolution itself, alive within each one of us.

    And in Activating the Impulse of Evolution, Craig will describe the step-by-step process he’s developed to awaken and activate this mysterious yet powerful aspect of your own nature.

    When you activate this evolutionary impulse, it’s like getting an “upgrade” to a part of your nature that is unconstrained by the limitations of the old programming. You then have instant access to a wellspring of capacities you’ve previously struggled to embody.

    From this fresh new vantage point, you will naturally begin to relate in optimal, effective ways to change, obstacles, challenges, and limitations–as well as to healthy risks and possibilities.

    You’ll have the will and motivation to make enlightened choices–no matter how you feel. Your awareness, discernment, clarity and responsiveness will be dramatically sharpened. You’ll be creative, energetic and resilient.

    This is who you’ve known you could be–the human being of your highest ideals, living life beyond the primitive human habits that no longer serve us.

    For the last 20 years, Craig Hamilton has been at the forefront of this emerging evolutionary spirituality, built on decades of spiritual research, inquiry and practice, and rooted in a contemporary scientific and integral understanding of the human condition.

    His virtual “Academy for Evolutionaries” teaches in depth the step-by-step process he’s developed to help us awaken the impulse of evolution.

    Over 5,000 people in more than 50 countries have now graduated from his life-changing programs, and as word of the astounding results keep spreading, he’s become one of the world’s most sought-after evolutionary leaders and visionary teachers.

    Barbara Marx Hubbard recently wrote:
    “If I had to pick one teacher to take a deep dive with around conscious evolution, it would be Craig Hamilton. To be one of his students in depth is a great privilege.”

    Spiritual teacher Michael Beckwith writes:
    “It is rare to find a spiritual teacher who imparts the depth, clarity, humility, and wisdom that Craig Hamilton does. If you have the good fortune to learn from him, I wholeheartedly encourage you to take advantage of it.”

    To learn more and register for this groundbreaking event, visit the link below:

    Activating the Impulse of Evolution: The Simple and Radical Shift that Can Liberate You From the Patterns of the Past and Unlock the Door to an Authentic, Enlightened Life

    Even if you can’t attend live, be sure to register anyway, so you can listen to the audio afterward.

    We hope you’ll take advantage of this precious opportunity!

    Your friends on the path,

    The Evolving Wisdom Team

    P.S. Please share this link with any of your friends or colleagues who might want to attend: Activating the Impulse of Evolution.

    1. This sounds like a modernization of the ancient Hindu scheme symbolized by the Monkey on the back of an Elephant on the back of a Turtle, which are interpretated to symbolize the evolutionarily oldest(Turtle) and newer parts of the human brain.

      It could be interesting to se what ‘tech’ he has put together around this.

  11. I believe that the approach to Scientology should be as a science, which was how it was viewed in the early years. Definition of SCIENCE:

    1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged andshowing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.
    2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation andexperimentation.
    3. any of the branches of natural or physical science.
    4. systematized knowledge in general.
    5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science

    LRH’s original conception of Scientology can be seen in this excerpt from an early book, Scientology 8-80:

    “A science is not merely a collection of facts, neatly arranged. An essential of a science is that observations give rise to theories which, in turn, predict new observations. When the new observations are made, they, in turn, give rise to better theories, which predict further observations.

    “A science grows. Its most important growth is not in numbers of facts but in the clarity and prediction-value of its theories. Many fields which call themselves sciences substitute fact collecting for theorizing, others substitute theorizing for observation. Without both, there is no science.

    “The ‘exact’ sciences contradict each other daily. This is not because their observations are wrong, but because they cling to old theories that conflict instead of finding the newer, simpler theories.

    “Scientology has introduced new simplicities of theory into the field of human thought and has brought the study of human thought up to a level at which it begins to embrace all thought and all life, not only of man, but of all organisms.”
    .

    I thought it was significant that at the end of the above excerpt LRH wrote that Scientology has brought the study of human thought to a level where it “BEGINS to embrace all thought and all life”. IMHO, the viewpoint that it “BEGINS…” is still the one that should be taken with regard to its improvement and growth by those who feel it already has made an invaluable, or at least a valuable, beginning.

    1. The definitions gives as-is definitions, and not how science evolves. Here’s from WP:

      In modern use, “science” more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is “often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use.

    2. Marildi: I believe that the approach to Scientology should be as a science, which was how it was viewed in the early years.

      Chris: LRH never intended to have a science. Yes, you have some glowing comments quoted where it seems that LRH He didn’t have the personality to participate in a science. Who among us can visualize LRH sitting meekly at a conference and presenting his ideas and then quid pro quo listening and really considering others ideas in return? I cannot visualize this, and people still in the tunnel of Scientology have a difficulty with this as well and think of their ideology in terms of a competition with their ideas “winning” out over other’s ideas. It is a very gnarly mess.

  12. How is the current scientific way of pursuing knowledge different from what LRH stated in the Scn 8-80 excerpt I quoted?

      1. Well, some might argue that there essentially was peer review in the early days of Scientology. But even assuming there wasn’t, there is no reason that it couldn’t or shouldn’t be done. Again, it doesn’t matter what flaws LRH may have had, it’s our ball game now.

        1. Marildi: Again, it doesn’t matter what flaws LRH may have had, it’s our ball game now.

          Chris: With religion, the founder is never removed from what he creates. Same with every religion including Scientology. Scientology is what Hubbard said. This is indisputable. To splinter this and to make many reformed groups of Scientology will still be just so many splintered religious groups.

          Yes, it can be your ball and your ballgame now. How would you approach the religion. Do you want it to be a religion or do you want it to be a science. Is it okay with you if Hubbard’s works are parsed down to a handful and simply quoted as also ran in Wikipedia? In that scene, Scientology will never be called Scientology… It is either Hubbardianism or it’s something else. Scientology will never be other than Hubbardianism.

          1. Of course, Geir. That PL may very well have been applicable in its own frame of reference in its own time and when not used rotely. But that’s beside the point now.

            At this point in time, with research being done, KSW may – or may not – be shown to be useful, in whole or in part, when included as part of the most workable tech to date, which tech evolves as research moves forward.

            1. Excellent!

              So, we can dismantle anything written by LRH as better and more productive work is done? We can out-date and call any process “old” or “no longer in use” if we find them unproductive or they fail the scientific or engineering tests? We can even call it something else? Anyone can pitch in, scrutinize and develop and as long as it stands good testing, it will enhance this newly found science?

              If yes to these, then I AM IN, baby!

            2. Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes! OMG are we finally in agreement? Hallelujah! 🙂

            3. Excellent again. Then we can move forward with the scientific method:

              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

              “Scientific method has been practiced in some form for at least one thousand years[4] and is the process by which science is carried out. Because science builds on previous knowledge, it consistently improves our understanding of the world. The scientific method also improves itself in the same way, meaning that it gradually becomes more effective at generating new knowledge. For example, the concept of falsification (first proposed in 1934) reduces confirmation bias by formalizing the attempt to disprove hypotheses rather than prove them.”

            4. Yes, we can move forward. For example, that’s the reason both Marianne and I have been asking you to get a thread going relating to QM and the whole subject surrounding the Higgs field. She and others you have here can contribute their direct supernatural experiences. And people like me can ask good questions. 😉

            5. Freakin’ cool! So, you support the method of applying falsification to Scientology in order to improve it? Because then we may finally uncover the root causes for various troubles and do as LRH said in DMSMH; To “build a better Bridge”. Very pertinent to the OP. Fantastic stuff. And yes, hallelujah.

              And yes – I will somehow carve out some time to write a post on QM 🙂

            6. You’re on, baby! And I’m in. 😀

              I think we’re all more up to it now, too. (And while we’re at it, we’ll be continuing to test and research blog discussion tech as well, LOL ;))

            7. Marildi: At this point in time, with research being done, KSW may – or may not – be shown to be useful, in whole or in part, when included as part of the most workable tech to date, which tech evolves as research moves forward.

              Chris: OMG! LOL! I’m just glad I know you are joking !

            8. Yes, I have read them Marianne – in fact, all of your exchanges with 2ndxmr, which is why it is fresh in my mind. 🙂

            9. Even as a churchie I didn’t like religion and it felt sort of disgusted that I had to accept being into a religion. But now I don’t think that science is the way either. Logic is based on considerations. SCN studies primarily the creator of considerations. Logic can’t get you beyond a certain point. I consider people’s adherence to science a drawback actually –like the splitting of DN foundations. They couldn’t accept than not everything is the total effect of physical laws. Not that DN had anything to do with physical laws but, some liked to think so. So, they mocked up that the analytical and reactive minds were actual MEST universe mechanisms –probably in the brain somewhere. Free creativity does not adhere to laws. If you seek laws you cant have free creativity –your own freedom.

            10. Spyros, I understand what you mean about logic being limited. LRH himself stated that it as well as science are at Look on the Know to Mystery scale, pretty high but not as high as Know – which is where one can perceiving truth directly. Unfortunately, most people can’t do that.

              There have been scientific studies of non-physical phenomenon and those studies have given more and more credibility to paranormal phenomena. I believe that if there were to be research done on auditing results, for example, it would create credibility in the eyes of most westernized people and they would become interested in spite of the horrible repute of Scientology as it stands today.

              I rest my case. 😛 🙂

            11. Marildi says, ” . . . — LRH himself stated that it as well as science are at Look on the Know to Mystery scale, pretty high but not as high as Know – which is where one can perceiving truth directly. Unfortunately, most people can’t do that. There have been scientific studies of non-physical phenomenon and those studies have given more and more credibility to paranormal phenomena. . . .I rest my case.”

              Chris: Not so fast with the “case resting.” You’ve a ways to go in my opinion. On cross-examination, LRH was able to KNOW many wrong things and in his own words, ” . . . failed.” Here in our brave new world where we marry religion and science, we have dedicated ourselves to actually looking at evidence rather than knowing ahead of the fact of looking and seeing something there.

              I beg to differ that there are any scientific studies of non-physical phenomenon with anything but “no results” written on the worksheets. The reason is that where there are non-physical phenomenon, there is nothing to study.

              And when you say, ” . . . , pretty high but not as high as Know – which is where one can perceiving truth directly.” I have to retort that sounds like technobabble as good as any Star Trek episode.

              Finally, I disagree with your comment, “Unfortunately, most people can’t do that.” In fact, I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think they know things that, well, maybe they “know,” but they are also just “wrong.” In Scientologese, “knowing” is considered sacrosanct for the reason that Hubbard made a list and put “know” at the top of it. A person’s own certainty is important to them but if it doesn’t match with the real world, then their “knowingness” is not really of much use in that real world.

              This is why we if we are going to do this, we need to use falsification if it can be used. And if we do, and if we use it, and if a datum is falsified, then we have to live with it and get over it and continue looking.

            12. Spyros: SCN studies primarily the creator of considerations.

              Chris: Beg to differ. When I look, I see considerations. And when I look behind the considerations? (might as well just get this over with to mitigate the flaming) I see considerations about a self that considers. Well, that’s all I got… Not trying to change anyone’s mind — maybe just hold that one in reserve for a nice desert later after a scrumptious meal of considerations!

            13. M: “LRH himself stated that it as well as science are at Look on the Know to Mystery scale, pretty high but not as high as Know”

              S: Yes, and even that ‘look’ is limited to certain wavelengths.

              I agree that science can be a nice way to exhibite workability, but only to others. As it deals with the bank agreements called ‘one-and-only-and-same-for-all-reality’.

            14. Hi Spyros. Is this similar to what you are saying?:

              “Logic is the combination of factors into an answer. The mission of the analytical mind when it thinks, is to observe and predict by the observation of results. Easily the best way to do this is to be the objects one is observing: thus, one can know their condition completely. However, if one is not sufficiently up the scale to be these objects it is necessary to assume what they are. This assumption of what they are, the postulating of a symbol to represent the objects and the combination of these symbols when evaluated against past experience or ‘known law,’ bring about logic.” (Scn 8-8008)

              😛

            15. Chris: “When I look, I see considerations. And when I look behind the considerations?”

              S: True that Chris. A creator -being not a thing- cannot be seen. I more like meant its manifestations, and knowing that one is not a thing.

            16. Marildi: “…However, if one is not sufficiently up the scale to be these objects it is necessary to assume what they are…”

              S: Yep 🙂 Also, If one knows what they are, they wont keep being there (time) 😛

            17. 😛 Okay, I’ll match your bet and raise you with this:

              “The genesis of logic may be said to be an interchange of two viewpoints, via other dimension points by which one of the viewpoints holds the attention (one of the most valuable commodities in the universe) of the other viewpoint by being “logical” about why that viewpoint should continue to look. The basis of logic is “it is bad over there” or “there is a hidden influence which you cannot estimate but which we will try to estimate,” “therefore, you should continue to look towards me.” At its best, logic is rationalism, for all logic is based upon the somewhat idiotic circumstance that a being that is immortal is trying to survive. Survival is a condition susceptible to non-survival. If one is “surviving,” one is at the same moment admitting that one can cease to survive, otherwise one would never strive to survive.” (Scn 8-8008) 😛

        2. I do argue that there was peer review. In the early days, 1950s, auditors were polled as to which processes they had gotten/were getting the best results applying to them to the most pcs, and these were then combined into the standard “Routes” of the time.

          If you’re serious about ‘peer review’, then you’re talking about auditors reviewing the results and discoveries of other auditors.

          Not plumbers, bakers, or physicists reviewing the work of auditors.

          1. Peer review would be other philosophers and scientist reviewing the materials the Hubbard put out and Hubbard be humble enough to review the reviews, etc.

        3. M: “Okay, I’ll match your bet and raise you with this:”

          S: Hehehe Marildi, with the the quote you gave, I see how you and LRH are enemies of science. Adhere, or else…

          May I add without quoting (I can search and find if you want), that for a logical sequence to exists, time must exist. Time=alteration. Thus, one can never figure his case out, as that would take alterations. The point is to take time (and thus logic too, yes) out of the case.

    1. Yes, I’d like to know that, too. “Scientology” basically is a method of inquiry for pursuing knowledge, not the specific knowledge itself. Specific items of data, Hubbard mostly lumped into the bin of “para-scientology” Almost everything that people portray as the “dogmas” and “doctrines” of “scientology”. LRH called “para-scientology”. Dianetics, engrams, OTIII, thetans, past lives – ALL “para-scientology”, according to LRH.

      Moving beyond pure empiricism(obnosis), Scientology actually began using the instrument called the E-meter, kinda like looking for the “bosons”, ‘gravitational’ and magnetic fields and and other elementary particles of the ‘mind’. But OK, there’s nothing scientific about that, right?

      We are talking about technology here, not science. Technology is about results like getting water into your house through a plumbing system. Yes science is involved, no, you don’ thave to be aPHD to turn on the faucet. You may need some training to use an X-ray machine, but it is not the same order of education that it took to develop and build the machine in the first place. And neither one requires the knowledge and understanding of how bosons work or what exactly “X-rays” are in terms of modern physics.

      This really is like a medieval discussion of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

      1. I am not sure where you are going with this.

        One may use the same line of arguments for Christianity as with Scientology when one tries to squeeze it into the bin of science. Scientology and Christianity have much more in common than Scientology and Physics.

        1. I am not going anywhere with it. I am where I have always been. Probably using a 2,000 year old definition of science. But that works for me! Unless someone has passed a law against it in the meantime. In which case , To arms! Bring on the Revolution!

  13. Trying to weed out the root cause is a little like trying to find an item on a list that doesn’t read. “Scientology” is a body of knowledge and as such doesn’t cause anything. This is strictly a pts condition you are talking about–not saying it is yours understand–but it exists on the 3rd dynamic of Scientology. A good L4BRA on Scientology would be a good start, and I can think of a great number of excellent listing questions that would do wonders on the subject.

    Have you ever studied Level III? I think you might find your answers there.

    1. Wow, Pat. Just with the modest amount of training I’ve had, what you say makes so much sense – now that you say it!

      With all the criticisms I’ve heard from critics (not singling out Geir particularly), I’ve mainly thought of probable MU’s and false data (and actually observed a lot of these), and possibly O/W/s, but I don’t think I have ever considered wrong item – which I believe would account for the huge and seemingly endless BPC. That has truly mystified me! So thank you so much for your post! And come more often! 🙂

      1. Marildi: With all the criticisms I’ve heard from critics (not singling out Geir particularly),…

        Chris: If we aren’t critics, then we aren’t really thinking with the data.

        1. As LRH said:

          “You are asked to examine the subject of Scientology on a critical basis—a very critical basis.“

    2. Pat: A good L4BRA on Scientology would be a good start, and I can think of a great number of excellent listing questions that would do wonders on the subject.

      Chris: This is a quite a good and productive post. We can all use more of these. I have used the L4BRA to good result and would appreciate if you share your ideas on that Scientology list.

  14. It is amazing how the most responses to any OP are associative, tangential and non-seq.

    So as regards your two concerns Geir, let’s get back to your OP point #2. The two EPs you have not achieved. They may even be related. I think this because from what little reading I’ve done about children who recall their previous lives, often they don’t forget until they are a little older and/or until their anxieties about the people they left behind, are allayed.

    This suggests that actually going into or assuming a new body and assuming a new identity may be related to the forgettting. Thus being able to remain exterior might be relevant to not forgetting.

    ‘Forget’ is the 3rd postulate after ‘not-know’ and ‘know about’, which Hubbard covers in the 4th London ACC of Fall 1955 so perhaps there is an answer there. There are over 50 lectures, covering the auditing discoveries of that period, so that may be relevant. What processes and procedures were being run then? Perhaps your answer is in there.

    Another question I have, is what about Super Power?
    Does any part of that address ‘remembering and forgetting’? Pierre might know.

    There are a lot of early drills, like Grand Tour and such, which address exteriorization and orientation to that state.

    I’m thinking you just need to find someone who is familiar with that kind of auditing and go at it. The “OT days” were really the early-mid 1950s, I’d start looking there. It almost seems much of the stuff developed after that were undercuts. Like NOTs was because people had some trouble getting through OTIII x and through original OTIV – OT VII.Those were not long levels and had, so I heard, a lot of OT drills.

    Have you done those?

    1. As for the ‘original’ OT levels, I believe R.O. auditors deliver those and have much experience with them. I’d check with Max Hauri if you haven’t already.

      1. Well if you do all that I will have to really mind my Ps and Qs around here! I don’t want to end up as the Cueball on your pool table or something like that!

        Anyway, sounds like a great plan. Keep on truckin’ is the thing.

    2. Valkov: “The “OT days” were really the early-mid 1950s, I’d start looking there. It almost seems much of the stuff developed after that were undercuts.”

      S: Yes!!! I see the latter Bridges as smoother gradients. Not all people could run those processes. Entities were of minor importance back in the 50s. Ron didn’t leave any more OT levels to the Church, as the Church was being a mess. He said handle your stuff, or no OT levels. DM claims to have had a secret comm line to LRH (hidden data line) and that LRH gave him secretely some OT levels. That’s a lot of bullshit. Even if he releases some ‘OT 9’, it will be the RTCs creation. Nevertheless, OT processes are there, in red volumes and lectures, and will be there untill the RTC totally alters them. Be careful of latters versions of materials, folks.

      1. After the Churches take-over, it seems the tech -along with OT levels you will never see-was meant to be made available to the public.

        Captain=Mary Sue Hubbard

        “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.

        And they took the man’s captain and said they would imprison him for saying the golden ball was owned by everybody. And they made the government put guards around the man in case anybody sent him money to help ship the golden ball to everyone.”

  15. 2. Scientology has not provided a consistent way of handling people’s issues and evidently does not provide a reliable way to deliver my main goals in life.

    I think it is because the focus was never on your main goals in life. YOUR goals that is. Your goals were invalidated in favor of Scientology goals. The only tech in Scientology that ever addressed YOUR goals was the admin scale series and perhaps the LOC, but even that was organized around Scientology ideas. Wanting to work on YOUR goals was OTHER FISH TO FRY and somehow out-ethics. Strip off the invalidation for starters. Strip off the false data. They will probably flush into your awareness as you proceed towards creating YOUR goals. Make sure they are YOUR goals. You will will likely love them and be passionate about them if they are YOURS. They ARE worthy. YOU are worthy. Its okay to fail along the way and tweak your output. The state of the universe that forms as reality is the feedback mechanism. As-is the stuff that you dont want to output again, focus attention on what you do want to output. Tweak, refine, create, feedback.

    Its okay to change your mind about goals and purposes or acknowledge that you are done with them. They are not all a big GPM implant mechanism designed to hurt, trap and keep you solidly in the MEST universe. They are your world. And they cannot be wrong, because they are your world, your create, your joy, your love, your direction.

    Also, the highest purpose is not to create an effect unless that is YOUR highest purpose. So start working on YOUR goals. You do know the answers and you do know how to as-is the barriers and you do know when you are winning. I think it is pretty obvious when you are — more spacious, energetic, that delicious sense of a floating TA (you do not need an e-meter to recognize this.)

    BTW no need to go backtrack or out of PT to as-is. Just as-is or blow by inspection whatever gets in the way. As-is works best from the highest level of awareness you can muster.

    This is my current take on it. At least for now. Might not be yours though, but it is possible that others might find this helpful and so I am posting it here.

    1. Maria
      Word by word true for me too!!! From the sentence ” The state of the universe is a feedback mechanism” what you write is not a comment but TECH-SOLUTION! “AS-is…from the highest level of awareness you can master” – YES and YES! ( I find what you write a word by word MUST to read and fully understand down to the core as a being!)
      Thank you for writing it – you are a gem!

    2. “Be true to your own goals” <—- Doean't imply anywhere that another or you should consider your own goals as implants and withold yourself from achieving them.

      I like what Phil Spickler said in one of his interviews, that in old days if a prostitute went to them for processing, they wouldn't try to make her change her mind. They would rather help her do what she does better.

      Screw the Church. Also, screw it. All this making beings and their goals wrong is really dirty stuff. Ethics is self determined. You only force ethics on somebody that inhibits the self determinism of others (like an 'ethics officer')/

    3. Maria goes to the front of the ranks of critics, while Alanzo pins a double star cluster to the lapel of her uniform, steps back, and salutes her.

    4. Wow. I am both surprised and amazed at the responses to what I wrote! Glad you liked it! 😀

      1. “The state of the universe that forms as reality is the feedback mechanism.”
        It appears that you are using the scientific method to test free will / creativity. The whole trick stands on our ability to really look at this interaction.

        1. I think of it as exercising, expanding and refining options.

          option (n.)
          c.1600, “action of choosing,” from French option (Old French opcion), from Latin optionem (nominative optio) “choice, free choice, liberty to choose,” from root of optare “to desire, choose,” from PIE root *op- “to choose, prefer.” Meaning “thing that may be chosen” is attested from 1885.

          Some would call this exercising free will.

          Ideally one would choose options that are empowering, facilitating and resourceful and that contribute to one’s aims, goals, plans, target, design, etc. These are options too. Some might be very concrete, like make a million dollars by January 2014. Others may be very subjective and consist of a continuous choice, such as choosing to treat people kindly or choosing to give others the benefit of the doubt. Some may be options to do with learning more to get more options available. Some may be options to debug a lack of options. And so on.

          You are going to make choices. And by the time reality is upon you, you certainly have chosen options even if it is just choosing to stay alive and put up with whatever happens. But even then you exercise options, even if it is just to try to tell yourself that you are not exercising any options and its all just happening to you or you are not going to choose an option but are going to put others in a position to choose options for you. Etc. I am sure there is a point when all options are taken from you, such as you are in a coma on life support, a rather total loss of liberty. Even then you might have exercised an option to have instructions on file forbidding unplugging your life support.

          1. I like how you keep it clear and simple, but mainly, looking at it as a feedback mechanism really puts things on perspective, thank you.

          2. Maria: “. . . Some would call this exercising free will. . . . I am sure there is a point when all options are taken from you, . . . ”

            Chris: The self is funny and paradoxical .. It seems to me to be this funny little program running which constructs ideas about itself including the sense that it should be able to do more than it can. Then it seems to compute that this limitation is due to a self-limiting factor which it has created itself. It does seem to have the ability to back down from programming language which it has written. But the ultimate back down from this language results in the self disappearing altogether. Maybe we only have the ability to be more or less egotistical. LOL

            1. Awesome!

              Chris, your posts are getting better and better! Are you taking some special kind of vitamins or what? 🙂

          3. Maria: You are going to make choices.

            Chris: And these choices are going to fall within an easily defined bubble or set of rules. And then once the rules have been clearly defined, we are then surely going to exist within within within that set of rules.

          4. Maria: “Even then you might have exercised an option to have instructions on file forbidding unplugging your life support.”

            This is called ‘painting yourself into a corner’. Reminds me of Harlan Ellison’s short story title, “I have no mouth and I must scream.”

            LRH thought a thetan’s game can become “how in the world do I succumb??”

            So would this be “How can I try to succumb, and at the same time frustrate my own attempts at doing so”?

            Transactional Analysis analyzes aberrated interpersonal ‘games’ people play. It classifies those games as 1st, 2nd, and 3rd degree. 3rd degree games involve tissue damage.

            The content of my post here might be called ‘random and loosely associated ruminations’

    5. This is a great comment. I was thinking, before I read it, that the Bridge delivers what it delivers, not necessarily what a person hopes it will deliver for him. It is not a tailored “wants handled” thing, it is more like a standardized public education with standardized government mandated testing. Not everyone scores high! By which I mean, not everyone gets what they want out of it or their parents wish they could get out of it.

      You can go to Sears or JC Penney and buy fair to good quality standardized size shirts, but if you want a very well fitting shirt of the exact colors and style you want, you have to go to a tailor to have it made to your specs.

      There is nothing wrong with the Bridge delivered well, but it is what it is. It is not like individually tailored mentoring all the way through. Public education is somewhat individualized, but overall it is standardized to develop a standard product. So with the Bridge. But I may be overlooking elements of individualization regarding going up the Bridge, not having done it.

      As for ‘creating an effect’, I have thought about that in the past and concluded at the time it is a valid abstraction.

      Why? Because I could not think of any purpose anyone could have, that did not involve the creation of some kind of an effect, somewhere, on one of the 4 flows.

      A purpose involves doing something in some way, and I think Hubbard had it right when he said the basic reason was for applause or admiration of some kind, if only to please oneself.

  16. If you “blow by inspection what gets in the way” that is another way of expressing full Responsibility on all “dynamics”. Also, it is “creating from source” in continuous PT, “new, fresh” creations not relying on past data.

  17. Geir: I assume that you do not wish to remember each nano-second of your current embodied existence, am I right? So what is it that you do wish to remember? Why do you you wish to remember that? What purpose of yours does it serve?

      1. Ah. I have the same goal. I wonder how we can know for sure that this goal has been achieved before we die. Have you thought of any ways of knowing for sure that there will be no forgetting once dead?

    1. Maria: “. . . I assume that you do not wish to remember each nano-second of your current embodied existence, am I right? So what is it that you do wish to remember? . . .”

      Chris: My own “wish” is mildly along memory lines – escape from the deja vue all over again – but most of all, If I were any kind of OT, I would want to use all of the time that is available to use. For we complain of not living in the moment, but a greater handicap than that is that we don’t live every moment. That would be my OT wish.

  18. Geir, I posted this short (3 minute) Tom Campbell video for Marianne on another thread and you may not have seen it. But I am thinking that since you are a lucid dreamer you might get something out of it. According to Campbell’s personal experiences as well as those of many others he has documented over his 30 plus years of scientific research on the subject of the paranormal, the ability to do lucid dreaming is essentially the same as being able to exteriorize (which he terms as out-of-body experiences).

    He explains that lucid dreaming and OOB experiences as well as remote viewing, meditation etc. are not really different kinds of things but are all variations of the experiences of individuals who are simply becoming aware in their consciousness.

    In essence, what I got from him is that one just has to make the physical BELIEFS – what we would call agreed-upon considerations – to make those beliefs “not be operative”, since it’s the person’s own “beliefs” that constrain him. Tom uses examples in lucid dreaming and remote viewing of how a person can take physical universe beliefs with them, such as having to travel (through walls, etc.) to get somewhere. His main point is that all a person has to do is to INTEND to be in that place and he would be.

  19. I think that ‘knowing’ is senior to ‘remembering’.

    Mark Twain said “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything”. Sounds deep and somehow right.

    In order to ‘remember’ one has to first ‘forget’. Forgetting is an active process, a causitive action or decision. There is a process, ‘Something you wouldn’t mind forgetting’, Something you wouldn’t mind remembering’.

    It seems to me somehow simpler to rehab ‘knowingness’; then whatever you want to know is always there and you can mock up whatever you learned in the past if you wish to. If you have really ‘learned’ something and made it your own, you don’t need to carry it around as ‘memory’, it’s there as a part of the substance of your being.

    That’s how I like to look at it at this time, because God only knows what I will or will not remember when I kick it. So I look at it as having some ‘faith’ in BIG ME.

    I think the postulates you make before and during the transition also have an effect, but the real “decider” as George W. called it, is BIG ME.

    Possibly the real meaning and ideal scene of “OT” when BIG me and ‘little me’ are one. That maybe what the Hindu mystics refer to as “Union”, or God Realization.

    I don’t think they worry much about what they remember or don’t remember.

    In the Buddhist traditions there is the idea of attaining “Omniscient Mind” Dalai Lama says this means exactly what it seems to mean. I take this as being able to ‘know’ just about anything one wants to know, which of course would be things one learned in the past, one’s memories etc. If one can know one’s past at will, why bother to remember it?

    Since there as actually no ‘past’, it seems to me maximizing one’s ‘knowingness’ is the best thing since sliced bread, or actually hot and cold running water, for my money.

    1. Valkov: “If you have really ‘learned’ something and made it your own, you don’t need to carry it around as ‘memory’, it’s there as a part of the substance of your being.”

      That expresses my own intuitive idea that we CAN take it with us – i.e. the knowingnesses.

      You also paraphrased the Dalai Lama’s idea of “able to ‘know’ just about anything one wants to know, which of course would be things one learned in the past, one’s memories etc. If one can know one’s past at will, why bother to remember it?”

      That same idea has been expressed by other greats too, including one of my own “gurus” Tom Campbell.

      I have to add, however, that if one knew all the moves the other chess player was going to make, where would the game be? I don’t know if Geir is aiming for a state of not being in a game, but I know I’m not (at least not for now).

      Anyway, Val, great post! 🙂

      1. To be aware and perceive well in the present time is knowingness itself which guides the proper action. The “environment” is under continuous change. Consequently the only real value there is is to be as aware as possible.

        1. Marianne: Consequently the only real value there is is to be as aware as possible.

          I don’t know if it is the ONLY REAL value but it sure seems to be a core value that extends / opens out the process.

    2. All good points. My guess is that one would have to figure out what the aim is and whether it must be fulfilled while incarnated in a body that literally has to be grown to a point where one can exercise its full capacity. Can that be speeded up? Can the longevity be extended? Can the same aim be carried out without the need of growing a body? It seems to me that part of this is seeking options that are “outside the box” so to speak.

      1. Maria: Can the longevity be extended?

        Chris: There are many times more “Planck seconds” in one standard second of time than all the seconds which have passed since the beginning of the universe – many times more. We live our lives and participate only partially in the time that exists at all times around us, much as we only see very little of the light which is all around us. This resembles a clock speed much like a computer. My own interests are pointing in the direction of understanding more about this and whether it can be applicable to humanity as if it were, we would in that moment begin to experience more of our lives than even the most outrageous have ever dreamed.

      2. Maria: It seems to me that part of this is seeking options that are “outside the box” so to speak.

        Chris: I seem to be constrained by any box in which I define myself. I seem — subjectively — to have undefined some boxes; have released from the interior of some boxes in my life. But whether there is an underlying undissolved and furthermore undissolvable box seems to me a pertinent question. Am I making any headway toward an ultimate resolution?

        1. Well keep running the process. Since you haven’t figured out how to stop running the process (I’m in the same boat) then maybe you might as well just get to work with the feedback and inputs and test the limits, push the envelope. Shake it out so to speak. If you build a box that says that’s not possible, then in all likelihood that’ll be your box. At least that is what my feedback tends to indicate.

    3. Valkov: “Since there as actually no ‘past’, it seems to me maximizing one’s ‘knowingness’ is the best thing since sliced bread, or actually hot and cold running water, for my money.”

      Chris: Why do you think there is no past? Do we ever experience anything but the past? There is no such thing as an instant read. The stars that we wish on in the night sky shower us with ancient light, and the sunlight? It wasn’t just born since it spent a thousand years working its way to the surface of the Sun seeking release so that the smallest minuscule portion of it could then make its way for the 8 minute journey to the Earth. A photon might experience something akin to “the present” but not knowing what or if a photon is, I can’t say.

      And “knowingness?” Overrated poppycock. I can’t name a person who doesn’t “know” everything they know. More tautology – not that I’m knocking it, just calling it what it is. Most of our jibber-jabber is tautology so I better like it!

      Mostly I’m just saying that if all our glowing talk of making Scientology into a science was for reals, then we’ve got to confront the critical thinking that is going to require and be prepared to toss out baby, bathwater, tub, sink, nanny, et al and promptly and begin again; then do that again; then be ready to do it again if what we hope for is an open ended; growing; fresh and scientific Scientology. It’s not going to be a small thing.

      Or if hot air, that’s okay too. For me an analogy would be the abortion issue. Sometimes its fine for mother’s to murder their offspring if they want to. Who else has more right to murder their kids than the kids parents? People used to know this. But now, we have to couch the language of killing in “choices” and all. Same with Scientology. Its already a religion without any shred of hope of being anything else, well so I said anyway. But hey, who cares what I think? (well, I guess I do) I’m on board Team Scientology if anyone wants to begin falsifying and fixing the broken parts. I will help.

      1. Chris, is there a RWOT? In terms of my perception, alI I know is the light is arriving HERE, NOW.

        ‘Knowingness’ is just the ability to know. It is not ‘the feeling that one knows’. Like the ‘feeling that one is right’, doesn’t make one right. The only place the past exists, is in my memory of it. Does the past exist, if I don’t remember it? Does the tree make a sound, when it falls in the forest……

        Where is the road you unroll before you, before you unroll it and walk it?

        “Becoming” is slippery stuff.

        And don’t let Geir know you’re not sure if a photon even is! He’ll die of embarrassment that there are two of us on his blog. You’ll be in the same doghouse I’m in! 🙂

          1. LOL…I like posters who can communicate in a lot of different ways, and cheese is one of them! Isn’t it fascinating that Scn (as screwed up as it is) still has our attention every day. It would be a joy to have it the way it was initially intended again.

            1. Tom: “Isn’t it fascinating that Scn (as screwed up as it is) still has our attention every day. It would be a joy to have it the way it was initially intended again.”

              +1 🙂

    4. Valkov said: Possibly the real meaning and ideal scene of “OT” when BIG me and ‘little me’ are one. That maybe what the Hindu mystics refer to as “Union”, or God Realization.

      Perhaps little me is a doer. An active agent in process. And when the doer does in “union” with BIG me, the doer’s process can make radical and transformative shifts that are not paradigm bound, for BIG me may not actually be a part of the paradigm at all. I have vivid childhood processes that are not all locked down but very expansive and much freer. Possibly the game conditioning from birth to death knocks that connection out more and more? Clouding it over with false and/or limiting beliefs?

  20. Had a wonderful chat with a friend of mine on the current scene in Scn. He expressed a really interesting viewpoint so I thought I’d share it this morning. Looking at the Idle Orgs, its only a matter of time where the lies about expansion and the empty buildings catch up to them. So MIscaviage is going to finally use the internet to his advantage. Now they are promoting on-line courses (is that standard tech?). So watch them start showing how many people are doing Scn courses on-line as a new stat….this can explain the empty Idle Orgs because everyone is doing things on-line! Just turn the Idle Orgs into “Information centers..”

    Of course, that will be total BS, but the seals will see the highest ever stats at the events and jump out of their seats in a roaring ovation.

    Half the world will be doing courses on-line in no time, and the empty buildings don’t matter…just watch and see.

    1. gaeagle: Half the world will be doing courses on-line in no time, and the empty buildings don’t matter…just watch and see.

      Chris: So mysterious to me – I don’t have idea one what the buildings are for… makes me crazy to think about it.

      1. Chris,

        In the capitol of North Korea, Pyongyang, there are numerous immense buildings that are almost entirely empty all of the time. If you can figure out what they are for and what the ‘plan’ is, let me know. I haven’t a clue. Kinda like the pyramids of Egypt.

        “Welcome to North Korea” documentary:

    2. Hey GaEagle, your friend is right. Little correction is that it had been going on for the Basics in late 2010 as I just got back hooked up to Flag after 25 years. Since I bought everything, the chronological line, but wouldn’t go into a course, they let me do it at home on the net. Early the next year they included most other advanced clinical course lectures. I was an exception, haha, but they did get some small bucks from me, until I stopped doing any courses, then trouble begins. It was fun and easy to do and you got a cert for it in the mail. However they discourage anyone near an org or mission to do these. When I last saw stats, they had maybe 500 or less in the world on the these extension courses, mostly in other countries. They’d play games for incentive and commendations.

  21. As I ponder your post, Chris, I think you can see this Idle Org push is ARC breaking the crap out of lots of people. Its a game they know they can’t win. So the Idle Org push slows down, and its all about the things on the internet. Probably audting next. This way, no bodies in the shop don’t matter because everyone is using the internet and getting courses and auditing online. That lie can persist forever, No

    1. I don’t think I wrote clearly. Even COS doesn’t write up and execute a program with the goal of ARCx’ing the public, that is the collateral damage done with their insanity to “expand Scientology.”

      My friend of 30 years was explaining and handling me on my negative attitude toward his fund raising for the Ideal Org here. Just before he disconnected from me, my friend – a local staff member – was explaining to me how that there was a completed and piloted expansion program which was “waiting for implementation” until there were enough Ideal Orgs to handle the explosive inflow of raw public that would be the obvious result of this promotional campaign. Looking at me expectantly for my reaction to his rationale, I said, “No, the emergency formula lays out the promotional step prior to the prepare to deliver step.” And I cited the tape “The Five Conditions.” Whereupon he got quiet and he soon left my home. Later he sent me an email re-explaining the COS position that they would ARCx all this flood of new public if they promoted with this explosively successful promo ahead of having digs to handle the people, so I said something like “whatever.” This friend of mine is a NOTs PC, and old-time (60’s) OTIII completion, a class iV auditor, done every type of filler courses that came up including the GAT stuff and with all these decades of active service and training and processing, he is yet so in the tunnel that he can count to four when it comes to applying a simple conditions formula. But I digress.

      So underlying the insanity of purchasing and remodeling and maintaining useless buildings, what is the purpose of buying all this real estate? I’m not being snide but really interested because I know there is a reason, whether criminal or otherwise, that actually makes sense underneath the apparent insanity. The reason cannot be as my friend explained to me.

      1. Well, if you are expecting a holocaust then owning your own property would make sense. The landlord can’t kick you out. That’s about all I can think of. Kind of like the survivalists buying land so they can bunker down.

  22. I’m so tired of analysing. Let’s make fun of funny people. Do you know that masturbation is the reason for somatics, according to the golden age of ethics?

    1. When the COS gets tired of the psychiatry justification, it will be figured out that Static punishes mankind for having oral sex.

  23. You know, I think that if I had spent a dear lifetime in SCN working for the purpose, just to be betrayed in the end by my teamates, I could be mad at the whole subject too. Then I would go out just to find -in some cases- that didn’t think that differently, and get even more mad. But in my case, I didn’t lose much in the process. I lost little money, some time, gained lots of heartache and some twisted ideas regarding ethics. Yet this whole story opened a door for me, to eventually do my own thing -even outside of SCN-, and I even lost the heartache and the ‘ethics’ too. And my own thing I put above all, in importance. If one doesn’t do it, nothing is worthy. I guess -like with all things- whether SCN works or not, is subjective.

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s