Forget Scientology, here comes U-ology!

“What do you wish to achieve?”

After what seemed like an hour of silence, Tim was done trying to figure out the answer to that existential question. He spat out what first entered his mind anyway: “I want to understand better what I read.” “And I want to stop having those terrible nightmares since my father passed away six years ago.”

“OK”, the woman answered. “How is your reading now?”

Tim explained how he often got distracted when he was reading. Not from external noise, but from noise inside his head. It was sort of constant, and he had the idea it may somehow be related to his horrible nightmares – because he couldn’t remember the noise being that distracting when his father was alive.

“And how are your nightmares exactly?”

Tim related his usual nightly horrors.

Having gotten Tim’s goals and also where he was at in the present, Diane proceeded: “We should be able to help you out on both these goals.” She continued by explaining how they would go about helping Tim from his present situation to what he wanted to achieve. She explained the tools they would offer him, the estimated time and cost involved and the possible risks along the way. Nothing left out. Just simple transparency.

Tim’s brother, Craig sat in the other room with a counselor named Adam.

Adam used the same, simple approach and asked for Craig’s aspirations and where he was at today.

Craig was half a head higher than his older brother and weighed in at some 50 pounds more. In pure muscles. It came as no surprise that he wanted to be a better boxer. He told Adam that he had excellent reaction speed, but that some basic boxing skills seemed to fail him when he got knocked about a bit.

But Craig was an interesting mix between a muscle-man and a spiritual seeker, and Adam was taken off guard when he told him his most important goal in life; “To be able to go out of my body, freely as I want – just like I used to do when I was a kid.”

Impressed by this mixture of goals, Adam told Craig: “We do have the tools to increase a person’s reaction speed, but we have no experience when it comes to boxing skills and how you can retain them as you get beaten up in the ring. And I don’t know who to refer you to. Sorry about that.”

He continued: “And although we have certain methods that can let the person leave his body, they are actually side-effects of our mental training regime and not a sure-fire way to be what we call exterior,” “If you’d like, I can refer you to two other possible methodologies that may be able to offer what you want – one is a branch of Buddhism, the other is an ancient native American society. We cannot guarantee that they can help you, but it’s worth a shot to contact them. I’ll find their contact information for you.”

The brothers were briefed on this “U-ology center” and that they were actively collecting all kinds of tools to help people reach their goals and aspirations, that they would train to deliver those tools without exaggerations, that they would never question a person’s wishes, and that they would always be honest about what they can do and how they would go about helping a person. It would be all about You.

No one-size-fits-all regimen. No strict policies or hierarchy or ensuing power struggles. Only skillful training in a vast number of tools and applying them honestly where they fit the best.

Tim decided to try it out, while Craig was happy to check out that native American tribe.

possible

71 thoughts on “Forget Scientology, here comes U-ology!

  1. Marianne: What’s the nature / structure of I AM ME ?
    Geir : Just
    I propose a name for a new club here : ME coffee shop. But I have never been good at giving names. Can any of you come up with a better one? No theories (OK, a little )…..Just….

  2. Geir….you once said about theory……”inconsistent and incomplete, who wants that?” ME.
    Hereby I propose a slogan for the club : INCONSISTENT and INCOMPLETE . I am not good at slogans either, anyone with a better one?

  3. Geir, in a previous thread I posted a comment, summarized with this : “I think that the Scn system itself, inherently, probably has a greater chance of benefiting more people than many others, if not most or all other systems.” https://isene.me/2013/03/07/scientology-does-it-work/#comment-32564

    Your reply to it was the following: “This pretty much sums up my view.”

    Not only that but several times you have stated that Scientology is “the best we have” and that you would simply like to improve upon it. But now you’re saying “forget Scientology”. Seems pretty inconsistent, doesn’t it?

    1. I see I got your attention.

      It’s is an evolution as always with me. And Maria’s post was instrumental. I propose that we stop supplanting people’s goals with what we (or LRH) think they should want and start taking people’s gown goals seriously. For real. And the tools that are appropriate to a given situation are the tools that are… appropriate. And I would think that many of the tools available in Scientology would find its way into that tool box. But you would also find in there Tai Chi, meditation, yoga, native American wisdom, psychology, neuroscience, NLP, whatever.

      1. If I can say a word….it’s enough to ask a person to open his eyes and find the “tool” rather than advise the tool. The person will then surely use it as his own.

      2. Well, I just don’t think it’s fair when your inconsistency or illogic is pointed out for you to always say something like “it’s an evolution with me” or “I’m a work in progress” or “I’ve discussed this sufficiently now” or “it’s all assumption, anyway so I’m no longer interested in discussing it, although I have been right up to this point”, etc. See what I mean? That doesn’t ever grant the other person that they have a point :(. It’s kind of like Vinaire’s ready comeback of “That’s just a consideration”. (ouch ;))

        And your sudden adoption of the idea of U-ology clashes way too much with your earlier statements, IMHO. 😛

        1. Plenty of Straw Man in there Marildi.

          May I point out that this blog post is perfectly in line with an article I wrote more a couple of years ago: http://a-circle.no/wiki/index.php?title=Processes,_Automation_and_Human_Potential

          But on this specific point, Maria did have such an excellent point that it shaped me further. I am a work in progress – that is WHY I blog. I have never flashed Vinaire’s card that “it’s all a consideration anyway” or “It’s all assumptions”. To say that I did is a Straw Man argument and comes across as you being annoyed or some such about this post. Are you?

          1. First let me say that you yourself stated a Straw Man in the above. I said some of your comments are “kind of like Vinaire’s ready comeback” as regards considerations, not that you flashed that particular comeback.

            Okay, maybe I put it too strongly, but yes, I’ve been annoyed with you at times and I don’t know how to express it better than I did in my comment above.

            1. I am still shocked that you, above all bloggers here, having delved so deeply into the above mentioned article would think that this is somehow inconsistent with my earlier views. My views are expanding in this area – by indeed grant Maria that she has a point. A huge one.

      3. Phil Spickler is planning to do a series about this:

        “Soon, I hope to take up the names of states of awareness, and how these
        names are false to facts.
        The names, such as clear, OT, grade of release, and their definitions
        fail, terribly, to actually describe, the true is-ness of what has been achieved
        and its future expectations.”

        This fits with my angle on Scientology. I feel what is needed is an accurate grasp and depiction of what ‘doing the Bridge’ ACTUALLY does for a person.

        We hear all the time from certain quarters, that clearing does not clear, OTing does not OT, etc etc. Yet those people who harp on that overlook describing what Scientology actually does accomplish or yield, what changes it actually produces in people. Some simply declare Scientology to be a “cesspool of spiritual deception”; well, it may not yield the exact EPs or results that Hubbard thought it would yield, but there is no doubt in my mind that it yields results for a lot of people.

        So the question becomes, to define what the actual results are. If the EPs of the Grades, for example, are ‘ideal scenes’, fine. At least a person will have some idea of where he’s going and what is available. I like to have these kind of things to be delineated.

        So, if a person took some service through ‘U-ology’ would that person be from then on considered to be a ‘U-ologist’?

        In the end, wouldn’t a large percentage of them ‘evaporate’ back into the society, just as most people who came into contact with Scientology did?

    2. Marildi
      LIFE is inconsistent and incomplete….the inconsistent is perhaps more important…..
      (just remembering the chewing gum quote: “consistency is the last refugee of the unimaginative”, pretty much imaginative and artistic post is the U-logy, isn’t it?)

      1. Marianne, I can agree that it is imaginative. The problem is that Geir has always put stress on what has been proven successful, and now he has come up with something that strikes out on a relatively new frontier. It’s totally his right to do so, but in the world of “mind” as you call it, it doesn’t seem likely to be the most workable solution – according to the way Geir himself thinks.

        1. As I have pointed out – this blog post is in essence what the article, Processes, Automation and Human Potential as ALL ABOUT. I am very surprised that you haven’t understood that given you have read that article quite in detail several times before. I am about to throw in an OMG here, Marildi.

          1. We’ve had this discussion before where you claim that Scientology tech is fixed and I have stated that it definitely does have flexibility built right into it. So in my view the comparison of that article of yours to U-ology has no relevance to its comparison to Scn tech.

            Btw, one of the ways I get annoyed with you is when you say things like “I am very surprised that you haven’t understood…” or, as you did recently, “I have no hope for you” because I had a different viewpoint from yours.

            1. That is certainly not what I said. I said I was shocked that you would attack this blog post as “inconsistent” with my earlier views when this blog post is So Clearly In Line with that article I wrote and you have read oh so many times. I am truly shocked. I invite all readers to grab hold of that article – because it is a more extensive treatise on this very blog post.

            2. Are you now denying that you said Scn tech is fixed (rather than being flexible as per the article)?

              And the inconsistency I pointed out wasn’t with that article but had to do with your very favorable views about Scientology tech and the desire to improve upon it since “it’s the best we have”. That is inconsistent with now wanting to basically throw the heart of it out and experiment (yes “experiment”) with a mixture of things.

              And you just now again got in a couple more of those annoying lines I mentioned in the other post, i.e. “I am shocked” and again “I am truly shocked.” I just wish you would have a straightforward exchange without all the insinuations that you use to try and bolster your point. ————————

            3. WelI, I am shocked. Truly.

              Here is my precise views as of now:

              Scientology is very fixed. Not totally fixed, but very fixed.
              I want to find out what works in Scientology and to what degree on what people under what conditions. Therefore I push testability and falsification.
              And this is so that we can find out what tools should go into a tool box for use when they should be used – along with all kinds of tools from methodologies all around the world.
              And such tools should only be used under the conditions they are proven to work, unless one is very open about a tool not having been tested in a certain circumstance – in which case the customer should learn to know that openly and up front.
              And one should let the customer’s own goals be the target – not some other person’s idea of what the person should or should not want.
              And one should use the tools that are best suited to get the person from where he is to where he wants to go as efficiently as possible.

              Clear?

            4. “WelI, I am shocked. Truly.”

              Ad Hominem:

              “…Attacks don’t have to be strong or direct. You can merely show disrespect, or cut down his stature by saying that he seems to be sweating a lot, or that he has forgotten what he said last week. Some examples: ‘I used to think that way when I was your age.’ ‘You’re new here, aren’t you ?’ ‘You weren’t breast fed as a child, were you ?’ ‘What drives you to make such a statement ?’ ‘If you’d just listen..’ ‘You seem very emotional’.

              “Sometimes the attack is on the other person’s intelligence. For example, ‘If you weren’t so stupid you would have no problem seeing my point of view.’ Or, ‘Even you should understand my next point’.”

              http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#dogged

            5. I guess you had to get in again and make yourself right. Or maybe just to needle?

              I forgot to mention one other thing. Yes you granted Maria’s point. You always grant the points that agree with yours. But I honestly can’t think of a time when you disagreed with someone and in end granted that they had a point.

              And I know that you have to have the last word so go for it.

            6. Marildi to Geir: But I honestly can’t think of a time when you disagreed with someone and in end granted that they had a point.

              Chris: Alanzo just a few days ago, and he’s yellow carded Alanzo a few times.

            7. Ferenc, I have to post this under Geir’s post as there was no email notification for yours. But I agree with him – LOL 😀

              You have an amazing ability to find just the right links – relevant and funny! When I looked at the first one about reality shows (so apropos!) I was going to make a joke about it being more like a soap opera. And then I saw the second one and there it was – the soap opera! Hilarious.

              Thank you for injecting some humor into this thread. I hope you can feel the hug I’m giving you. 🙂

  4. Marildi:

    This is an obvious direction and it has always been the direction Geir has worked towards. One of his first posts on his first blog was concerning the value of open source endeavors in human progress. He has never expressed anything to the contrary.

    Just a few months ago he published a letter written to him by a blog visitor to do with the practice of labeling people and questioning the practice of insisting that people must BECOME Scientologists to use auditing methods within their own sphere of activity.

    There is no advantage to attempting to resurrect an improved version of Scientology. In fact, this is an endeavor that is fraught with difficulty, especially with the PR debacle it has left in its wake and the countless numbers of people who were treated badly, and even cruelly in its name. I am one of them.

    The individuals who wish to learn and employ Scientology auditing can avail themselves of the auditing technology as offered in the Freezone, Rons Org, and Independent Scientology and progress has been made by many individuals in making that possible over the last 30-40 years. There are options now and most of them do not require slavishly dedicating your life to the needs of the organization offering the services.

    As far as the system of philosophy called Scientology goes, the materials have already been distributed far and wide and there is little danger that they will be lost as a resource.

    As for me, all I ever wanted was a means of assisting people to move forward towards more beneficial ways of co-creating a flexible, sustainable platform of interaction and creation that can broadly empower everyone who participates. This is called liberty. This is called progress.

    Love you Geir!

    You have my blessings and my support.

    1. Maria, I don’t disagree about the general direction Geir has worked toward. The inconsistency I saw was as I stated.

      But I do not necessarily agree with you that there is “no advantage to attempting to resurrect an improved version of Scientology”. I’ve expressed my idea that the tech could be tested, probably in a similar way to how pharmaceuticals are tested, as that research also takes into account the human factors such as the placebo effect. And if the results of testing the tech showed a great workability, as I believe they would, then it may not be that hard to get across to the public that what has been done in the CoS is a whole other thing.

      The other idea I’ve also posted comments on, which I suspect may have more truth to it than the above, is that it may be a matter of Scientologists in the field simply using the tech and letting word of mouth and “the marketplace” determine what is the most workable – “standard tech” or some particular improvement to it (not meaning alterations of it or mixing it in with other practices that are not based on the Scn philosophy and thus are not actually improvements to Scn tech per se).

      And I’m 100% with you as regards “all I ever wanted…” 🙂

  5. U-ology would be something good to compare Scientology to.

    U-ology sounds like what Scientology sold itself as when I first got involved. In fact, I thought I had joined U-ology when I joined Scientology.

    It took me about 15 years to realize that I had not joined U-ology at all, and this Scientology that I had joined was not anything like what I thought I had signed up for.

    What kept me from realizing this for so long was the amazing ability I had developed to stand there, looking at Scientology being applied right in front of me, and saying to myself “That is not Scientology!”. I would usually write a KR or complain that what I saw was “non-standard” or “squirreling”.

    Nothing was ever corrected, of course, because it WAS Scientology that was being applied, not the U-ology I had signed up for.

    It’s truly amazing how long I was able to stand there and look at Scientology being applied, and thinking it was U-ology, when it was always just Scientology.

    Alanzo

    1. Alanzo: It’s truly amazing how long I was able to stand there and look at Scientology being applied, and thinking it was U-ology, when it was always just Scientology.

      Chris: +1. Yes, amazing. But something about us wouldn’t quite brainwash completely. Visiting with my daughter today (telling me that she matched for her first year’s internship as a new M.D.) we got around to talking about her mother who is still in the Sea Org and still just as brainwashed as her Orthodox Southern Baptist grandparents. Maybe it’s in the DNA? I dunno. I just know that my oldest daughter has had no word of any kind from her mother for more than 20 years.

      1. Oh wow. I didn’t know that, Chris.

        It’s amazing how Scientology can run the mother-ness out of mothers. You would think that would be the very last possible thing that could be done to a human being.

        Congratulations on your daughter, though.

        You re-produced yourself with a Doctor!

        That’s exchange in abundance. A blue-white diamond, right there!

        Alanzo

        1. Alanzo: Congratulations on your daughter, though.

          Chris: (All puffed up) Thanks Al, she’s great. She couldn’t read or write until after she was 8 years old; C- student in HS, then almost 5 years in the Navy; Language school at Defense Language Institute in Monterey; BS in Biology UT San Antonio; Married to great guy; almost 7 year old daughter; Now she’ll be beginning her internship while she carries my first grandson.

          Al, now you know more salient facts about her than her Sea Org mother knows. As you say, amazing.

          Maybe one difference in my own experience is that I joined SO for my own reasons, contributed for my own reasons, and when my contributions and help to LRH and the SO as donated under my own decision and determinism were no longer enough for them, I left rather than modify my commitment to fit their model.

            1. Alanzo: Have you ever told the story of your routing out? Were you in Author Services?

              Chris: Bits here and there. It is not unique or interesting more than any of the other thousands. I was CST and lived and worked at Crestline.

            2. You do know that CST is not commonly known among Church of Scientologists, right? And Crestline is so secret it is a crime of some kind for a Scientologist to go there. Right?

              I was told by a CMO member in 1986 that if I asked one more question about “uplines” that it would be evidence that I had an evil purpose and that I would be sent for sec-checking immediately. I was work/study at the Manor Hotel at the time.

              Did you know Gary Morehead (Jackson)?

              Alanzo

            3. Alanzo: Did you know Gary Morehead (Jackson)?

              Chris: Nope, maybe he came later. My boss was Dan Przybylski and his boss was DM. I also worked with Russ and Sara Bellin; Tom Vorm; and Jim Isaacson. I worked on the initial wave when the property was bought in 1984 – 1988, Then demoted to Flag Command Bureaux 1988-1990. After 2 years on the goddamn routing form and after paying cash money for 25 hours of leaving staff confessional and then being recruited for the RPF for my construction skills, and nothing improving on my 2D and my daughter being dirty, ill mannered, and illiterate, one day, I just didn’t report for muster. I didn’t run away, I didn’t hide, I just didn’t go back. My leaving staff routing form couldn’t be competed; however, my ex- pushed through my suppressive person declare as a parting gift. Even that took another couple years. Ants and worker bees in the hive get more care and respect from one another than management give to SO members, and I enjoyed the very best of the very best life that SO life had to offer unlike poor bastards in service orgs… I know I’m preaching to the choir but that’s it minus the daily drama of which everyone had plenty. But if we are ever drinking beer and telling stories I’ve got lots of funny ones!

      2. Chris: her mother who is still in the Sea Org

        Spyros: Ouch!

        Chris: I just know that my oldest daughter has had no word of any kind from her mother for more than 20 years.

        Spyros: In the SO 2D means creativity –creatively working for the SO, that is. Only an SP would argue with that, so be good 😛

        Loyalty to the cause –to hell with comrades, friends and family! It’s the new Code of Honor version 1.02

        BUY NOW! 😀

      1. This was supposed to appear below Al’s post above, about looking at what was happening but seeing, or thinking one was seeing, something else

        1. I would watch it if I were you, Valkov.

          What you validate grows stronger.

          Ma-ha-ha-hoo-woo-hoo-wha-ha-ha-haaaaaaa!!!

          Alanzo

  6. Beside Scientology i was using PEAT system , Spiritologie ,Quantum Entrainment . Today i’m interested with Tantra and chakras healing . All those technologies can get along with Scientology . No doubt about it !

      1. Actually i don’t remeber ! Probably via internent i bought the PEAT Manual and i got it at home . I used a solo process starting with ” even thought ….” . It did help but i’m not using it any more.

  7. Good. Much better to focus on individuals, than Scientology. Scientology has tons of useful bits and stuff, but it failed as a group. Inventing processes may be very good, at least for solo processing. One should not be afraid to invent processes. That is why Ron did all the time, and he is considered to be a genius. We should do it too. Anybody wants to be a better boxer, or enjoy boxing more? No processes for that? Do some research, invent, find, mock it up. It should work, gradually. One thing i discovered for myself is that best thing in life are average, not the super special. It may be much easier and much more effective to invent and use processes that makes an average boxer enjoy his job/hobby with full breath, than trying to invent and use some processing that makes somebody super boxer that wants only to win and be at the top.

    1. Sure , Scientology failed as group . The level of love is far too low . That’s i started Tantra workshops and found there what i was looking for ! There are still too many fights amongst indies !

      1. It is not the first time that Indies getting out of the Church fought each other.

        Look back at the early 80’s and Mayo’s group called “Independent Scientologists” at his Advanced Ability Center. They turned into Freezone Scientologists, Ron’s Org Scientologists, and Ex-Scientologists.

        And lots of people who just walked away from all of it.

        It’s just a big dispersal. Without a cult environment controlling information and making sure everyone thinks the same thoughts, has uniformity of belief and “pureness” of doctrine, Scientology can not stand real scrutiny and questioning, and it just peters out.

        Alanzo

        1. Alanzo: Without a cult environment controlling information and making sure everyone thinks the same thoughts, has uniformity of belief and “pureness” of doctrine, Scientology can not stand real scrutiny and questioning, and it just peters out.

          Chris: This is a better way of writing what I mean when I harp on “context” and “frames of reference.”

        2. What a sad view, that it ‘peters out’. Sounds like disappointment to me.

          I don’t see that scientology ‘just peters out’. I don’t get the standard behind that view. Did Buddhism ‘just peter out’? Or ‘christianity’? No, they gave birth to a widespread diversity of forms for over 2,000 years now. To me that just proves the basic potency of those teachings. They live at the heart of every single group and even individual which associates with them in some way.

    2. thetanforever: “We should do it too.”

      Chris: Agreed. Reading your post I realized that I don’t think of my auditing in terms of “as-ising the MEST universe.” I look at more like garden maintenance. Others might not agree but I sort of take a look at it and pick the low hanging fruit then trim up the branches and mow the lawn. haha Some don’t care for my metaphors but it’s the best I’ve got.

      1. Chris, you are getting better and better at giving real-life analogies and examples of your applications of what you have integrated! Well that is a clumsy sentence. I just like that you are able to ‘point at the moon’ in response.

          1. It often makes the best kind of sense as far as I’m concerned, when you use concrete real-life situations as analogies. At other times I have no clue what you’re talking about, but for me that’s par for the course.

  8. I’d like to share some U-ology news about me! It hasn’t happened to me for some time that I have been laughing ALL DAY! Due to the flows I “get” from reading some comments, Geir’s posts, Elizabeth’s humour – being ALL POSITIVE! Thank you guys! Hope you get the flow! You are amazing! So lovely beings!!!!

    1. Maria
      Thank you! So true. I have been doing all my life what I wanted to do. Some people told
      me I was selfish…some others asked me how it could be so. Actually, it comes from my family. My parents never stopped me in anything. Perhaps, that’s one key.

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