During a recent discussion on this blog, I came across a technical bulletin written by L. Ron Hubbard in 1956. It goes to show how he not only exaggerated his own work and put down other works – but that he engaged in outright lying.
I will quote parts of this bulletin here in fair use and ask the reader what you make of this. Here goes:
” TECHNICAL BULLETIN OF 22 JULY 1956
I feel the urge to communicate to you the best news since 1950.
I have whipped the problems of the whole track and memory of the past and can resolve the worst cases we have ever had. That is a huge statement but I have solved and can untangle in an intensive the problems of the vacuum and havingness plus memory and health and have just done so. Hence the exuberance.”
[…]
“We are now capable of solving Book One style cases to the extreme level of clear. No wild burst of enthusiasm is here intended. I have to put the finishing touches on a lot of things and the process is still slow—25 to 75 hours. But I’ve now done it and seen it done to worse cases than any you’ve had. And that’s fact!
Okay. It’s not simple. It requires a minute understanding of Book One. It would take me 50 pages to explain all I’ve lately found about vacuums. You haven’t seen the last of me or of study, but you will have seen the last of unsuccessful cases providing only that we have time and environment in which to audit them.
We can make homo novis. (AND give a grin to those who kept standing around bleating, “Where are the clears?”)
We know more about life now than life does—for a fact, since it was reaching, we can communicate about the reactions.”
[…]
“This is true—
1. We have created the permanent stable clear.
2. In creating him we have a homo novis in the full sense, not just an Operating Thetan.
3. We now know more than life. An oddity indeed!
4. We now know more about psychiatry than psychiatrists. We can brainwash faster than the Russians (20 secs to total amnesia against three years to slightly confused loyalty).
5. We can undo whatever psychiatrists do, even the tougher grade from away back. We can therefore undo a brainwash in 25 to 75 hours.
6. We can create something better than that outlined and promised in Book One.
BUT
1. We need to know more and be more accurate than ever before about the time track and auditing. I have not given a thousandth of what I know about this.
2. We have a new game but also new responsibilities amongst men.
3. This data in the wrong hands before we are fully prepared could raise the Devil literally.
4. Because we know more than the Insanity Gang, we’re not fighting them.
5. Because we can undo what we do, we must retain a fine moral sense, tougher by far than any of the past.
6. We can create better than in Book One now only if we know Book One and know our full subject.
AND WE DO NOT YET KNOW ALL THE SAFETY PRECAUTION TO BE USED.”
[…]
“I have given you this data in this bulletin at this time because now I know I know and I want you to share in seeing the surge of vision which will be our future.
L. RON HUBBARD”
For reference, here is what Hubbard says about a Clear in the book “Dianetics – the modern science of mental health”:
“A clear can be tested for any and all psychoses, neuroses, compulsions and repressions (all aberrations) and can be examined for any autogenic (self-generated) diseases referred to as psycho-somatic ills. These tests confirm the clear to be entirely without such ills or aberrations. Additional tests of his intelligence indicate it to be high above the current norm. Observation of his activity demonstrates that he pursues existence with vigor and satisfaction.”
[…]
“Clears do not get colds.”
[…]
“What this means to gerontology, the study of longevity in life, cannot at this time be estimated, but it can be predicted with confidence that the deletion of engrams from the reactive bank has a marked effect upon the extension of life. A hundred years or so from now this data will be available, but no clears have lived that long as yet.”
[…]
“A clear, for instance, has complete recall of everything which has ever happened to him or anything he has ever studied. He does mental computations, such as those of chess, for example, which a normal would do in a half an hour, in ten or fifteen seconds.”
UPDATE (2013-03-19):
Looking over the comments on this blog post, I have a reflection to share.
When Hubbard said he had produced Clears in 1956 that in fact had TOTAL recall of every single moment of his current life, I believe few people understand what that really means.
It would mean that out of nowhere we would get this normal guy who after few hours of auditing all of a sudden has this super-human ability to recall on every one of the 50+ senses every detail of every impression every 25th of a second from his birth till present time. That means every word uttered by every contact, remember every telephone number, every word of every book read. He would glance over 100000 decimals of the number pi and be able to recite every digit without fault – even if he had only seen the numbers for one second. He would be able to retake all the exams from his education in record time without any error. He would be able to earn millions of dollars per year in many trades with this unheard-of ability and could perform on stage snatching all memory records from the Guinness Book of records at his very first attempt. He would go down in history as the most remarkable person to ever walk the face of Earth. He would by these incredible feats forever prove Dianetics right – something he would obviously want to do given that this methodology saved him and made him superhuman – and there is no reason at all he wouldn’t want other to have similar gains as him.
No such person has ever surfaced.
Can we then safely assume Hubbard was lying?
Geir Isene - uncut 
In answer to the question posed…. “Lie-entology”? 🙂
To be honest, that bulletin reads like a press release. Except that it’s not intended for the journalistic press but for the field auditors of the time.
Lots of bullet points of claims made, several outlandish claims, and the language used seems designed to generate excitement.
For example, the 6 points after “This is true—“; the first two are just fluff, there’s nothing to back them up. Points 3 and 4 just don’t make sense, what does it mean to know more than life? Did Ron every demonstrate, show or explain how to “20 seconds to total amnesia”? And amnesia of what? Points 5 and 6 are 2 more claims that will make a listener waiting for such a claim rather excited indeed. And we know that the promise of making Clears easily was a great driving force in the early 50.
Maybe Ron followed this bulletin up with others over a longer period to lay out what he claims he discovered. I don’t know if he did or not, but we do know that the future proved him wrong. He didn’t know how to produce the Book One Clear in 1956 as he made the same claim again at least twice more. In the 60s with Standard Dianetics, and in the 70s with NED. The test of time has shown that Book One Clears simply do not have the abilities claimed in the books; they may be better off overall but they are far from perfect.
There’s a few things that are really embarrassing to a researcher, and one of them is to have to retract your statements when later events prove you wrong. But that’s for serious researchers, it doesn’t usually apply to gurus, salesmen and politicians. And that’s what I see here in this bulletin – a guru grandstanding to his expectant flock, a salesman making outlandish claims to a mark or a politician making promises. These were also the 50s, as others have noted that was a time where being bombastic and making loud claims was all the rage.
What I don’t see is the result of serious research. So where does this leave Ron? Well, I reckon the most likely description is that he was a lot like your Average Joe with a big mouth who happened to stumble upon a few important and workable truths. In his haste to get it out there he quite likely talked it up considerably and as years went by found his mouth writing checks his pen couldn’t cash.
I wouldn’t put much store to the “lying” aspect, it doesn’t look like a deliberate attempt to deceive; it looks more like a saleman shooting his mouth off. I know I keep mentioning salesmen, that’s because too often I have to deal with what salesmen promise and can’t be delivered, and they sound errily similar to this bulletin when they speak to customers.
Actually, it had an extremely limited distribution:
To U.S. ONLY Julia Lewis, Dick Steves, L. Ron Hubbard, Jnr.
To England ONLY Association Secretary (Jack Parkhouse)
Director of Processing (Ann Walker)
Director of Training (Dennis Stephens)
Staff Auditors, Instructors and Auditors close to Operation only.
So it is very unlikely that it was a sales piece. There’s just reason at all to hype to the list above, after all, they were probably the ones working on the research line he was on at the time.
This sounds like a EUREKA! I’ve got! He is clearly excited.
He says this also in this bulletin:
“Our cases gained but sometimes slumped. Why? Because an electronic vacuum restimulated on the track after sessions, and robbed the case’s havingness.
A vacuum isn’t a hole. It’s a collapsed bank. Every lifetime bank is collapsed into a vacuum.
The formula is—
1. Run pc on start-change and stop for hours until he is under auditor’s control, in session and(often) exteriorized.
2. Then run him with commands “What are you looking at?” “Good.” “Make it solid.” He will eventually hit a vacuum. (He’d hit it faster on “Recall a can’t have” but it’s too fast.) Here’s the tangle. The vacuum is a super-cold mass or an electric shock. This “drank up” bank electronically (brainwashed him). The energy drunk turned black. Hence black cases. (Does not apply only to black cases however.)
3. Run, interspersed with solids and “objective can’t have” on the room, “Tell me an effect object (that drank bank) could not have on you,” and “Tell me an effect you could have on object.” Object may be electrodes or supercold plate or even a supercold glass.
Caution, handle one vacuum at a time. These vacuums go back for 76 Trillion years. They were the original brainwash thetans did to one another, then psychiatrists (on the whole track) did expertly (modern psychiatrists are punks, modern shock too feeble to do more than restimulate old vacuums).”
What is even stranger is that scanning forward from this bulletin, there is nothing further on this subject other than a critique of psychoanalysis that follows in July 1956.
Immediately after that he is into life as a game, processes that are based on that concept, Fundamentals of Thought, and so on.
I see I made a typing error in this line:
So it is very unlikely that it was a sales piece. There’s just reason at all to hype to the list above, after all, they were probably the ones working on the research line he was on at the time.
It should say:
So it is very unlikely that it was a sales piece. There’s just no reason at all to hype to the list above, after all, they were probably the ones working on the research line he was on at the time.
Maria: There’s just no reason at all to hype to the list above,
Chris: And yet there we are reading it. Maybe leaked confidentiality is more credible?
No I am talking about at the time of its issue in 1956, it was not general distribution. When they compiled the HCOB Technical Volumes in 1976, it was included as part of the series. That was probably the first time most staff or public had ever seen it. In 1956, it would have been eyes only and then filed in a file folder containing all the issues ever released in HCO.
What I am saying is there really is no reason for him to hype Herbie and NIBs, and the staff auditors. It makes no sense at all to lie to them. But it does make sense as a “eureka” we’ve got it! Yay! Over the top enthusiasm. I mean why lie? They were the ones delivering those materials — kind of hard to hide it from them.
Besides I was responding the idea that it was sales hype communication. Obviously not.
Maria: “Besides I was responding the idea that it was sales hype communication. Obviously not.”
Chris: Ok, I see what you mean. So the upshot toward Hubbard lying is that he was himself in the tunnel and believed his own parabola and was just dead wrong? Help me here.
Maria: “Besides I was responding the idea that it was sales hype communication. Obviously not.”
Chris: Ok, I see what you mean. So the upshot toward Hubbard lying is that he was himself in the tunnel and believed his own parabola and was just dead wrong? Help me here.
Alan: It was I who said the issue sounded like sales hype communication. Now we have some context, that the issue wasn’t BPI, I think Chris comes closest to what Ron was really going on. It’s the obvious explanation, and usually with these kind of things the simple obvious one is the right one.
Compare with the Ability issue Marildi quoted elsewhere. That issue is unlikely to have any deliberate falsehoods in it, nothing Ron says there serves any purpose if he’s lying. Plus he does back down from earlier claims a lot and defines the three states in a way that could actually be achieved. A Mest Clear does not have perfect recall, he has excellent recall; he hasn’t erased every engram that he ever had, he has keyed them out so that effectively they might as well not be there.
That state is something that actually could be achieved. Theta Clear is a bit more vague and OT remains esoteric. Keep in mind that Ability mag went out to the entire auditor field. For my money this issue rates as one of the occasions where Ron came down off the soap box and just said it like it is sans hype and exaggeration.
Was Ron lying in the OP? I still don’t think so. At least not an outright malicious lie designed to entrap. I think the old man really honestly believed he could pull it off and produce Clears in volume some day. He needed everyone else to stick with the program though! Maybe “sales hype” wasn’t the ideal description, maybe “motivational speaker” fits better. – the kind of speaker who’s job it is to gee people up and keep them excited. Pages of factful truth doesn’t have to be part of that, being able to tune into people’s emotional reactions does.
So much for the 50s. Now the 60s onwards – that comes across as something else entirely.
Splog: “Was Ron lying in the OP? I still don’t think so. At least not an outright malicious lie designed to entrap. I think the old man really honestly believed he could pull it off and produce Clears in volume some day. He needed everyone else to stick with the program though! Maybe “sales hype” wasn’t the ideal description, maybe “motivational speaker” fits better. – the kind of speaker who’s job it is to get people up and keep them excited. Pages of factful truth doesn’t have to be part of that, being able to tune into people’s emotional reactions does.”
Chris: theetie-weetie. Don’t blame me, Ron said it.
Chris: theetie-weetie. Don’t blame me, Ron said it.
Alan: Who exactly do you mean is being theetie-weetie?
Well, Chris, as Ron said too in hus Logics: the truth is a question of viewpoints… The problem is for me: through what we are looking? And here, I’m not sure of who makes “justifications” (at least for now 😉 ). Cheer.
idealgoal: Well, Chris, as Ron said too in hus Logics: the truth is a question of viewpoints… The problem is for me: through what we are looking? And here, I’m not sure of who makes “justifications” (at least for now 😉 ). Cheer.
Alan: There is no viewpoint that can turn the obviously wrong statements in DMSMH into true ones. That those wrong statements are wrong has already been well established, and it’s not a question of spin, viewpoint, semantics or anything else.
Some other interesting questions flow out of that, eg the one that interests me is what was the *intent* that got those wrong statements published? Was Ron a deluded fool? A con-man? Something else?
Alan: “Some other interesting questions flow out of that, eg the one that interests me is what was the *intent* that got those wrong statements published? Was Ron a deluded fool? A con-man? Something else?”
Chris: Maybe these are the hardest questions to know the answer to. Ron has left his legacy. It is all that it is ever going to be. He is not here to answer your question, if indeed he would if he were here. If LRH had a sketchy past, but had a reasonable and scientific take on his ideas about mental health and techniques and hadn’t fucked people over left-right-and-center, we might not be discussing his character. It seems that only in a religious setting do we go to extreme lengths to excuse wild misbehaviors demonstrated by our demi-gods. Those closest to him such as his oldest son claim he was a con-man. His behavior toward those closest to him who loved him best such as his wife, Mary Sue, were thrown overboard and allowed to rot in prison without so much as a letter of encouragement from him. I’ve even run LRH in session from our experience together in the old HASI in Phoenix in 1953 and my needle blew down and floated. Am I a con-man, deluded, something else? I gotta tell you I’m not feeling the love. Ultimately we’ll make our own evaluation of our experiences and move on toward another topic and it won’t particularly matter why Hubbard did the things he did anymore than it will have mattered that he came and went at all. Our own experiences seem very important to ourselves and that is all the importance they will have. (opinion)
Hi Alan.
Sorry, I can understand that for you that statements about Clear was lies but for me it has not been proved, or at least for now no one as proved to me such a thing. Sorry.
Cheer.
idealgoal: “. . . as Ron said too in hus Logics: the truth is a question of viewpoints… The problem is for me: through what we are looking? And here, I’m not sure of who makes ‘justifications’ . . .”
Chris: He also stated that the truth is the exact time, place, form, and event. Using Hubbard’s own logic, you CAN be sure and you can look without filters at just what he said and decide on who is lying. You are sure that someone is lying here, aren’t you? Do you think Alanzo is lying? Do you think Hubbard is lying? Do you think I am lying? Do you think that a post on Marty’s blog by someone you do not know claiming to be a Sea Org member who was sec checked has perfect recall is lying?
You have been granted a great wide leeway to ask your questions and to state your claims. Now I would ask you kindly to provide answers to these same questions with evidence other than rumor and heresay.
Right at the opposite of you, Chris, I do not not claim that Ron has not lied, I just have claimed that could have been a possibility he has not and why in my opinion. So I have no prove to give why the one who assets things as absolutes has to prove them; don’t put the things at the opposite as they are!
For you and others, except one where I do have proved hu has lied in hus post, I did not state if I remember well you were all lying, I have just asked you all for evidences of your statements while yours are absolute, not mine!
As I’ve just written I didn’t find back the S-O thread on Marty blog, but I can tell you that the Clear I met talking about operating without a body, like taking price in a shop far from home or go in a bookstore to see if a book was there, was at Angers in France in 1987 and was the ED of the local CoS org and was a very very nice example of case IMO and had very high IQ indeed.
Nevertheless, only a large enough survey on cases who has not go through at all on the CoS would tell us if the products claim by Ron are acheived nowdays.
You say Chris you have made a survey, why I would not believe it? And what is the reason that make you think I wouldn’t believe you? Until I would have the proof of the contrary I can take your talk as a important possibility. But I have asked you on the specifics of your survey: did you aswer to them?
Then, what is the difference between saying: what you present as a evidence is not, and: you are lying? What Ron said about differentiation?
idealgoal: ” . . . did you aswer to them?”
Chris: Yes, I answered you. I said that no one has yet been found to have total recall during this life.
When a person makes a claim for an existence of something, the burden of proving it rests with that person. However, I am willing to consider any evidence you have or wish to present that sec checking on the RPF enabled an RPF’er to have total recall.
RPF and SO are two related but different groups. RPF’ers are in perpetual lower conditions and no longer an SO member until they are rehabilitated and asked for and been accepted back into the group. Until that happens, they are in severe disrepute. I do not consider you intentionally lied about this detail but only did not understand that SO and RPF are different groups. This is only a mistake on your part and not an important part of the story. Only mentioning this to convince you that I can differentiate between types of lies.
OK Chris, great to see that you make some other constructive efforts here, but:
1. From which FO do you find that a SO on RPF is not a Sea-Org? As I could know they are still but yes in low conditions and in an ethics point of view need to re-enter the group. But do they re-sign an other contract?
2. Why don’t you face the very old truth in epistemology that “a lack of evidence is not an evidence of lack”? Speaking about lies when you address yourself to me?
If I make my body survive these days, well could be I will take time to make again a search about the testimony of the ex-SO I talk about. But I remember very clearly hus ironically state about the sec-checkers making hum inspecting any single moment of hus life to seek for overts, and if I remember well, hu had even to lie to them saying hu had made overts while did not exist to satisfy them and get read of the process.
Thanks Maria for these data.
I don’t understand the distinction you seem to be drawing between “making empty promises” and “lying.” Being a salesman does not give you a pass on making things up and pass them off as truth counting as lying.
trustmeonthis: I don’t understand the distinction you seem to be drawing between “making empty promises” and “lying.” Being a salesman does not give you a pass on making things up and pass them off as truth counting as lying.
Alan: I never said it did.
What I’m saying is that the degree of the response should match the degree of the input. Not all lies are equal.
Salesmen promises deserve censure. Outright blatant lies deserve much more censure. I want to get enough data to make up my own mind what to think.
Agreed.
It does look like a lie.
Indeed. Whatever a scientologist’s justification would be.
“2. In creating him we have a homo novis in the full sense, not just an Operating Thetan.”
I don’t understand. How is OT lesser than homo novis?
Total recall?
I’m a little confused. Is total recall a proof for a homo novis (Clear)?
I have an idea though. When they audited the Dianetics style –incident by incident, they also audited the pre-OT case…
Not at all. According to the OT materials.
I mean partially (discharge those incidents off the pre-OT case)–not to totally discharge that case, no? I remember that mentioned in some 50s –that as one run through incidents, he also run the entities. I don’t have a refference right now, but I could look.
According to Hubbard, a Clear would have total recall. Pretty good, I’d say. Better than any OTs ever produced in fact.
Yes indeed, I remember that in DMSMH also that such a clear would be at 4.0 on the tone scale.
Nevertheless, as far as I remember from his case classifications he always put thetan’s levels (theta clear, cleared theta clear, operating thetan) way above book 1 clear, because of their awareness of self and consequent abilities. So, I dont know…Marildi? 😛
Spyros, here’s what I could find in answer to your question. The issue quoted below was written in 1959, a few years after the HCOB in the OP. Its title is“What Are Clears?” Ability Issue 87 [1959, ca. early January]:
——————————————————
“There are three known grades of Clear.
“The first is the Book One Clear. This is called Mest Clear…
“The second is a Theta Clear…
“The third is called OT or Operating Thetan and is a rather esoteric level, hard to
reach, hard to describe in full.
“A Mest Clear still thinks of himself more or less as a body and is more or less
subject to one. All engrams are effectually keyed out without being examined. For
practical purposes they are erased. He has excellent recalls. They may or may not be
eidetic…
“It is not my purpose, thank God, to prove I was right. It is my purpose to blaze a
trail into zones and heights Man has not known before. I can tell you only what is as I
know it now. And I know that eidetic tests of recall do not prove a Mest Clear. Only
freedom from keyed-in engrams proves a Mest Clear.
:Theta Clear is another thing—much higher than a Book One or Mest Clear. This
is a real triumph and I’m proud of it. The fact of a real Theta Clear is only a few months
old.
“A Theta Clear has no obsessive engrams whatever. They aren’t. But he can put
back at will his reactive bank or any engram in it and blow it off again at a glance. Now
that is news. A Theta Clear does not have to depend on the body line for his ‘survival.’
He does not have engrams of any kind unless he creates them. He does not have to be
in a head…
“Mest Clear, however, is a way station on the road to Theta Clear or OT…
“OT, of course, remains theoretical and is reached through lower clear states.
So here we go. We built a bridge. And built it better than we hoped. It’s time to
start if you’ve been hanging back. The best way to see this elephant* is from inside!
Clearing is wonderful conversational material. It is a better experience.”
——————————————————-
I think it’s pretty interesting that in 1959, his definition of Clear (Mest Clear) is not very different from the very last definition he stated, which was “a being who no longer has his own reactive mind”.
Also, pertinent to this thread I think it’s worth repeating the following part of the above quote:
“It is not my purpose, thank God, to prove I was right…I can tell you only what is as I
know it now.”
p.s. Spyros, I see the format came out badly so I’ll post it again and hopefully it will come out right and will be easier to read and follow.
To reiterate, the issue quoted below was written in 1959, a few years after the HCOB in the OP. Its title is “What Are Clears?” Ability Issue 87 [1959, ca. early January]:
—————————————————–
“There are three known grades of Clear.
“The first is the Book One Clear. This is called Mest Clear…
“The second is a Theta Clear…
“The third is called OT or Operating Thetan and is a rather esoteric level, hard to reach, hard to describe in full.
“A Mest Clear still thinks of himself more or less as a body and is more or less subject to one. All engrams are effectually keyed out without being examined. For practical purposes they are erased. He has excellent recalls. They may or may not be eidetic…
“It is not my purpose, thank God, to prove I was right. It is my purpose to blaze a trail into zones and heights Man has not known before. I can tell you only what is as I know it now. And I know that eidetic tests of recall do not prove a Mest Clear. Only freedom from keyed-in engrams proves a Mest Clear.
“Theta Clear is another thing—much higher than a Book One or Mest Clear. This is a real triumph and I’m proud of it. The fact of a real Theta Clear is only a few months old.
“A Theta Clear has no obsessive engrams whatever. They aren’t. But he can put back at will his reactive bank or any engram in it and blow it off again at a glance. Now that is news. A Theta Clear does not have to depend on the body line for his ‘survival.’ He does not have engrams of any kind unless he creates them. He does not have to be in a head…
“Mest Clear, however, is a way station on the road to Theta Clear or OT…
“OT, of course, remains theoretical and is reached through lower clear states. So here we go. We built a bridge. And built it better than we hoped. It’s time to start if you’ve been hanging back. The best way to see this elephant* is from inside! Clearing is wonderful conversational material. It is a better experience.”
——————————————————-
I think it’s pretty interesting that in 1959, his definition of Clear (Mest Clear) is not very different from the very last definition he stated, which was “a being who no longer has his own reactive mind”.
Also, pertinent to this thread I think it’s worth repeating the following part of the above quote:
“It is not my purpose, thank God, to prove I was right…I can tell you only what is as I know it now.”
Ron said somewhere that memory is a question of training as some other abilities, a Clear could have the potentiality for total recal but not train hum to have it actually, like an OT could gain the ability for telepathy and not much practice it because of many physical tools in this place to commincate; as I could have understood.
Per LRH’s original definition, a Clear HAS total recall.
Reply to you Geir, of your 16:08 comment.
Could be but what about if it looks likes to hum at this time? if hu, humself, had produced such Clears? And then need to correct hus past evaluation to say it was only to understand as “potential”? Not because of hus unability to acheive such a Clear but about the result hu was able to make the others acheiving? Or if hus first statement was just the result of hus own experience as a researcher? But while then comes to more cases had to correct hus estimation insisting on potentiality in this kind of abilities in a Clear? And what about the Clears produce since in the FreeZone? What about if he was just too much enthusuastic to be a researcher but blessingly enough for all of us, to be a huge discoverer? 😉
Someone can be pretty aware cause on the dynamics but still have many personal aberrations. Increases his own power but not yet very able to use it safely and for the grastest good; as I could have seen.
As with many of the advancements Ron made, I think his exuberance got the best of him. He says, and I can read between some of the lines, that he’s saying a thousandth of what he knows, and in my estimation that is an actuality has to be taken into account. Also needed to be considered is the number of subjects he had in the auditing sample i.e. I expect that some of his exuberances came from very small sample numbers.
So, while there may be an apparency of outright lie, there was also likely a significant amount of truth (or accurate findings on a small sample) in what he said. The problem would likely be the generalization of research findings on a few cases to alll cases.
An interesting point is the concept of the vacuum as a super-cold object. I would disagree with the term “object”, but there are points to be considered in what was encountered.
For instance, if the vacuum was the equivalent of hard space – which tends to cause energy to be lost from anything containing energy (the entropy phenomenon), AND, if the thetans pictures, condensed into the form of the MIND (an energy condensation) are exposed to this vacuum, is there not some possibility they might dissipate, giving the apparency of amnesia?
I’ll re-phrase that:
– vacuum = space absent of energy
– energy in a vacuum tends to distribute evenly away from the energy source (like heat lost, but any energy would do that)
– active pictures – the thetan “mind” – are likely an energy condenstion
– is there, then, some possibility of picture energy being lost in a vacuum?
– if so, would that be the equivalent of amnesia, even if short term?
The biggest problem in commenting definitively about anything he says at any particular time is a knowledge of the context of his conclusions. We can stipulate that there were exagerrations and lies but we must also state that there were “truths” (accurate findings about the mind, really) which were so significant that it behooves us to keep in mind the larger, long term picture that there was an evolution of knowledge that is still continuing.
In the case of the state we call Clear, the evolution of the accurate definition of attributes took until the mid 60’s to firm up and then changed again in the late 70’s. Fundamentally, though, there were attributes of the Clear which carried through the whole period. These attributes were the ones germane to advancing the case beyond Clear. Attributes like “Never gets a cold” may have been the apparency in cases audited early on – if they observably ceased getting colds when others around them tended to. I went for a 4 year period without getting a cold after a particular cognition. Prior to that I’d get 2-4 colds a year. So if he had observed a number of his pc’s ceasing to get colds over some duration when they normally got them, he might come to the conclusion that Clears did not get colds.
I’m not trying to defend exagerrations, but I’m trying to say that in the context of development of the technology observations were likely made that were extrapolated far beyond where they should have been taken to. A scientifically incorrect approach. In hindsight we can call that a personality flaw or deficit, but that is the accuracy that hindsight affords.
Again, I ask, what does it take to get us to actually move on? How is the OP of this thread promoting that?
When he says that he actually has produced a stable clear per the DMSMH definition, that is most surely an outright lie. We are talking total recall here, no less.
Dan Koon provided a very good description of the whole track opening up as a pc went through the Power Processes. This description may have been in your blog or possibly on Marty’s. The point I got from his description was that there was indeed a point where the track opened up, and that was the whole track that opened up.
This whole track idea is interesting to me because I encountered thousands of incidents along the way in the auditing I did. A great peculiarity of it was that I would often encounter more than one incident from the same time period but from different viewpoints. One day I understood that by using the e-meter I was accessing matrices of information connected or anchored by the body, and to even more matrices of information anchored to those. These were like matrices upon matrices that would come into focus. Over time I realized that this could be done with or without the e-meter, and it is likely the basis of tantra, the underlying idea of a buddha field. My experience never did really align with the various models LRH proposed but maybe it was how it was for him?
Matrices of viewpoint. Fascinating!
I can imagine a few scenarios that could account for that, especially earlier on the track where one might have been able to occupy multiple viewpoints at once.
In theory one could extrapolate that downwards: BT1 matrix attached to BT2 with its matrices attached to ….
A rather staggering implication.
Yes, it was a moment when I realized that! You’ve probably encountered the idea that every individual is an entire universe, for me universe is a misnomer – more like a matrix that is interconnected in a vast interconnected matrix of matrices. Imagine my surprise when I encountered Sheldrake’s work on morphic fields and Bohm’s implicate order!
Maria: You’ve probably encountered the idea that every individual is an entire universe, for me universe is a misnomer – more like a matrix
Chris: I so get what you are writing. If Universe is not a misnomer then universe is laid out more elaborately than extant reality can allow us to see.
As I see it, “We” are “each” of us, sets of viewpoints that we assume.
If we assume only the viewpoints related to a body, WE are this body.
If “we” assume the viewpoints related to an other object, WE are this object.
If “we” assume the viewpoints of “others”, We are these SAID “others”.
More We assume, assume viewpoints in a larger scale, more WE are.
WE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN THE VIEWPOINTS WE ASSUME, the viewoints we take responsability for.
Those viewpoints WE do not assume are therefor nothing else than “the points to view”, the “others”.
Indeed, from OUR set of viewpoint which used to be called Didier, WE were are fundamentally an INDEFFERENCIATED ENTITY HAVING ALL POTENTIALITIES, KNOWING EVERYTHING ABOUT HUMSELF AND INFINITELY POWERFULL WITH THE BASIC ABILITY TO DECIDE AND CREATE.
As it is a NO GAME CONDITION, hu has TO LIE ABOUT HUMSELF and DECIDES, CONSIDERES, TO NOT BE “ONE” BUT AN INFINITE DIFFERENTIATED SET OF VIEWPOINTS FOR WHOM ANY OTHER VIEWPOINT IS A “POINT TO VIEW”.
Then, all the GAME consists TO REGAIN THE “ONENESS” TRUTH DESPITE OF THE “BARRIER” OF THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL LIE: THE PRIMARY DIFFERENTIATION.
But what would be the real PURPOSE of this game?
– TO EXPERIENCE A KIND OF ENERGY: THE SPIRITUAL “PLEASURE”, and its optimizes state: “HAPPINESS”.
Each time we go toward THE GOAL OF THE GAME, each time WE experience true pleasure, each time WE go the opposit direction, WE experience pain (or any level of these two feelings).
But for the “one” who would like to say here it’s about implants to think WE are fundamentally “one”, this “one” forgets there are HARMONICS in the ton scale and that if implants can work it could be because of an aesthetic resonance with a TRUE FONDAMENTAL TRUTH, may I say…
ML from the set of our viewpoints named presently Didier 😉
And So Very Thanks To You, Ron! For Your Contribution, Idealy Made Or Not, For Your Huge Contribution To Make US Better Understand Our Games And So, How To Experience More Happiness From Our Whole Viewpoints; Thanks For The Happiness You Brought To Me, Very Thanks For Your Hard Work Toward This Goal.
Sincerely.
2X: A rather staggering implication.
Chris: Agreed. And I am seeing something similar myself as “pimples on the skin of consciousness.”
@Chris
I’ll have a look at you zits as soon as I can. 🙂
2x: “I’ll have a look at you zits as soon as I can. :)”
Chris: LOL! Well, there’s not much over there. I am just thinking we might go another level deeper than the current Scientology models of Clear, Theta Clear, Cleared Theta Clear…
What is a little frustrating to me when I notice it is that all these “big” problems that we wrestle with have been wrestled with since man had 5 minutes of leisure between saber tooth cat fights. And you know what? I think this has all been worked out again and again. Maybe only few ever published and maybe only fewer published works made its way to us through the ages and so these become the classics. Sure they are great. But each of us has to work out whatever we want to know and on it goes.
My wife laughs at me and we look at one another and with a wink, she says, “I just realized — nothing matters!” Then laugh like hell. The universe roils and boils and goes on whether we caught the train or not. My wife likes to say, “I don’t care about the ultimate meanings, the kids are hungry and need supper and to do their homework, and I like the life we are living and what we do.”
So is there truly an egress point of the physical universe? Answer: Not for MEST and the “individual” is MEST. Maybe it is true that there is an undercut and there is a deeper truth and understanding but at this point in time, I believe that lies in that unknown and final frontier (haha) of that placeholder known as the Higgs Field, wave-function, and even Vinaire’s unknowable.
For me it seems business as usual that for each succeeding generation; each person, it may just be “deja vu all over again!” That’s what I learn from the maths.
Maria
“…but maybe it was how it was for him.” Most probably!
Idealgoal
“we” are THAT which can perceive or not perceive, create or not create, know or not know without having a viewpoint in the first case (“qualities” of LIFE). THAT which “we” are can also create a viewpoint from which to view its own creation(s) and can perceive and know about it/them (that’s the mind). In the “beyond the mind” consciousness “levels” there are no viewPOINTS. Just perceiving (like “flows”) and “creations” of different kind.
(“my” experience so far )
Very thanks for your testimony, dear Maria.
To Marianne 22:24.
Dear Marianne, So Very Thanks For Your (from my set of viewpoints) Especially Relevant about my quest on truth(s). 🙂
Well, as I stated elsewhere in this topic, as “I” feel it, as “I” see it, We are not fundamentally points of view but we can assume them while we considere as differentiated or not differentiated.
In hus last lectures of the CoS series 1953 “The Factors”, Ron talked about the relation betwen “space” , “communication” and “been”.
Any way, for me We just are any viewpoint basically and we have the choice to assume any, and probably yes to create them if we create an other universe.
But what would be more true for you, dear Marianne: that we assume back viewpoints in this universe or that we create the viewpoints first before then to assum it. As I understand it for now, in this universe all the viewpoints are already created by us and we only assume back them or not. What about you?
Maria: My experience never did really align with the various models LRH proposed but maybe it was how it was for him?
Chris: Yes, maybe. First I was taught his model and that was how I ran it. Then when I began looking unsupervised on my own, it became different for me as well. My mind manifests for me in expected ways and can mirror analogies. What kind of model are you proposing?
Isn’t it grand to be able to explore all these realities? I love it.
I think I should add that I chose the word matrix because it is somewhat descriptive of my experience. But the truth is that it is nowhere near as “cut and dried” as I describe.
I am fascinated by everyone’s response to what I posted. Thanks!
I am not so sure that there is just one consistent “model” of how this rolls out no matter how much everyone would love to have to be so elegantly simple and standard! What I am sure of is that I have been astonished by the sheer diversity and magnitude of viewpoints I have encountered along the way and how they roll out under experience.
I think it is useful to use a particular model to access a particular constellation of viewpoints, past experiences and current probabilities and they could exhausted from that approach. But I think it may also be that if one only uses a particular model then one might be missing entire constellations that don’t respond or align with that particular model.
Maria: “But I think it may also be that if one only uses a particular model then one might be missing entire constellations that don’t respond or align with that particular model.”
Chris: Yup. Because we seem to keep a record, and we seem to be able to take walks down this memory lane, maybe we think there is a formal and predictable structure which we are in.
But maybe we are on the tip of the iteration with any path being “created as we walk by walking.” (metaphor) But more probably there is no metaphor for what is really going on. This is my current position. Ooops, I mean this is my current position. No dammit, I mean THIS is current position. Oh hell, forget it!!!
Hmmm…. positioning while iterating Chris-ness! Laughing while interating Maria-ness and typing. Wording while puzzling wording and expressing! LOL!
Maria: “LOL! . . . ”
Chris: “HOLD STILL, will ya?”
Chris: “HOLD STILL, will ya?”
No, no Chris, Let her rip. I’m lovin’ it.
And BTW its too late to say forget it! I already got it and I can have it from here on out and you can’t stop me! It’s mine now, do you hear! Mine! I will throw it out when I am good and ready and no sooner. There.
Okay. I’m done with it now. And so now I am throwing it out.
Maria: “Okay. I’m done with it now. And so now I am throwing it out.”
Chris: LOL!
Ron has corrected, or more exactly specified, hus statement in an other place (sorry to not remember … where): it was only to understand has a POTENTIALITY for total recal and the effectiveness of is just a question of practice and training, dear Geir.
Let us then not forget that the original definition of total recall was THIS LIFETIME ONLY as book one never introduced past lives or earlier.
Kin: Let us then not forget that the original definition of total recall was THIS LIFETIME ONLY as book one never introduced past lives or earlier.
Chris: That state has never been produced either.
To Chris: How do you know that? I have met a Clear who looked liked to have this ability, and I, only by Self-Analysis, looks to me a reachable objective, even only “Purif” on the Bridge. Have you made an inquery before, Chris, to say that? Like to Ron’s Org Clear (I’m not on the lines of the Ron’s Org, any way, I specify this to show in not especially fighting for a group I would be part, but need to take care of any element of the scene).
Idealgoal: “Have you made an inquiry before, Chris, to say that?”
Chris: Yes. Upon checking, there was not one person with total recall of this current lifetime.
OK Chris, thanks for this very specific answer.
So, why in Marty’s blog there is a testimony of an ex Sea Org which state that because of so repetitive Confessionals/Sec-checks, hu and any of those in hus situation, was able to recover any instant of their present lives?
Then, how many of the scientoligists who have surveyed had actively try to train them to do so?
Freeing an ability in one thing, to practice it and make it work to the extend could be an other! Dear Chris.
For example, one could be realised from a aberration that avoided hum to play piano, doesn’t mean hu will play any piece has existed without working in factually. What do think?
idealgoal; You seem very dilligent in rationalizing Hubbard’s mistakes. But, make no mistake about it – Book 1 describes a Clear as HAVING total recall – it is according to that book NOT an ability that needs to be trained, at all. It is an inherent, a defining ability of a Clear. So, that justification doesn’t quite cut it, dear idealgoal.
Dear Geir, to speak about “justifications” it would need to be first proved there was an outpoint in Ron’s assumption, but it is exactly what we discuss…
Of course, if for you it was a conscious lie, of course it is an outpoint and I about to justify it, in therory at least.
But what if you are wrong, dear Geir? Would mean it would be you who make justifications and rationalizations of some outpoints who only belongs to you; an’t I right? 😉
Well, again: it could be hus very reality at this time, not a good at all scientist behaviour, but hu could see that was what was a Clear at this time cause hu had seen this results in hus hands and had repeated it.
So what make you think, dear Geir, hu had not indeed this reality about the state of Clear at this time?
idealgoal: So what make you think, dear Geir, hu had not indeed this reality about the state of Clear at this time?
Chris: Without serious intention to discuss, your writing is beginning to simply be viewed as and ignored as trolling. If you want to stay and enjoy the love, you should probably put some real effort into answering some of the relevant questions which have been put to you.
Sorry but I no more take your words for any worth, but you can still speak alone! Bye!
First of all I never said Hubbard was consciously lying.
Secondly – he already did a show some years earlier where he put a girl on stage and claimed she was Clear. She failed the simplest of tests in full public view. If he then later claimed he had made stable Clears per Book 1 (as in the bulletin I quote in the OP), he must have thoroughly checked them. But they never ever surfaced. Instead, many years later, he again proclaimed the FIRST CLEAR (McMaster). If it quacks like a duck…
Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary proofs, not just die hard justifications and rationalizations.
My favorite justification yet came from another diligent defender of all things Hubbard – that it was good that he lied in the bulleting… because that would make Scientology persist (anything, to persist, must contain a lie).
I am amazed at what lengths some will go to rationalize their beliefs.
Good for me that you insist on the idea that you didn’t say that intended to lie.
What is the difference between saying: “if you say that…” and “as you say that…”? I thought I could find in you differentiation but looks to me you just follow the main stream, dear Geir
And again: I BELIEVE NOTHING ABOUT RON! I really don’t care indeed but only need to evaluate what I could have a need to use: hus tech, both trought my own experience of and through the experience of others, so that is all about questioning and survey…
idealgoal: “So, why in Marty’s blog there is a testimony of an ex Sea Org which state that because of so repetitive Confessionals/Sec-checks, hu and any of those in hus situation, was able to recover any instant of their present lives? . . . What do think?”
Chris: I think that If you want to enter this into evidence and you want it to be seriously considered, then I believe you should volunteer the exact time, place, form, and event of these extraordinary memories. The reason is that, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Yeah very good Chris! I’ve not myself an easy total recal ability and find back this testimony in Marty’s blog I’ve tried even with the help of the google bar but without success. So of course, as I can’t give you the exact time and place, etc as per the Ron’s 1954 Axioms, my words worth nothing and I can’t be taken seriously here, as per your words; so all this gets better and better! Very nice and enjoy your days, dear Chris!
Geir: First of all I never said Hubbard was consciously lying.
Vítek: Why are you conceding? It’s lead you to this foolish statement. It’s foolish because lying is telling things one know aren’t true.
http://oald8.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/dictionary/lie_3
So either Hubbard was in a very pitiful state out of reality, in which case he didn’t lie, or he intentionally lied.
I think the latter is the case because if he didn’t lie in the beginning, sooner or later he must have realized those statements were untrue, but he never bothered to withdraw them.
No! He did correct them in at least two ways:
1. Saying the ability for total recall was a potentiality needed to be then trained, used to be plainly developped, after been realised;
2. The reference marildi put on the later three defferent Clears.
So why you didn’t take care of these two data?…
Anyway, I’m leaving, you will be free to quietly not-is and alter what ever you want about the reality now!
Bye!
Hehe yes! Indeed! Kin, Very Thanks To Remember Us This Little Detail 😉
Kin; Sure – the claim was This Lifetime. But not one shred of evidence has ever been produced of any such achievement – even though Hubbard himself tried to push his first clear on stage to show her off. and it failed abysmally.
Hehe! As I’ve already noticed here, looks to me so that CoS Sec-Checks are good enough to bring total recall ability when use on RPF, and on any case level! 😉
“I’m not trying to defend exagerrations, …”
No offense, but it sounds like you’re trying to make a justification, which Hubbard himself describes as “explaining away the most flagrant wrongnesses.”
Enthusiastic poeple often lies on the future, not because they want to lie but because the impressive gain they could have blinds them from the reasons and factors what they estimate would’nt occure so bright so easy.
Many times Ron said: “That’s it, we get it!”, and yes, compare to where we or hu was at this time, it can seams like that! And it’s easy for us to see that was not so much with time! But thanks to who we can estimate that now?! If it’s not because of hus discoveries obtained because of hus same enthousiast?
But the question was: did hu lied in 1956 in this bultain? Could be not! cause Ron often did not see how different were the results he got humself than the other will get after hum. Any way, hu talked about this difference indeed in a lecture.
He didn’t talk about hopes for the future in that bulletin. He talked about factual results obtained.
Yes, indeed, dear Geir. But when I say “lying about future” it is about to say that were results which will be always like that, as he obvioulsy stated at this time and was obviously wrong too.
I refer to the future because it’s only in hus future reality that hus statements have been needed to be correct. Like enthusiastics often do while (partly) facing reality.
2ndxmr, Maria quoted some other parts of the HCOB quoted in the OP, including “A vacuum isn’t a hole. It’s a collapsed bank. Every lifetime bank is collapsed into a vacuum.” Does that make LRH’s related statement any more understandable?
Also, since you refer sometimes to zero-point, I wondered if the following quote from an article in Wikipedia on zero-point energy is relevant. (I ask at the risk that this is common knowledge to anyone who has studied physics and thus you may be well acquainted with it already, whereas I am not :)):
“Vacuum energy is the zero-point energy of all the fields in space, which in the Standard Model includes the electromagnetic field, other gauge fields, fermionic fields, and the Higgs field.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy
I almost hear the hard die scientologists, ” This HCOB was not written by LRH but by COB “
Is that a jocke? Raphaël, or have you any evidence it has been written later than 1956? Makes not much sense for me otherwise, wouldn’t it existed in Red Volumes before COB came on the scene?
idealgoal, yes, it is a joke . It came to my mind as a funny frame which describes a way to resolve this kind of out of PR quotes from LRH as done from the self called hard die scientologists .
Hehe, ok Rafael, Very Thanks For Having Taken Time To Specify 🙂 ML Didier.
I started reading “Bare Faced Messiah” by Russel Miller, a British journalist, and am now on chapter two.
It is a most interesting read. I think it as well as the book: “A piece of blue sky” by Jon Atack should be read if one wants to get very well researched viewpoints on LRH.
I found it interesting that the books says this in chapter one:
Ron, who was known to the neighbourhood kids as ‘brick’ because of his hair, would later claim
that while still at kindergarten he used the ‘lumberjack fighting’ he had learned from his grandfather
to deal with a gang of bullies who were terrorizing children on their way to and from the school. But
one of Ron’s closest childhood friends, Andrew Richardson, has no recollection of him protecting
local children from bullies. ‘He never protected nobody,’ said Richardson. ‘It was all bullshit. Old
Hubbard was the greatest con artist who ever lived.’
[5]
The book describes him as a faster learner and also very competitive.
The book says that none of what we are told in scn of his life story is true.
It is safe to summize that LRH was a genius, a good story teller and also a pathological liar.
Dio
Dio, I don’t know what was “the true life of” Hubbard but I know it is not because it was this way or not that way that makes these statements true! Or even important! What is really important is to know if scientology works as a technology, and for my concern it works pretty good. Cheer.
Here’s something interest for u…I know 4people very well who a achieved CLEAR….know lots more but not really well.
One curently is so screwed up he cant drive 20 minutes in a car without wanting to jump out while moving. Going on 3-4 years now. He’s still CLEAR.
The other 3 achieved CLEAR and all seemed CLEAR to me (doing and loomed better) however. None of the 3 went on OT levels right away and all 3 got calls from Flag and said “uh your not CLEAR and u need to come back and pay for more.”
So I guess the way stats are keptnthese days I know 7 CLEARS…3 plus 3 redos plus one who cant drive
Sorry for typos I’m on kindle
CoS Clears could be are not good samples of what Ron’s Clear was when he made them and when the Advanced Organisations made them before Dr CrOB, or even could be compare to the Clears of the Ron’s Org or in the Class XII Indies can produce. So hard to comclude this way, imho.
The public who are interested in Lron, from my observation claim the most important point is the state of clear, of any edition. That it was not scientifically proved nor has been seen by anyone at all. Hence Ron the Con nickname.
Before to conclude, would be better to make an inquery on the Clear outside the CoS.
I would bet none of them have the abilities of Book 1. And that no one ever got that through Dianetics or Scientology.
I think would be better to make a survey, like Marty used to do in hus blog to see if you have win your bent! 😉 Dear Geir. But indeed, looks to me it is a kind of important subject to know what is presently delivered at the Clear level outside of the church, and to check if the said Clear have wins and abilities in agreement with Book1 definitions, IMO.
Dear Geir, you are OT VIII, you don’t feel able to recall any specific periode or instant of your present body life?
I do not have total recall. Hell, I keep forgetting things all the time. Wish I had total recall, though.
Ok, sorry and wish you could as you wish! Dear Geir. 🙂
Do you think it could have been different if you had done your Levels out of CoS? And do you use Self-Analysis to train you to recall?
I don’t think it would matter if I did my Bridge elsewhere. And no, I do not use SA currently.
OK, dear Geir. Very thanks for having spefified to me your own reality, and nice to see that simple constructive communication is still possible around, even with different realities. ML Didier.
I wonder how many guys here studied as auditors or did a chronological study of the work of LRH because this kind of thing you see very very often. There’s lectures where he say that a book that comes out soon is already old hat and the data in it already dropped for something else.
There are two ways of making data available in research. The first is to keep everything secret and behind closed doors until the hole topic is researched fully for many years and only publish the final results and techniques, the other method is to make data available as one goes along for the whole world to see how you many times assume, think you “have it” only to make your name ass as you go along..Both methods have its advantages and disadvantages.
I say that it would have been better for LRH if he did not get everything he thinks, assumed etc. published. He also sometimes lied but I do not think it was done to destroy or harm, in many cases I would say he assumed to much,
Kin
Lying about the results a person can achieve through Dianetics and Scientology auditing was one of Hubbard’s oldest practices, beginning with the 1950 taped lecture “The Story of Dianetics and Scientology” where he said that he “tried to occupy the same space as some shrapnel”,and was blinded and crippled from his war wounds. He then said that he cured himself using Dianetics.
He repeated this lie many more times, including decades later in “My Philosophy”.
As we all now know that Hubbard never saw combat, and thus was never blinded and crippled, then he never cured himself with Dianetics. Also, in Dianetics, he wrote that he had already created “Clears” with the abilities of the Clear he writes about in that book – not that “Clear” was some postulated state.
He continued to lie about the results of Dianetics and Scientology when he laid out the abilities of OTs. As the main auditor and “Case Supervisor” throughout the history of Dianetics and Scientology, Hubbard knew that no one ever achieved these states, and that neither had he.
He knew that NO ONE had ever achieved these abilities with Dianetics and Scientology.
A major driving factor for every Scientologist is that someday they will have these states for themselves. They imagine what their life will be like once they are “clear” or “OT” and this is a major motivator for everything they do in Scientology, from joining staff to help create these states in others, to paying huge sums of money to get them for themselves.
Most of the abuses, especially in the Sea Org and on staff, are because of the “vital importance”, for every man woman and child on earth, of achieving these states for human beings for the first time in earth’s history, fighting against the bad guys “up there” who “mean business”, and who want to keep us trapped on this prison planet without the abilities that no one ever “permitted us to believe” we had.
Lying about the abilities of Clear and OT was always the main engine that drove Scientology. A Scientologist will sometimes think that they “dubbed in” their ideas about what could be achieved through Clear and OT. This is not true. Those ideas about what you could achieve as a Clear and an OT were very deliberately put inside your head by L Ron Hubbard.
He never quit lying, nor did he ever correct his lies in the 36 years he ran Dianetics and Scientology. Every day he had a chance to stop lying, and he never did.
It is very important to remember that. It is a fact that affects almost all other facts in Scientology. It is a fact which should inform almost all decision-making as you make decisions about your own involvement in it.
Without these facts, you can not make informed decisions for your self about how hard you should actually work for free on staff, or how much money you should pay, whether you should disconnect from your children and other family members, and exactly how much stock you should put in this religion that you have adopted for yourself.
L Ron Hubbard never told you the truth about what Dn and Scn could do for you. He always lied about it.
Remember that fact, stop justifying for him, and let it inform your decision making about your involvement in Dianetics and Scientology.
If every Scientologist did this, the abuses would stop over night.
Alanzo
Alanzoooo 🙂
(Yes, I’m crazy. Also, I like it 😛 )
Hello, Spyros.
You’re a good guy.
Alanzo
🙂 🙂 🙂
Many years ago, I dared to say at the Freezone.org discussion group something on the order that DMSMH doesn’t deliver what it promises. And then I got under a terrible barrage of die hard scientologists. First I didn’t understand why the reaction was so fierce. Much later it occurred to me that I had missed their withholds big time. LRH had lied and they covered the lies all the time. They might have lied to themselves too, and suddenly a young flippant man comes up and dares to say how it is. So he must be pusnished, right?
Profant wrote:
So he must be punished, right?
Yes, Profant.
He must be punished.
Alanzo
Wow. Alanzopedia.
Soon to be Geiropedia if you don’t watch out!
Alanzo (:>
Right 😉
Yeah, profant: couldn’t be because they have the experience of what was promised! And couldn’t accept you were invalidated their reality?! While they are not part of the CoS and apply the Tech could be more like the church did before COB and that Hubbard was still on the technical lines…
The fact you don’t make this diffetence show clearly how poor is the value of your own evaluation.
Do you really believe your wild constructions or are you just trolling?
Think what you want! Dear profant. Do you have been audited in the Ron’s Org Bridge, for example? Because to say it has not been acheived would need that you have experience of that and have made survey to the FZ’s Clears to make an honest evaluation; so, did you do that? Or you just “wikdly” evaluate from the outside with no rigorious evaluation based on factual evidencies?
If you want to prove that dianetics works as promised, show me anyone with the abilities promised in early Dn works achieved who can prove them. Unlike Sonia Bianca.
Why are you trying to confuse me with RO Bridge, which comes after OT III, and as such has nothing to do with the state of clear?
BTW, yes, there are some abilities gained on RO Bridge, but not those promised in early dianetics works. I know many of RO people so I can say that. No need to do their bridge myself. You want the subject be taken seriously, the burden of evidence is on you.
But I think you’d do yourself a favour by stopping inventing justifications. You cannot win by covering lies.
First you state Hubbard lied and say “EVERYBODY KNOWS” that, but I do not know, so here thete is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH you are lying, so what worth the words of a prensently so obvioulsy proved liar?
Then, what are your exact evidences that Hubbard has not seen any combat, for example? I’ve read already this statement on web indeed, but never seen any evidence off.
Then again, you very take scienotologist for more idiotic than they are, INVALIDATE their own ability to evaluate for themselve. Why do you think a scientologist attests he gains the abilities related to a Grade or Level?! And why do you think they will pay for the next Grade or Level, if the previous done didn’t gave him the gains/wins/abilities expected?!!!
Of courses, if you base yourself on what is going in the CoS, you will find all what need to discredit and try to acheive your evil purposes (despite true gaming of true abilities even in CoS). But if your where truly honest you would made an true inquiery yourself adressing you to PC and Pre-OT out of the church. But it would be hardly your intention I think, It’s obvious you’re not here for any truth seeking; isn’t it?
idealgoal –
EVERYBODY KNOWS that Hubbard never saw combat in WWII because, during Hubbard’s lifetime, his war record was private and could not be published. After Hubbard died, his war record became public record, and it shows that Hubbard never saw combat, was never blinded and crippled from war injuries, and therefore never cured himself of those ailments using Dianetics, as he told you he did.
If you want to see this information off the web, then buy a copy of Lawrence Wright’s New Yorker article and read it there. Or you could buy Jon Atack’s book “A Piece of Blue Sky” and read it there. Otherwise, the web is where this information has been available for many decades now.
Lawrence Wright’s New Yorker article:
[http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_wright]
Chris Owen’s “Ron the War Hero”
[http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Cowen/warhero/contents.htm]
Jon Atack’s “A Piece of Blue Sky”
[http://www.amazon.com/Piece-Blue-Sky-Scientology-Dianetics/dp/081840499X]
Lawrence Wright’s “Going Clear”
[http://www.amazon.com/Going-Clear-Scientology-Hollywood-Prison/dp/0307700666/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1363622158&sr=1-1&keywords=Lawrence+Wright%27s+%22Going+Clear%22]
A Scientologist will endlessly justify, look away from, deny, and obfuscate things that threaten their beliefs in L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. They will attack and vilify and condemn anyone who presents this information as “evil intended”.
It’s a struggle for a Scientologist, after having been helped by Scientology, as I was, and basing their whole lives on these lies by Hubbard, to wake up to the truth of Scientology.
The good news is that there are a lot of good people around to help you now.
Good luck, idealgoal.
Alanzo
Alanzo, thanks for the references but you very miss the point with me: I’m not at all a believer in this sense! and even don’t care about what ever life Hubbard had before or during his researchs on scientology.
What is really counting for me is: is his technology works, and on this point, looks to me it works pretty good.
But, I do know about PR and false evidencies (what ever side it occurs: the CoS or the opponents to his work).
Very at the opposit of you, Alanzo, I did not say he has been blind and saw combats, read me again but better and you will see! But you, you state that these said data on web or on these books are true, but what proof you have?! You don’t know that evidencies can be changed, falsified or even invented for peticular and evil interests?! While there are so many opposit interests to his work? Would be just the pharmaceutic industry! Lol Thousands of billions of dollards to waste if nobody gets sick…
Again, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WAS THE TRUTH ABOUT HIM but I do know too we can’t be sure of anything unless we can, with enough certainty, explore the past and observe directly the reality as it was. As he used to say: “Don’t listen but look!”
But to enforce he had lied is far more dishonest, IMO, than my position of “I don’t know and I will know only when I will observe it myself directly”.
Then the problem is: why this dishonesty of yours?
If evidence backs it up (and when I put my Scientology blinders away as I did a few years back – it sure seems like blatant lying to me), Alanzo would indeed be justified in pointing out the lies of Hubbard. Why not?
I just mainly say that nothing that I’ve read here consists in an evidence of lie from Ron at this time. But yes, dear Geir, you have the very right for me to have this opinion about Ron and hus assumptions at this time, but still it remains opinions for me even not very relevant, while asking if in nowdays these assumptions are true or not, is much more relevant for me. And yes, while reading the success letters of the RO guys (and even CoS ones), I would say it is true. But sure, they could lie too on their own wins, and the Clear I had talk about could have lied when he talked to me about hus ability to operate without hus body, but it is not my own … opinion, dear Geir.
Have you ever had it proven or demonstrated to you a Clear with total recall of this life and that never had any colds?
No proof of any such constitute slightly more than an opinion, or?
Belief in hearsay is belief.
You just reverse the play! I brought you sample about even not a Clear can recall any detail of his present live (at leadt helpped with a auditor and an e-meter). I brought you an exapmple of a clear who were able in some way without his body and out of his body. These are counter-example of the general statement saying it is not possible and had never been acheived, but please: find me the general absolute statements I could have done, positive or negative, about Ron?… For not having a cold, I’ve not been enough with Clears to have personal reality one. And any way, as it looks like that: been able to have a cold has much to have with out-ethics and been effect of a suppression, and that LRH stated on Ls matrials that an L12 cannot be PTS, if it true, it would tends to me to verify my idea that Ron had made in his hand sometimes “more than a Clear”, but it is just a conjecture of me. (Will you differenciate “conjecture” from “assertion”? And “if it is true” from “it is true”, and “it looks like” from “it is “, etc. ? Because from my last reading from you I start to worry about! Very saddly enough).
I suppose that is just that then – you keep on doing your best to black PR LRH, discredit and invalidate his tech and I will keep on doing my best to do exactly the opposite.
For me it work great.
Kin: you keep on doing your best to black PR LRH, discredit and invalidate his tech
Chris: So Alanzo is the one lying and not Hubbard?
I am talking of the tech Chris. I frankly can’t give a flying anaconda if LRH molested the little gnomes in my grandmothers garden (I want to be perfectly clear though, it is just an example, it is not the truth).
The tech used correctly outside the CoS gives —-> ME <—- excellent results. I can not see why I should change my viewpoint on these results because LRH is not the man others expected him to be. I never thought of him as a God, I never thought of him as a flawless super being. I suppose that is why I do not feel done in by him.
Kin: I never thought of him as a God, I never thought of him as a flawless super being. I suppose that is why I do not feel done in by him.
Chris: I get that you don’t feel done in by LRH. That is not the topic under discussion. “Black PR” implies you think Alanzo is lying. Do you?
LRH promoted himself as the one who rose above the bank – who did what no man on Earth or the entire physical universe had ever done here or anywhere since the beginning of time in discovering the root source of man’s travails and the cure for them. If true, this is a laudable achievement. Are you thinking this is true?
I do not think you get my point Chris, I do not say LRH is not lying I say I do not care!!!
The tech is working for me, I enjoy the tech and I get results, I have no interest is discrediting the old man. There BTW are other tech I like as well like TROM. I love L.Kin’s books and by far my favourite tech material is those done by Clear Bird. I do not even know who Clear Bird is!
I think it would be better said Kin if rephrased to: The tech as it is interpreted and delivered outside the CoS gives—-> ME <—excellent results.
Molesting little gnomes? What a funny picture! LOL!
It appears to me that outside the Church, the auditors give LRH credit AS DUE and a smack-down AS DUE. They also give credit AS DUE to the many people who contributed over the years to that technology, and to the many people who have worked to extend the usefulness and effectiveness of that technology.
Certainly they do not apply standard tech as was envisioned by LRH by the mid-70s — a full HGC, with D of P, CS and examiner, fully manned Qual division, flanked by a fully manned HCO ethics function.
And none that I have ever encountered think that LRH was infallible. Quite the contrary.
Don't forget that under LRH's own definitions, the group you are in are labeled as squirrels and SPs. You may not like what his Church evolved to, but it was well on its way to that evolution long before he died.
Which evidencies you have, dear Maria, Ron was still here when the CoS goes off? Or why not he let this happen to let us the responsability to apply hus own tech to correct the off line CoS?
IMO, Ron could have known what’s going on and had even predicted it since long! and think that hus dekalogy Mission Earth is very about when he talked about (black) PR and maned one of hus caracter “Dr CrOB” 😉
ML, Didier.
Well, that would be LRH’s own voice on recorded lectures, published HCO PLs, HCOBs, and Ron’s journals.
Sure Ron could have been anything and predicted everything. If that had been the case then I think it would reasonable to expect the huge successes he continually predicted for people getting auditing and for the unlimited expansion of the Church.
To Maria on 2013.03.18 22:50.
Well indeed hu does predict scientology will taken for money purposes and so on, we find this reference in some places on FZ web and I have read it too in my own CoS materials (Dr CrOB didn’t deleat it! Lol).
But question: why you have alterred my words while refering to the idea Ron would have predict everything in any case? Why did you not differienciated my specific assumption hu has predict the CoS evolution and the idea hu would have been able to be right in anything and to predict anything?
—————-
Well, looks to me we still have some work to do on ourselves; could be better I return to my little single universe! And just try to be a self! Looks to me that honesty is not what is the most expended all around here, or at least each of us has hus own reasons to make humself right. Well, I don’t think it is my game so I all let you again with your own games.
But thanks for having shared your realities, agree on or not with, it was very interesting to read them.
But for me all this only summs in this statement: “What is true for you is true for you!” As said Ron humself, and what is true for me about scientology is what I can observe directly, what ever intentions or behaviour Ron could have had. Cheers, Didier.
Ideagoal/Didier,
I’ve learned over the last couple of years of taking part in these discussions that a lot of knowledge can be gained but it rarely changes anybody’s mind. And if there is a change of mind, it is almost always along the lines of the individual’s beginning assumptions/beliefs.
As I see it, the most important element in all of this is the evaluation of importances. And from my point of view, I have observed that your ability to evaluate importances is excellent. Well done, dear Didier. 🙂
Marildi: “. . . that a lot of knowledge can be gained but it rarely changes anybody’s mind. And if there is a change of mind, it is almost always along the lines of the individual’s beginning assumptions/beliefs.”
Chris: Please speak for yourself. I have done nothing but change and change and change. Your memory is short if you don’t remember that you and I used to walk in lock-step. So if you want to claim that blogging has not changed your mind except for along your “basic beliefs” then I accept that, but as for me, I have changed weighted heavily on the blogging I have done here.
Chrfis, I qualified my statement with “almost always”. And even in cases like yours, who have apparently changed their considerations, I am not so sure that your very most basic considerations were ever changed, And by that I mean considerations and attitudes that are more basic that Scientology or one’s experiences with it. Just my opinion. (Also, note that I said “I am not so sure”.)
Marildi: “Chrfis, I qualified my statement with “almost always”. And even in cases like yours, who have apparently changed their considerations, I am not so sure that your very most basic considerations were ever changed, And by that I mean considerations and attitudes that are more basic that Scientology or one’s experiences with it. Just my opinion. (Also, note that I said “I am not so sure”.)”
Chris: “Joking me or being obtuse? Would anyone who knows us please care to weigh in on this one?”
Chris has demonstrably changed. A lot.
Marildi: Hardly.
Chris has demonstrably changed. A lot.
Marildi: Hardly.
LOL! Even in my short time on this blog, I have seen that! I really like this blog and have benefitted, changed, from it too.
We are talking about “changing a person’s mind” in the course of blogging, aren’t we? Not changing a person’s personality?
Minds and opinions have changed plenty here on my blog at least.
Geir: “Not changing a person’s personality?”
Chris: I dunno, maybe even my personality has changed. I am to myself, very different, and you who have read my tripe since the beginning could maybe attest to a observable difference in me. To myself and to everyone here, I’ve made more personal changes during these past few years than ALL of my combined Scientology experiences beginning shortly before arriving here.
It seems to me that for the most part the guys who have been around for any length of time haven’t changed that much. If they were critics of Scn to start with, they still are – possibly becoming either somewhat more so or less so (usually more so). And if they were defending Scn to start with, they still are – also possibly more or less so (in my case less so).
I see serious changes in Chris, Maria, me and several others. You may be speaking from your own personal amount of change?
I wasn’t talking about changes in general. I imagine everyone who has hung around has had changes from the discussions, including me. I was specifically referring to attitudes towards Scientology – the critical are still critical and the favorable still favorable. Chris is the only exception I can think of. And another interesting thing is that there used to be more posters here who were favorable who know longer post comments
I can think of more than Chris. I can think of me.
The main problem I have come to see with the most fervent of the Scientologist defenders is that they are trying to defend regardless. And that is a position that is very difficult to hold in an open discussion. It is far easier to not HAVE to defend or HAVE to attack and let the flow impinge on oneself depending on the facts presented. For example, I would predict that idealgoal here would find it very hard to maintain his line of discussing for very long.
It seems to me that there is as much HAVE to attack as HAVE to defend. You last blog post comes to mind as an example of the fact that a person may not be presenting a logical argument for a particular conclusion but the conclusion itself may nevertheless be correct.
Idealgoal could very well have more to learn about what constitutes a scientific argument but, as I commented earlier, I think he already knows how to evaluate importances and perhaps in his opinion (like mine) the much more important thing as regards Scientology is its very high potential value.
The more I look at the bigger picture of LRH and Scn, the less interested I am in spending a lot of time and effort focusing on the mistakes. It was and is good to do that up to a point, but I’m about done with granting it so much importance. It’s your right to continue just as it’s my right to not be that interested.
And tell me: what would be the interest for anyone to continue to maintain a discution with people who not demonstrate differentiation and only tends to prove there own rightness?? It is obvious for me that you just tends here to flatter yourselves and not to take the words exactly as they are written, looking through your fixed ideas instead of just duplicate what is written when it LOOKS like for you in opposition with your own reality or opinions on your hard past decisions have been based.
I went out of CoS by my own decision. I’ve been in communication with all parts and met too people has known Ron directly, as Chris look to have, even on of hus son.
I have always heard any personal testimony and respect them, but I can’t accept statements which miss too much differentiation, especially when it is about to try to go against the reputation of anyone or any group, would be Jiews or Nazi! LRH or a man I know nothing about!
So, so easy to say I will hardly maintain my line very long, while indeed I can come to a point very quickly that it is uslesd to continue to discuss with people not even able to have the honesty to read exactly what someone wrote without not-isness or alter-is.
Well, you surely have your integrity, I have mine too! I let you with your own “karma” and I go with mine when I will be completly fed up, and isn’t your purpose presently now: to encourage me to leave?
Well, if so I will make you pleased very soon or could be now if you can’t recognize any rigthness on my own view, for sure! So, you know what to do now to make leave your blog and let you turn on your own fixed idea, seams to me for now!
idealorg: “Well, you surely have your integrity, I have mine too! I let you with your own “karma” and I go with mine when I will be completly fed up, and isn’t your purpose presently now: to encourage me to leave?”
Chris: Nope. I want you to stay and discuss. You are in fighting mode right now but maybe when you feel safer, you will feel like being more vulnerable. That’s a starting point, at least for me.
Yeah, could be, but I was mainly adressing me to Geir for his last posts but you too probably.
My tool is mainly logic and differenciation on very specifics. But all the question here is: has it been truly proved that Ron have lied?
Do you differenciate:
– “lying” and “making a (supposed) missevaluation?
– “having even a written doc saying something happened” and “what happened really”?
If we were not in a suppressive world with truly evil purpose beings, I would be much more confident any evidence brought on the table. But it is not the case and justifications of overts can come on the line to alter the reality and and tends to destroy the very image of the guy. And when I say that, I’m not thinking to you here, I rather mainly think to lobies which has obvious counter-financial interests to see scientology winsning on the scene. But I do insist to help you this time: I HAVE NOT STATED THAT IS THE CASE about the written said evidences about no combat for LRH.
But I would be still far more interested to see for myself the results of a fully methologic survey about the present abilities gained out the CoS at Clear Level and above. That would be something usefull for the present and future, IMO.
I would like to add that for me it isn’t about a person being “a critic” or “a pro-scientology” defender or some such polarizing angle. For me it is about exploring free will, about finding the truth that helps me fulfill my quests. I am pro or against where I see fit.
Dear marildi, I suspect you won’t like this one because it doesn’t try to estabish ARC at any price, and even if it not adressed to you but for like Chris here where you’ve just demonstrated the problem I have with hum or others here: it is the lack of differentiation, the lack of really duplicating what is written and the tendency to generelize to their own conveniences.
It was for you here the not-isness of the specifications of relativity of your talks and opinions, and is was for me to not differenciate between saying: “Ron could have not lied and why I could be” and “yes, he has with no doudts said the truth”.
That you belive it or not, dear marilidi, these not-isness are not random effets IMO but cause by “whys” still hidden in the scene of those who comits them to make other wrong.
Idealgoal/Didier:”That you believe it or not, dear marildi, these not-isness are not random effects IMO but cause by ‘whys’ still hidden in the scene of those who commits them to make other wrong.”
Yes, you are basically saying the same thing I was as regards things “hidden”. And it may very well come down to exactly what you say – making others wrong, including LRH and Scientology. But since we really can’t audit each other to change this “make wrong” impulse, we should “drill” being *honest* with ourselves and others in our discussions – the point you made in your previous comment – and learn to communicate better by basically drilling honesty.
And now you mention ARC. I was just about to reply to your previous comment and say that besides honesty we need to keep in the ARC. This again comes down to TRs because that’s what they drill – good communication. As an example, there were a couple of remarks about me in this last exchange that simply didn’t need to be said – they had no purpose in the discussion but to strike a blow to me personally. And this just made me feel, as you put it earlier, a “very very sad conclusion”.
The subject of how to discuss, both honestly and with ARC is the one I think is really needed, to sort out in order to get the most from discussion of other topics. Thanks, dear Didier, for your wise insights! 🙂
Marildi: And it may very well come down to exactly what you say – making others wrong, including LRH and Scientology.
Chris: We are just discussing what to say; how to address LRH’s lying. We don’t seem to have gotten around to doing that — LRH seems to have been a pathological lyer and with the evidence presented this seems indisputable. Yet the disputes continue.
If any of us want to work around to the part where we take notice of and seek to resurrect any part of the tech and put it to better use, it seems that will take a while until the religious fervor dies down a bit. I didn’t make LRH tell all those lies. I’m not making him wrong, I’m just wondering what to do if anything about his grandiose lying.
Chris: “LRH seems to have been a pathological liar and with the evidence presented this seems indisputable. Yet the disputes continue.”
Indisputable? No, there were several other interpretations than “pathological liar” on this thread. Did you not-is them? Some have pointed out his tendency to become over-enthusiastic; others commented on the style of rhetoric of the times; others suggested LRH wasn’t prudent in talking about his research before giving it enough time. Etc. Your statement above seems to be an example of not changing one’s mind a whit no matter how many other possibilities are suggested and actual data given – in fact, apparently not-is’ing any additional data. This is why I say discussions go around in circles and in the end go nowhere, and on top of it we see the reruns later.
It appears you also paid no attention to the fact that LRH himself took back his earlier claims about Clear in that HCOB I quoted, where he gave a new definition of Clear. In fact, I see you just made a comment that “LRH didn’t make any Clears.” You’re no longer simply talking about whether or not he was lying as regards his Book 1 definition – you’re now making it look like he continued making that claim and thus to this day “didn’t make any Clears”. Do you wonder why it seems to me that critics want to hold on to things simply to make LRH and Scn wrong?.
Chris: “I’m just wondering what to do if anything about his grandiose lying.”
Other than your labeling of it as “grandiose lying” I can get fully behind that question – what to do IF ANYTHING. Does anybody really believe that they can build such a case against LRH that he will then seem SO bad that it will add ammunition to their desire to discredit Scientology?
So, looks to me dear marildi you still think it is worthy to try to make others facing their though-outpoints? Isn’t it because you think that what ever reaction, alter-isness or not-isness you encounter, that truth will make its way through, one day or an other and it is just a question of comm-lag? 😉
Lol, the funny thing is that probably the same thought could exist on the other side! Don’t you think so?
Didier, I have a lot of things I need to attend to today and I need more time than I have right now to fully reply to your latest comments, which I enjoyed so much! But I am really looking forward to it and will do so as soon as I can. 🙂
Good morning, idealgoal Didier, 🙂
You wrote: “So, looks to me dear marildi you still think it is worthy to try to make others facing their thought-outpoints? Isn’t it because you think that what ever reaction, alter-isness or not-isness you encounter, that truth will make its way through, one day or an other and it is just a question of comm-lag? 😉
Dear Didier, that was a very good comment. I guess I do still sometimes think that it’s worth a try to communicate truth (as I perceive it). But realize this – that post of mine that you’re referring to was to Chris, and he is one person who has demonstrated at times that a communication can get through to him – and he’s willing to admit it. So I give him credit and have some confidence in him. But there are others I am very reluctant to discuss with any more because I haven’t seen that they are willing, or perhaps not able, to have a straightforward discussion.
More generally, I still believe what I said earlier, that there are people who aren’t going to change their minds about Scientology in a blog discussion. For one thing, there is way too much conflicting data on the subject, and way too much to know about the subject of Scientology itself, to give it adequate treatment in a blog discussion. And for another thing, there most likely are personal “whys” that only a piece of tech would handle, not a public discussion. That’s why I’m more interested in other topics than overall evaluations of Scientology.
You also said,“Lol, the funny thing is that probably the same thought could exist on the other side! Don’t you think so?”
LOL, yes I do. And I have said the same thing myself. 😉
I would rather like, Chris, that you could have more humility and respect for others who has not your reality to write: indisputable lies, or something of the sort. That you like it or not, these lies are not yet proved for me, or even just pure missevaluations. And I rather think often it can be only hardly proved any way.
Dear marildi, your comment to me looks to me very relevent because it is exactely the choice I was feeling a need to make between: try to maintain ARC at any cost, or just just fight back those who have started obviously to fight my reality for me obviously with dishonesty or at least a lack of differenciation and so lack of respect and so nattering and so one.
Could be would be better to just ignore and leave the place. IMO if someone start to be dishonest in hus communication, what’s forth to continue the discussion? Truth is no more the seek then but only then justifications of past decisions or evaluations of some how.
I was indeed just asking the proofs people here against Ron statement very “plain-heartedly”, if I can say, but then came things like “every know” and “it has been proved since long”, but yet not to me at least!
Personaly I can only have opinions on Ron cause I don’t remember having known him in the past, but it would be interesting to know why guys here got crazy after I have noticed that no past supossed evidences could prove anything where suppressives still act (like lobies or gouverments)?
I just hope in some how a kind of com lag will end at a time, un probably in these days but one day at least; I’m very used to any way with this, but as for them, each one has to practice hus one integrity and say what is true for hum. I made this choice prior to an necessity to maintain ARC, like I would hardly maintain the ARC with someone who would bite my body! But yes, it would be more constructive to be able to maintain an high ARC even against the adversity, but to find and spot immediatly the real whys so that any not-isness and alter-isness could vanish and duplication taking place to bring understanding and the Great Nice Affinity. But sadly enough, I’mbnot presently very skill in this exercice and more about to send back the cheat I receive! 😉
Didier, please don’t misunderstand me. I agree that sometimes one has to fight – but it should be with people who will fight both fairly and sensibly. ARC has to be used by everyone involved. and the only way to achieve that is by agreement (the R part of the triangle) as to how we fairly and sensibly discuss. And the A has to be kept in as much as possible by not making any unrelated and uncalled for personal remarks. And the C has to follow the formula of communication in order to be able to duplicate and understand.
Yeah, you looks to me right and I don’t think I had misunderstood you! I was speaking about fighting only for my own concern it was, not you 🙂 if I remember well.
idealgoal: That you belive it or not, dear marilidi, these not-isness are not random effets IMO but cause by “whys” still hidden in the scene of those who comits them to make other wrong.
Chris: I hope this is not your whole argument.
And why I would need an other one? What makes the alter-isness of perception here? Of even a written communication? I try to be precised in my speaking, even if recognize I’m far to have the best english (do you know that when I type “hu does” I’m not making a misstyping? 😉 ).
Very Thanks Dear mardili for your validation. Any way, I hope you’re right and yes, I think I do try to evaluate what is trully important at least for me.
Good for me too that you point the near useless of these discussions.
When I wrote on a subject I often went to conclusions right at the opposite of my first thought, why questioning and assuming others viewpoints and using at maximum differentiation; I’m not sure I will very easy find here, very very very saddly IMO, that kind of behaviour here, that kind of honesty. That is the yes very very sad conclusion I’m bring about. But it gives me a better motivation to find the why to better and easier as-ise “the real why” of any wrongness in any universe; my quest I hope for the next live ? 😉
idealgoal: “Good for me too that you point the near useless of these discussions.”
Chris: These discussions are as fruitful as we make them. If a person finds themself in a personality contest of any sort then the discussion falls away and the knee-jerk reactions set in such as the one Spyros had a couple days ago. Then any form of communicating breaks down utterly.
But if we come here trying to learn and knowing we are going to change and so hope to change for the better toward a more consistent and rational approach to our lives then I think the discussions can occur and everyone involved can benefit even if they do not post their opinion but only read.
Indeed!
idealgoal: ” . . . And just try to be a self!”
Chris: You are already succeeding!
Yeah! You say that could be because you think that not been agree with your really or of you, it is not to be part of the whole world, probably…
idealgoal: Yeah! You say that could be because you think that not been agree with your really or of you, it is not to be part of the whole world, probably…
Chris: I don’t quite get your meaning but you are welcome here.
Marildi: “. . . that a lot of knowledge can be gained but it rarely changes anybody’s mind. And if there is a change of mind, it is almost always along the lines of the individual’s beginning assumptions/beliefs.”
Maria: I have seen every single participant on this blog go through changes since I started posting on Geir’s first blog 4 years ago. In some cases very major changes. In my own case, very very major and very very life changing. VERY life changing. In surprising and unexpected ways.
Maria: In surprising and unexpected ways.
Chris: That is the nature of iterating!
I confirm. Chris has changed a lot.
Marildi: I was specifically referring to attitudes towards Scientology – the critical are still critical and the favorable still favorable. Chris is the only exception I can think of.
Maria: In my case, your powers of observation are totally lacking. I have changed so much that I have been added to the ranks of the critical at times and at other times I have been accused of being the opposite. It wasn’t always so. Ask Geir, Chris, Vinnie, Alanzo and the few others who have seen my evolution since Geir made his first post 4 years ago if they see this as so. I will confirm that Geir’s whole attitude has radically shifted too.
What exactly is your point here? Did you just jump in because you thought you had some support from idealgoal and figured you’d get your digs in? That’s how it looks to me.
No, Maria, I wasn’t trying to get my “digs” in. I just felt a little encouragement might be welcome. And how would it strike you if I now asked you if you were just trying to get your “digs” in on me because you thought you had some support?
Geir says: I would like to add that for me it isn’t about a person being “a critic” or “a pro-scientology” defender or some such polarizing angle. For me it is about exploring free will, about finding the truth that helps me fulfill my quests. I am pro or against where I see fit.
That’s where I am at too. And it has been a long and uncomfortable haul for me at times, but there have also been amazing insights and tremendous change and even great progress in many different ways as I have continued to participate.
I am so thankful that Geir posted his original blog. I am so glad that there have been so many thoughtful and insightful people participating. I have grown so much that it is hard to even remember where I began on all this. It wasn’t so long ago that Alanzo routinely pissed me off and got my ire up, and it wasn’t so long ago that I would find excuses for LRH no matter what.
It’s interesting to note that to Marildi and Valkov and some others, I am seen as a critic. Over at ESMB I am seen as a brainwashed defender of Scientology. I guess that sums it up neatly.
From what I have seen at ESMB, when you defend it’s in defense of your personal gains when people start denying you those. But when was the last time you defended either LRH or Scientology over there?
Isene: It’s interesting to note that to Marildi and Valkov and some others, I am seen as a critic. Over at ESMB I am seen as a brainwashed defender of Scientology.
All I can think of to say is that this blog is great at balancing. When people just put their own thoughts out for others, then others can use their free will to choose what they like to accept or reject = simple. Ideas and opinions are are great source of knowledge. Thanks to all and Isene for this blog. 🙂
deE: Thanks to all and Isene for this blog. 🙂
Chris: Thank you! We all work together for any progress we make.
Yes, there is high potential value in Scientology. But at the same time, it was in fact LRH who pushed forward the idea that if someone spoke against it, or him, or complained about a lack of delivery, then they were “bad guys.” It is not my imagination that he did that. I guarantee you that if you had gotten on a blog like this during his time, you would have been declared immediately – no doubt about it. Or you would have found HCO terminals at your doorstep demanding you come into the org to get your withholds pulled or face the consequences.
I have indeed listen a direct testiony about Ron been a bad guy with an auditor I know and been unfair. All the problem for me with these testomies, would be on LRH or somoene else it to know in which order of magnitude the justification of overts come on line. Could be it’s just the truth, could be not. Could be it’s just the viewpoint of the detractor who made him think that was a bad behaviour relative to his own frame of references. Who could know if not in the time and place of the event?!
But yes, looks to me Ron has taken very serious any possible threat to scientology but I can understand this, if yes it is what he claim it is relatively to the whole track history.
Alanzo: “Lying about the results a person can achieve through Dianetics and Scientology auditing was one of Hubbard’s oldest practices,. . . ”
Chris: Even while coming to the same conclusions, reading your words deflates my balloon, and I am over 20 years into leaving.. Even after all these years, reading your words and thinking about the process of getting out gives me a sick feeling. Those were hungry days when I had to choose whether to buy food or pay utilities or stave off the landlord’s rent for one more day and to to bed tired and wonder at how messed up I was for my friends — each one — to turn their backs on me. Through all that and for years after I still kept the faith and kept hoping. The deliberate lying on Hubbard’s and the entire SO network’s part together with a lack of looking and lack of information on my part kept me in that tunnel. As the old veterans say, “I wouldn’t take a million dollars for the experience nor a million dollars to do it again.”
Yes: “deflates my balloon” is the right way of saying this in my estimation.
That balloon is made of hope. HOPE. Powerful, powerful, powerful HOPE.
It dies hard and if it dies it leaves FEAR and DESPAIR in all its many forms. Small wonder no one wants to give it up without a fight, especially if there is nothing to replace that HOPE with.
And so we are here slugging it out and sorting through it all.
“Without goals, hopes, ambitions or dreams, the attainment of pleasure is nearly impossible.”
“Dreams, goals, ambitions-these are the stuff man uses for fuel.”
I think that contained in these two quotes are the crux of what we see on this blog. I think LRH did not understand just how much these two quotes are true and how much trouble would ensure if he tampered with them or ignored them.
Do you think, dear Marie, that the PCs and PreOT in the Ron’s Orgs are missevaluating their wins? If yes, what evidences make you think that?
ML.
Oh I don’t think that at all. But I can tell you that Captain Bill definitely brought his own truths to the Ron’s Orgs. Looks like Bill did a great job, at least in terms of people having wins.
TRUTH has nothing to do with “wins”. Any win is an illusion of the Mind, the ” I “.
Don’t you refer, dear Marianne, to the concept of Theta as per the Ron’s 1954 Axioms? 😉 and looks to me to your own experience? 🙂
TRUTH can neither be evaluated, nor measured.
Marianne: TRUTH can neither be evaluated, nor measured.
Chris: Beg to differ. Relatively speaking, I think it can. If you want to make broad sweeping statements and hold them to precision, then nothing at all can be measured except in the most general and relativistic terms. However, in those terms, there is no such thing as a true and precise truth.
Thanks for your answer, dear Maria. But in your previous statement didn’t you deny the possibility for RO scientologists to not only work on “hope” but on results an wins in agreement with what is expected on each Level or Grade they do? For me you really said that, indirectly, while not specifiying it could only apply to your only own experience in the the post Ron CoS…
idealgoal:
I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not recall making any statements about grade chart gains in Ron’s Orgs. In fact, I don’t recall making any comments about people’s gains at all — I know very well that people have gains. I did myself, even in the often maligned C of S.
I can tell you that I am having a really hard time understanding some of your posts, likely because English is your second language and I speak no other language than English. So I am guessing that something has been lost in translation.
I am very pro-auditing. I liked my auditing.
OK, no problem with me Maria and sorry if my english it not so clear.
But the discussion wasn’t it one possible lies of Ron about the possibility too to acheive the claims of Ron for Clear State in the OP?
Looked to me that you said that nobody has acheived such ability; did I mess-up with someone else speaking and start to not more differentiate through my several twenties of hours awaken body? 😉
All my attempt here was to spot the fact that as the RO guys looks to have great gains and a fair ARC full organization, I mind how could they be satisfied of their travel on their Bridge if they don’t reach the states and abilities they expect to get? So that the statement of Ron could be true at least by the time and in a free suppression environment.
idealgoal:
I do think you confused me with someone else or misread my posts and undoubtedly this is due to the language problems.
I really have no information on Rons Org wins. Very few visit any of the blogs about Scientology and I have been reading them for about four years. I also have not heard complaints about Rons Org delivery from anyone going to Rons Orgs.
I have no idea whether anyone in the Rons Orgs has achieved the Book 1 descriptions of Clear. I can tell you that I personally know of no one who has to the full degree described by LRH in that book. And in the four years I have been reading the blogs on Scientology, not one person has stepped up and claimed to have the full characteristics of a Book 1 clear. Yet thousands of people visit and post on those blogs.
I have no doubt that people getting auditing in a safe environment get more gain. That is exactly what is reported by freezoners and independents who typically do not apply org policies, Sea Org directives and technologies that violate the auditors code circa 1954. As far as I know, Rons Orgs also do not apply those issues but since I have never stepped foot in those orgs, I really do not know.
One thing I did find out online was that Captain Bill was responsible for writing the book Dianetics Today, which was published in 1975 and frankly I consider it one of the best write-ups of Dianetics ever written. Of course, it is now on the no longer published book list in the Church of Scientology, because Captain Bill was expelled from Scientology and declared suppressive. I was lucky enough to find a digital version of it last year to add to my library.
I also understand that Captain Bill is the author of the OT sections above OT7 in the Rons Orgs. He said he got them from Ron via telepathic communication. At least that is what the info on the freezone website says. I have also read posts by die-hard Scientologists denouncing Captain Bill as a flake and a squirrel.
🙂
What I Very Like in your post, dear Maria, is that you just testify of your own reality and this without making it an “universal and absolute truth”, as I reproach to Chris and others here. If any one here could just do that each time, understanding clearly that is true for us only what they consider as true from their own set of viewpoints but others with others sets may have other reality and others could have as much valuable truth, it would be very fine for me! 🙂
I made a kind of survey, questioning the reason of the opinions of others but it has been taken first as an attempt to make the other wrong while it was at the very first place about to be able to wildly evaluate the scene for myself knowing I will get certainty any way only by my own observation. But some started to say I was just trying to justify the (just possible for me) lies of Ron (both on hus carrier or the state of Clear).
Thanks for having granted me of a true constructive and useful communication of you, dear Maria.
Chris, do you speak of the Sea-Org while Ron was on the lines or/and after?
What lies are you specifically talking about Ron? Please.
idealgoal: What lies are you specifically talking about Ron? Please.
Chris: The ones in the OP.
You mean that the state of Clear has not been achieved as stated in the Book1?
Idealgoal: “You mean that the state of Clear has not been achieved as stated in the Book1?”
Chris: OP = The Original Post of this thread that you are writing on.
Reply to Chris 2013.03.18 22:44.
Yes, Chris, and Geir says it refers to the Book1 definition of Clear.
So, would it mean that all is lie in this bulletin for you? as you look to not want to differentiate any specific lie in it…
idealgoal, do you ever were in the Sea Org ?
Yes and no: I have worked in the Sea-Org has helper and even made 90% of the EPF. The funny things to know is that I’ve been routed out as “slow studient” while without study the Ethics Books in the Academy I have answerred to the checlist of the Ethics Course for Sea-Org, directly and had my pass! Lol But yes, I was long on the Sea-Org Member Hat while I was making cognitions to cognitions (hehe, to organize my cognitions about links I saw between Personal Org Board, Dynamics took me sometime on a large piece of paper 😉 but I had spotted a misstranslation on a tape of these course and looks to me I get unreal for the present staff, and funny enough to, the course had been suppressed of the EPF…). I’ve worked to with Sea-Orgs on the Renovation Project of AOSH EU & AF in Copenhagen and managed unofficially SO members time to time.
May I ask you rafael why you asked me this question?
Note: This bring me to remember that one of my biggest problem in life was to be able to see and understand what “others” were hardly able to do and that only years after time give me reason. In between I’m used to be the follish for those who can differenciate enough. ( I came in Scientology with 155 of IQ and has studied sciences and philosophy since my body was still very little but I was too a down to heart specialied in fixing MEST).
Idealgoal, you seem to be one of those people who is too unusual to fit in with the “normal” and perhaps superior in many ways but the “normal” can’t see it. I have known people who had that experience. It seems that Ron was one of those people too so he learned “to tell the lesser story” about himself.
May I ask what you meant by “specialized in fixing MEST”?
Lol! Looks to me you’ve very “it’s a” a good “item” in me, dear marildi! 😉
To pay my study time I had trained me has electrician and plumber and I’m specialized in fixing, repairing installations or the bad work of others. I’m peticular skill to fix what others couldn’t fix; would it be because I spot sometimes “the real why”? 😉
Since body 11 I wanted to be an engineer to bring with my creations some specific services and facilities for Mankind. I have refused to make classic studies directly at 16 and choiced first to train me as apprentice “on site” to be able to be both “down to earth” and mostly intellectual able of the highest abstractions (like to correct few encyclopedia and a 1443 pages dictionary, all about mathematics). But always my studies were about some use for The Greatest interest. 🙂 But about MEST I feel able to do near any kind of MEST or fixe it, even I practiced cooking at 16 before becoming apprentice in construction. And when I’ve practiced back cooking for Sea-Org Members, they no more wanted to let me go 😉
Didier, I loved reading about your experiences – which did not surprise me at all!
You reminded me of something very interesting that LRH said (in a lecture, I think). He said that you could actually know the state of case of someone by the condition of his car or some other piece of machinery – since their case will affect their machines. Some people can make something mechanical work practically by just being near it, and for others an apparatus will break down by their mere presence.
And when it comes to repairing or fixing things, those of a higher state of case will “know” what’s wrong and how to fix it – in the usual way, via the physical universe, or even as a thetan. I have a friend who is OT V, and one time her husband was on a plane that she perceived had something wrong with the engine. There was no time to do anything but operate as a thetan and get “into” the engine and fix what was wrong. Amazing, isn’t it?
I don’t know exactly which category you are in but I’m sure it is above the “normal”. 🙂
Well, I know about an OT definition been cause on MEST too… 😉
Any way, many people in the construction community has these kind of skills because we need to make the real things go right and our work is like certainly in a few degree, like Ojectives. But true that so many times I have succeed to fix a mest problem by pure postulate, the kind: it is you or me! Lol or more simpler our pure classic attention or even Affinity and Communication, telepathic or real. Like when I don’t see the outpoint to put more light increase my body perception do my level of communication. To just “be” the thing and take its viewpoints in a way. To imagine the right move I want the MEST does ideally, had helped me much times to obtain it 🙂 One very funny was in a scientologist school in Paris no one had succeed to make work a dishwashing or a washing-machine (despite OT Levels around) and I’ve just address myself to it, sending to it much Affinity (I was about to say “her” for the machine! Lol) and just cared of “her” so, like carefully cleaning her. And what do you know, I’ve just pushed the botton and she started 🙂
For the Success Story you talk about about a plane and an attested OT Level, for me it is what would be the common thing an experience for any of us, having or not attested an OT Level. Can’t stop to think to these testimonies of OTs in the 25 years ago at least where one could stop time to save someone on the other side of a bridge while otherwise hu wouldn’t have time to move hus body up to there.
Idealgoal: “Like when I don’t see the outpoint to put more light increase my body perception do my level of communication. To just ‘be’ the thing and take its viewpoints in a way. To imagine the right move I want the MEST does ideally, had helped me much times to obtain it 🙂
Wow, very interesting how you describe your method of operation. I imagine you are familiar with the book Scn 8-8008, in which LRH points out that direct perception – being the object (rather than using logic to find out about it) – is the most complete way to KNOW an object. (I can give you the quote if you would like.) And of course when you say that you “imagine the right move I want the MEST does ideally”, that certainly does sound like making a postulate and having the ability to make that postulate “stick” – which I believe relates directly to a high tone level, the higher the frequency is the more power the postulate has.
I’m curious what you meant where you said that you “put more light”, unless it just means you increased your intention to pervade the object and be it. Anyway, this may be something that is hard to express with words because words belong to the physical universe. Btw, don’t worry about your English. We can always ask you to re-phrase any part we didn’t get. Besides, your English will get lots of practice on blog discussions and will get better and better. I’ve definitely seen this occur with other posters whose first language isn’t English.
From what I remember of an earlier comment of yours you have studied science. I’m very curious if you have studied much of quantum physics and if you relate postulates and affinity to the Higgs field. And whatever other ideas you may have about quantum physics as it relates to Scientology concepts, including the as-ising of charge (energy).
Great story about the washing machine. And it was funny that you almost called it “her”. That reminded me how ships and other machines are often called “she”. Maybe it has something to do with the yin and yang balances going on between the guys and the “her”. 🙂
L Ron Hubbard wrote:
Do you know if L Ron Hubbard ever corrected any of these?
Alanzo
It was at the most wishful thinking of hubbard’s … you can see it from the results and all of the confused people even after OT VII AND VIII which were suppose to be “higher than buddhas”,
you may be familiar with the case of three OT VIII’s completions that were totally disappointed with the results they regretted all the money and time wasted: Maria Pia Gardini ,Michael Pattinson and Ariane Jackson…you can read their own stories on the web how they still got very sick and felt worse than even before doing scientology…. that shows that “enlightenment” can not be taught or sold… mind speculates and intellect fails… to my point of view, a mystic poet or sadhu understands life easier than a scientist can…just my point of view as valid as any one.
Anjani, you refer to CoS products, could you please read the letters of succes of scientologists outside of the church? Read their testimonies and care of their reality please?
Thank you idealgoal 🙂
We seem to share the same reality.
For a second there I thought I was on ESMB. My God, the bitterness.
Don’t confuse bitterness with integrity. You may come with a lot of justifications for why things are the way they are about scientology, but I can guarantee you that you’re going to fail in the end, because the subject as a whole is simply indefensible. But you can enjoy inventing those justifications as it’s certainly a creative discipline. I came through that phase long ago.
Profant, as I said the tech is working for me and my family. You really think I am going to stop driving a car if I find out the guy inventing the first one was a murderer?
I understand that the tech did not work for you and I am sorry for that, and I am sorry that you failed. But please, that is YOU not me.
You got it totally wrong. The tech worked for me. I’m not invalidating your gains, or anybody’s for that matter, but that doesn’t mean that I will just cheer how awesome scientology is. If you take enough care and integrity to look for the real reason of the total mess today, it will ultimately lead you to the Hubbard’s work. COB is just a big apparency. Although scientology in the freezone may be better (that really depends on the individual group or auditor), things are not just perfect there either. I could’ve kept my mouth shut and just go for auditing because it worked for me, but I didn’t because I saw lies taught around me and things I couldn’t agree with.
Kin: “You really think I am going to stop driving a car if I find out the guy inventing the first one was a murderer?”
Me: I used the same type of metaphor to bring my point across. But, the metaphor is not really a metaphor at all. I will give you a better one:
“You really think I am going to stop my diet if I find out the guy inventing it ended up weighing 300 pounds?”
I would like to give an answer too.
It would depend on whether or not the guy actually followed his own diet, and on whether or not others who followed it did get uniformly good results.
The metaphor I used was regarding profant’s comment on integrity not LRH. It indicated to me that he feels that because I can’t give a hoot about the doings of LRH and use LRH tech that I have no or little integrity. I have used this metaphor to indicate to him that I am not going to start to walk instead of driving because the guy that discovered the car is a murderer as my integrity is on the line.
An even better metaphor: “Do you really think I am going to stop my diet while loosing weight and feeling great even after discovering the guy inventing it ended up weighing 300 pounds”.
anjani108: just my point of view as valid as any one.
Chris: yes it is.
Here is a quotation from PAB 93, from 24 July 1956, just two days after the the bulletin Geir quoted in the OP.
“Is there any other way we are affected by the psychoanalyst? Yes. The psychoanalyst and various mental practitioners have not conducted themselves ethically in this society. The psychoanalyst, the psychologist, and the psychiatrist have been guilty of not delivering.
Whatever may be said about Dianetics and Scientology, whatever may be said about me or my enthusiasm, I can assure you that we and I have delivered. We mean what we say when we write down in a summary of case histories that we cured so many cases of so-and-so, and we alleviated so many cases of such and such; we are not guilty of anything but what we actually did.
We are guilty occasionally in misinterpreting exactly how we achieved these alleviations. A case in point is in 1947 when I was using a recall method which rehabilitated the confidence of the person to face his pictures. This brought about a cessation of his stimulus-response mechanisms in their entirety, and so created a clear. Even by the time Book One had come along some of this technology (because it wasn’t properly understood) had been forgotten or overlooked. But later on it was rehabilitated and brought to the fore, and it is in full use at this time.
We have said we would deliver so-and-so and we are delivering so-and-so, and those things which we have intended to deliver and have not yet delivered we still intend to deliver and will continue to strive down to the last thought wave to accomplish.
Our efforts and activities are sincere. There has never been a more sincere group on the face of Earth than those who are in the ranks of Dianetics and Scientology. These people can be trusted. You can go to almost any person practicing Dianetics and Scientology and receive some part of the benefit inherent in these subjects. He will try, he will try decently and he will make the best changes he can accomplish take place in your case. This is more true than ever today with our new programs of indoctrination and training, and I would say that in a relatively short time the totality of result to be obtained from Dianetics and Scientology will be obtainable from each and every properly certified practitioner throughout the world.”
The piece is entitled “A Critique of Psychoanalysis.” It is very long so I have only excerpted the section that is pertinent to what I see going on, for I think it sets the stage for for what happens later.
In the PAB, he outlines the faults of psychoanalysis, faults that have now been acknowledged as faults by current mainstream psychology: Freudian emphasis on libido, evaluation, invalidation, unclear procedures, lack of testing or methodology, just to name a few of them. He pushes hard on the issue of billing people for psychoanalytic techniques that were never demonstrated to do anything for anyone, and the use of drugs and invasive techniques like shock and lobotomy, which cause irreversible damage.
He refers to his “enthusiasm,” and then goes on to explain that the results WERE obtained but not always repeated successfully in the hands of others. So clearly he doesn’t see his claims as lies, he sees them as truth because they once happened or happened in a number of instances, the only problem being getting them to happen all the time on a consistent basis by any practitioner under any condition.
In the article he attributes any failures to:
– a misinterpretation of how results were achieved when they were achieved
– dropping out of successful procedures or failure to recognize their importance
– problems in training practitioners to consistently deliver results
(note: this is essentially KSW)
Two days before this, in the bulletin Geir quoted, he notes that Nibs and Herbie Parkhouse are experienced enough to get the results he claims but that others who do not have minute comprehension and skill with Dianetics procedures will not be able to produce them. He also notes that the procedures even in experienced hands can be expected to take upwards of 50 hours. This particular bulletin was limited issue. The public of the time and field auditors never saw this issue.
In the PAB I’ve quoted from, he then goes on to explain how Dianetics and Scientology practitioners are sincere, and how one can expect to get at least SOME OF THE BENEFITS inherent in these subjects. Then he says that this is getting better with better training.
He adds that the work will continue until the totality of the benefits can be obtained by any practitioner – “and will continue to strive down to the last thought wave to accomplish.”
He says in the PAB: “There has never been a more sincere group on the face of Earth than those who are in the ranks of Dianetics and Scientology. These people can be trusted.”
And that was the truth. In fact, I would say it was true of Alanzo and his staff and of me and my staff, and true of most of the people who took staff positions over the next 50 years. We did do our best and we really did want the best for our students and preclears, and we gave our hearts and souls to giving our best. And we did get lots of wins and gains for lots of people, including ourselves. We were faced with a massive drop off rate, and very few people even getting through to the top of the bridge. We could only assume that those that made it through to the top did indeed get the results they dreamed of, because of the “no talk about case” rule, which prevented us from knowing that they didn’t.
But we were given impossible standards to work to. Standards we believed were true and doable. Standards like:
– An amazing array of promised Clear and OT abilities, professed in the many books we sold and in the lectures we listened to but carefully noted as “research only” in our enrollment forms.
– Continual and amazing expansion of our Missions and Orgs, if we could just apply policy like playing the piano despite any crazy orders from LRH or management such as price hikes.
– Carrying out objectives as the supreme test of a thetan, coupled with in-ethics and ruthless application of conditions and ethics procedures to statistics would see us flying with success.
We were told if we couldn’t do this, we were a) out-ethics, b) poor students c) had MUs, d) were PTS, e) degraded f) not dedicated, g) SP, h) critical, i) not big beings, j) low-toned, k) banky, l) personally unaudited m) ill-intended, n) not fit for staff, etc.
And of course, we were PTS if we thought that critics were anything but criminal, SP or PTS, carriers of lies and deceit with a underlying evil purpose to enslave and destroy and balk our every effort towards decency and immortality. We were never privy to the actual actions of LRH, the GO, and the SO to silence those critics. We were never privy to the information that has been released on the Internet since 2000.
Yes, we were sincere. And that sincerity is why we exited and it is what brought us to blogs like this one and to posts like the ones I have made on this and other blogs.
Thanks again for, looks to me, very sincere testimony.
The problem with it, IMO, is that you only refers to CoS scientology, not of the results and ARC you could find out of CoS.
What about Ron’s Orgs cases and results? Or indies, like De La Carriere (Auditor and C/S Clas XII)?
You know, I have no problem with those guys. They are sincere. They don’t over promise. And they do not support LRH’s nonsense — the freezone site has a great deal of information that exposes the nonsense.
If Scientology processing has any future, it will be in the independent / freezone domain where free speech is NOT suppressed and people are willing to read something LRH said and say, damn that’s a pile of malarkey.
Consider Dexter Gelfand, for example — he does what he does with the technology he has learned and has no problem calling a spade a spade. His is the first post in this thread. He remarks, in response to what do we call it: Lie-entology?
Yet he uses the best of what he knows of the technology to offer the best he can for the people who come to him. That is as it should be.
And he doesn’t face having some Church or even LRH bad-mouthing him because he acts with integrity.
I would also add that it was OUR sincerity that the public people trusted. We really did intend to do well by them. And they knew it. And what did work in Scientology worked because of that.
When I learned of the betrayals of the values I held, values of sincerity, of truthfulness, of forthrightness, of honesty, and integrity by the GO and SO and ultimately by LRH, I was LIVID with rage. People relied on MY sincerity and integrity. They trusted ME to do the right thing, to be honest with them. And they became involved, not because of what LRH said, but because of what I reported I had found out.
Then they were taught that a critic was a critic because of evil intentions. That would be me, the very person they trusted when they decided to become involved. They no longer trusted me when I said there was something wrong because they had shifted their trust to LRH and the Church. But I was always worthy of trust, and I never lied to them. But it was too late.
I left because I absolutely REFUSED to forward such activity and I refused to be the front-line “dupe.”
The last friend I introduced to Scientology nearly 40 years ago recently exited the Sea Org. Crushed, decimated and cowed. He cried in my arms, cried and cried and cried, and fully expected that I would judge him and not want anything to do with him for his evil act of leaving the Sea Org. Fully expected I would hold him in contempt and see him as a degraded being. It has taken him some time now to pick up a little self respect, even now I can barely get him to speak of that which he experienced, even now he is ashamed.
Maria: The last friend I introduced to Scientology nearly 40 years ago recently exited the Sea Org. Crushed, decimated and cowed. He cried in my arms, cried and cried and cried, and fully expected that I would judge him and not want anything to do with him for his evil act of leaving the Sea Org. Fully expected I would hold him in contempt and see him as a degraded being. It has taken him some time now to pick up a little self respect, even now I can barely get him to speak of that which he experienced, even now he is ashamed.
Chris: POWERFUL and real — Tears form and nothing to say.
Maria : When I learned of the betrayals of the values I held, values of sincerity, of truthfulness, of forthrightness, of honesty, and integrity by the GO and SO and ultimately by LRH, I was LIVID with rage. People relied on MY sincerity and integrity. They trusted ME to do the right thing, to be honest with them.
Well said. I’m sorry to hear of your friend but looks like you will see him through it 🙂
He’s getting there. Slowly. It doesn’t help that his son is still in the Sea Org. So on top of his own pain is his own agony about the fate of his son and the hope that if he can just find a way to him he can help him to exit to. He looks through that rear view mirror where everything becomes so clear and realizes that he is now the “bad guy” to his own son. His current state is amplified by his own sense of regret on how he raised his son and what he taught him to believe in.
Maria: “His current state is amplified by his own sense of regret on how he raised his son and what he taught him to believe in.”
Chris: “Every hiccup in my oldest daughter experienced in life has and made me wince because of what I ‘put her through’ in the SO. That may be the longest road to healing. Kindness and patience is required but needing that kindness and patience to come from a wounded veteran can be a tall order. Regardless, the healing takes years no matter anyone’s hype to the contrary.
Does PTSD ring a bell? “Post-traumatic stress disorder is a type of anxiety disorder. It can occur after you’ve seen or experienced a traumatic event that involved the threat of injury or death.”
I think threat of losing one’s eternal salvation qualifies.
Chris: Does PTSD ring a bell? “Post-traumatic stress disorder is a type of anxiety disorder. It can occur after you’ve seen or experienced a traumatic event that involved the threat of injury or death.”
I think threat of losing one’s eternal salvation qualifies.
I did some study on the subject but hadn’t thought of losing eternal salvation, but it certainly can qualify.
deE: I did some study on the subject but hadn’t thought of losing eternal salvation, but it certainly can qualify.
Chris: My wife will attest to the rehabilitation that I’ve experienced on this subject. Though blinded and crippled by shrapnel injuries to the hip and spine, I nevertheless worked my way back to . . . Oh wait. That wasn’t me. Nevertheless I have come back from a weird condition of some sort over the past 8 years or so. It went very slowly in the beginning but picked up speed as I went along.
When I was excommunicated from COS, I counted on the ethics door being left open a crack as long as I didn’t do any further suppressive acts such as squirrel in any form whatsoever, etc.,. I maintained this partition of my life for 15 years and though I worked and functioned and paid taxes and so forth, I was operating in a crippled way emotionally and I acted out my drama in various sundry and unsavory ways. It was at the end of this period of “the bear” spirit living in me that I began to slowly wake up and to come back to the living. Picking up the cans of a field auditor was for me a fearful moment since at that moment when my auditor said, “This is the session,” I knew my connection to COS and my OT levels were severed forever. My eternal salvation had been forfeit.
Thanks, Maria.
Alanzo
You’re welcome!
The 3 cognitive dissonance reduction strategies are:
(1) reduce the importance of one or the other conflicting beliefs,
(2) add more non-conflicting beliefs so they outweigh the conflicting beliefs,
(3) change the conflicting beliefs so that they are no longer inconsistent and conflicting.
Who can spot these cognitive dissonance reduction strategies in this discussion?
Can you spot any new ones?
For More information:
http://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
Alanzo
I think I am really burned out on PR / Marketing. I see this new term “cognitive dissonance” and just sigh. Another buzzword. Like the “cloud” on the Internet.
How about just plain old reasoning and intelligence with integrity?
Sound reasoning is the result of careful and thoughtful analysis of opinions and facts. It is important to recognize that a component of reasoning is shifting one’s assessment of the relative quality of information and having the integrity to recognize unsupported or incorrect information. This is an ongoing process and is seldom black and white. Many factors enter in on the assessment and some of those factors include one’s own beliefs, hopes, alliances, emotional responses, experiences and perceptions. Every effort should be made to progress towards a more integrated and truthful view of existence and events, while maintaining one’s own point of view.
Reason: act or process of thinking logically
Intelligence: understanding, power of discerning; art, skill, taste; comprehension
Integrity: soundness, wholeness
It simply isn’t just a matter of changing beliefs. It is working with a constellation of beliefs, information, experience, perceptions, loyalties, self-preservation issues, emotional responses / states, hopes and fears.
It sounds so simple and yet it is not so simple when one is working with the prospect of shifting one’s personal conditions and states. I would suspect most people simply shrug their shoulders and go to back their work, pleasures and relationships, shoving all of this into a box labeled — someday I will figure this out, but for now, I’m doing okay. Seems like this comes to the fore when there is a crash and burn.
Maria: Reason: act or process of thinking logically
Intelligence: understanding, power of discerning; art, skill, taste; comprehension
Integrity: soundness, wholeness.
There ya go, relates to me. Seems a lot of people like the “cognitive dissonance”. I, like you, “sigh” with it, even tho understand it.
Dianetics was born of a lie – the “Allied Scientists of the World” mail fraud scam Hubbard was running prior to and for some time after the Astounding Science Fiction article. The most obvious lie in Dianetics is Hubbard’s claim to have healed war injuries, but there are other, more pernicious lies scattered throughout the text. The lie which seems to persist longest for Scientology’s adherents is that there is such a thing as an Engram, as defined by Hubbard. The precept for the Engram was debunked in the early 1950s by a scientific study carried out with Hubbard’s cooperation under the aegis of the University of New York. Today, in 2013, the findings of that study remain intact because in the ensuing 60 years there has not been a single verifiable fact presented which challenges it. Accordingly, since Engrams do not exist, the Reactive Mind does not exist and nor is it possible for the state of Clear to exist. You can also forget about obtaining any of the abilities claimed, including total recall. In fact, never mind the hyperbole: a second scientific study also carried out in the 1950s at the University of New York with Hubbard’s cooperation, proved that Dianetic processing ” . . . does not effect any significant changes in intellectual functioning, mathematical ability, or the degree of personality conflicts . . . ” Again, there has not been a single verifiable fact presented which challenges that finding. (No, success stories / anecdotes are not verifiable facts, as required by science, which is why Scientology masquerades as a religion. Well, that and the tax benefits.)
As it happens, I would love for there to be Engrams, and a Reactive Mind, and the state of Clear. They are such appealing ideas, as is the the reassurance that spiritual development is simply a matter of following the path laid down by a musician, writer, nuclear scientist and war hero, a being as mighty as Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha. How wonderful it would be to expose my true, splendid spiritual nature by peeling off the occluded effects of glorious beings who lost themselves in the joy of playing games forgotten eons ago. Imagine soaring about the universe without the hindrance of a physical body. Imagine healing those we love, and even those who don’t really desrve it but whom we chose to help anyway. Oh, what sort of new world might we have if all humanity were to cease their detrimental foibles and wasting their lives acting out the “scientifically proven” aberrations controlling their consciousness. What art could be created, what scientific frontiers could be crossed, and how swiftly might our global woes vanish if we all operated across all dynamics?
But no. Such notions are deliberately implanted only to distract from the inherent, basic-basic fallacies which underpin them. The only way to control people is to lie to them, Hubbard once said, immediately before lying to the very people he was addressing.
Crepuscule: ” . . . But no. Such notions are deliberately implanted only to distract from the inherent, basic-basic fallacies which underpin them. . . ”
Chris: Hard hitting post.
Crepuscule: “presented which challenges that finding. (No, success stories / anecdotes are not verifiable facts, as required by science, ”
This statement show me that you are a scam yourself or you know nothing about science and scientific methodology, or you say that economy and sociology are not sciences themselve while they use surveys on people.
So the question is: what is your purpose when you consciously ignore the existing numerous testimonies of scientologists winning the expected abilities they have paid for?…
No. Anecdotal evidence is not scientific evidence unless it is done with the right statistical tools in a controlled environment.
Dear, why do you call thousands of testimonies “anecdotic”?
But yes and no, history and sociology can base there researches not on supervised and in laboratry surveys. But yes, statistic tools are what I was talking about.
You really need to study up on the scientific method before you continue this line of discussion.
Consider this; There are many times more success stories that will testify that Christianity is the only road to salvation, or Islam, or , or, or. Are they all absolutely right? What about the success stories from psychiatry? Do they count?
Again, why aren’t you differentiating between letters of succes which refers most often on specific wins and large evaluation of an activity.
Any way, even these last evaluations are valid for what they are: opinions. Surveyving opinions can be in the work of a sociologist and at least of survey agencies to estimate the best candidat to an election.
But is possible to count and make statitics on success letters and see if they testify for the wins expected from a rundown or any process. What make you not-ising this?
idealgoal: What make you not-ising this?
Chris: Because LRH didn’t make any clears, he didn’t rise above any bank, he invented a religion for profit, and he died alone in a motor home with his ass shot full of drugs for anxiety.
If you say so! I would be curious to see the evidences of. Is that a testimony of someone who thought hu has in interest in fighting the image of the guy? Could yes, could be no! I’m afraid I will really know only as I said already: when I’ll be able to contact these possible incidents. Note that I only fight your assumption only because your asset them as absolute truths and not permiting any other reality or opinion on subject and that I think it is not for our Greatest Good.
No it’s just a statement of facts. Facts that you apparently have not taken the time to research.
idealgoal,
Please take this in the spirit intended, I’d rather you didn’t make a fool of yourself in public. If you continue with this line of response, I fear that is what will happen.
Your posts indicate that it is you that does not understand scientific method whereas Crepuscle does. I could describe the method at length but I recommend you instead study what it really is for yourself. Wikipedia has some good articles, just search for “scientific method”.
Anecdotal evidence makes very poor evidence outisde of soft socail studies. Here’s an example (exaggerated for effect):
Theory: There exists fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Observation against: All the adults in my house state they have never seen a fairy at the bottom of the garden.
Observation for: My 11 year old daughter swears blind she once saw a fairy at the bottom of the garden right next to a mushroom.
Inconclusive observation: My 16 year old son responds “Huh? Dude, like, whatever.”
Conclusion: Rejecting the 16 year old’s response as an anomaly, there is a 33% chance that there indeed are fairies at the bottom of my garden.
Ahem, OK then. That’s how *wrong* opinion surverys can go.
Well, of course I’m about epistemology dince 30 years around and I discussed on sociolgy, enthology and anthropology since my body was 16 years old, having realations and discutions with the highest level of ingineer in France (Polytechnique) multipled Doctors and even directly with a Nobel Price, but yes I fo not know about scientific methodology! What a jocke! I mind need who has outpoints here and try to justify them! I let you play alone your little game!
Please watch your line of argument. Attacking the other person with statements like “your little game” is frowned upon. And we don’t want me frowning 😉
But it would be OK to state “I would let you play alone your game”, leaving out the one word ‘little’, right?
Whooa! 🙂
I think it would be interesting to hear what “going clear” has actually meant to people who have experienced it. Apparently it’s not what LRH said it would be. What is it then? And to hear it in your own words, not “Ron says in PAB/HCOB/HCO PL/FO” whatever. What’s the difference in life, if any, pre and post clear?
Yes dear seth, I think you come to something here: making evaluations on specific surveys of what it is to be Clear today (out of CoS of course 😉 ).
I think that all the justifications given to Ron’s writing in this thread, where they appear, should in all fairness, be given to all critics also. My nickel! 🙂
deE: I think that all the justifications given to Ron’s writing in this thread, where they appear, should in all fairness, be given to all critics also. My nickel! 🙂
Chris: Worth more than that!
Is there a “reactive mind”. There is certainly a mind. A mind that thinks it is an individual. Do people react based on the contents of this mind? I’d say that yes, they do. This idea of a Clear is based on the idea of a reactive mind – there is no such animal. To remove ALL reactivity would be to straighten out ALL such sources of reactivity in one’s mind. This is not something that has been done by doing the lower grades and NED OR the alternate route. Sorry it just has not been done. Clear like OT is a hypothetical state envisioned by Hubbard.
I attested to the “State of Clear” in 1989. What did I achieve that led me to do so? Seeing that I was keeping/creating mental junk. Did this seeing put me at cause over it? Unfortunately, no. Had I handled all the contents of my mind? Hell no. The processes do do something. I got a lot from doing the grades. But I have yet to see 1 OT, that is a being that can operate without a body. Not 1 and I seriously doubt that CBR’s (Ron’s Org) bridge to OT 48 has made 1 OT either. If there is such an OT from doing Hubb’s or Captian Bill’s bridge, please do drop in and let me and everyone else know.
As for the OP, it’s hype. Typical of Hubbard from day 1.
While reading RO succes letter looks to me they do.
Speaking with a Clear 20 years ago, yes he could! (Operate without his body)
So, why this difference between my and your reality?
The end phenomenon for Clear is now: A being who no longer has his own reactive mind.
That is what people in the Church of Scientology have attested to since 1985.
[http://www.scientologymyths.info/definitions/gradechart.gif]
To attest to clear they must complete the confidential clear certainty rundown that ensures that they no longer have their own reactive mind and that they have had the confidential clear cognition.
Good to know that, dear Maria, but some here speaked about such abilities about Clears they could not have; I just given counter-examples. But yes, I do understand that the curent CoS definition of Clear at least doesn’t say anything directly on the abilities of a Clear. Very thanks for your specifications, dear Maria.
Speaking? What did you SEE him do that shows it? Did he levitate any objects? Seriously idealgoal, you’ll have to do better than that to even begin to make a convincing argument. Or was your friend standing there using his human body’s mouth as he told you of these abilities to operate without a body? Or did the words just appear out of the air or perhaps telepathicly inside your own head?
I can SAY all sorts of things and also make all sorts of claims. If a person does not ask for any proof and just accepts my statements as fact because my statements align with his fixed ideas then that person has been lied to and doesn’t even know it.
Freebeing, if you were as freely spiritually than few beings I’ve know in and outside scientology, you would have no need of mest proof to know I’m not lying. But I can understand that only being a body (near like me saddly enough! :/) you still need physical “via” / medium, to know.
AS I’ve notice already yesterday: it is a very well old espistemological and logical principle that “the absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence”.
But I do very undertsand that you could feel the need of material evidences of what I have testified, no problem with this.
idealgoal: ” if you were ”
Chris: starts your argument in a fallacious way.
Chris: Well, you don’t look to me better to able* to “know” without a body. You couldn’t* know yourself if I was lying or not, but sorry, I can know it myself and if yours or the statement doesn’t fit with this reality, it is about the integrity to say the things as we see them; right? So, the one who accuse me to be a liar without to know really is a liar himself in hus present way. And yes, if hu can’t know that I don’t lie here, he just don’t know and it is just what I said! (* Well, I would correct to be fair: you CAN know both of you, but obviously hu didn’t succeed to know or was not willing to know and to check directly in the Theta universe; right?).
freebeing
“did this seeing put me at cause over it?” While reading this comment, WHO is reading (perceiving) it?
WHO is understanding it? WHO is going to create a thought and then write it down for me?
Dear Marianne, you looks to me the thetan having of of the deepest understanding and “knowingness” about Theta and having on of the nicest ARC with few others. May I communicate with you privately, I would like you could help me but don’t to make other too much grazy about my realities here. Is there a way for personal messages here?
idealgoal
‘Is there a way for personal messages here”. Sure. If you can “make others crazy” by that, it’s their next learning lesson to confront. If it gets “too crazy” (?), Geir will decide upon that.
Is it OK for you?
Thanks for your answer, dear Marianne.
Well, I’m far to be a perfect being and I’m afraid the reality I wanted to communicate to you would too much restimulate around and make a very mess or at least avoid me for any chance of quite communication here or other places (I’ve found it already messy enough these days! Lol). It’s just very personal and can very be about weakness of I and I would not see the to benefit to expose them here on a public line of communication, while I didn’t see any one here or around having exposed humself to this point; so no, Dear Marianne, it is “unreal” for me what you propose to me.
idealgoal
Write an email then : flow0888@gmail.com Any of you who is blogging here is welcome!
Is that a better way for you to speak to me?
Very Thanks Marianne 🙂 Yes, I think it should be a better one! ML, Didier.
Elizabeth
Where are you? Just an instant thought: your “example” pretty much fits the definition of total “recall”….even more…way more…..what do you say to this?
For me the exact place, time and event equals as-is-ing. Truth (= theta) and knowingness.
This “knowingness” can “create” back by ability what was as-ised but why should it?
Please correct me if my view of it is wrong…..
Marianne: Truth (= theta) and knowingness.
Spyros: Marianne, ‘Basic Truth’, ‘Static’, ‘Theta’, YOU, are not knowingness. Knowingness is a latter action. It mean to know exactly what you create –but directly, as Static. Not through a body nor through an additional point of view. Not through estimation, evaluation etc
Marianne: This “knowingness” can “create” back by ability what was as-ised but why should it?
Spyros: You are it. You can do it. If you make something disappear, you can make it appear again. You are free to do so, unless you think otherwise.
🙂
Spyros: Knowingness is a latter action
Spyros: Sorry, with the definition of “potential to know” yes you are knowingness. My bad :p
Dianetics and Scientology are full of alterations –yes, lies. They are not just full of it, they are lies in themselves.
Imagine a person whos thinking is full of considerations (altered as-isness). How can you approach him? You need to talk to him in a way that he will understand you. You talk in considerations too, then.
Most people consider that they are lambs of God and the Jesus will is their will, or that they are products of mother nature and that (again) dont have any will of their –it is all some instict automaticity created by God-knows-what. How can you make this guy more free? You need to approach him somehow.
For me, there are no minds and nobody can be the effect of mental image pictures. It is all bull… It is all imaginations –mock ups. But what about me 20 years ago? I needed that! I already had considerations about this stuff. It was a bridge for me –from the point that I perceived back then to the point from which I perceive now.
Yes, it was lies, but not with the meaning of dishonesty. Dishonest were the guys that asked from me exchanges that Hubbard never asked from me. They wanted to enslave me because they set me free. And they didn’t even set me a little free. I got much more restimulated that keyed out, with their suppression. But I got an idea what to do next, for myself, independently.
Critics are needed to point this stuff out.
Spyros
The “yes” and the video are meant for your 2013.03-19 at 11:05 and 11:12 comments.
Yes, this one comms better than words 🙂
Yes….watch this….
Geir
You say that YOU can create space and energy…..though it was so 20 years ago too but
were you then aware of this ability and its value? Also, did you have the luxury to decide that you desire or not to practise this ability? Just mentioned…for me it’s not a question that the I AM ME is……..expanding…..very positive!
Marianne: Geir
Spyros: Judging by the content, that was addressed to me 😛
Marianne: You say that YOU can create space and energy…..
Spyros: Well, not just me in specific –everybody. If it matters to you, Ron said what ones ability to perceive is equilevant to his ability to create.
Marianne: …..though it was so 20 years ago too but
were you then aware of this ability and its value? Also, did you have the luxury to decide that you desire or not to practise this ability?
Spyros: I had some awareness, but I also created other considerations, so no I didn’t have full control. I knew I could imagine full movies (wherein I was starring 😛 ) for my own entertainment, and to do it fully at will. As years passed my ability to imagine deteriorated and it was replaced by memories.
I still create considerations, but not about the mind. Those memories, were mere imaginations of past experiences.
Spyros
HaHaHa….there will come the day when we all will be aware of our Oneness and also the rule of happy living: You can play but only with Yourself! ( this could be expressed better, though)
Spyros
The 12:26 comment was addressed to Geir! That you answered it was superb ! now I know more about your views!!
My 13:20 answer was addressed to both of you, actually to all of us as to the one source of Life!
Haha OK. I was having a havingness craving for answers I guess 😛
Marianne: Just mentioned…for me it’s not a question that the I AM ME is……..expanding…..very positive!
Spyros: Can you explain this to me?
I love the song!
Spyros
The “ME” is the Flow (of Life, the Tao, the pure, common source)….this Schiller music for me is one perfect example for that….wouldn’t go into any cognitive details for putting it into words now…..that you say you love it it explains itself……
Hubbard was a man with many faces: Mankind’s best friend, serial philanderer, unsung war hero, brilliant salesman, fugitive from the law for many years, long term drug user, caring friend and cruelly vindictive to all who threatened to expose his lack of integrity.
In short, he was like many of the people who wished to seem larger than life and would stop at nothing to appear that way.
I audited a number of people who were personally attacked by Hubbard and subsequently died through the actions of people acting under his orders. This was long before I read “Going Clear” or “Let’s sell these people A Piece of Blue Sky”.
These two books put the times, places, and events together so that you can examine Hubbard’s self-created legend in intimate detail. They enable you to see the incredible drive that enabled Hubbard to press on through one disappointment after another. They also reveal the incredible duplicity of a man who could write words that would inspire men and women to join his crusade to clear earth while simultaneously plotting to destroy by any means those who had worked with him for years and now disagreed with him.
To get an idea of Hubbard’s ability to compartment his life into conflicting realities, consider the fact that he was writing the final version of Science of Survival in Cuba where he had retreated with his kidnapped daughter Alexis. How does a man write so clearly about behavior at different tone level, when his whole life at that point was a lie?
Hubbard compiled an incredible set of tools for improving the state of man, but there is little evidence that he used them on himself. For the simplest example, how does a man who devised/publicised the KRC triangle which spells out how to improve anything through increasing knowledge, responsibility, and control end up dying alone as a drugged fugitive?
I do not think that Hubbard was able to distinguish between truth and lying, since he espoused truth in almost every public document, but promoted falsehoods in almost every private document.
In more than 36 years of experience with Scientology, I have helped myself and others to achieve happier lives so I can state with confidence that there are nuggets of pure gold buried in the pain and perversion that is the current church of Scientology. They are almost buried in the many contradictions created by Hubbard, but they can be found with diligent searching.
I have been assembling a workable technology out of the wreckage of the cult of Scientology and have been using it successfully for several years to help those who escaped the cult influence. You can read about it at workabletechnology.com
David St. Lawrence: “. . . I have been assembling a workable technology out of the wreckage of the cult of Scientology and have been using it successfully for several years to help those who escaped the cult influence.”
Chris: Wonderful post. Rooted in reality — very satisfying to read a balanced look at a complex man. Thank you for your thoughtful share.
David St. Lawrence,
I too say that your evaluation of Hubbard and scientology is very honest and impartial.
You call a spade a spade. You as-is.
Your words are a breath of fresh air.
I have also been saying a very similar things as you for yrs and I get blasted more often than not.
The good is good and the bad is bad.
Most people in scn are not honest enough or competent enough to form an honest balanced viewpoint of Hubbard and scn.
One valuable piece of data that Hubbard said: Any datum is only as good as it has been evaluated. .
That is similar to; any idea is only as good as it works.
and nothing is true unless it is proven to be true.
Dio
Hey David Saint Lawrence –
I know for a fact that you have helped people with Scientology because I have seen it first hand. I believe that you are one of the many good guys I knew who were attracted to Scientology and always tried to use it for good.
But, based on your long experience with Scientology, I have a question for you.
Given all the booby-traps and lies and outright brainwashing that Hubbard put into Scientology, only a person with decades of experience – and lots of personal damage from getting caught up in the bad parts of Scientology – can recognize where Scientology’s dangers are.
I believe that Scientology was constructed this way intentionally by Hubbard.
So how can you promote or recommend Scientology to new people who do not have the decades of experience (and damage) that you have had with it?
Knowing what you know, isn’t that irresponsible of you?
This is a sincere question, although it may feel like an attack.
I believe that this is a very important question given the destructive reality that both you and I have experienced, and many others are presently facing.
So, with all that you know about Scientology, how can you promote Scientology to new people responsibly?
Alanzo
Alanzo: “So, with all that you know about Scientology, how can you promote Scientology to new people responsibly?”
Alan: This is not a new question, it has been asked many times about many things through the ages about almost every new technology that comes along. And no-one ever has a proper complete answer.
The fellows on the Manhattan Project had to ask it of the nuclear fission research they were doing. It can make bombs. It can make power stations. What to do?
The only real answer I can think of is that one must strive to use new technology responsibily himself, do all one can to get others to do the same; and at some point you have to let it go and let everyone else also play with the new toy.
Humankind has this knack for weathering the storms and coming out of the turmoil of new stuff anyway. Yes, Scientology can be used destructively. So can TNT, the Internet and jet engines.
I have a question for you Alanzo – seeing as Hubbard is long since dead, gone, buried and eaten by worms, he isn’t around to con anyone else. So what problem would you have with everyone else trying to see what good they can get out of what he wrote? Do you trust all the other humans around to spot the good and bad bits and do the right thing (it might take a while to get there though)?
That’s a fair answer.
Splog –
The subject of Scientology, as written in HCOBs, HCOPLs, and hidden Advices, and spoken in taped lectures, is what created the Church of Scientology in the first place, and it continually re-creates it today. Every Churchie – including David Miscavige – looks to the works of L Ron Hubbard to find out how to handle things, get the stats up, and be a Scientologist.
What we see today in the Church of Scientology is literally a manifestation of that.
This all happens even though Hubbard himself died decades ago.
So, just as it does not matter that Mohammed is dead, it does not matter that Hubbard is dead. Scientology, and all religions, are perpetual motion machines for their mosques and churches, creating and re-creating their manifestations in the real world over generations.
So my question still stands – a new person entering Scientology believes that it is the route to sanity and happiness, “Clear” and “OT”. He does not know about the Marty Rathbuns and the Lisa McPhersons, the Jeremy Perkins, the Reed Slatkins or the Rex Fowlers. He does not know the consequences of believing in KSW, Too Gruesomes, Rewards and Penalites, and “Auditing is the Opposite of Hypnosis”.
None of the warnings which should accompany these exist in Scientology.
To the new person this IS the route to sanity, happiness, “Clear” and “OT”.
See the problem?
So knowing problems and utter disasters which result from following L Ron Hubbard’s Scientology, how do you responsibly promote Scientology to new people?
Alanzo
Alanzo: “So knowing problems and utter disasters which result from following L Ron Hubbard’s Scientology, how do you responsibly promote Scientology to new people?”
Fair question. But first, I have no interest in auditing people or starting an organization or furthering Scientology as such. I am interested in anything that improves people’s lives (that’s why my job is helping the internet work – it’s the most powerful communication device humanity has come up with – and it improves people’s lives even though it comes at a price – spam).
So, a hypothetical answer. First thing I’d do is not promote Scientology; I’d can that name and stick it in the bin. Then I wouldn’t hide all the various points of view that are out there, I wouldn’t try get Cooper or Atack’s books banned. I’d be honest and upfront about the major crap that has gone down over the last 63 years and not try hide it. I believe the average person can think for themselves if we all just back off a bit and let them.
But first, people like David would need to distill the baby out of the swimming pool of filthy bathwater, otherwise there’d be nothing worth promoting. Once that is in place it’s time to let people make up their own damn minds. It would be rough in the beginning as folks like you would be eager to point out all the flaws (not necessarily a bad thing) but with some luck any clean babies in there would survive and we’d have a subject worth keeping. One thing we wouldn’t have in the future is Scientology itself – the ship with that name sailed a long time ago but it’s taking a bloody long time to sink.
That’s the best response I can come up with, seeing as the literal answer to your literal question is “I wouldn’t.”
Thanks, Splog.
Awesome answer.
Alanzo
That’s a fair question.
Bingo. That’s why I’m not a scientologist any more.
And I believe that a new “Operation Phoenix” is needed. But this time the workable and constructive must not be pulled into another scientology.
Geir’s working in that direction. I’m trying too. I’ve seen many attempts to utilize the good (together with other workable things). Paul’s robot auditor. Roger Boswarva’s tone scale.
I think all this makes much more sense than promoting old buggy scientology and studying the whole of it in individual search for the gold nuggets.
Profant wrote:
I think all this makes much more sense than promoting old buggy scientology and studying the whole of it in individual search for the gold nuggets.
Yes. I have found that anything good in Scientology acts as BAIT, which is hooked to something bad. Sure that worm looks tasty, and it even IS tasty, BUT IT IS ATTACHED TO A HOOK!
Just as one eventually learns while picking the raisins out of turds – context is everything.
Alanzo
Wonderful analogy 😀 😀 😀
Alanzo: “Sure that worm looks tasty, and it even IS tasty, BUT IT IS ATTACHED TO A HOOK!”
Alan: Would you concede that well-intentioned folks in the future could be quite capable of removing the hook and chucking it away? Along with the line, rod and maybe even the fisherman at the other end?
Just because Hubbard and cohorts got a hook in there doesn’t mean that everyone else has to play that same game.
Splog asked:
Alan: Would you concede that well-intentioned folks in the future could be quite capable of removing the hook and chucking it away? Along with the line, rod and maybe even the fisherman at the other end?
I believe that everyone – as in 99.9% of anyone who ever got involved in Scientology is “well-intentioned”. The real problem lies in the false teachings of Scientology and the attitudes and viewpoints on the subject of the mind that it instills.
For instance, AS AN EXAMPLE, auditing is not the opposite of hypnosis. Any Scientologist I have ever run across believes the Hubbard teaching that hypnosis drives you further and further into unconsciousness and “the bank”, but auditing “wakes you up”.
From one end to the other, this view is false. What’s more, every Scientologist I have ever come across, including Alan Walter and Roger Botswana, believe that IN SESSION is not a hypnotic state and their pcs are not vulnerable to hypnotic suggestion during their auditing.
Almost any actual hypnotist or hypnotherapist is more knowledgeable and more ethical than a Scientology practitioner who believes in Hubbard’s false teachings about the mind as above. Hypnotists KNOW when someone is in a hypnotic state and what will put them there, and they know that a hypnotic state is vulnerable to suggestion and they have well-known safeguards to take precautions against it.
Scientology practitioners, acting on Hubbard’s teachings, HAVE NO CLUE what they are doing with regard to putting their pcs IN SESSION. And they take no precautions against suggestion. I believe that Alan Walter knew this, and did not care, because, just as Hubbard used hypnotic states to make Scientologists vulnerable to suggestion, so did he.
So this example illustrates some of the real problems and dangers that the teachings of Scientology pose – even for its well-intentioned practitioners, let alone the ones like Hubbard who applied Scientology to satisfy his lusts and to enrich himself with a Sea Org filled with somnambulant slaves.
Alanzo
I’ve receive quite some services in the FZ, And while the general tone, overall attitude and results were undoubtedly better than in the Church, I still had to study from materials full of lies (biography, My philosophy a who knows what else), I was given M4 until I didn’t agree with an LRH statement, I was asked with intention why I didn’t want further auditing when I didn’t want to speak about it because the reasons would go directly against the stable data of the deliverers. And the reason is that the people just try to be good scientologists, even with bugs of what being a scientologist brings.
Al, maybe a lot of people, including you, need to re-read, or read for the first time, DMSMH. Because I got it, the first time through, that a pc in session could be in a very suggestible state, DUH!
Why do you think he put “the canceller” patter in there? DUH!
I am just tired of your shoddy distortions and outright reversals of reality, Al. Some would no doubt call them lies, but as we are discussing LRH’s lies, not yours, I’ll abstain. I guess you think lying worked so well for LRH, you’d give it a try yourself?
Valkov,
For clarification, which Al did you direct this to?
Many people call Alanzo by the name Al.
You replied to me, my name is Alan (but I never answer to Al).
Alan, I would never call you “Al”, especially as you don’t answer to it. “Al” is reserved for Allan(Allen?) the Armadillo Alanzo Stanfield.
Thanks
Alan, if it appeared l replied to you instead of Al, it would seem WordPress sometimes works in mysterious ways.
iamvalkov: “Alan, if it appeared l replied to you instead of Al, it would seem WordPress sometimes works in mysterious ways.”
Me: I believe wordpress stops nesting comments after about 5 levels or so, otherwise replies get shifted way over to the right into tiny narrow columns.
I confuses me no end too even after years – I’m still an old-school guy. Emailing lists are my thing 🙂
Alanzo: ” . . . context is everything.”
Chris: My man!
Alonzo, I have great respect for your integrity in speaking out when it was not popular. You have never sugar coated your opinions or engaged in the game of political correctness which is like trying to pick up Scientology by the clean end.
I do not say I am promoting or recommending Scientology or L. Ron Hubbard because Hubbard, and Miscavige, in turn have created a broken brand. What they created is essentially the Yugo of organized religions, only because the decay has not proceeded far enough to recognize its final destination as Jonestown.
My goal is to help create a stable future for the development of workable technology and a network for the delivery of that technology.
At the current time, it appears that an Open Source model offers the best chance of achieving that goal as it can utilize the expertise of thousands of highly trained auditors and executives who are outside the church and have had no opportunity to correct the wrongs they have observed in the past.
Does it matter that LRH did not create scientology from scratch and may have adapted the work of others? Not at all!
What I care is that the technology I experienced as a PC and delivered as an auditor for 20 years produces workable and repeatable results in spite of auditing errors, C/Sing errors and arbitraries introduced by management.
We have an opportunity as Independent Scientologists to handle the errors of the past, handle inconsistencies in programming cases, and to explore productive avenues that were deliberately ignored in the past.
Some may wish to preserve Scientology as it was in the Sixties, or Seventies, or even post-GAT. That is their privilege. They probably do not realize that the rigid top-down control of the Tech is history.
We live in a connected world where the market is better informed than the purveyors of services. Wins and failures alike are swiftly exchanged on the Internet. Any group that seeks to help Man had better get used to having their motives and their services questioned and discussed.
Any organization delivering auditing will benefit from PCs sharing their wins and disappointments with others. The groups that will survive will listen to their public and swiftly handle any errors in delivery or in setting expectations.
Well all right, David.
If anybody I know can pull this off, you can.
Good luck.
Alanzo
David: “What I care is that the technology I experienced as a PC and delivered as an auditor for 20 years produces workable and repeatable results in spite of auditing errors, C/Sing errors and arbitraries introduced by management.”
Thank you so much for the above contribution and all the other contributions you’ve made to this discussion! They are especially valuable because of your extensive experience, both in and outside the CoS.
You also said, “We live in a connected world where the market is better informed than the purveyors of services. Wins and failures alike are swiftly exchanged on the Internet.”
That has been how I have imagined the future of Scientology to be, simply because it is such an incredibly beneficial technology that it can’t help but survive and expand in this informed age. whether the name Scientology is used or not.
If you would be so kind, I’m very curious about whether you deliver the whole Bridge, although correcting such things as programming errors and other errors and arbitraries of the past that you’ve described.
Thanks again!
To Marildi, Alonzo and any others who may be interested:
I deliver everything from Life Repair to advanced forms of audited NOTS. Most of my pcs start solo auditing once their OT repairs are well underway. Every pc has a unique program which is tailored to what they need and want. For many of them, this is what they originally hoped that Scientology would handle.
I audit raw public to OTVIIIs and have also audited people from Ron’s Org and every flavor of independent. My primary goal is to repair the damage done to public and staff by the Church of Scientology
With 20 active pcs on four continents, I deliver services 7 days a week via Skype video sessions. My Skype ID is davidstlawrence-oldauditor.
If you would like to see what 21st Century auditing can do for you, you are invited to join me on Skype for a free introductory session.
David,
Thank you so much. I am even more heartened! This gives me and others great hope and something to aspire to.
Much ARC to you, marildi 🙂
Marildi: From what I have seen at ESMB, when you defend it’s in defense of your personal gains when people start denying you those. But when was the last time you defended either LRH or Scientology over there?
Me: It has been quite a while since I engaged in such discussions over at ESMB (I have mostly only referred interested parties to posts here – i.e. link whoring). But your slant here can easily be turned around by a die hard critic over at the snake pit like this: “But Geir, when did you ever criticize the basis of your own so called ‘wins’ and come to realize they were actually totally unfounded”.
Point is – I am seen as a critic by some and a proponent by others. And I am OK with that.
Geir, my main point is this: You have strongly protested when others have tried to tell you that you didn’t get the gains from Scientology that you know very well you did get. Likewise, I believe your response is no different from the strong protests some of us have when critics try to insist that Scientology doesn’t work – when we know from personal experience on various flows that it does. Those who deny your wins give you all kinds of reasons why you are blind to the truth – and this is the same kind of flow that is given to proponents of Scn tech in general. Can you see any difference, other than the shoe being on the other foot?
And when you say something like “Chris has demonstrably changed. A lot. Marildi: Hardly”, can you see how that would come across to me? It’s the same as you saying that since I still hold a favorable opinion about Scientology, it must mean I’m incapable of change and am simply a “true believer” (a label you’ve given me more than once, in spite of your denunciations of labels); in other words, that I”m incapable of changing my viewpoint to the one YOU believe I should have.
Btw, I’d like to remind you that what you said about me (“…Marildi: Hardly”) is another one of those Ad Homs of cutting down the stature of the person in a subtle but effective way and is an unfair discussion tactic.
When the discussion is about whether people discussing on this blog have changed (a discussion you started), it is totally relevant to point out, from my own observation, who changed and who has not. This is not AdHom, it is directly relevant. In fact, it is the discussion at hand. And since you two are the top posters of all time here, it is the most relevant point I can possibly come up with. Whether you have not changed for a good reason, or whether Chris has changed in all the wrong directions is completely irrelevant. The point is squarely that he has changed a lot. You have not. Case closed.
Case close? I’m afraid I don’t grant you the title of judge and jury over an evaluation of me.
Whether you are talking about general change or change in my viewpoint and consideration of Scientology wasn’t even clear, but you are plainly wrong in either case. And the worst part of it is that you would say such a thing knowing it isn’t true. That is what says a lot to me.
p.s. There’s one other thing I would like to communicate to you on this exchange.
A couple days ago you admitted that you made a mistake in an illogical statement you had made in your OP, and you explained that it was because you had an incorrect idea of what a certain phrase meant. Even though that was not the kind of admission I had in mind – which was that I don’t recall you ever giving the other person any significant (i.e. not minor) “point taken”, Nevertheless, in good will, I still gave you credit for admitting you had been mistaken after you had argued otherwise.
In return I posted a heartfelt admission that I have come to see that you’ve been right about a lot of things. On top of many other posts clearly indicating my changes of viewpoint, that particular post was one reason – a big one – for why I was taken aback when right after that you would comment that I have made “hardly” any change. To me, it looked like simple intention to invalidate.
The other thing that really took me by surprise with regard to that post where I admitted you have been right about a lot of things was that you didn’t even bother to acknowledge it. That I found to be just plain unkind. I really can’t imagine any other possibility.
This may be another post of mine that you ignore, but I just wanted you to know it.
I apologize for that.
Did you miss my admitting gross wrongness in my post to Alanzo? Chris gave you a link to that.
No, I didn’t miss your admitting wrongness to Alanzo, but I wasn’t talking about some after-the-fact admission, especially not one where the “admission” makes your overall view even more right by now agreeing to some additional aspect to it.
I meant that in the actual course of an argument, you in the end say that the other person has a point or something to that effect. With me personally, I know there have been a number of times where we have gone back and forth and just when I make a strong point that seems to me can’t be countered, you usually just don’t reply. You simply drop the comm cycle.
An example of that is right on my last comment, where I asked you to explain what you claimed I was missing – and you gave no response..It may not have been because you thought I had a point, but whatever it was I don’t think it’s fair play to just drop someone’s sincere attempt to communicate.
As for your apology, that made up for a lot.
I simply cannot answer this comm cycle without you calling it AdHom. So I will simply leave this at that.
Geir: “If you cannot or will not see that difference, I think I finally understand you, and I realize I cannot create any value in this discussion we have right here. better move to other discussions”
The above is the comm I was referring to when I asked you to explain what you meant. Please don’t duck out by saying that I would just call it ad hom. The implication of that is that you have a negative evaluation of me. Nevertheless, I’m sincerely interested in what you meant and I can make my own evaluation from there.
You seem to identify with Scientology and Hubbard. To the point that you get personally offended when anyone criticizes the philosophy, the tech or Hubbard. You are no longer simply yourself, calmly evaluating. You have BECOME those very things you so adamantly defend. It blinds you, it makes you dimmer – to the point where I simply give up conveying a point to you – like the looong thread on the RC triangle. It took you forever to finally get half of my point. I don’t have time for such fogginess on your part. You are usually very intelligent, but when someone criticizes – not You – but the things you Identify yourself with, your intelligence seems to drop markedly.
This is my sincere view. You asked for it.
You seem to identify with Scientology and Hubbard. To the point that you get personally offended when anyone criticizes the philosophy, the tech or Hubbard. You are no longer simply yourself, calmly evaluating. You have BECOME those very things you so adamantly defend. It blinds you, it makes you dimmer – to the point where I simply give up conveying a point to you – like the looong thread on the RC triangle. It took you forever to finally get half of my point. I don’t have time for such fogginess on your part. You are usually very intelligent, but when someone criticizes – not You – but the things you Identify yourself with, your intelligence seems to drop markedly.
This is my sincere view. You asked for it.
Okay, well your view of me doesn’t include the many comments I’ve made about LRH’s mistakes and how Scn went wrong. And you continue to bring up the ARC discussion where you yourself had basic MU’s, although you would never admit it, that confused the issue.
But you haven’t actually answered my question regarding my protest to criticism about Scn – and will you please not forget what I mean by “Scientology”. To repeat, how does my protest to claims about Scn that aren’t true (based on my own cognitions) differ from your protests to claims that your wins aren’t really true?
You Think I had MUs on the ARC thread. Nope. But I will not go into that again with you. I have never ever had a dimmer discussion with anyone ever in my life.
Simple answer (and I will not explain this further): Criticizing something that causes an effect on you is further away from you than criticizing the effect on you.
Geir: “I have never ever had a dimmer discussion with anyone ever in my life.”
It’s amazing how much you need to “hit”. And with the same repeated hits over and over. To the point of making them as harsh as possible with absolutes – “never ever…had a dimmer discussion…with anyone else…in my life”.
Geir: “Simple answer (and I will not explain this further): Criticizing something that causes an effect on you is further away from you than criticizing the effect on you.”
No, the criticisms are very much about the effects on me. Definitely. That’s what you fail to see.
And you definitely had MU’s on the ARC thread, although when I pointed them out with references I only got that tactic of yours of ignoring me.
And since then, whenever you feel you need to hit me, which is when I’m pointing out your inconsistencies or errors, you bring up that thread – a thread that is way too long to reasonably expect anybody to check out, and you know that.
I will leave you. Peace.
Good reply. Peace back.
Hello dear marildi. I’ve read few of your posts for Geir and I can only acknowledge for your skills in diplomacy! 🙂 ML Didier.
Didier, thanks for that. I’m afraid that I’ve taken it past using diplomacy to where I have made a different estimation of effort and am being more forceful. My case entrance level is more at reason but Geir doesn’t operate at that level with me.
As for you, dear Didier, I wish that people could understand you better and I’m sorry about their unkind remarks to you. You are very smart to get in comm with Marianne. She is one of the few wise ones here, IMO
ml, marildi 🙂
marildi: “Didier, thanks for that. I’m afraid that I’ve taken it past using diplomacy to where I have made a different estimation of effort and am being more forceful.”
> Hehe, it’s ok 🙂
“My case entrance level is more at reason but Geir doesn’t operate at that level with me.”
> Sorry, I didn’t follow enough your two way comm to have any Reality on, but I can trust you on your words, Dear marildi 🙂
“As for you, dear Didier, I wish that people could understand you better and I’m sorry about their unkind remarks to you.”
> Hehe! I wish it mainly for those who are concerned and for all of Us, not for me! Nobody can really hurt an other without the other gives permission for, as I could have seen it 😉
“You are very smart to get in comm with Marianne. She is one of the few wise ones here, IMO”
> I do confirme IMO too! And she brought me really a good time “off blog” :d Thanks to you again! Dear Marianne 🙂
“ml, marildi :)”
> ML too Didier.
LOL!
There was a time Marildi when you thought I was one of the wisest people on this blog. I guess I became stupid somewhere along the way!
The problem as I see it is that LRH undoubtedly used the cognitions of people getting auditing in fashioning his approach and materials. They may or may not be his own cognitions, and they may or may be HIS discoveries — for example, when he was working on track maps, they were the track maps of individuals like you and I. I think that happened a lot. Then he copyrighted everything and claimed ownership and source.
So now I come along, read some of the materials and bing bing bing! I say wow, that is amazing, I see that! Cognition! Of course, what has happened is that I have been reminded of what I forgot, just as the individuals who were working on that track map were reminded or recalled. LRH never owned that, he simply reported on it and incorporated it into the works of Scientology and then said he was source of it.
Now someone else comes along and invalidates that particular cognition. Now its really dicey because it really doesn`t belong to LRH, but he treats it as if it does. But it is really the cognition of an individual(s) somewhere along the line, and yours too — he was not the source of the original material or the source of your cognition. It upsets you to have it invalidated because the source of the cognition is you and therefore you see it as true and feel invalidated.
Or vice versa, I have a cognition, and I tell everyone about it very excitedly. In this instance I had the cognition without benefit of reading anything LRH wrote about that cognition. Maybe I was meditating when I had the cognition or reading Korzybski, doesn`t matter. Someone else says that`s exactly what LRH said, and now I feel invalidated because he is being assigned source for my cognition. It gets really weird.
Or another scenario – I have a series of cognitions about how some piece of tech LRH wrote up works. It is my own series now, it was once someone else`s series but not any more. I assume that others see the cognitions the way I do. But it turns out they don`t and they are baffled and upset when I insist that they have MUs or they don`t understand. But the truth is that they are not speaking from what LRH said, they are speaking from what they see as truth regardless of how LRH reported it.
At the bottom of all of this is that LRH and the people he worked with extracted information from real, live beings. I think there were times when the like attracts like principle was in play and he had a particular group of beings to work with. They then made a hasty generalization about what that particular group found. I run into this with Elizabeth all the time – she sees from a particular universe, if you will, and I from another. It is a real delight to discuss things with her because we get to see from each others universes, especially if neither of us resists the other or invalidates the other.
For the record, I don`t think you are dim. But I do think that when you get into telling people they have misinterpreted or have MUs, etc. its shaky ground because of what I have described above.
The mistake is LRH`s for assigning himself as source and OWNER of these materials. In my opinion, this was a real disservice to everyone, himself included.
No, Maria, I still have a lot of respect for you. You are probably the most knowledgeable person on this blog and you show a lot of wisdom too. But that doesn’t mean I am always in
agreement with your ideas about things. And I have no doubt you would grant me that right.
Maria: “Of course, what has happened is that I have been reminded of what I forgot, just as the individuals who were working on that track map were reminded or recalled. LRH never owned that, he simply reported on it and incorporated it into the works of Scientology and then said he was source of it.”
LRH himself said that he couldn’t teach us anything we didn’t already know. As for him saying he was the source of it it all, in the early days he gave great credit to a long list of others whose shoulders he stood on. You may be right that he changed his tune about that at a later time, but as far as I know he only claimed to be the source of Scn tech – which he was.
But in any case, his claims of being source, however that is meant, is one of those things I don’t find to be something of great importance in relation to the invaluable contributions he made. That’s my main thrust, actually.
Maria: “It upsets you to have it invalidated because the source of the cognition is you and therefore you see it as true and feel invalidated.”
If I understand you correctly, that’s what I was saying to Geir as a comparison to how he feels when his wins are invalidated. But mainly what I’m saying is that I see the truth that exists in Scientology being invalidated.
Maria: “Someone else says that`s exactly what LRH said, and now I feel invalidated because he is being assigned source for my cognition. It gets really weird.”
Here I differ with you, and agree with LRH that there is no monopoly on truth. I do not feel invalidated at all when someone states the same truth LRH stated – I actually feel it validates both sources. Truth is truth.
Maria: “…they are baffled and upset when I insist that they have MUs or they don`t understand. But the truth is that they are not speaking from what LRH said, they are speaking from what they see as truth regardless of how LRH reported it.”
I hope you aren’t saying that I am telling people they have MU’s about their own cognitions or truths. It’s only when they misunderstand the words in LRH materials that I might consider they have MU’s. The fact is, in language we have agreements about what words mean and thus should be able to agree on that much – the meanings of the words. Not necessarily the ideas they express. This you have not seen me “arguing” about, just discussing.
Maria: “They then made a hasty generalization about what that particular group found.”
The fact is that the tech works and because it works it seems to me that it cannot be based on hasty generalizations or anything but valid principles. Furthermore, when people claim that any success is simply due to the considerations of the recipients themselves, that doesn’t jive with the fact that many other practices do not work anywhere near as well. Here again, this is what I consider to be the senior truth in the discussion about Scientology. It works.
Wow. That was a completely unexpected response!
Just goes to show, beings really are different!
Maria: “Wow. That was a completely unexpected response! Just goes to show, beings really are different!”
Please tell me what you mean by both sentences. 🙂
Just for the record: I have absolutely no issues with people invalidating my wins and gains from Scientology.
I just thought I’d mention that none of the write-up above was intended to be personal or reflective of any particular exchange on this blog between any particular person.
I’ll try rephrasing it. Pretend it is not Ron and not Scientology and most especially not you.
A scientist gets an e-meter. No one has ever had one before. The e-meter reacts on questions. Through trial and error and asking lots of questions of lots of people, he works out what the different e-meter reactions might mean. This yields a lot of answers from lots of people and a lot of realizations from lots of people. And lots of reactions. He organizes all of that information and patterns emerge. He charts out the patterns. He tries to repeat it all on that same group of people and there are more answers but they are different answers now. he records all that and organizes all that. More patterns emerge. All of the information is coming from those people and their answers to the questions. Repeat. Repeat.
Questions are rephrased, particular areas of questions are worked out, more information. More patterns. On it goes. They are still always answers from the people participating. He notices that the answers are apparently endless, but the realizations are the same within the group of people and with the group of questions. This is recorded. Organized. Patterned. Repeat, repeat.
What is critical here is that the answers are coming from the people. The realizations are their realizations. They shift depending on what questions are asked, who asks the questions, and who answers the questions.
Using a particular set of questions, he observes a relationship between who is asking and who is answering. If someone is asking who has already asked and answered a lot of questions, and the one answering is new to it, you get one set of answers. Its different if the one answering has also asked and answered a lot of questions. Its different again if both the asker and the answerer are new to it all and have no previous information.
Meanwhile he writes everything up and people are thrilled with it. Now there is a huge collection of questions, reactions, and answers. Not only that, this shifts as more questions are answered. Summarized answers are organized and published. People learning to ask questions, and what questions to ask are given summaries of what to expect and/or what answers have already been given, including patterns of these.
People who are asking questions are inventing questions to ask too, and not only that finding ways to direct attention. Its all grist to the mill.
The discoveries are actually being made by the people answering the questions or directing their attention. They are the source of the answers. Others recognize the truth of the answers, but only if they are answers that came from individuals that are on their “wavelength,” otherwise, they are not recognized as the truth.
The source of the truths that emerge are the people that answer the questions. There are common truths and they are thrilled to find that other people share their truth.
Over a long period the scientist summarizes all of the answers and the responses. These are stated as truths. Now others come along and see these answers. They are not necessarily truth to those individuals. But the truths that have been summarized are close enough to their own that they can and do trigger the individual’s own truth “mechanism,” and they discover their own truth. The truth they discover is not the truth that has been summarized. It sounds like it, it is similar, but it is not and never is the same.
The scientist is quite thrilled. By directing what questions to ask and how to ask them, it emerges that a particular area of concern can be addressed and individuals can answer the questions and discover their own truth. The only monkey in the wrench is that not only does the individual retrieve answers that are their own answers, but retrieves answers from the individual asking the questions, from the group of people currently engaged in asking and answering questions, and from the scientist himself! Even the cat can be a source of answers and one wonders if the individual is also retrieving answers from the people at his job and his family too! Even stranger, the people answering often introduce their own questions, unbeknownst to the person asking the questions!
Now, confident that consistent patterns and answers can emerge from particular sets of questions, the scientist formulates it all and copyrights it.
Now another completely disrelated individual comes along and makes their own set of discoveries using completely different questions, techniques and procedures. Based on the copyrights that have been filed they are accused of stealing them from the first scientist. The first scientist asserts that he is the source of those answers, he is the discoverer, he is the genius. The whole thing is HIS.
The problem is that none of it was HIS. Only what he wrote down is his. The patterns were never his but he did think to write them down and copyright them.
He decides he has the best questions, and the best answers. He refuses after a while to accept any more questions or answers. They are the best after all, and he decided that they are going to be the ONLY questions and answers allowed in HIS operation. No more dissenting voices. No more questioning the source of the questions or the answers. He is the source of them and he is the only allowed source of them.
No one is allowed to use the questions or the answers unless they follow his rules. He develops a huge following of people who are thrilled with the summaries he has made.
This is a very powerful position to take. It is not true that he discovered the answers, but it is true that he decided which answers were best and which questions were best. He defends his choices to others, and his proponents defend his choices to others. His proponents see his answers as the truth for everyone and are furious that anyone would want to destroy that truth. And they are furious if anyone else says those truths came from anywhere else. They read it first from him, therefore it belongs to him and they are with him and will defend him from people stealing from him and from them.
Well its long and I’ve forgotten why I wrote it. Oh well.
Maria : I’ll try rephrasing it. Pretend it is not Ron and not Scientology and most especially not you.
BRILLIANT Post 🙂
Maria, that was very interesting. I thought it was a great description of how much our “minds” are intermingled, and this is what I believe both Elizabeth and Marianne are also saying in different words. It seems right to me too!
As for other points of interest, I would like to quote from your post and then give my response to each, and hopefully my views will be better understood by posters here:
1. “Now another completely disrelated individual comes along and makes their own set of discoveries using completely different questions, techniques and procedures. Based on the copyrights that have been filed they are accused of stealing them from the first scientist.”
That part I didn’t quite get because how could “completely different questions, techniques and procedures” be considered as violation of copyrights?
2. “He decides he has the best questions, and the best answers. He refuses after a while to accept any more questions or answers. They are the best after all, and he decided that they are going to be the ONLY questions and answers allowed in HIS operation…”
I’m glad you wrote “HIS” in all caps. That seems to me to be quite correct in the case of Scientology – LRH was referring to his own operation. His viewpoint was that since what he had put together was workable it shouldn’t be altered, and thus he would not allow any alteration in his own organizations. Most other organizations also want their “products” delivered as promised, and as expected by clients.
One thing I would disagree with him on would be to not allow further research outside of “his operation”. His stated intentions with respect to that were that he didn’t want the tech to be misapplied and given a bad name (roughly paraphrased). But of course that is debatable and is a point that I toss in the “bull pen” for possible future reference – primarily because it is another one of those things that are beside the point of the workability of the tech.
3. “It is not true that he discovered the answers, but it is true that he decided which answers were best and which questions were best.”
Here again, for me it’s relatively unimportant and deserves little attention as to whether or not LRH himself discovered the answers. The fact that he was the one who ultimately decided which questions and answers were best (i.e. workable) is his whole genius. And those decisions did result in an incredibly workable tech.
4. “He defends his choices to others, and his proponents defend his choices to others.”
The proof (of the tech) is in the pudding – and the pudding, when the recipe is followed even reasonably well, almost always does taste very good, as witnessed by a number of posters right here on this thread in just in the last couple days, including you and Geir – not to mention many others elsewhere.
5. “His proponents see his answers as the truth for everyone and are furious that anyone would want to destroy that truth.”
This proponent (me), among others, has gone on record as saying that it is not truth for everyone.
6. “And they are furious if anyone else says those truths came from anywhere else. They read it first from him, therefore it belongs to him and they are with him and will defend him from people stealing from him and from them.”
Again, this does not apply to all proponents.
Thanks again for your thoughts and for giving me the opportunity to express mine.
Thanks DeE – its really great to get some feedback!
Just some clarifications:
1. “Now another completely disrelated individual comes along and makes their own set of discoveries using completely different questions, techniques and procedures. Based on the copyrights that have been filed they are accused of stealing them from the first scientist.”
That part I didn’t quite get because how could “completely different questions, techniques and procedures” be considered as violation of copyrights?
Clarification: because I’m not talking about the procedures, but the (truth) information that was discovered using two different procedures. The (truth) information came from individuals in the first place – it was not invented or devised by the original scientist, its also not invented or discovered by the second one, in fact, neither one of them invented or devised that truth. So it should not be surprising that it would also show up from other disrelated individuals as well regardless of how they uncovered or discovered the (truth) information. And unfortunate side effect of this is that the individuals later in time can be accused of taking the truth from the earlier two. Actually, the two scientists appropriated ownership of (truth) information that they did not devise or invent. They may have organized it in a particular way, but that’s all.
2. The weakness in insisting on an only way is that the (truth) information is dependent on the particular individuals from whom that truth came. The assumption that is made is that every individual should find that to be the (truth) information. But it is really only an assumption. It may be true for many, but perhaps not for all. This is especially true when models are being used, models are susceptible to flaws when compared to the actual (truth) information that was used in the first place and then modeled.
3 This is true so long as 1 and 2 are kept in mind. Where the problem comes in is when individuals for whom that (truth) information is not true attempt to use those procedures and therefore the “best” choices fail. In the case of Scientology, the assumption is that the individual has an ethics type flaw. That might not be true at all and so an individual has been erroneously invalidated. I do have to wonder about this because the drop off rate is so enormous.
4. Its just a statement. Like I said, I am not personalizing with this write-up, just making an observation.
5. Same as 4
6. Same as 4 and 5
The main point is that individuals encountering the (truth) information compiled in a subject will have their OWN recognition of that same truth, quite aside from their intellectual comprehension of it. When they do that they are not merely learning it, they are accessing their OWN truth. The two become blended and difficult to extricate one from the other. So when the learned truths (which match their own actual truth) are challenged, their own actual truth is also challenged. This will tend to make them vehement and intractable and serve to confuse the two sets of (truth) information. The reverse is also true when an individual offers their OWN truth information, and they are referred to the materials compiled of truth information — its really not the same information, it is only similar, similar enough to be confused.
In any case, the scientists in question in this whole exercise were not the “source” point of the truth information, whether it be the best truths or the truths they decided to ignore or discard. They did not discover those truths, the individuals answering the questions did that.
I think this may be why there is such upset of claims of being the “one,” source, and owner of the (truth) information and wordings to that effect. To have someone claim they are the source of it when you are independently finding that you are the source of what you know can cause considerable upset.
A brilliant exposition of the factors involved in developing technology!
I would like to post this material on my blogs.
Can we discuss?
Thanks David: You are welcome to do anything you’d like to with this post. No need for credit and feel free to re-write as needed for greater clarity. I would like you to give credit to Geir’s blog though.
And why did you completely avoid responding to my main point? Do you have no answer for that?
Geir, this time I’ll leave out the personal disagreements between us because, as I said at the beginning of that first post, my main point was to try to give you a comparison so that you might be able to get an understanding of my viewpoint. Could you please pay me the respect of giving me an answer to my question? Here it is again:
You have *strongly protested* when others have tried to tell you that you didn’t get the gains from Scientology that you know very well you did get. It seems to me that your response is no different from the *strong protests* some of us have when critics try to insist that Scientology doesn’t work – when we know from personal experience on various flows that it does work. Those who deny your wins give you all kinds of reasons why you are supposedly blind to the truth – and this is the same kind of flow that is given to proponents of the tech in general. Can you see any essential difference between your response to criticism and that of people like me?
I don’t *strongly protest* people who don’t believe I got any wins from Scientology. I am over protesting such. But there is nevertheless a huge difference between invalidating someone’s wins and a philosophy or a methodology. Huge difference – unless one identifies with such.
Okay. I just remember that you took a lot of time and effort to engage in a long exchange with posters on ESMB only a couple months ago. And after that you were motivated to write a whole blog post entitled “Why is it so important to some that Scientology must not be seen to work?” That’s basically my question too.
And my other question is why is it so important that we continue to emphasize the admitted wrongnesses, rather than use them as valuable lessons. And then get on with it like such people as Marty and David St Lawrence are doing.
Btw, they don’t look at Scientology as a set of tools, each of which one might or might not have some use for, at times – which is what I get from your idea of U-ology (correct me if I”m wrong on that interpretation). I think it’s notable that the two of them continue to successfully use the entire Bridge, and I believe the reason is that it is more that a set of tools. It’s a systematic ROUTE toward the kinds of eventual gain you and others have had. Not that anybody has to agree that its a total route, not at all, but just to take it for the immense value it has. It seems to me that you and others tend to give very little importance to that, judging by how little you comment on it – again, by comparison to the wrongnesses commented on almost all the time.
My interest moves. Here and there.
Admitted wrongness, you say? I don’t see much admitted wrongness. But I do see plenty of blinders – on both sides.
Also, see my latest blog post.
No, for example even Marty and David, who are very positive about the tech (although one supplements it and the other has refined it) do speak loud and clear about the wrongnesses. And so have many posters on Marty’s blog who are strong proponents of Scn tech in itself (I’m not as familiar with David’s blog but I think it’s the same there).
I myself have made quite a few comments about the wrong direction LRH took – a far cry in viewpoint from where I began when I first started posting here – but you are apparently blind to those comments as you keep insisting on seeing me with the old picture you have in your mind.
However, I was glad to read that you “do see plenty of blinders – on both sides” since you habitually comment on the blinders of proponents but almost never comment on the blinders of critics even when their comments are outrageous in the extreme.
Marildi: “Why is it so important to some that Scientology must not be seen to work?”
Chris: Beginning with that bias, you fail to read the posts and understand them. You’ve written why you want Scientology to be seen as working and others have written eloquently on their reasons why they are disaffected, yet you fail to understand them. Why do you suppose that is?
Chirs, the quote you attribute to me was Geir’s – the title of an OP.
Otherwise, your post is again nothing but generalities: i.e. “you fail to read the posts and understand them” and “others have written eloquently on their reasons why they are disaffected, yet you fail to understand them”.
And I disagree with those generalities about me.
Marildi: “It seems to me that you and others tend to give very little importance to that, judging by how little you comment on it – again, by comparison to the wrongnesses commented on almost all the time.”
Chris: I will reiterate that your adamant defense of Scientology is hurting your case for Scientology. The more you deny that there are problems with the Tech and with Hubbard’s motives, the more apparent becomes the case; you make the case for the aura of brainwashing that this cult engenders. That you apparently don’t see this point I’m making shows people who are on the fence, including myself, just how “in the tunnel” that we’ve been. In summation, I’m not ready for you to stop doing this as I am continuing to learn from each exchange by you digging out my “items” with regard to the entire subject for me. I’m not joking nor being snide. It is educational.
Chris: I will reiterate that your adamant defense of Scientology is hurting your case for Scientology. The more you deny that there are problems with the Tech and with Hubbard’s motives, the more apparent becomes the case; you make the case for the aura of brainwashing that this cult engenders. That you apparently don’t see this point I’m making shows people who are on the fence, including myself, just how “in the tunnel” that we’ve been. In summation, I’m not ready for you to stop doing this as I am continuing to learn from each exchange by you digging out my “items” with regard to the entire subject for me. I’m not joking nor being snide. It is educational.
What an evening discourse it was. I am so friggin happy that I don’t have to put up with CoS crap anymore, tho can be fun on a blog, but really….. Tonight again I was reminded of my wins!
Chris you got it down exactly! Thank you. 🙂
As you said before, it’s good to be free, isn’t it? 🙂
Geir: “But there is nevertheless a huge difference between invalidating someone’s wins and a philosophy or a methodology. Huge difference – unless one identifies with such.”
I don’t see that there is a true difference. One can cognite on the truths in a philosophy or methodology and thus have wins that are no different from any other wins – and when those wins are invalidated it doesn’t feel any different from having one’s session wins invalidated. Cogs are cogs. And one’s truth is one’s truth.
And as for identifying with a philosophy/methodology, again I see no more of an identification with the truths in a philosophy/methodology than with the truths of one’s cognitions otherwise.
Marildi; If you cannot or will not see that difference, I think I finally understand you, and I realize I cannot create any value in this discussion we have right here. better move to other discussions.
Geir: “If you cannot or will not see that difference…”
I’m totally willing to hear what you see as the difference.
Otherwise, it again seems like a certain type of Ad Hom:
“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’.” http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#dogged
Hey guys, I’m going to take a long break now from posting on blogs and forums because I get tempted to argue much with many, and the result is somewhat ridiculing, and it doesn’t solve more than it creates.
If someone would like to keep in touch, can contact me –or else see you in neverland.
🙂
Spyros
I totally get your decision but I am Saaaaad! I like that part of the ME called YOU with its flow,
character, view and the materialized comments!
This blog is a priceless place to Clear-ify misunderstandings, to learn, to create and also to have a good time….
Where can we contact you? (neverland…HaHa….like it! )
Hihihihihihi yes, I’ve had many cogs and above all fun in posting. But sometimes it becomes war, and I get concerned for the injured. I can become a bit of a cannibal when it comes to dealing with arguements, but then I’m like “oh no…why did I bite him/her?” and then maybe “is he going to bite me back now?” hahaha
You (or others) can contact me via my email: sand_and_mercury@hotmail.com or use this to add me on msn or facebook. I’ll be glad too!
🙂
Spyroooooos…you have to come back soon! 😛 😦
Maria says: 2013-03-18 at 17:05
I would also add that it was OUR sincerity that the public people trusted. We really did intend to do well by them. And they knew it. And what did work in Scientology worked because of that.
David says: I was a mission holder for 10 years and was a volunteer auditor at Advanced Orgs in LA for several years before that and I agree completely. The pcs trusted me because I had their interests above any org intentions to extract money from them. The pcs who got results were being audited by auditors who cared enough to go to bat for them against all attempts to treat the pc as a statistic or as a source of income to the org.
I left the mission when it no longer became possible to send the pcs to an org that would handle them appropriately.
Yes, that too! The last person I ever spoke to about Scientology took it upon himself to go look into it – he didn`t even tell me he was going to do that. He was hit up by SO recruiters, IAS reges and Ideal Org reges even though he told them he was not a Scientologist but was just looking into it. He was routed around and then told he had to see the Orientation movie. He referred to the movie as an incredibly long infomercial. He was offended by the ending in it, something about you can leave without doing Scientology – it would be stupid, but you could do that, or you could jump off a bridge or blow your brains out, but if you stay we will be very happy with you and you will be very happy with you. I had no idea that they were even showing such a movie! I was speechless. Needless to say he never went back but he did spend the next six months trying to get off the mailing list and call-in list. He was told that he was out-ethics, needed handling, was ordered to go events, pushed to buy books and so on. I finally had to intervene and get him off the lists — it took me several runs at it too but one of the call-in people finally removed him because I told them he never did a course or even bought a book. Go figure. So I do know what you mean by inappropriate handlings!
I read your blog whenever you post an article. Thanks for all your information and insightful articles. I am particularly thrilled with your working technology series and have learned a tremendous amount from what you have posted.
I am very happy to hear that you have chosen an open source format and you have my best wishes for creating a network of sincere individuals who can sort through the various processes and techniques that could be of benefit to any individual willing to participate.
Kudos to you!
Looking over the comments on this blog post, I have a reflection to share.
When Hubbard said he had produced Clears in 1956 that in fact had TOTAL recall of every single moment of his current life, I believe few people understand what that really means.
It would mean that out of nowhere we would get this normal guy who after few hours of auditing all of a sudden has this super-human ability to recall on every one of the 50+ senses every detail of every impression every 25th of a second from his birth till present time. That means every word uttered by every contact, remember every telephone number, every word of every book read. He would glance over 100000 decimals of the number pi and be able to recite every digit without fault – even if he had only seen the numbers for one second. He would be able to retake all the exams from his education in record time without any error. He would be able to earn millions of dollars per year in many trades with this unheard-of ability and could perform on stage snatching all memory records from the Guinness Book of records at his very first attempt. He would go down in history as the most remarkable person to ever walk the face of Earth. He would by these incredible feats forever prove Dianetics right – something he would obviously want to do given that this methodology saved him and made him superhuman – and there is no reason at all he wouldn’t want other to have similar gains as him.
No such person has ever surfaced.
Someone care to explain? Or rationalize for another round?
Or can we safely assume Hubbard was lying?
You can safely assume he was lying.
Now what?
Kin: “Now what?”
Alan: Well, there’s this thing called life and unlike Ron, it’s still here.
How about getting a coolerbox of wors and Castle together and taking the family to Durbs for a few days? Miss the Easter rush, and get to watch AB’s boys play Pakistan on Thursday!
LOL Great idea
Geir, did you know there are apparently people who do have perfect memory? I’ve read articles and watched documentaries where such people have been given what seems to be minutely thorough tests. Of course, there are the skeptics too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidetic_memory
Yet the Book 1 Clear is far, far above these cases.
And produced – from an average person – in less than two weeks no less.
It would have transformed the world as we know it. Completely.
Isene
My understanding of it. If anyone has ever achieved a Total recall with the 50+ senses, that person would not demonstrate anything for the pure reason that that person in the process of a perfect contact with the incidents etc. would already have as-ised the past. So that person would be in present time. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
Marianne: “My understanding of it. If anyone has ever achieved a Total recall with the 50+ senses, that person would not demonstrate anything for the pure reason that that person in the process of a perfect contact with the incidents etc. would already have as-ised the past. So that person would be in present time. Please correct me if I am mistaken.”
Alan: I think you are reading too much into it. Ron said “total recall” and it’s reasonable to assume he meant “total recall’. By “total recall” he meant what he said in Book One.
For all his faults, one thing Ron never did as far as I can tell is indulge in neat semantic tricks about what he meant and redefine them later saying “well, you see, what I *actually* meant is…”
DM does that trick and does it well. Ron didn’t.
Alan
Yep. Agreed.
Which raises an interesting question.
It doesn’t take a genius to spot that Ron was talking complete nonsense with things like “total recall”. Surely he must have known the reality was nothing close to that?
I’ll accept that Book One resulting in “better recall” is plausible on the face of it.
I’ll accept that running engrams must have looked awesome in the 50s – all that detail that the pc’s mind seemed to be able to give up on command!
It’s a huge stretch to go from there to “total recall”, it is just not logical no matter how people try and spin it. And, he kept this up for FORTY YEARS. How many conmen and liars have you heard of that knowingly kept it up for 40 years?
I think David has come closest to the probable truth (Gordian Knot applies):
“I do not think that Hubbard was able to distinguish between truth and lying”
Not according to Dianetics. But even extrapolating into the realms of Scientology, the person would then be all-knowing instead (regarding his past) and you would have the same super-human that would most easily prove Hubbard, Scientology and Dianetics Fully Right for All the World to see – it would be a slam dunk and we would have a Cleared Earth within a couple of decades. There would be an infinitesimal chance that a Clear would not want that to happen.
Yes he lied,……………….. but why did we all believed in him so blindly?
Scientologists trained to confront, audited to higher levels of awareness,
supposedly should be able do discern the bull easily.
As this example of the State of Clear, It is there on plain sight.
And yet, I….. (we)… spent many years lovin´ it, and justifying every single bit of it.
In my case, I can only say Scientology was the answer I was desperately looking for, and it seemed so beautiful and perfect I decided at some point this was IT, and from there on, I was CERTAIN it was the truth, and everything else was evaluated from that standpoint.
I decided Scientology was right and that became my most stable datum.
Scientology, The Science of Certainty!
I didn´t needed to look no more.
Rafael: “Yes he lied,……………….. but why did we all believed in him so blindly? . . . I didn´t needed to look no more.
Chris: For me, he told me what I wanted to hear. . . like a Gypsy fortune-teller’s mark. Told me just the things I wanted to hear.
Chris: For me, he told me what I wanted to hear. . . like a Gypsy fortune-teller’s mark. Told me just the things I wanted to hear.
R: Exactly what I wanted to hear!!
I loved to learn from him !!!
Hi Rafael 🙂
You said you loved to learn from him. So in fact, did you learn from him?
For me I definitely did, and it was enough to be able to carry on well from there.
Hello Marildi!! 🙂
Yes, I learned a lot from him, he was my eyes and ears when I needed it, he gave me his hand when I was lost and I am forever grateful to him.
But I also wanted to have my own thoughts, and to look trough my own eyes, and to do that, I had to break (quite forcibly) with the organizations and the thought structures he created for his followers.
See? …….He also lied when he promised me I could see with my own eyes and have my own thoughts when I become part of his group, which once I loved so much.
And I´m not angry or even resentful with him, I still admire him very much. I just wish his promises, in whatever parts of Scientology which can REALLY be delivered, become available FREELY for everyone, without ANY attachments whatsoever.
Lovely post, Rafael (I really wanted to call you lovely too, but I guess that word doesn’t get applied to men, although it exactly fits sometimes ;)).
I could say the same exact thing about everything you wrote except maybe one part of what you said here:
“He also lied when he promised me I could see with my own eyes and have my own thoughts when I become part of his group, which once I loved so much.
I do not believe that he was lying when he first made those promises. But I would indeed say that he seemed to have changed his viewpoint about it, although I’m not sure of the intentions behind the change. Maybe he had evil intentions, maybe it was fatal errors in judgement, maybe something or someone(s) got to him. I don’t know.
BUt I’m very glad you’re not angry or resentful and still admire him for what he accomplished. That says something about YOU, dear soul, and doesn’t surprise me a bit. And you obviously know that I too hope (and trust!) that what can be delivered in Scientology does become freely available.
Always great when you are “present” here. 🙂
🙂 🙂
– None of the Clears or OTs spoke of their actual experiences or abilities.
– We were shown the grade chart EPs as what to expect
– We were told that the grades were releases (not permanent) in preparation for clearing
– We had no access to information about the Church, LRH or its past other than what was presented by the Church
– Verbal tech rule forbade discussion
– No case on post, no discussion of case = little discussion
– Upset people routed to ethics immediately
– Ex staff refused to discuss their experience
– Ex public refused to talk to us
– G.O. held events explaining why we were attacked, no other info available
– No means of getting information about the state of other organizations
– Nattering, criticism and upset = overts and withholds
– Entheta sent to G.O. or ethics, no information offered on situations
– Bonds signed to do confidential levels
– Threat of expulsion
– How to Study Scientology article
– Until one is Clear, ones own judgment or rationality is questionable
– Adverse reactions come from the reactive mind
– Low toned people have poor judgment
– HE and R is reactive
– The supreme test of a thetan is to make things go right
– The basis of all ARC breaks is overts and withholds
– Failure to understand is the result of MUs
– People have false data, and false data means they cannot see true data
– Study article explaining that the best way to study is to find what you can agree with and work with that and then see if more of what you are studying makes sense
– Policy works, but you have to study all of it and become a maestro before you can judge it
– Technology works, but you have to become expert in its use
– Lost gains are because of connections to SPs either now or in the past
– All accidents, illnesses and troubles stem from PTS and SP conditions
– The materials in the books and lectures contain ANYTHING THAT WAS FOUND, not necessarily current technology or promises
– This is a deadly serious activity, to question it could mean the extinction of the entire human race and all theta beings everywhere
– We are very lucky people to have found Scientology, the creme de la creme, in the graveyard of the long gone
– Ignoring hype because hype is everywhere on TV, radio, news, etc. In one ear and out the other.
That`s a few of them anyway.
Also….. didn´t Ron said he decided to be right in the first place?
When he became SOURCE he had to be right always.
He became our eyes and ears.
And when we gave him the status of Source WE KNEW he was always right.
There is the other side of the coin as well, the things that I observed were true:
– I did have mental image pictures
– Recalling incidents did trigger emotions
– The TRs did give me great presence, poise & I stopped being introverted
– I did find misunderstood words, tons of them
– My life repair was nothing short of amazing
– People did go up and down the tone scale
– Self analysis lists were wonderfully releasing
– Objectives were fun and extroverting
– The e-meter really did react on questions
– The dirty needle drill did show what happened when messing with communication
– I could find a date using only the e-meter
– Lousy acknowledgments did cause communication problems
– There was a big difference between being in present time and out of present time
– PAB 6 worked like a charm
– Touch assist did relieve illnesses
– I did recall lots of past life incidents, lots and lots and lots
– My pcs recalled all kinds of incidents
– My pcs had great wins on the auditing I gave them, one even went clear
– Method one auditing was amazing
– The suppressed person rundown was pure magic
– We had FUN at the Mission, it was a community of like minded people
– The grades were such an adventure and I gained so much insight
– There was an astonishing difference when I went clear
– Big chunks of resistance & barriers were simply gone after OT3, most I was not even aware of until they were gone
– My intelligence, drive, and persistence levels were out the roof after OT3
– I could study anything, fast and with incredible comprehension after Method 1
– I was pretty much impervious to even the most extreme entheta after OT3
These are a few of what I found to be true and worthwhile. I wanted to continue the exploration, release and insights. As long as no one messed with me, I was okay with tolerating hype, contradictory information, and discrepancies — the good outweighed the things I disagreed with or that I had not decided about, and besides, I thought it was probably just stupid or inexperienced or poorly trained staff (that included me) that were the cause of the things I was having trouble with. Of course, I was not aware of many of the circumstances listed in my first list — they were gradually revealed as puzzling outpoints, then coercive actions by upper staff, then finally by utterly crazy demands, then exposes on the Internet.
Would I have continued had I known what I know now is the question. And I cannot truthfully answer that question. What I do know is that it is my firm belief that I was lucky beyond all reason, lucky with my auditors, lucky with the Mission I went to, lucky to have had my own sense of timing that kept me out of the path of disasters that befell the Mission network and later the problems with the corporate Church. I was blissfully unaware of the problems in my first list and shocked and dismayed to learn about them. I was horrified by what happened to many of my friends along the way. Its not good enough for me to have had great wins and life changing insights, when it is clear that there are elements in the subject that also directly led to their pain and sorrow and the disrepute of the group that I had come to love.
Maria, thank you for writing a list I didn’t have to – and which I could never have done anywhere near as thorough and articulate a job as you did (as always :)).
My postulate and great desire is that those “elements” in Scientology that lead to pain and sorrow are capable of being left out as they are not truly an integral part of it. So its future looks good to me. Actually, the future looks good in any case, and knowing your views a bit by now I think you would agree.
With Geir`s U-ology, and the direction Marty is moving in, and the open source work David has embarked on, I now have much greater hope that that the beneficial elements can be incorporated into many paths that can serve progress and co-creation. It sure seems like something has shifted in a really good way in the last couple of months.
Maria
Thank you for writing the list! I enjoy reading about your wins! Also, the way you write! Also, your thoughts! Yes, something has really shifted during the last couple of months!
Maria: “These are a few of what I found to be true and worthwhile.”
Chris: I wish I had written the same things. Thanks for handling it. Fair and balanced between these two posts of yours.
Nice list. Also remember that a democracy could only be effective in a nation of Clears.
To tell you the truth, I really think that a republic could be a better format than a democracy, clear is only the first part of a long journey of learning and wisdom. I cannot imagine my life without the insights I have learned in this last four years. Clear is an internal, subjective journey, and then there is life, the process, so much to learn. It is one thing to be clear, it is quite another to be an educated and experienced clear participating as a citizen of the world.
Panarchy
Geir: “Panarchy”
Alan: meritocracy, without the usual benevelant dictator for life
Geir: Panarchy
Chris: I revulse at the thought of world governments. Reason why? Too much centralized power. And yet I can easily see that this is a solution to the perpetual warfare carried on by the current anarchy of nations on earth…
Hubbard envisioned his org board as the solution to governance. But as for me? I got nothing. As I review this subject, I feel the blood pressure raise and agitation creep in. Why? Maybe I am confronting my own fixed and disharmonic ideas about governing, governments, empire, patriotism, religious bigotry, justice, and power. I better take a better look at this.
Chris: “Why? Maybe I am confronting my own fixed and disharmonic ideas about governing, governments, empire, patriotism, religious bigotry, justice, and power.”
2x. Doesn’t it just bring out the Libertarian in you? 🙂
2x. Doesn’t it just bring out the Libertarian in you? 🙂
Chris: hehe, yes.
Best form of government per LRH: “Benign Monarchy.” Who do you suppose he envisioned as its king?
Undoubtedly himself! And he would have found me fighting him every step of the way for that is not a co-creation, and I believe the task is assisting one another to be able to be the best we can in a concert of co-creation.
Oddly enough, we may actually be under a benign monarchy right now by default. The would be the Crown under Queen Elizabeth II.
From wikipedia:
“Elizabeth II (Elizabeth Alexandra Mary; born 21 April 1926[note 1]) is the constitutional monarch of 16 sovereign states, known as the Commonwealth realms, and their territories and dependencies, and head of the 54-member Commonwealth of Nations. She is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and, in some of her realms, carries the title of Defender of the Faith as part of her full title.
On her accession on 6 February 1952, Queen Elizabeth became Head of the Commonwealth and queen regnant of seven independent Commonwealth countries: the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Pakistan and Ceylon. From 1956 to 1992, the number of her realms varied as territories gained independence and some realms became republics. At present, in addition to the first four aforementioned countries, Elizabeth is Queen of Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda and Saint Kitts and Nevis. Her reign of 61 years is currently the second longest for a British monarch.“
What is not generally known is that she is actually the head of what is called The Crown Corporation, a corporation sole that is the most powerful, influential and wealthy corporation in the world today, bar none. As head of the Commonwealth of Nations, Queen E is incredibly powerful and generally very benign. It is actually hard to find much information about this corporation, it reports to no one but its holdings are vast so vast that it is unlikely that lesser entities want to tangle with it.
Maria: The Crown Corporation, a corporation sole that is the most powerful, influential and wealthy corporation in the world today, bar none.
Chris: Wow, nice get. More powerful than the Catholic Church or part of?
The Catholic Church is the other corporation sole in the world. There are only two of them as far as I have been able to find. The Crown Corporation and the Vatican.
Inextricably linked with the Crown Corporation is the City of London Corporation, which owns and operates a separate city-state in the heart of greater London. It has its own government and laws and is not subject to the laws of the U.K. It is the financial district of London.
The same is true of the Vatican. Rome is a city-state that is not a part of Italy, but has its own government.
The same is true of the District of Columbia in the U.S. It is also a separate entity from the rest of the United States. I haven`t been able to figure just how it is related to the Federal Government of the U.S. — its very obscure. It is possible that the third world economic power is actually the Federal Government of the U.S. but that`s mainly speculation on my part.
Conspiracy theorists call this the Empire of Cities and assert that these three city-states act in collusion, the primary power being the Crown and the Crown`s representative the Queen of England because of the majority stockholder position. Its as clear as mud though because these corporations report to no one. It is notable that the Bank of England and the London Stock Market are both in the City of London outside of the jurisdiction and taxation requirements of the UK.
Had never heard of The Crown Corporation. I tried googling it and got Canadian references, nothing that would relate to Her Majesty. If it was that large I would think there should be a hint of it on search. Comments? Maria? Chris?
2x: Comments? Maria? Chris?
Chris: Wow. Well, my Catholic comment was simply my own extrapolation about size (I’ve held that opiniion for a while) then Maria’s comment about Crown made my spidey sense tingle . . . Thanks again for nuthin 2X – another research project?!? But I got nuthin’.
About The Crown corporation:
[http://www.i2y2.com/page-1.html]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Kingdom]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London]
I have had a very hard time finding much of anything on the Crown Corporation and the City of London Corporation — and there appears to be conflicting data about it. Not too surprising as I can`t see where either one answers to any government or anyone for that matter.
[http://independencedaily.wordpress.com/2012/04/01/new-post/]
“One foot out the door and the other foot on a banana peel.” Oh wait, that wasn’t LRH. I don’t know why I was thinking of that one!
Funny!
Maria, awesome lists here!
Thanks. I figured I`d take a stab at it, as I looked over how I came to ignore glaring outpoints!
It is an interesting study all by itself why people get stuck in beliefs. I think LRH presented a model for that in the Confusion and the Stable Datum. Although he presented it as a positive solution to a confusion, I believe he showed how brainwashing can get a hold of you.
“Although he presented it as a positive solution to a confusion, I believe he showed how brainwashing can get a hold of you.”
Actually, that is only part of what he said. He also developed a whole grade to handle problems that come about because of stable datums – Grade 1.
The first “stable” datum is the ” I “. The filter. From then on any perceiving is through that filter and because perceiving is not that what there is, a belief is formed. ( ? )
Yes, that is certainly how a form of brainwashing can get hold of you.
But more critical is the use of behavior modification procedures as outline in rewards and penalties. That is called operant conditioning. Its purpose is to shift behavior by imposing consequences. The statistic system imposed by policy is the core of that conditioning.
The individuals who completed grade 2 problems release were actually prevented from spotting the source of the problems on staff and as-ising them by the very policies that were implemented. IMO that is the sad story of the Mission network. Those Missions were successful. They did NOT employ LRH policies on staff matters. They used REASON, reason that had been rehabilitated by the auditing they delivered so well in the safe environments they created using reason. The policies flew into the teeth of that reason, imposing instead operant conditioning demanding impossible targets and creating an impossible and dangerous environment. Meritocracy at its worst. By definition, the principle of meritocracy could not be effective in a non-competitive society or environment and its greatest weakness is in defining what has merit.
It sounds great in theory, but in practice it conditions people to act in ways that are not reasoning, and to justify the means by the ends.
LRH didn`t believe in his own auditing techniques. He did not trust his own people to do right and instead imposed draconian measures on them. He demanded that staff members hire ANYBODY who could qualify, and spit them out if they couldn`t make the impossible targets imposed on them. So we get a reign of terror, of individuals who could SLAM statistics up, while committing mayhem to get those statistics. To hell with auditing, we`ve got to get those statistics up or else.
Geir: I believe he showed how brainwashing can get a hold of you.
Chris: And gives us another angle from which to look at our ideas of free will.
Geir: “It is an interesting study all by itself why people get stuck in beliefs. I think LRH presented a model for that in the Confusion and the Stable Datum. Although he presented it as a positive solution to a confusion, I believe he showed how brainwashing can get a hold of you”
Chris: “For me, he told me what I wanted to hear. . . like a Gypsy fortune-teller’s mark. Told me just the things I wanted to hear”.
Me: I was already in a state of confusion and Scientology was the most beautiful collection of stable data I had ever seen, it included the promise of making my wildest dreams come true, how could I not take it? I abandoned everything for it.
How did Ron came up with this wonderful model of reality?
Was it obtained trough hard, strict application of scientific methods?
Was Ron a genius gypsy playing with mixtures of science and magik?
He stood on the shoulders of giants. Plenty of trial and error and a lot of people contributing, not just support but brilliant analysis and insight. Volney Mathison is one such individual, without whom most, if not all of the research done after Science of Survival could not have been done at all. So it really isn`t true that Scientology was the work of a single individual. Yes, he did a lot of really great work, but he had a bad habit of taking credit where credit was not due.
Volney had already developed therapeutic techiques with the e-meter by the time he and LRH started working together:
[http://possiblyhelpfuladvice.com/?p=547]
At one time or another he was involved wit a lot of bright and creative people, and he got rid of all of them, that is another surprising fact. I wonder what could have happened had he let that team work flourish.
Maria: Volney vs Hubbard
Thanks for sharing but again there is no proof here that Volney invented his technology before LRH, and yes, seeing the picture, espacially the face of the woman partly in the shadow tends to prove that the fraud was on the side of Volnay, cause it easy to mask a part of pic later in the time, but to had some like the woman face… Nevertheless, could Volney has devolopped good technics LRH, but about anteriority…
Rafael: How did Ron came up with this wonderful model of reality?
Chris: To me, Ron was a *super-star* not unlike other entertainment superstars. To become a superstar is an anomaly of humanity. It happens. They are always around us, but not in significant proportion to the whole community. They are like a perfect storm of occurrences, considerations, broad-based knowledge, talent, hard-work, iterations, and timing. When they come together, their individuality is powerful. They draw on the energy we all flow to them and just rise above us usual humanoids.
And what if he came up with this wonderful model not through scientific work, but by making up the most beautiful dream one could possibly dream and adding to it the promise of making it come true? …… And then standing in the shoulders of giants to back it up with the best theories and scientific models and a lot of brilliant people contributing to make it real?
That would be the wet dream of many a Magician-gypsy super-star! One with real genius could pull it off. And by God he made a gigantic show which even includes some valuable lessons for those who manage to get out of the trap. As a good gypsy, he charged us dearly for it.
And to be honest I have to confess………..
I can swear to God I got a taste of that beautiful
Pie in the sky!!!
…… Maybe it is really out there……. what else could I do to get it?
……. Anything!!! ………. ANYYYYTHIIIIING!!!!!!!!
Isine: LRH presented a model for that in the Confusion and the Stable Datum. Although he presented it as a positive solution to a confusion, I believe he showed how brainwashing can get a hold of you.
Now that is quite interesting and gets my brain working. Right!
First time commenting here. I felt compelled to do so.
Ron lied. Peiod. To say otherwise is to be in denial, torture the English language, justify, makes excusds, and delude oneself and others. To say otherwise is to fail to confront.
When one says, as Ron did, “But I’ve now done it and seen it done to worse cases than any you’ve had,” and one has not in fact “done it and seen it,” one is lying. Period.
To say, “But I’ve now DONE it and SEEN it done to worse cases than any you’ve had,” is not to make a postulate, or a prediction of the future, or a mistaken promise. It is a statement of what has ALREADY happened, what has ALREADY been done and seen.
And if that thing has not, in fact, been “done” and “seen,” one is lying. Period.
If somebody tells me he is not only able to produce a particular result, but has in fact done so in the past, and I later find out that he had not, in fact, done so in the past, I conlude he is a liar. I never trust him again. I tell other people not to trust him. And if I have a basis for doing so, I sue his ass.
I don’t make excuses for him.
And I don’t lie to myself.
I wholeheartedly agree.
CIC: And I don’t lie to myself.
Chris: Good post. That is a worthy goal.
CIC, Good to see you here and I like how you say it.
To Idealgoal: The first stage in the grieving process is denial.
ExKane: “The first stage in the grieving process is denial.”
Chris: Interesting correlation.
Here another outright lie he told his flock to keep them in line: That Purcell received 500.000 $ from the psychs to destroy the first foundation.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?23883-The-Don-Purcell-seizing-Dianetics-lie
Yes ML, that is a hard hitting article and fills in many historical gaps.
ML: “Here another outright lie he told his flock to keep them in line: That Purcell received 500.000 $ from the psychs to destroy the first foundation.
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?23883-The-Don-Purcell-seizing-Dianetics-lie
That was an absolutely fascinating read, thanks.
Whether this post is off topic or not, I think it important enough to post it here.
Here is a key rudiment to keep in mind, before going off in any direction: Before we self destruct on the fourth dynamic.
Quote from the Science of Survival:
Book one – Chapter 18.
Sexual Behavior/ Attitude toward children.
At 0.1, there is not even awareness of children.
It is notable, that as one glances down this column, that an interest in children includes an interest not only in the bearing of the child, but in the child’s well being, happiness, mental state, education and general future.
We may have a person on the 1.1 level who seems anxious to produce a child; very possibly this person is following an engram command to have children.
Once the child is born we may have, in this 1.1 bracket, an interest in it as play thing or a curiosity, but, following this, we get general neglect and thoughtlessness about the child and no feeling what so ever about the child’s future or any effort to build one for it.
We get careless familial actions such as promiscuity, which will tear to pieces the family security upon which the child’s future depends. Along this band, the child is considered a thing, a possession.
A half tone above this, in the anger band, the child is a target for the dramatizations which the individual does not dare execute against grown ups in the environment- a last ditch effort to be in command of something.
Here we have domination of the child, with a constant warping of it’s character.
The whole future of the race depends upon it’s attitude toward children; and a race which specializes in women for “menial purposes”, or which believes that the contest of the sexes in the spheres of business and politics is a worthier endeavor than the creation of tomorrow’s generation, is a race which is dying.
We have, in the woman who is an ambitious rival of the man in his own activities, a woman who is neglecting the most important mission she may have.
A society which looks down upon this mission, and in which women are taught anything but the management of a family, and the care of men, and the creation of the future generation, is a society which is on it’s way out.
The historian can peg the where a society begins its sharpest decline at the instant when women begin to take part, on an equal footing with men, in political and business affairs; since this means that men are decadent and women are no longer women.
This is not a sermon on the role or position of women; it is a statement of bald and basic fact.
When children become unimportant to society, that society has forfeited it’s future. Even beyond the the fathering and bearing and rearing of children, a human being does not seem to be complete without a relationship with the opposite sex.
This relationship is a vessel wherein is nurtured the the life force of both individuals, whereby they create the future of the race in body and thought. If man is to rise to greater heights, then woman must rise with him, or even before him.
But she must rise as a woman and not as today she is being misled into rising as – a man. It is the hideous joke of frustrated, unvirile men to make women over into the travesty of men, which they themselves have become.
Men are difficult and troublesome creatures- but valuable. The creative care and handling of men is an artful and beautiful task. Those who would cheat women of their rightful place by making them into men should at least realize that by this action they are destroying not only the women but the men and children as well.
This is too great a price to pay for being “modern” or for someone’s petty anger or spite against the female sex.
The arts and skills of woman, the creation and inspiration of which she is capable and which – here and there in isolated places in our culture- she manages to effect in spite of the ruin and decay of man’s world which spreads around her, must be brought newly and fully into life.
These arts and skills and creation and inspiration are her beauty, just as she is the beauty of mankind.
End of chapter.
Here is my commentary in addition to Hubbard’s words:
There is a right way and a wrong way to do almost everything.
Very few people do things the right way.
Very few people have done scn the right way too.
It is one of his most important writings. He hit the nail on the head here.
He identified the key datum of cause in a sea of chaos.
It is a time when he was very right.
He identified the root cause of a deteriorating civilization and only cure for preventing civilization from self destructing.
The cause of the mass murders is children who had parents who did not bring them up right.
They had no emotional nourishment and life guidance. They had no stable data. Likely spent a lot of time as a child in day care.
So they become psychotic and go mad at everybody.
Motherhood is not a part time job.
Daycare cannot possibly replace or substitute what a good properly trained mother can do for a child.
Schools cannot be depended to teach the child about sex education and life guidance and building character. Such ideas left to the schools will deteriorate to the most perverted, twisted lowest common denominator, as is clearly happening today.
We are all a product of a conception, a gestation, and an upbringing.
If you have a problem with a product, you have to check the factory for the cause.
We are all basically only as good as we have been bred and brought up and educated.
(Although there appears to be some exceptions. Nature occasionally seems to try and produce some great beings in spite of crazy homes in an attempt to preserve itself. )
But for the most part, if you have a problem with a husband, a father, you have to check with his mother.
He is only as good as he has been mothered.
If you have a problem with a woman, you have to check with her mother.
She is only as good as she has been mothered.
That point is made in the following verse from the bible:
Proverbs 22:6
King James Version (KJV)
6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
A few generations ago, it was commonly said that behind every successful man there is a successful woman.
That is in the same grove as what Hubbard is saying.
The women’s liberation idea is genocide in the making.
Women libbers are made up of women who have committed overts and overts of omision against children and husbands because they did not get the right education (the right hatting) on how to be a good mother and a good wife (a successful woman).
So they want nothing to do with motherhood and the proper care and feeding of husbands.
But by doing so they are committing the ultimate crime against the fourth dynamic- eventual inevitable genocide or self extermination.
The Proper Care and Feeding of Husbands: Laura Schlessinger …
This is not misogyny.
It is for the love of true women and for the prevention of genocide of the world.
That is in the same grove as Hubbard’s words.
So don’t shoot the messenger.
Or even if you disagree with Hubbard on this, this does not make him any less right.
It is only common sense.
Common sense is the presence of mind and general concern that the law imputes to all persons. That is a sense that everyone should have.
Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
Sound judgment not based on specialized knowledge; native good judgment.
Everyone has a duty to appeal to common sense and good reasoning. Failure to do so may be a cause for action for liability via law.
Many yrs ago, I listened to an interview on the radio with a very intelligent African woman author of a book on this very subject.
As most people in the world know, there is a very serious problem with culture there. I think it was in light of the aids crisis.
Men think they have to screw every woman they see if they get a chance and might get away with it.
She wisely explained in her book that the mother is ultimately responsible for teaching her son’s on how to treat and respect women.
She is responsible for teaching her daughters on how to be women and wives and mothers
And her sons on how to be men and husbands and fathers.
Her message is exactly in alignment with Hubbard’s words on the subject.
Dio
This is all very well and good, however, it ignores numerous studies on the domestic environment of criminal offenders that demonstrate again and again that most violent offenders are men, and those men came from homes characterized by domestic violence. Most domestic violence is committed by men and perpetrated on women and children. It should also be noted that women also commit domestic violence on their children and that is every bit as effective in producing violent adult offenders. It is an upbringing of violence and neglect that perpetuates the violence, passing it on to the next generation. Income levels are also a factor, poverty is a marker for domestic violence. Violence starts with the violation of human rights, dignity and autonomy.
It is difficult for a mother to stop a large male from committing violence on her and on her children, especially if she is dependent on that male. She has the right to call for police intervention, however, if she does then she is even more likely to be subjected to violence when the police leave. If she leaves, she is even more likely to be subjected to violence and typically that is when she is killed. Staying home and pandering to such a man is INSANE and stupid beyond belief. That teaches the young men that they are entitled to be hostile if they are not pandered to and the young women that they live to serve men.
Holding a woman wholly responsible for the upbringing of children is thus absurd, especially if that responsibility includes being submissive (propitiatory) to males. LRH reflects this insane attitude in his write-up, suggesting that men by their very nature are difficult creatures and women should pander to them. IMO that is just plain nuts and it perpetuates the nonsense. Similar to men are just sowing their wild oats or men will be men. Bah! Its just false data. The issue is human dignity for both men and women. And men have just as much bearing and RESPONSIBILITY for their own behavior as do women. Women should not be taught to smooth bullshit over and perpetuate this covert violence against women. Laura Schlessinger is full of shit as well, about the only thing you can say about her is that she makes great money on her talk shows but she doesn`t walk the talk.
My family has raised both boys and girls. Lots of them. My own mother broke the chain of domestic violence by successfully leaving and getting me and my siblings out of the path of violence at home. My siblings and I supported her decision, even though it meant she had to work outside of the home, and not one of us are violent. Not one of children are violent. But that isn`t because we were all stay at home mothers, it is because we are all men and women who refuse to allow ANY adults in the vicinity to dramatize violence, whether that violence takes the form of physical violence or violation of human rights and dignity. That includes violating the dignity of women and children by making them subservient or accepting of violence against themselves.
One of the most continually violent areas in the world is the Middle East. Perhaps this has something to do with the lack of women`s rights there, and the culture of violence against women who disobey their husbands? Women stay home there and they OBEY or else VIOLENCE is used against them.
As far as I am concerned, LRH was extremely hypocritical on this subject. EXTREMELY. He created a staff environment that made it impossible for any such upbringing as he so fondly (and falsely) describes in Science of Survival and his own children were pretty much raised by nannies and governess. NIBs hated him, Arthur committed suicide, Mary Sue went to jail. So you will forgive me if I completely ignore LRH on the subject of healthy families. My own mother has a much better grip on all this than LRH ever did.
Maria,
i couldn’t agree more.
Dio claims this piece by LRH is one of the times when the man was very very right. I find, like you, that it is nothing of the kind – to me it is one of the most devious, slimy, rotten 1.1 things the man ever penned. And that’s saying something.
There’s nothing wrong with the concept of a husband/father going out and bringing home the bacon and the mother then cooking it and looking after the home. The majority of humanity arrange family life that way and it seems to work out just fine for them. But that SOS chapter – it’s maddeningly difficult to pin down exactly what is wrong with it. Since I read it the first time and ever time since, I come away with a feeling that according to Ron the whole family setup is incorrect and everyone has it wrong. To top it off, it is condescending, and it’s hard to spot exactly why.
I think it’s hard to spot exactly why because it is 1.1. For evidence – while Ron wrote that in Cuba he had his kidnapped young daughter in the hotel with him. You cannot get more diametrically opposed between what he wrote and the reality than that!
As to what makes men violent – I live in South Africa. The rape capital of the world. No other country on the planet has more men per capita that beat up their womenfolk. Take all the images you see on TV police dramas and rap stars that beat up their girlfriends and the reality here is so very much worse when it happens.
The truth is simple – those men are bullies and consider women as chattel. The woman by and large has no effective way to deal with it, she is suppressed. Battered wife syndrome rules in such domestic environments. For people to suggest that somehow the women must take responsibility for what comes out of the family is just insulting. It’s probably rooted in reasonableness and going into agreement with men to give them a free pass when they swing their fists.
That’s not to say moms don’t care for their kids and do their best by them. Of course, most do. It’s the trying to subtely shift the blame onto the momand absolve the male that really gets my goat.
Phew, I feel better now.
Alan
Hi dear Maria.
I think you got the very point with: “The issue is human dignity for both men and women.” And even in Middle East you will found men who respect their wives and you find women having jobs. Like in the Curan says a man “can” bite his wife if he want to if the wife doesn’t complain BUT The Curan never said he has too! Even not “may”, and for the time it could be a improvement! (Compare to the former habits). And I could have seen that many educated Muslims have understood that and have noticed that near each Sourate start saying that Allah is generous with the believer and patient with the non believer. Many others examples of tolerence, understanding and patience are indeed in their holly book (even especially anout Jewes…). And the educated Muslims looks to care more about this definition of a Muslim: “Is Muslim the one who harms no Allah’s creatures, would be by his actions or his mouth”.
Hope it could help, cheer.
Nope. These men have no business owning another human being. We have a word for this: slavery. I don`t care what reasons or excuses are given for this, no matter which way you cut it, if you can beat your wife, kill your wife, and order her about under law, then she is your property. This is a matter of civil law and civil rights and if sharia really is that tolerant, then there should be no problem ensuring those rights both religiously and civilly.
Me: I will be no man`s property and I am disgusted by even tacit support of such violations of human rights and dignity.
Maria: “Nope. These men have no business owning another human being. We have a word for this: slavery.”
Alan: Have you noticed with these male-dominated rulesets, the rules never work in reverse….
A husband can divorce his wife by saying so to her three times. The wife doesn’t get to do that though.
A father can sell his daughters into salvery. But, ahem, no, not his sons.
A man is expected to take his late brother’s widow as his own wife, but sisters-in-law may not take take the man in the same way.
A girl joins her husband’s family and takes a dowry. So, what? An entrance fee?
In Africa, the groom PAYS for his bride. It’s worded as thanks to the parents for raising the girl, but upstat women don’t get to buy husbands.
Lady citizens of the US and UK have only been allowed to vote in democratic elections for less than 100 years.
A man may bite his wife and under certain circumstances we’ll overlook it. When women do that, something else applies. Usually death.
Polygamy is common in some parts of the world. But never one wife many husbands.
How many newly married men do you know that legally changed their surname to that of the bride?
Mrs John Smith was a common form of address for wife, but never Mr Mary Brown for the guy.
Women must cover their face in public (apparently so as not to make other men lustful). The obvious solution never gets applied – find men with wandering eyes and make them blind.
Hysterectomies FAR outnumber vasectomies for couples that want to have birth control by surgical means. Same for the Pill vs condom usage.
And if Ron had his way with Chap 15 in SOS, we’d be right back in the Dark Ages fully enforcing that whole list right here in the enlightened West.
Yes, I have noticed that the rules don`t work in reverse. And I agree that chapter 15 would see women back in the dark ages and in pretty short order too.
The Goddess is rising. And God bless them all, there are countless men who share the dream of fully enfranchised individuals, both male and female. The men in my own family share that dream and they are strong, masculine and empowered individuals who co-create and abhor slavery in any form.
Maria: “there are countless men who share the dream of fully enfranchised individuals, both male and female” Very Nice dear Maria that you have noticed that point. 🙂
“The Goddess is rising. And God bless them all, there are countless men who share the dream of fully enfranchised individuals, both male and female. The men in my own family share that dream and they are strong, masculine and empowered individuals who co-create and abhor slavery in any form.”
🙂
splog: If I do not approve any of the unbalanced rights listed before (I say that for those who have hard time with differentiation…), I can say that the GENERAL NEGATIVE assertions that women can’t have several husband, legally of course, on this planet, is definitively a wrong statement; and that the one about men’s family names is very claused to, at least in France, where women and men often agree to keep the tow family names, and for my own little life, I have even proposed my fiancee to keep only her family name (to compensate the still unbalanced state and for ither reasons too indeed). And for those who has not noticed it, if I often use “hu”, “hum”, for “he”, “she”, “him”, “her”, etc. It is for a kind of respect to recognise that a thetan do not equals hus sexe; how many did this here?…
idealgoal; “if I often use “hu”, “hum”, for “he”, “she”, “him”, “her”, etc. It is for a kind of respect to recognise that a thetan do not equals hus sexe; how many did this here?…”
I wish you wouldn’t do that. You invented new English pronouns and left out the part where you said what they mean. I can’t understand you if you do that.
splog: For your education I do not have invent anything. But could you tell me what lake you think I had necesseraly invented it? And, could you tell me what is the difference between a “LIVING language” and a “dead” one? And where did you write that no one has the right to create while writting? Especially when philosophical reasons comes to place?
idealgoal: For your education I do not have invent anything. But could you tell me what lake you think I had necesseraly invented it? And, could you tell me what is the difference between a “LIVING language” and a “dead” one? And where did you write that no one has the right to create while writting? Especially when philosophical reasons comes to place?
Me: OK, so you didn’t invent hum and hum. Someone else did and has largely been ignored by the English speaking world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#Invented_pronouns
In 47 years I have never seen anyone use that pronoun ever, and I’m well educated. It isn’t an esoteric concept, it’s an ordinary everyday thing that most people use once in almost every sentence – personal pronouns. They are probably in the top five most common English words.
I’ll give you a tip: English is obviously not your first language. Don’t try and be cute when you use it, you do not know enough about it for that. Just stick to the common everyday rules that everyone else uses so they understand you. You are trying to communicate philosophy, you are not being a poet. You are trying to communicate ideas, not create an art form with language.
Basically, you are out-R on your public. Put the R back in.
Very thanks about your invalidation about not been a writer, philosopher nor a poet! ….
I have the right I take abiut my own communication, sorry guy, and if I have not so much pratice in english and in typing in a mobile phone, I knew something you didn’t, and I knew it with a purpose especially relevant to the discussion about sexe rights balance and so “neutrality” too.
You’re so much educated that you didn’t know or care about the use of neutral gender pronons! And so very educated that you forget that english language and the U.S.A. have changed through the centuries much because of the foreinghers became part of it.
Any way, are you mind blind enough to not see that the english language has became since long ago too, an international language? Do you ignore from which country comes a word like “rendezvous”? Is that an English or an American who has invented this word? So, what your argument to say I would not have right, even not to create in it! but not to even just take a creation of english tongues, yes not very known, but how it will be known if no one use it???? What trouble you here? I mean really: the fact I am in advance on your own evolution about communication on the respect of the two sex and factual practical of respect especially of the femal gender, through in your own language?
And for the R, let me say that I have no interest to fit your level of of R! No thanks Man; not for now at least.
Note: I had a relation of me, a Polish Mathematicien who taught in Tunisia, he knew more about the history of my contry, France, and its philosophers than me at this time. It didn’t complexe me in anything and I enjoyed the lessons; could be you should take example 😉
This must be the funniest trolling post I have read in a good while. Trying to educate another in the English language like that… LOL. You made my day.
idealgoal,
Allow me to illustrate more:
Moet asseblief dit nie doen nie; jy’t so pas nuwe Engelse voornaamwoorde uitgedink sonder om te verduidelik wat hulle beteken. Mense kan jou nie verstaan nie as jy so maak, inteendeel meeste sal dink jy is gek.
Now tell me what I just said.
Well, I don’t know what you have written, dear splog, but I very understand the difference between changing only 1 item for a specific greatly constructive purpose, and the change of a whole text. One is about study training, the other only to make you right; isn’t it?
So, tell me:
– Why you don’t make this differenciation yourself (between the change if 1 letter and a whole text)?
– Whyvyou didn’t simply asked me at first (= communication in case of doudts) instead to wait so long and blame me for your comm lag?
And again:
– Why did you chose to interpret/take “hu” necesseraly as an invention of me, instead of chosing to admire the possibility I could have good reasons to do so?
– Why didn’t you decided to google “hu” and “hum” to see if it have any existance in english?
– Why did you suppose I was necessarely wrong?
Would it be because you wrongly thought it was preferable for you to consider me at fault first (to diminish my value to your spritual eyes) because I had first point out any wrongness in a GENERAL NEGATIVE STATEMENT that could offence and even create real war because of the offence of important people or not of the Midlle East (of both sexes)?
Nope & Maria: I see the Curan like a gradient to bring the existing civilization of the place an ethnics to a higher level of civilization. Do you bring directly someone from 1.5 to 4.0 or more directly? Are you able to do that? If yes that very great! But thanks to Mohamed (and his wife!) having try to do something to improve the scene of the time!
Most educated Muslim I know respect there wives and consider them as equals. What I have pointed here is that is an untrue statement to largely say that wemen in Midle East are svales for men. Say that to many of the yong women in Tunisia (or even in Iran) and I think they will feel very insulted.
Well, what I see here is that, again many of those who write here, but “thanks to God” there are exceptions: it looks to me you have very hard time to not make large generalities (mostly negatives of course) and to try to care of the minorities and exceptions. I hope you will come to a point you will more willing to differenciate. For my part I feel already a bit tired to try to make few differienciating.
Didier.
You are arrogant beyond all reason, standing there passing judgment on my statements while you defend practices and laws that would surely reduce my legal status. I have no trouble differentiating, however, I also am completing willing to take a position that I believe is a correct position. If you think that is a generality so be it. I support the constitution of the U.S. and human rights and dignity and I do believe that it should be a matter of law.
And I will not ignore the stoning of the young woman in the streets of Iraq because there are men who are kind. The fact is there are lots of men who are not kind and they can and do take advantage of religious and civil laws that fail to protect women from their viciousness.
This has nothing to do with the Koran and everything to do with man`s inhumanity to man.
For the record I personally know many, many women who have moved to the U.S. from middle eastern countries and they have no interest in returning to that culture. Absolutely not. This is despite the fact that their husbands treat them well and always did.
Maria: “You are arrogant beyond all reason, standing there passing judgment on my statements while you defend practices and laws that would surely reduce my legal status. I have no trouble differentiating,”
Oh yes, indeed, dear Maria: you very poorly differentiate and wrongly extrapolate HERE!
Quote me please where I’ve written I was approving any unbalanced rights between mem and women?
Why you didn’t differenciate:
– it exists good and respectful guys for the woman (women) they cheer in the Midle East, = = HIGH DIFFERENTIATION!
And:
– it doesn’t exists any unbalanced rights in Mildest East
Or
– I approve unbalanced rights between women and men
????
GOOD for me any way you fight so much for balanced rights 🙂 but wouldn’t have any degree of emotional blindness to not read EXACTELY what I have written?
Maria: “You are arrogant beyond all reason, . . . ”
Chris: True and simply trolling at this point. I have already erased my response to this one before posting as I felt that I was being manipulated.
For the record; I stand firmly with Maria on this matter.
Geir: It’s your very right, dear Geir, even if for me it is very sad that emotions and “charge” on a subject could blind us so much and so much make us alter-ising even a written communication 😦 I wish we can evolve towards much better than this
Geir: For the record; I stand firmly with Maria on this matter.
Chris: . . . and I’m simply clicking on past his posts to the next person’s — hopefully more relevant post.
Chris: You do have the right to do this! Dear Chris, you do have the right! 🙂
Maria, ( and Miraldi too, and any one else who disagreed with the spirit of my post)
But I will address Maria in particular here:
A few points:
1. Your attitude is especially shallow, irrational, irresponsible, lacking in common sense, actually covertly genocidal. Which is criminal. You are guilty of inspiring genocide.
You are guilty of committing crimes against humanity, in scn terms; crimes against the fourth dynamic.
It is not about ownership of women. It is about the responsibility of women to society.
Using the word ownership is twisted thinking.
I could go on here and explain more, but I don’t have the time.
2. Your attitude is especially the kind of attitude Hubbard was addressing.
3. You only selected certain points to argue against my post of Hubbard’s post and my commentary. And avoided many other vital points.
And you disregarded the spirit of the message, or twisted the spirit of the message
To do these things is intellectual dishonesty.
You would do the right thing by going back and carefully rereading it, to grasp the spirit of the message. Not the inadvertent mistakes.
4. You say you believe, this and believe that.
The questions that have to be asked are?
Does believing in something make it true?
Does believing in something change the facts?
Obviously no.
So why would anyone in their right mind want to believe anything?
When a belief is nothing more than a confession of ignorance?
So by believing you are admitting and expressing your ignorance, you are telling everyone that you do not know what you are talking about. But being a blow hard and only blowing hot air.
You seem to think that the truth is determined by who wins an argument, or by beliefs.
Nothing is farther from the truth.
The truth is the truth and the truth exists independent of arguments and beliefs.
The truth will exist after all such arguers are dead and beliefs are history, and society has self destructed.
No belief has ever changed any facts.
A sane, rational and intellectually competent person would use such intellectual functions as impartial reasoning and evaluation and logic to study cause and effect to arrive at the most superior computation, the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.
The datum, the answer which solves the most problems for the longest period of time, is the truth.
The highest truth of a subject.
5. Yes, I agree there are a few out points in Hubbard’s words on the responsibility of women in society.
I could of edited it, but did not not want to get accused of such blasphemy by Scn die hards.
I have edited it for other comm lines.
And in hind sight I should of done it for this forum, because it is not a group of scn diehards. But I was wobblingly hesitant and also short of time. And the lack of time won out.
The diligent student always should stand on the shoulders of his teachers and see farther.
One point is “men are difficult and troublesome creatures”.
Those words of Hubbard’s fell short. Hubbard failed to see, failed to complete the cycle of thinking through the issue to the end, to the cause of the problem with men being difficult and troublesome creatures.
It only stands to reason and logic that a man is only as good as he has been mothered.
I could go on and edit it further, but I have to go on to other things.
6. Proverbs 22:6
King James Version (KJV)
Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.
That is an axiomatic truth.
The mother is the factory of children and society. The mother has the most influence on a child’s outcome.
If you have a problem with a man, you have to go and check the factory for the problem.
You have to go and check with his mother for the cause of the problematic man.
If you have a problem with society, you have to check the factory for the cause.
A society is only as sane, sensible and stable as it’s mothers.
The spirit of Hubbard’s message is that it is only logical that women’s most important role in society is the creation of the next generation.
A society which fails to keep that foremost in mind is a society which is on it’s way out.
The ultimate responsibility for the safety of society lies with women.
He said that when women abandon the home and social responsibilities , and compete with men in business and politics on an equal basis, that society is on it’s way out.
This is clearly evident all around us, if you take an honest look.
As a back up, I brought up the bit on the African lady author who was intelligent enough to recognize the cause of Africa’s problem with men.
She honestly looked, evaluated cause and effect and realized that it was the mother’s responsibility to teach her son’s how to be responsible boys, men and husbands and members of society. How to treat women.
It is also her responsibility to teach her daughters on how be responsible girls, women, and mothers and wives.
Such high level of intelligence is only one in how many hundreds of millions of people there are in Africa?
There are extremely few truly intelligent people on earth.
Dio
HEY DUDE!
That is WAY over the line here. This is precisely why I have put you along with just one other person on moderation on this blog.
I let this through as a display of what is not tolerated on this blog – and as a warning to those who encounter you here or in other places.
I urge others here to let one pass as it is a fantastic display of a Troll.
Hi Dio. Very thanks for having shared your Reality. 🙂
If me and my fiancee we are agree that it is the best she focus on our daughter, at least the 4/5 of her time, by my professional activity and personal relatives experiences, I have seen with no doudt at all that a mother CAN have a job and care enough for her children to make nice, sweet, intelligent and respectful children who make responsible adults.
As I could have seen it, it is more a question of the very quality of the time the working mother grant her own children.
Of course, in France, anything is done to completely free the mother at the most important times to care about her children, even the father can take specific hollidays to care and help the mother to care.
A point I’ve noticed here, is that when both work they can easy pay someone to care about house keeping so that the mother when she stop working get free just at the moment the children stop school too, so that at the end the children not really miss any time presence of their mother!
I took these examples as counter-examples to show that your very strict statement, dear Dio, could be would need few moderations. But it doesn’t mean that the examples I took are the generality. I have noticed them myself because they are an exception in a way. And near always it was in family who has a rather good level of leavingness (material and intellectual).
Hope it could help.
Geir,
At least a couple of points:
1. I am not trolling. I just don’t have time to sit here and reply or comment on everything.
I did not really have time to write these posts either, but certain fires have to be put out.
2. I did not go over board. If Maria can say what she wants against my post, why can’t I rebut?
And it is apparent that she sure can dish it out too, and her views are quite extreme and detrimental to the survival of the human race.
Her views are anti survival.
My views are prosurvival.
What I am saying is the most important issue facing mankind.
3. What part of what I said is not true?
Only the truth will solve our problems.
Avoiding the truth will cause our demise.
You can’t solve a problem from the same level of thinking that caused the problem.
Dio
I have absolutely no illusion of you understanding when you cross a line or why. I have seen you many times in other arenas and I have received extremist e-mails from you. It is clear to me that you will not, regardless of what another say, understand when you are off the wall.
And so this will merely stand as an example to others of what is crossing the line on this blog. As for you; I will simply continue to have you on moderation. If you now try to push this as an argument, I will be forced to block your comments. So – leave it.
PS:
Another thing to add to my post:
Political correctness is often a form of lying.
Dio
On the related subject of Clear…I know there has been much discussion regarding the State of Clear, here and elsewhere. I went “clear” on NED. I do not, nor have ever claimed to have the abilities stated in the Dianetics book. Personally, it doesn’t really matter to me, whether or not I do or don’t get a cold, or recall 1000 digits of Pi. I will say this about it – “something” most definitely happened, almost indescribable, incredibly personal and spiritually profound. It was, in a word, life changing and totally unexpected.
Say what you will about Hubbard and his methods, none of this detracts from what I experienced using the technology he developed. And for this reason I have respect for him, despite the warts.
Statpush: “Say what you will about Hubbard and his methods, none of this detracts from what I experienced using the technology he developed. And for this reason I have respect for him, despite the warts.”
+1 – that is the bottom line for me too.
And I agree. None of tis detracts from my gains either.
You know, it’s truly odd…to this day I cannot tell you exactly what happened in that NED session. Did I erase the bank? Have the “Clear Cog”? Who knows? Who cares? All I can be certain of is that I had reach a point where I knew with absolute certainty that I would never go back to the way I was. Simply not possible. It was as if I had been awaken from some unimaginable slumber, and I was now awake and experiencing the world for the first time.
Maybe Hubbard’s hopes and postulates for higher states of existence were ambitious, maybe too ambitious. Maybe unrealistic or unobtainable. But if you shoot for the stars you might just make it to the moon. And the moon is far beyond your wildest dreams…once you arrive.
I guess I feel LRH gets the raw end of the stick sometimes, because PCs couldn’t levitate or walk on water. What often gets overlooked is what he DID deliver on. And that was pretty special.
statpush
“….I knew with absolute certainty that I would never go back the way it was.” ” I was now awake”. WOW!! Why the WAS? What is coming through that it is an IS! Am I right?
Hi Marianne,
Not exactly what I said, but I can tell you that I reached a point in my NED auditing where I had reached a pivotal point. Difficult to describe, but I knew I had crossed some type of threshold and there was no going back. Understand that this is completely subjective, so I am not making any sort of objective claims. Am I glad I did it? Hell yes. Does it live up to another’s standard or expectation? Don’t know, don’t care. I’m trying to be difficult, but it kinda is what it is.
statpush: It was, in a word, life changing and totally unexpected.
Chris: As a spiritual path should be and continue to be. Tell more. Did you do more Bridge actions and if so how did it go? Also, if you didn’t continue, why not? And did you replace that path in your life for another spiritual path?
Hi Chris,
I went on to do up to OT III. I found the OT levels were interesting in a number of ways. I think the OT levels (I to III) require you do things you would never have dreamed of doing. In many respects you are addressing a chronic condition. Much of it is cognition-less auditing, which was quite a change. So, for me, most of the wins or gains I had soloing was as an auditor, rather than a PC. All along the way there was a sense or feeling that one was unburdening some aspect of one’s case. Exactly what that was depends on your viewpoint and/or belief in Scn cosmology. Do I regret spending the time/money doing it? No. Did I get something out of it? Overall I would say “yes”, though it is difficult to articulate. I think doing OT III gave me the ability to objectively look at what was happening in corporate Scn, disagree with it and confront it – and ultimately leave it.
A friend and I have joked that the EP of Scn is that you leave. I think there is some truth in that.
I haven’t replaced Scn with something else since retiring. I spent nearly 30 years in the corporate Scn world. Now spending some time reflecting on what has transpired over the years and my journey up the Bridge. Don’t have a pressing need to “do” something at the moment. No real need of change I suppose. That may change, dunno. If it does and I do decide to pursue further Scn levels it would be outside the official church.
Thank you kindly for that reply.
I made this post on Marty`s blog in answer to his questions:
Are there any practicing Scientologists out there who see these types of public statements as uninformed, bigoted, and/or arrogant?
Are there any practicing Scientologists who believe it is a wise course to attempt to integrate, evolve and/or transcend?
You can read his post, and why he asked these questions at this url:
[http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/scientology-regression/]
This was my answer:
I was once a practicing Scientologist, well trained and competent. I had numerous successes and many gains on my own auditing. But I am no longer a Scientologist, for I have parted ways with several clauses of the Code of a Scientologist and numerous LRH issues prohibiting making public statements about Scientology.
I am however a citizen of the United States, a citizen of this world, and a citizen of the vast uncharted domain often referred to as the theta universe by Scientologists. As such, I believe my opinion should at least be heard. After all, I do have a personal stake in the quality of our shared endeavors.
LRH repeatedly invalidated, dismissed and denounced outsiders and dissenting individuals in his lectures and in his issues over a period of 36 years. He states unequivocally and repeatedly that Scientology is the ONLY workable technology of the human spirit and man, its only salvation. He often characterized the body game as a sad state for a theta being, a game that traps and degrades theta beings, until at last they end up in a state of total oblivion, dead forever.
The problem is that there is very real value in the auditing technology that was developed under the name of Scientology. LRH declared exclusive ownership legally and through the practice of brand establishment. The orders to copyright everything under the name L. Ron Hubbard were issued to HCO by LRH.
The real question is whether the technology can and should be lifted out of the body of materials which include all of LRH writings so that it can be successfully by anyone of good will.
Those loyal to LRH will fight any effort to do that. In their estimation, LRH is ka kahn and his foibles, mistakes and shortcomings should not be the subject of discussion or disagreement. In other words, he is so upstat that any ethics chit should be shredded and the big guns turned on the writer of the chit. That is what he taught, after all.
So the question is, given the state of Scientology over a period of many, many years, is the end worth the means? Are human beings and the MEST universe truly destructive to theta beings? Should they just be humored or ignored or put in their place if they express upset over such an attitude? Are we building a new civilization for human beings? Or are they a barrier that needs to be pushed aside in the necessary rehabilitation of a theta being?
If we are building a new civilization for human beings, then this is the answer:
1. Yes
2. Yes
If we are not building a new civilization for human beings, but are set on rehabilitating theta beings, and undoing the dwindling spiral produced by continued association with bodies i.e. let sleeping sapiens snore, then this is the answer:
1. No
2. No
I personally think that if we cannot work to create a new civilization for human beings, then there is not much point in working on the other, for the same craziness that brought us to this pass will not be addressed and resolved, but will repeat again.
Note: The reason why I am posting this here is that I think that it goes to the core of all of the contradictory and often derogatory characteristics of many of the policies and writings of LRH. Could it be that much of the way things rolled out was because it was framed and written in such a way as to let sleeping sapiens snore?
Thanks for you very interesting and relevant point of view, dear Maria. IMO.
Maria: Could it be that much of the way things rolled out was because it was framed and written in such a way as to let sleeping sapiens snore?
Chris: I don’t follow. This is a HISTORY OF MAN reference, right? Are you saying Hubbard is being deliberately clever by writing in an obtuse way, or what? Sorry for being dense but this went over my head.
There seems to be two different lines of thought running.
The first is that the core purpose is to rehabilitate theta beings and to hell with bodies and families and the GE, the family man. In fact the sooner a theta being is liberated from association with bodies and the cult of the care of the body, the better. So human civilization is entirely expendable, best to save the theta being from the human and MEST trap and therefore there is no real need to do anything but pay lip service to the progress of the human race. In fact, living a life as a human being is having other fish to fry, one should be using that body to escape the degradation of the MEST universe and its collective madness.
The second is that life could be likened to a game, and Scientology rehabilitates the ability to play a game. Its aim is a new civilization, presumably composed of human beings who have been audited becoming an advanced species of human, the homo novis or at the least working to bring greater sanity to human endeavor. Now the quality of life outside of the Church and the auditing room actually matters, and progress has meaning.
If the first scenario is the truth then the second scenario would be little better than a shore story to keep the natives from attacking i.e. its PR, like the Apollo pretending to be on other business in port so as to avoid troubles with port authorities.
I get you. So for all apparences the first instance is an unreal fantasy since Scientology has not cracked that bubble. The second is more reasonable and attainable.
I think that he went through the same kind of thing we have gone through — the wishy washy phenomena. And each time it was EUREKA! I`ve got it! Then oh…. Strange. It looks completely different now (switched matrices) and then oh I see, these pcs have this going on and that makes sense… but wait! (and an entire matrix surfaces with another set of viewpoints anchored differently and responding differently.) Then finally, wow. What can realistically be done with anyone? Hmmmm…. try that on for size. Nope. And on it goes. 36 years of it! Egg on his face, ridicule, and those ungrateful jerks! Why arggghhhh! What do you think of that idea?
Maria: “Nope. And on it goes. 36 years of it! Egg on his face, ridicule, and those ungrateful jerks! Why arggghhhh! What do you think of that idea?”
2x. I think that sums it up.
It’s a spoke int the theta-mest wheel of misfortune: theta impinges on mest and tries to put order into it; chaos ensues; theta extracts itself from the chaos (death works wonders, but short of death, saying “bummer, dude” three times will divorce you from it); theta collects its wits, reformulates its knowingness and jumps back into the cesspool, er chaos.
(The mix of metaphors was mainly for Chris.)
Wallow, wallow
Soiled and fallow
Rebirth doth come
You get a free spin!
This is a look at LRH that is new to me. I’ve read it before — puppet master and whatnot — but never had the underpinnings presented in this way. The matrices work for me in several ways. Liking it.
Maria, to me the ‘2 lines of thought’ you mention echo the attitudes of the Theravada on one hand and the Mahayana on the other.
I cannot resist…Wake me when it’s over! 🙂
LOL! It could have been uglier!
Forgive me, off-topic but of great importance.
Kate Bornstein has lung cancer and needs our help.
From Tory Ortega:
http://tonyortega.org/2013/03/20/scientology-ordered-to-turn-over-confidential-files-in-forced-abortion-lawsuit/
“KATE BORNSTEIN IS KICKING CANCER’S ASS, BUT COULD USE A HAND
Last year, we were very pleased to write a Voice cover story about Kate Bornstein, one of New York’s most original performance artists, a well-known gender activist, and a former first mate for L. Ron Hubbard on the yacht Apollo (back when Kate was Al Bornstein).
What pleases us less is the fight that Kate has been engaged in against lung cancer. She was diagnosed in August, and after a successful surgery, the disease rallied and is giving her more trouble. The good news, however, is that her doctors tell her that it’s curable, and she’s fighting hard with a regimen of chemotherapy and diet.
In the meantime, she could use a little help. So today, she’s starting a GoFundMe site where we can all donate a little to help her out. As soon as we have the URL on that site, we’ll post it here. And please, if you haven’t yet read Kate’s amazing memoir, A Queer and Pleasant Danger, do yourself a big favor and buy a copy now.
And here’s the link to her fundraising site. Please go there!”
Kate’s Go Fund Me Page – Help Kate Bornstein Stay Alive
http://www.gofundme.com/2cxb6w
Amazon link to A Queer and Pleasant Danger (Amazon):
http://www.amazon.com/Queer-Pleasant-Danger-Memoir/dp/0807001651/
Barnes and Noble link to A Queer and Pleasant Danger (Barnes and Noble):
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/a-queer-and-pleasant-danger-kate-bornstein/1110784336
.
Geir, I don’t understand why you want to make a big problem out of this. When I read that above in about 1956 it was very encouraging. We were making Clears! Ron was excited, hypoteses were coming true. He was observing some of that.
I think you need to understand that this whole idea of Clear was postulated by LRH. He was constantly working toward improving that state.
As far as I know, only “total recall” didn’t fit the bill. The ability to recall ever little thing turned out to be false. That doesn’t mean he was lying, he was researching. Who would even want or need the ability to recall each and every thing? Only those who thought that was important would be able to do it. The rest of us prefer to live in present time, recalls or not.
As an aside, I went 50 years without a cold. I also took Vitamin-c. It is body, mind, spirit after all.
There is no need to try to prove LRH a liar. All that shows is you have ARCx’s and haven’t run them out.
One takes what one knows of Scientology and applies it to his preclears and the world.
Pat Krenik
Did you read all the comments here?
Pat Krenik wrote:
There is no need to try to prove LRH a liar. All that shows is you have ARCx’s and haven’t run them out.
Whether one person lied has nothing to do with someone else’s “case”.
The two are not connected.
Only a Scientologist would try to connect them in a desperate attempt to both ignore LRH’s lies, and to “dead agent” the person pointing them out.
In order to make informed decisions about Scientology, and even to apply Scientology correctly and non-abusively, you must confront LRH’s lies.
Anyone who can’t confront and openly acknowledge LRH’s lies can’t be trusted as an auditor. That person will dramatize Scientology, rather than apply it consciously.
And any auditor who tells someone else they have an ARCx is not an auditor.
Alanzo
Your missing the point, Al. She said “no need to try to prove”. Take note of the nuances of “need” and “prove”. Nothing in that says that she is trying to ignore anything or dead agent anybody.
And Geir himself has as much as said he has an ARCX.
Marildi –
So do you believe that Geir Isene, OT 8, is just dramatizing his case when he writes the opening post of this thread, as Pat says?
Alanzo
I believe that even OT 8’s can have ARC breaks.
And you are putting words into Pat’s mouth when you write that she says he is “just dramatizing his case” (also known as Straw Man). One can have an ARCX without it being a “dramatization of case”.
Amazing Marildi –
Here is what Pat wrote:
There is no need to try to prove LRH a liar. All that shows is you have ARCx’s and haven’t run them out.
ALL THAT SHOWS is you have ARCx’s and haven’t run them out.
It doesn’t show that LRH lied, it shows that Geir has ARCx’s and hasn’t run them out.
You’re not getting the logical fallacy here? The complete dodge of whether LRH lied or not and the attack on Geir’s person for saying it?
And yet you don’t see it?
That’s odd.
Alanzo
It is a classical AdHom that somehow slipped by unnoticed. But Al caught it red handed.
Al, where Pat says “ALL THAT…” she is referring to the “need to try and prove”. She actually said nothing one way or the other as to whether or not LRH was a liar..
Evidently her viewpoint about there being an ARCX is centered around the idea of “need”.
There is no need to be upset about this, Marildi.
Geir: “There is no need to be upset about this, Marildi”
Now, how does that assumption differ from the one Pat made about you? 😉
My contributions to this particular exchange seem to me to be no different from yours or anyone else’s. Honestly.
I hope that joke illustrated that there is no difference. Mine was a blatant AdHom.
Oh! Good one. It went right over my head. 🙂
Marildi: “And you are putting words into Pat’s mouth when you write that she says he is “just dramatizing his case” (also known as Straw Man). One can have an ARCX without it being a “dramatization of case”. ”
Chris: 1. Pat thinks Geir is dramatizing his case, just ask her, . . Pat? and; 2. No you can’t. Just ask Elizabeth, . . . Elizabeth?
Eh, woot?
Wasn’t there a break in reality? Or a break in affinity with LRH?
No upset if that is what you are hinting at.
Okay, I guess it’s possible to have a disagreement without being upset about it.
It’s just hard for me to imagine that a person would spend a lot of time and energy on a subject that has no emotional component to it. But maybe that’s just my reality.
If someone presented a mathematical proof that 2 + 2 = 5, wold you be upset? Even though it is obviously out-reality?
And no, I am not the very least bit upset with LRH.
Geir: “And no, I am not the very least bit upset with LRH.”
Wow, that’s amazing to hear. I always had the idea that you have not forgiven him for various things.
There’s nothing to not forgive. I am simply on a quest to salvage what value he left behind by sifting out the booby-traps in it.
isene: “There’s nothing to not forgive. I am simply on a quest to salvage what value he left behind by sifting out the booby-traps in it.”
I am hard pressed to see any attentiveness to salvaging or sifting out booby traps. The observable quest would be to take polarized viewpoints and get them to clash. Why? To get blog numbers? Or a new dialectic syllogism: more plainly – shake the tree from all sides and see if there is value to the premise of shaking the tree. A good apple falling out is incidental to the joy of shaking the tree.
What ends up happening is a waste of bandwidth that should have been directed to a question like “Considering the inconsistencies in the definition of Clear over the history of Scientology, does the term have merit and what should the expected attributes be?”
Of course, that question may have been too boring to garner much input. But at least the input would have been directed at the right question.
I don’t think we’re quite there yet where people don’t obsessively defend Scientology when inconsistencies are pointed out.
Isene: “I don’t think we’re quite there yet where people don’t obsessively defend Scientology when inconsistencies are pointed out.”
Well, then, the best way to test that would be to try a more boring but appropriate question to the salvage operation and see.
It might also be helpful to limit the font size.
I have had several philosophy blog post to that effect. More will come as it tickles my fancy.
“I am simply on a quest to salvage what value he left behind by sifting out the booby-traps in it.”
You’ve said that and I got it. My only disagreement with you, Geir, is that I think in publicizing the wrongnesses to the extent you do, you may in effect very much discourage people from getting involved in Scientology, even outside the CoS. (For example, I got the idea, right or wrong, that this is what occurred with Tor Ivar.) Whereas, by contrast, you give the plus points extremely little press.
As a corollary, you also do not bother to point out the flagrant exaggerations and outright falsehoods that critics sometimes post but jump on any possible outpoint of proponents’ posts and challenge their claims about their successes. Whether your challenges are right or not is not the point I’m making here; it’s the imbalance that creates an impression.
In other words, you give the impression (and I use the word impression advisedly) that you don’t really think there is much worth salvaging.
Your impression is yours. I think it is quite colored.
And I write simply what occurs to me as important Now. You may like it or not, read it or not, comment on it or not.
Geir: “If someone presented a mathematical proof that 2 + 2 = 5, wold you be upset? Even though it is obviously out-reality?”
No, I wouldn’t be upset but I would probably attempt to correct the error, especially if that person and others were putting out such a datum to a lot of people who don’t know it isn’t true but might think that with so much agreement it must be true. Actually, I probably would be upset if I discerned that a lot of correct calculations would be prevented if people believed such a datum.
Or you could embrace the ensuing discussion because it would stimulate people exploring and thinking for themselves in this area. Instead of adamantly protesting it.
Geir: “Or you could embrace the ensuing discussion because it would stimulate people exploring and thinking for themselves in this area. Instead of adamantly protesting it.”
When 2ndxmr suggested in a post above that a less slanted approach be taken on blog topics, your answer was “I don’t think we’re quite there yet where people don’t obsessively defend Scientology when inconsistencies are pointed out.”
From that it doesn’t sound like you believe a true discussion can even take place!
So now when you talk about embracing discussion that stimulates people to explore and think for themselves, it seems that in the earlier comment you were simply justifying why you mainly write posts that are slanted towards being critical. Such posts encourage the critics – who dominate the threads and who are no less obsessive than the proponents, as you know.
No, I was trying to encourage you to embrace such a discussion. Because otherwise I don’t think a real discussion can take place.
Your earlier statement did not relate to just me – it was general. So what you’re saying now to me flies in the face of the earlier comment that you don’t think that type of discussion can even be done. It seems that you yourself are being defensive – and inconsistent.
No. You are One of several that makes a real discussion of what to salvage from Scientology all too hard. And now I’m done discussing this with you.
So you are basically repeating that you don’t think a real discussion is possible. Then why pretend you are trying to do so?
It’s a work in progress. Embrace it.
Okay. Now I feel hopeful. 🙂
The really good thing about discussing with you is that it inspires me to write new blog posts.
Unfortunately you seem to be too blind and fixated in your opinion of me to even SEE the posts I’ve written where I’ve agreed with a number of criticisms. Instead, you keep insisting that I’m blind and unable to change my mind. And you write yet another slanted and fallacious blog post. I guess you’ve been made wrong and now you HAVE to be right.
And who besides me do you include as “blind” (you who decries labels). Certainly not Valkov. So who are all these blind proponents that are making the critics so vehement and fired up. Other than them fanning each others flames, with you leading the way.
When are you going to have the courage to actually write a post that promotes a true discussion?
Touchy?
LOL.
No, but you may call it that if it helps you not-is the facts of the matter.
Time for me to go horizontal. Nice having this heart to heart with you. 😀
Marildi: When are you going to have the courage to actually write a post that promotes a true discussion?
Chris: Flattening of my buttons seems to be occurring or have occurred. Yet, I know I will still find items, looking forward to it. Self granted “pass” on bullbaiting on this level. Thank you Marildi.
Chris: Self granted “pass” on bullbaiting on this level.
Dee: Pass with Commendation!
Geir: “The really good thing about discussing with you is that it inspires me to write new blog posts.”
Chris: In this environment, and for the purpose of research and exploration, it is hard to put a price on or to overvalue her contribution.
True
Chris and Geir, do you guys ever consider how your invalidations might make me feel?
Or how such casually thrown out invalidations speak of your own characters?
Dear Marildi. That was two validations in a row. Mine was very sincere.
Geir, in the middle of an exchange with me your wrote a new blog post titled “Why are critics of Scientology so vehement?” and the first line of the post is “Because die hard proponents are so blind.”
And immediately after posting that, you wrote this comment to me: “The really good thing about discussing with you is that it inspires me to write new blog posts.”
How can that or the similar types of comments that followed it be considered anything but a backhanded “validation”?
Because the exchanges with you have led me to scrutinize my own fixed ideas and to evolve further. And I am thankful for that.
Oh. 🙂
Thanks for that, dear Geir. And of course I can say the same to you – and actually have done so a few times already.
Hey, I’m hopeful again! We might make it after all, LOL. 😉
Notice also that I immediately answered yours and 2ndxmr’s request to put up a blog post regarding what should be salvaged from Scientology. Please contribute to that post as it is the next step in the evolution. Let’s see if we are up to it.
Yes, of course I noticed that! And had to you credit. But I haven’t been able to give it much thought yet due to.my “other life” LOL.
Don’t worry, you haven’t seen the last of me. 😀
Marildi: Chris and Geir, do you guys ever consider how your invalidations might make me feel?
Chris: Marildi, I’ve just erased four very long paragraphs about how important you are to me. It was too long and too detailed a way to explain that my view that our diverging viewpoints have been integral to my subjective success in studying Heisenberg, Wolfram, Mandelbrot, and Godel. Your very unyielding faith, well thought out, and well backed up posts present Scientology in its very best light for its very best reasons. I am very well studied in and consider myself a very good, possibly expert student of Scientology; but I consider you a better one. I’ve joked you about many things many times, but I assure you that I am sincere when I say that you have pressured; maybe forced me to review and re-evaluate my reality from top to bottom concerning Scientology.
I can’t quite pull my thoughts together this evening after a hard day’s work to make this come out sounding right, in the way I want it to. Maybe in the morning I will wake with the rights words to describe my current spiritual reality. Tonight I just have to write that without a YOU the way that you are, then there would not be a ME being the way that I am. We are having a little bit different reality just now, me being over here and you being over there but my validation and thanks to you is sincere and heartfelt and not snide or a put down.
Well, dear Chris, I don’t know how you could top what you just wrote. It means a lot to me. I am sincerely touched. 🙂
There are many ways I have high regard for you too! I’ve never lost sight of how big a man you can be where lesser men would have fallen way short.
LIke I said to Geir, all of us might get somewhere after all. 😉 😛 😀
We’re doing alright. We just need to remember that we’re just blogging. What kind of person takes blogging or bloggers too seriously ! hahahahahaha
Yeah, whoever they are they ought to be quarantined.
(LOL, buzz word of the day. :D)
Chris: What kind of person takes blogging or bloggers too seriously ! hahahahahaha
Doesn’t serious = mass or something like that? At least one can’t get hit on the head on a blog. Unless of course he mocks it up, LOL 🙂
Isene, you are just way too cool! The reason I liked you from the beginning was your articles and your handling. Reminders for me of my mate and he was similarly cool too. 🙂 Nice!
I didn’t know this, Marildi: “It’s just hard for me to imagine that a person would spend a lot of time and energy on a subject that has no emotional component to it.”
I spend a lot of time on this with little or no emotional component. I am sorting through information and data to examine and discard erroneous or inaccurate ideas I have accepted, learned, or formulated, and this includes other areas, not just LRH and Scientology. But, since I devoted many years to studying LRH and Scientology, it is a very active area of examination for me. The biggest challenge for me has been identifying points where I accepted information without really inspecting it or where I have some kind of investment in it that blocks me from fully inspecting it and seeing it as it is for me. I am continually surprised by what I learn. Its an ongoing process and I hope to engage in it for the remainder of my existence.
As far as LRH goes, he is not the source of my emotional state or my attitudes. I am. Not much point in being upset with him. He did what he did, good and bad. I need to do what I need to do to sort my ideas and beliefs. It helps to have others looking from other points of view, even points of view that are diametrically opposed to my own.
Maria, take this as not meant just to invalidate, but some of your comments about Scientology are highly emotional and quite heated.
I assure you that even if what I post reads that way to you, it really is not expressing my current emotional state! I do use language that is emphatic when I am making a point but that is not because I am upset. If you could see me face to face or hear my voice, you would be able to gage that more easily, but this is a blog and the written word has to suffice.
I can tell you that as time has gone on blogging here and elsewhere, I have become more willing to express myself in a passionate way. But that is not upset. It is passion, conviction, and a willingness to say exactly what I am thinking and not try to please or placate others all the time, something I did for many, many years. I’m a happy camper — I don’t lose my own sense of my own self in the face of invalidation and evaluation any more and it feels really good to get there! And I can tell you, on this thread alone I have had some posts directed at me that are some of the most derogatory posts ever made on Geir’s blog. And here I am, still a happy camper, completely pleased with my progress and even amazed that I am doing just great.
Okay, Maria, thanks. I can accept that.
(And wish that others would view me the same way – at least the times when I am, LOL :))
Geir says: “I don’t think we’re quite there yet where people don’t obsessively defend Scientology when inconsistencies are pointed out.”
I am so glad that you have continued to post as you do. These thinking and discussion exercises have done me a world of good. A WORLD OF GOOD!
@marildi “you have not forgiven” = not very descriptive of Geir. It´s pretty cool the way he lives in the now, ie. “on a quest” 🙂
Thanks, Brendan. I’ll include that in my database as you are no doubt a reliable source 🙂
And I hope you got from my further comments that the question of his forgiveness is not really the issue with me.
Marildi
You are really giving Geir a hard time in the best sense ever! I LOVE your coms!
Marianne, you understand me. And I appreciate and love you for it. 🙂
Class 12 Karen DLC made a very interesting statement on Mike Rinder’s blog this morning. She said this:
Regges on post in Scientology, they will say ANYTHING for the “greatest good”– even if it is lies, fraud and completely unreal results. “Stably exterior with full perception” for L-10. It is pitched even now today. No one in Scientology EVER EVER went stably exterior with full perception. Momentarily yes, but STABLE ? never !
[http://www.mikerindersblog.org/who-is-to-blame-for-no-superpower-you-of-course/#comment-6744]
I asked her if it wasn’t true that LRH himself said this, and that is why reges say it.
It may be that some Scientologists believe that “reges” or other out ethics cats think up these “lies, frauds, and unreal results”. But it is not true. It almost always originates with LRH as far as what can be gained from auditing.
[http://www.american-buddha.com/scientologyLrundown.pdf]
[http://www.xenu.net/archive/L-Rundowns/]
[http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/06/scientology_on_12.php]
see OOD from 22 June 1971 “L10 INCOMPLETES”
[http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/irs/1993-1023-fso-exhibit-i.pdf]
Hopefully people who have been taken in by this will begin to wake up to the true Source of the lies for the claims of Dianetics and Scientology auditing and training.
Alanzo
Karen DLC answered me.
Here is more evidence of Hubbard lying about the EPs of Scientology from a Class 12 auditor who is doing something about it on Mike Rinder’s new blog!
http://www.mikerindersblog.org/who-is-to-blame-for-no-superpower-you-of-course/#comment-6789
Alanzo
I believe that everything on Scientology that would be prove as true or useful, will be named SCIENCE, and at least CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY. Everything that would be prove as false, confuse or useless, will be named SCIENTOLOGY. 😀
Brilliant comment.
Science has already proven many things LRH said up to decades ago. And when people rage on about “Scientology”, they’re talking about the things in it that are off-the-rails.
p.s. And the CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY in Scientology is turning up in “New Age” philosophies and workable practices.
Marildi: p.s. And the CONSISTENT PHILOSOPHY in Scientology is turning up in “New Age” philosophies and workable practices.
Chris: Scientology is a complete subject. Covers everything. Has an answer for everything including how to correctly wash a window and how to feather-dust an automobile. And it is inconsistent.
In Marty’s blog post of today, he gives ten reasons to avoid reading his new book, “Scientology Warrior”. You should take special note of the numbers 9 and 10 and beware:
9. If you read it, you might find out that much of Scientology takes away the positive that it is also capable of producing. THIS WILL BE PARTICULARLY UNSETTLING TO THOSE WHO HAVE A WEAK UNDERSTANDING ON THE OBSERVABLE MECHANICS THAT MAKE SCIENTOLOGY PRODUCE RESULTS.
10. If you read it, you might not continue to think Ron is Buddha reincarnated or, on the other hand, a grand con man. This will be particularly troubling to those whose gains were founded upon, or bolstered by, belief. IT WILL ALSO CAUSE CONSTERNATION TO THOSE WHO HAVE FOUND A SAFE SOLUTION IN TARGET RON AS INHERENTLY EVIL.
(caps are mine)
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/05/27/ten-reasons-to-avoid-scientology-warrior/
Marildi
Truth doesn’t need to be ‘proved’. Truth is always ‘in the moment, here and now’.
When one is ‘raging’, one IS rage, the ‘about’ is a comment about something which is an additive, not seen as it is, one’s fiction. How do you see it?
Marianne,
That is a pretty flakey dissertation on truth.
Please explain in such a manner that it means something.
First you need to define “truth”.
Dio
Yes Mt, please explain what you mean and what truth means, so I can understand better, thanks.
The way I see it.
Truth is the Source of creation. I am writing these words, which is I am creating now.
You are reading these ‘creations’. Reading is re-creating. If you successfully re-create what I am writing, you get to to the Source. To Truth.
It is the same as as-is-ing. By as-is-ing you get Truth. It is the same as when we say:
the exact time, place, form and event. You also get Truth.
An ‘origination’ like ‘ I am angry’ is partial truth. It means I am angry now.This is what I am aware of as the most important thing to communicate about me. Partial, as there are many other things which can be also true- I am standing, shouting etc.
If one is aware of ALL parts of the here/now, one sees that one is the Source of all
these creations.
A comment is about something. When we use the word ‘about’, we have already introduced the concept of Space. Through space one can naturally see only part of a thing. So one gets partial truth – true for the one but may not be true for another one who is viewing the thing from another angle. So a comment is an opinion. To get the ‘truth-source’ of that thing, one needs to fully observe it.