People get touchy for all kind of reasons. In Internet discussions it is rampant.
I’ve seen critics of Scientology go ape-shit as someone challenge their views. I have seen Scientologists go irrational as someone challenge their beliefs. It’s not very helpful or productive if the purpose is to gain new knowledge.
If your purpose is to evolve, to gain wisdom or enlightenment, it may be wise to simply disregard defensiveness and keep your focus on that purpose.
“Invalidation” is an often used term in Scientology. It means:
“refuting or degrading or discrediting or denying something someone else considers to be fact.”
But certainty enters the equation. You get more touchy and more easily invalidated the more uncertain you are in your views. You wouldn’t get especially touchy if some guy came along and challenged your belief in a spherical Earth. Even if he screamed from the top of his lungs “THE EARTH IS FLAT!”, it still wouldn’t upset you. But if someone challenges something you want to believe, a view you are really not that certain about, then you may get quite touchy.
So when someone gets defensive in a discussion or blows up, realize that you may have struck a point of uncertainty, where the other is struggling to maintain his resolve.
This may be a reason why the Church of Scientology is so litigious, why their press releases are so defensive and irrational. It may be a reason why you sometimes see heated discussions on this blog.
I find it amusing when I myself get defensive. I try to use it to dig out my own uncertainties, and then dig deeper to see what exactly I am struggling with – and then go ahead and fix it. I enjoy that adventure 🙂
Geir Isene - uncut 
Certainty has nothing to do with data. Nothing to do with views or thought. It is outside the realm of the mind and the “physical universe”. One IS certainty. It’s a quality of being and communication.
Now, I am a little upset. Not much. Just a little bit. Just kiddin’ 😉
Darn, I wanted to use that. Love that sign, lifts one brows a bit eh?
Perfect post Gier, now I’ll just have to behave. Just kiddin’ 🙂
Go for it! 😉
You’re not the only one 🙂
Geir ……”I find it amusing when I myself get defensive. I try to use it to dig out my own uncertainties, and then dig deeper to see what exactly I am struggling with – and then go ahead and fix it. I enjoy that adventure “”
+1 . I do the same… thanks… good post.
I think this whole post is nothing but invalidation, designed to make us all upset by shaking our stable datums…
hehe – good one 😀
Okay. This is a nice meaty subject to dig into with gusto! Let us brandish our fiery swords of integrity and valiantly cut through the dread foes of reason and sanity until at last we stand back to back roaring the truth shall prevail! And the forces of darkness shall slink away into the deeps never to be seen again! I’ve got my armor and my shield and by God I shall never surrender!
Theatrics aside, its etymology is fascinating, it literally means to make: in (not) + validus (strong, effective).
And the root word of valid? Valiant. (now you know why I became shield-maiden)
Valiant: stalwart, brave, worthy, strong, well, powerful, able. From old Norse: valdr – ruler and numerous old European languages – ruler, having power, dominion.
And the rest of the Scientology definitions:
INVALIDATION, 1. refuting or degrading or discrediting or denying something someone else considers to be fact. (HCOB 2 Jun 71 I) 2. any thought, emotion or effort, or counter-thought, counter-emotion or counter-effort which denies or smothers the thought, emotion or effort of the individual. (NOM, p. 56) 3 . invalidation by words is the symbolic level of being struck. (2ACC-19B, 5312CM09) 4 . basically, non-attention. Attention itself is quite important for attention is necessary before an effect can be created. (PAB 8) 5. invalidation is force applied. You apply enough force to anybody and you’ve invalidated him. How invalidated can he get? Dead!
En Garde!
My “favorite” Scientology definition of Invalidation:
4 . basically, non-attention. Attention itself is quite important for attention is necessary before an effect can be created.
“Non-attention” is a very insidious tool. If we learn to spot this manipulative tool we have come far. You feel something is wrong, every sign is there, listen to your gut. You’re not able to find out what’s wrong, because there are no apparent signs. Nothing bad was said or done. The unpleasant feeling of being trashed can disappear once you spot the “non-attention”, ignorance or I-don’t-give-a-fuck-about-you action. Look out.
“Non-attention” games have been played on me for years so I KNOW how devastating this is. It is an evil game. I’ll write more on that important topic in a separate blog post one day.
Anette
Thanks for this def. 4. I didn’t see that before. It can surely shatter the root of THE Serv.Fac. and THE Business case, also universal considerations, beliefs of THE MIND.
I confronted it after you posted it. Quite a shift of perception after this!
Non-attention can be both pure (heals) and manipulative ( “evil”). More about it later.
MT… NONE ATTANTION can not be anything can not heal and cant be evil. since non-attantion is just that… non-attantion… not putting attention on anything… get your facst in order…
MT….”“listen to thoughts”….by this I meant the other person voices, puts them into words and I understand it fully….so there is no “distance” remaining after that…just “affinity”.
Hujeseg…
Anette: “Non-attention” is a very insidious tool. If we learn to spot this manipulative tool we have come far. You feel something is wrong, every sign is there, listen to your gut. You’re not able to find out what’s wrong, because there are no apparent signs. Nothing bad was said or done. The unpleasant feeling of being trashed can disappear once you spot the “non-attention”, ignorance or I-don’t-give-a-fuck-about-you action. Look out.
Chris: That’s a good get Anette. I’ve missed this before but will add it to my tool box.
To Anette, my favorite Viking Shield-Maiden and OT22!
I agree that non-attention is a very insidious tool. Its maddening because you can’t your hands on anything to handle or deal with or even begin to address. I think it would be safe to say that it is the basic mechanism of disconnection.
I really look forward to your blog post!
Maria
“It is the basic mechanism of disconnection”. Spot-on phrasing!
In “spiritual circles” of different kind earlier I heard the phrase ” You don’t see me” (love, understand) many times. The opposite, “to see” would mean One-ness. How? I can look at another’s body (every “particle”), listen to “thoughts” and totally get them (if it’s continuous com. it’s even better) and finally “get to” the “being”, the “invisible core” – and I see that as not separate from me. This process of “penetration” can be “instanteous”, I could call that “mutual” being and perceiving in present time…also, this is the basis of tantra…also, higher levels of co-being and sensing. Sorry, I could not put it into words better.
Mechanism: starts with attention, ends with non-attention (co-awareness, co-being). This is nonduality also (“true” connection).
Disconnection: one cannot truely “see” (give genuine attention to) another as long as one has a “filter”. For shorter-longer periods the filter can “disappear”. When one is “seeing” another through thoughts, beliefs, that is non-attention. “Trashing” another is not intentional…it is too much “mind”, too much “energy” around (solidity).
Pure attention is healing…also pure non-attention….my experience.
MT… ”In “spiritual circles” of different kind earlier I heard the phrase ”
So you belong to some ”spiritual circles”’ very interesting.. care to tell me more, if they are really interesting I would love to join!
You say you can read minds.. other persons thought, and I say prove that…since I think your statemant is a lie.
Elizabeth
I didn’t say I “belong to” or I “belonged to” spiritual circles. There is no such thing as ” belonging”…it means that there are people who agree that they have similar experiences e.g.of yoga, meditation…I said “circle”, because they are based on a specific method. The method provides spiritual experiences. Also, these people are “connected” because they create some “affinity” line on which they comunicate their experiences. Like here. Scientology is a method. So, people, who have/had the experience of the method can talk about their experiences as an outcome of the method and can talk about the method itself.
I don’t know why you say I can “read minds”. I heard about it but I have no experience of it.
What I meant was that whatever another is saying, whatever the emotion is, the source that “I” percieve from and the source “another” is communicating from is the same…the same “theta”…the same “spiritual material”….also, any creation is that….my experience so far…
Eliz
“listen to thoughts”….by this I meant the other person voices, puts them into words and I understand it fully….so there is no “distance” remaining after that…just “affinity”.
MT… ”The opposite, “to see” would mean One-ness.”””
Please,,, reading that make all my hairs are standing up on the top of my head: your above sentence IS TOTAL nonsence!!! You have no idea what one-ness is…
Elizabeth
Could be that I don’t have any “idea” of what One-ness is….also, I speak from experience…and my experiences are expanding.
ISENE IS A LIAR AS HE HAS CONTRADICTED HIMSELF AND NOTHING HE HAS EVER SAID HAS ANY VALUE, NOR WILL IT FROM THIS POINT ONWARDS.
So, in a test of inflammatory, invalidative and specious reasoning – not to mention the effectiveness of all caps – I profer the above statement with the reasoning that will apear in follow-up statements. Such is the methods that I have come to understand are accepable in this new world study of dialectic syllogism.
To those who have not already jumped on their keyboards to impart outrage at such a comment on the blogster, I say “Let’s put the isene theory to the test: If outrage is not a reaction you get from such invective as ISENE IS A LIAR, then you are sufficiently certain in your views that any such condemnation can be weathered without a hint of any necessity to inspect your own uncertainties for inconsistencies or make any retaliatory comment.”
I should be able to say the truth, that ISENE IS A LIAR because he contradicted himself on at least one occassion:
By the same logic that led isene to say LRH was a liar because he posited and stated attributes of Clear that he could not later provide, ISENE IS A LIAR because he sold many paying customers the fallacious ideas he had about admin policy that he later found out not to work. LRH did not force him to do this. He did it for his own monetary reward and to suck unsuspecting people into the cruel vise grip of Scientology. Isene is therefore not to be trusted to evaluate any data and we shall have to carefully sift through all previous isene statements to find out if there was anything of value and attempt to salvage it.
That’s pretty much the logic equivalent and progression of statement of Isene and Alanzo on the subject of LRH and Scientology. The above was really just a test of shoe-fit and not how I would characterize either Geir or Alanzo. It is intended as a test of method of arriving at the truth – a method I don’t particularly have any use for, but one that certainly appears as a means of controversy.
Like I said! En Garde!
Good vector. You already know your declaration is “fallacious” (why oh why do I want to spell that with a “ph?”) but of course, your point is we are not reasoning well with respect to LRH lying. I get it, just don’t agree and too tired this evening to explore with you. Maybe manana?
Someone got touchy about his belief in Hubbard. We could now go ahead and probe 2ndxmr’s own uncertainty in Hubbard and Scientology and relieve him of his need to defend his guru.
And the fallacy in the above reveal that 2ndxmr missed the obvious point of that other thread – in that LRH claimed he had already produced a Clear in all its glory – not that it wasn’t later attained.
Did 2ndxmr feel invalidated by that other thread because he to a large degree identifies himself with Hubbard and Scientology? That is another question that can be probed.
Who’s the touchy one? Hmmmm….
@isene
Did you actually read my entire post or did you stop at ISENE IS A LIAR. If you managed to read the whole thing then you should have recognized it as pot/kettle.
On the one hand you feel that saying Hubbard is a liar is fully justified as he never produced the result he claimed. On the other hand you feel that saying ISENE IS A LIAR (based on your own statements) is somehow indicative that I have personal feelings of invalidation rather than just annoyance at an argument method that is loaded from the get-go.
You claim your intent is to invite “discussion” and yet you start with a premise (Hubbard lied) that is a conclusion. What’s more, it is a conclusion based on after-the-fact evidence – with no consideration of any before-the-fact data that Hubbard’s claims were based upon.
The point I was trying to make was that if we only look at after-the-fact data, we can say with equal certainty that ISENE IS A LIAR, due to the fact of your failure to effectively apply that which you previously promoted.
The problem is, “Hubbard lied” and “ISENE IS A LIAR” are both generalizations which do not paint an accurate picture of the personalities or the circumstances at the time of the “lie”.
Furthermore, putting it there in permanent pixels does nothing towards resolving the issue of the “lie”, but instead creates an issue: diminishment by direct and covert invalidation. That BECOMES an issue, so instead of a discussion ensuing you get exactly what is going on here – tit-for-tat invalidations. It is not a discussion method I care for. However, as invalidation is the subject of the OP (and you are someone who couldn’t possibly be invalidated [please note the 1.1]), you are a perfect target for the test of your own method. So now I ask, how is this “discussion” going so far? Personally I think it is a waste of my time and a waste of bandwidth.
To consider a different approach, Maria’s lists of the pluses and minuses of Scientology form an argument basis that invites true discussion – not only because of the balance but because of the relative objectivity of viewpoint from which each of the lists is made. Maybe that’s just too simple to work, too much obvious truth – so much that the need to discuss just as-ises with the post. Not much of a basis to perpetuate a blog, but I’d like to see it given a chance.
Lastly, I would say that a thread premised entirely on trashing LRH would be perfectly acceptable to me if it’s announced as such. No problem. Go for it. Vent. Slander. On those days I’ll stand back and watch, or just not bother to watch.
I am not at all offended by your caps-test. I am simply pointing out that you are comparing apples and oranges. One promoted he had indeed produced something that he at that time in fact had not (this is called a lie), the other is seen to later understand that he had done something wrong in the past. Not the same.
But your annoyance with the Going Clear thread does to me show a good example of this OP.
Geir: “I am simply pointing out that you are comparing apples and oranges. One promoted he had indeed produced something that he at that time in fact had not (this is called a lie), the other is seen to later understand that he had done something wrong in the past. Not the same.”
Since 2ndxmr never responded, he apparently lost hope of you ever seeing that it isn’t a matter of apples and oranges at all. In fact, there is a very definite parallel.
In one of my earlier posts I pointed out that there are people who actually do have eidetic memory and have passed rigid tests proving it. So we know that the ability is possible and it is quite conceivable that LRH actually released this ability in one or more preclears and then prematurely concluded on that TOO-NARROW BASIS that he had produced a Book One Clear.
In your case, you no doubt did very much the same thing. I’m pretty sure you’re not now going to deny that you ever promoted, even once, in all those years that ADMIN TECH WORKS. Obviously, you did. And you must have had some BASIS for saying so, which you must now consider TOO NARROW, thus making the same mistake LRH made. And at some point later you changed your mind about admin tech – just as LRH later changed his and redefined what constituted a Clear. In other words – no difference whatsoever between what you did and what LRH did.
Your conclusion that LRH was a liar was exactly what 2ndxmr stated: “…a conclusion based on after-the-fact evidence – with no consideration of any before-the-fact data that Hubbard’s claims were based upon.”
1) I never claimed “The Admin Tech Works!”, so that is a false premise. I always cherry picked. And hence the rest of the argument fails.
1) Okay, I see now that I somewhat altered what 2ndxmr actually said. It wasn’t as broad as I worded it, i.e. that you claimed “admin tech works”. His exact words were “fallacious ideas he [you] had about admin policy that he [you] later found out not to work. So with that in mind, can you truthfully and honestly claim that of all the things you cherry picked there was not a single one that you later found was not workable after all, as you had earlier claimed?
2) Your response to 2ndxmr’s post was this:
“Someone got touchy about his belief in Hubbard. We could now go ahead and probe 2ndxmr’s own uncertainty in Hubbard and Scientology and relieve him of his need to defend his guru.”
Why is it, then, that it was fine for you to reply to his post without it being a matter of “touchy about…”?
And why is it that you do not now have the same reply to those who have written posts in response to mine, i.e. those who (quoting 2ndxmr again) “jumped on their keyboards to impart outrage at such a comment on the blogster”? A consistent response by you would have been to have posted something like this:
“Someone got touchy about his belief in Geir Isene. We could now go ahead and probe this poster’s own uncertainty in Isene and his viewpoints and relieve him of his need to defend his guru.”
3) You completely ignored my main point as regards your “…conclusion based on after-the-fact evidence – with NO CONSIDERATION [my caps] of any before-the-fact data that Hubbard’s claims were based upon” (quoting 2x again). You ignored the quite reasonable (usual definition) idea that there could have been data you are missing (such as the very plausible possibility I described) as to why LRH made the statement he did.
To sum it up, I’m still waiting for the day when in a discussion you concede a valid point and take back what you originally stated.
Let’s see – this is only some of the points I have conceded so far:
To Alanzo (in several discussions) – that using the metaphor of LRH vs. the tech is the same as Newton vs. his scientific work. The parallel I used here was wrong.
To many people – having defended why the OT materials should be confidential… I was wrong and have conceded their point,
Lots of people on ESMB and elsewhere – that the tech is primarily placebo.
To many in several discussions pointing out that I am in a decompression after having left the church… I protested that, But they were right.
I believe I could easily extend the list to at least ten major points. And then lots of places where I have been in smaller error.
Marildi; Have you experienced any such major shifts in viewpoints during the discussions on this or other forums?
Geir, I don’t recall having observed you concede any of those things DURING a discussion in which you were first contending the opposite – which was the actual point I have been making. My observation has been that you brought those topics up again at some later point in time, and that was when you “conceded”. I put “conceded” in quotes because in each and every one of the examples you gave, your “conceding” was actually giving further support to what appears to be your main focus – i.e. an interest in downgrading Scn and LRH.
Secondly, and more to the point of this immediate discussion regarding whether LRH knowingly lied (as you proclaimed in the OP), in your reply above you evaded the question I asked in my last post, which was this:
“…can you truthfully and honestly claim that of all the things you cherry picked there was not a single one that you later found was not workable after all, as you had earlier claimed?”
You’ve got this backward; I was very much PRO LRH and PRO Scientology when I came out. Conceding those points was definitely not along any purpose line I had. So you are wrong about this. As for the time it took me Io concede these points (and several more) was due to the fact that I needed the time to digest and realize Alanzo and several of the people over at ESMB was actually making valid points. The discussions have been going on for a while – they never really ended, and probably won’t for a while.
Marildi; Have you had any such major shift in viewpoints?
As for your question; No, I never claimed to have myself proven workability of any piece of Admin Tech while at the same time knowing it didn’t work. The claims LRH made was at the time he must have known it wasn’t true. That is the lying. That a person later finds out he was wrong does not constitute lying.
That wasn’t the question. The question was whether or not there was any part of admin tech that you stated was workable, honestly believing at the time that it was (i.e. not lying), but which you later found out wasn’t. Please answer that question.
And yes, of course I’ve had major shifts, but let’s stick to one subject at a time.
I gave an honest try regarding the Org Board and the over-management with lots of policies, believing it should work. But I found that it worked worse than comparable methods. This was probably due to me not having much experience with other methods. What’s your point?
My point is this: How valid would it be for someone to now assume, “The claims Geir made was at the time he must have known it wasn’t true”, which is the assumption you made about LRH.
Wouldn’t it be a more rational (i.e. unprejudiced and unbiased) viewpoint to consider that there may have been circumstances we are not aware of that would explain why both you and LRH came to conclusions mistakenly and thus made false claims that at the time you believed were?
No – because I was trying things out and did not claim bombastically that I had proof of some totally extraordinary and World Changing results when there was in fact no basis for such claims – at the time they were made. If you can’t see the difference here, then I don’t know what to say, Marildi.
The principle is the same, Geir. And you made another blatant assumption just now: “there was in fact no basis for such claims”. How bombastic is that claim?
But I see you have already worked out how to back out of the discussion, your last resort so as to not have to concede a point – which is the subtle Ad Hom of “if you can’t see the difference…”. I couldn’t find the internet reference I quoted before about that type of Ad Hom but I think you know the one I mean.
Marildi: Wouldn’t it be a more rational (i.e. unprejudiced and unbiased) viewpoint to consider that there may have been circumstances we are not aware of that would explain why both you and LRH came to conclusions mistakenly and thus made false claims that at the time you believed were?
Chris: No. This fails on several levels. 1. Geir has not created a closed belief system and then actively sold it and promoted it and then lied over the top of knowing full well that the claims for it were false. 2. Order of magnitude. Geir’s “lies” because of being indoctrinated into a belief system and then influencing others with his good results within that belief system is not the same as creating and selling that belief system. 3. The ratio of Geir’s lying to LRH’s lying is orders of magnitude smaller. So no, it is not more rational to assume that Geir’s lying and LRH’s lying are comparable. In spite of Scientology, Geir’s tireless work was with the aim to help people and I just don’t believe that about LRH anymore. That LRH suffered from megalomania seems irrefutable, but Geir — not so much.
The last sentence should have ended with “true” – “…believed were true”.
Marildi: And yes, of course I’ve had major shifts, but let’s stick to one subject at a time.
Chris: Ready when you are.
If I may say a word here. To USE any method in the NOW is an impossibility because the NOW is without any method. When a method enters into the picture, it is relying on past data, past experience. That reliance takes away a part of the now at least, works like a light filter. With its consequences.
Marianne, I don’t quite understand how what you are saying in the last two posts relates to the comm cycle Geir and I were having, but I am always interested in your viewpoint. So If you are willing to say more, please do.
In any case, I adore you for your intention in the communication. 🙂
I may say a stupid thing but I risk it. A method, a tech (used in case of human beings) is an
is-ness. Any is-ness contains a lie. So, in this case the method, tech is the liar. One who uses the method is just an honest believer.
I should add another Major difference between calling me a liar and Hubbard. I am perfectly fine with it. I never proclaimed to have all the answer or The One True Path, and I don’t erect an organization drilled to attack those who call me a liar, to hunt them down and wreck their lives.
Hubbard did. And still there are people eager to put him on a pedestal, clap in front of a statue of him, praise him and make sure that NO ONE dare to call him a liar.
And that is one good reason why we should.
Me? Who cares.
This is called Red Herring. And the fact that you immediately wrote a new blog post was further Red Herring, as well as rabbiting.
Marildi: This is called Red Herring. And the fact that you immediately wrote a new blog post was further Red Herring, as well as rabbiting.
Chris: Is it? To accuse Geir of “rabbiting” (being scared and running away) doesn’t seem correct to me. To sum up a few of your own fallacies: 1. Hubbard is not a lier because he had good reasons to lie. 2. True Scientology gets workable results most of the time and the proof of whether True Scientology is being used is whether the expected result was achieved and conversely; 3. Bad results are proof of deviation from Standard Scientology; and the corrolary, 4. Bad results are evidence of poor auditor skills and of illegal PCs but never of unworkable Tech. 5. The Class 8 auditor course, the diamond at the tip of Scientology training, Hubbard’s coup de grace to nail down “Standard Tech” is for you not to be taken literally or as the letter of the law even though the course specifically directs you to do so. Rather, it should be applied in the “spirit of the law.” The problem with this view is that Hubbard specifically warns against. So in this way, your deviations from Standard Scientology are warranted; follow Hubbard’s wishes; and the judgement of when and how much to deviate comes from You. 6. Rather than discussing the Tech, ways to improve the Tech, where the Tech hits and where the Tech misses, or defending the Tech with evidence; you have argued for your own opinions about the Tech by using the Tech as evidence that your arguments are sound.
Chris, each one of your points 1-6 are Straw Man. Or, to be more blunt – the dub-in of me and what I’ve said continues.
Chris said to Marildi: you have argued for your own opinions about the Tech by using the Tech as evidence that your arguments are sound.
Yes, that is what I see too.
To Marildi:
I am positive that if you had expressed even half of your opinions as you have on this blog while on the Class 8 course, you would have been thrown overboard, sec checked within an inch of your life and since you insist on holding your own opinion, you would have ended up on the RPF. No doubt about it.
Do you seriously think that you could have stood in front of the the living individual L. Ron Hubbard and told him to his face and to others in his organization the many things you have found incorrect or misunderstood or not understood or misapplied and gotten anywhere except out of the organization?
No. You would have been declared as a squirrel. Period. By LRH himself. And you would not have been the first to be so declared.
I think you should write your own book, like Ruth Minschull did. By all means acknowledge and cite LRH as you wish, but the fact is that you part ways with LRH on a continual basis depending on the time period you are examining. For the record, I believe I would prefer your version of Scientology and I think others would too. And it IS your version, not LRHs version(s).
I also think you should see about working with David St. Lawrence or someone like him. It would be far more fruitful for you than trying to sort through the incredible number of contradictions that you have personally found in the body of works of Scientology.
Maria: “…the fact is that you part ways with LRH on a continual basis depending on the time period you are examining.”
To be accurate, I have many times stated that I am a proponent of Scientology in the form that LRH originally developed and NOT how he himself later violated his own original writings. The tech itself, however, continued to adhere to the original philosophy and intention as long as LRH was alive, from what I have been able to conclude thus far.
You probably saw this comment by Michael Priv on Marty’s current blog thread:
“If I mat [may] summarize, that fatal, systemic flaw was the creation of Sea Org. It seems that in Ron’s own mind his turn-around and the destruction of Scientology was fully completed by 1967 and that culminated in the creation of Sea Org. I wonder what happened between 1958 and 1967. The State of Man Congress was 1961. The process of changing his mind about the humanity and Scientology was well underway by then. To really pinpoint the time period, what happened between 1958 and 1961?”
And Graduated’s reply to Michael’s comment:
“I don’t agree that it was ever Ron’s intention to destroy Scientology. At the time, Scientology was being heavily attacked and, being a Navy brat and a former Naval Officer, he used as an expedience what command and control culture he knew best to manage the scene – which actually worked relatively well, given the circumstances, as Scientology expanded into the late ’70s. It was the blow-back from Snow White programs – the death of Quentin, the arrest of Mary Sue, the threat of federal prosecution, health issue, etc. – that put him into the bunker and left the helm open for the biggest bully to seize. Things started going to hell at that point (circa 1980) by stat. So, the Admin Why would have to be just prior. As to an earlier Ethics Why, who knows? And frankly, who cares? As long as we know going forward that adopting a paramilitary culture is booby trapped and is not the way to win friends and influence people.”
Note too that a possible explanation for Michael’s observation that something occurred with LRH between the years 1958 and 1961 is what Phil Spickler (who was there all through those years) had to say in this video:
+1 +1 To Chris and Maria
Marildi: I hope you don´t mind my saying this but you were instrumental in convincing me ( and probably others, Geir included) that Scientology cannot be fixed from within.
Rafael, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “Scientology cannot be fixed from within.” Could you please explain?
Rafael, I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “Scientology cannot be fixed from within.” Could you please explain?
An important part of Scientology is based on its followers beliefs. When you are inside you are in agreement and it is very real to you, it grows into a self sustaining system which becomes more and more real and it becomes very difficult to differentiate what you put into it from what independently exists there. It is like a different universe which is being co-created by the Scientologists and keeps growing as long as you mantain your agreement with it. But that universe becomes separated from the other people´s universe, instead of contributing with the evolution of it.
IMO An impartial observation cannot be done from inside.
Rafael “…it becomes very difficult to differentiate what you put into it from what independently exists there.”
Yes, I agree, Rafael. However, I think it can be done – and could have been done in the CoS if it hadn’t gone off the rails of the original philosophy. And the reason for why I say this is I don’t believe it was all a matter of LRH being so ingeniously clever with words and schemes that he could deceive a lot of people, but rather because of this – a being can recognize truth. Simple as that. And not because LRH said so but because I know it for myself.
Related to this exchange, I have to say I really liked your post earlier today, where you said:
“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?”
In a way, that’s not too much different from how I would express it, except that I don’t have that kind of cynical take on it (although I really do get why so many people do). I still feel, from the data I have up to now, as well as my own sense of truth, that LRH was sincere and on the up and up.
And I liked the last part of that post of yours even more:
“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!!!!!!!!”
That’s kind of my idea too, that there is at the least a “maybe” that “it is really out there” – in Scientology itself, or possibly “post Scientology”. Here’s a link to a comment I wrote on Marty’s blog today which gives more of my viewpoint, if you’re interested: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/is-spirit-of-quality-or-quantity/#comment-260810
And now I’m going to take this opportunity to tell you something I wanted you to know – that you have always been one of my favorite people, here or anywhere. (Just saying’ in case the world ends tomorrow, LOL :)) I came up with the following notion quite some time ago: You can know them by their posts. 😉
Rafael: An impartial observation cannot be done from inside.
Chris: True. An impartial observation is not needed from inside — only indoctrination is required. Because from inside, the subject is self-defined as consistent. It is utterly relevant from inside. And from outside, there may be no particular reason to analyze it. As you say, it is a closed system unto itself. The the further away from its boundaries we are, the less relevant it becomes.
Marildi: Re the video of Phil Spickler…. he is saying LRH had a secondary which was the cause of his deterioration and the ulterior degradation of all Scientology……I just can´t make it fit coherently with what Scientology is supposed to be….. could you explain to me how can you?
Rafael, Otto Roos writes a long, detailed account of what occurred in Scn from the 50’s to the 80’s, and much of it includes his up-close observations and a lot of personal experience with LRH directly. I haven’t read the whole thing but what I have read is pretty illuminating. The bottom line of Otto’s story (written in 1984, before LRH died) and what he concludes is this:
“Conclusion: “LRH has more Out Tech on his case than ten people combined. He gave us a technology towards Immortality, but he denied himself the only thing which could have saved him: Auditing.” http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Library/Shelf/roos/roos-story.html
I believe that explanation is perhaps the most creative use of the True Scotsman fallacy so far.
Thank you Marildi. One thing I enjoy very much from our exchanges is that, even though we have different opinions, your space is always clean and friendly, and communication flows freely. Thank you for being there 🙂
Likewise, Rafael! 🙂
So, what happened to Ron?
Phil Spickler: “Ron had a Secondary”
This explanation is not good enough?
How about this?:
Otto Ross: “LRH has more Out Tech on his case than ten people combined. He gave us a technology towards Immortality, but he denied himself the only thing which could have saved him: Auditing.”
Or this:
“LRH had not True Scientology applied on him”
This is the problem I see with being a Scientologist (Or any kind of “ologist”) :
You start your reasoning from the premise that your “ology” is right.
The definition of a Scientologist becomes: Someone who makes Scientology right, because, unfortunately, when you stop making it right, it is no longer 100% “standard Scientology”.
In the objective world, we do not need to make Newton´s law right, but inside our minds what is right is what we make right, that is what Scientology ultimately demonstrated to me.
So, why do you have to be a Scientologist?
“…inside our minds what is right is what we make right …”
I agree, Rafael. It all comes down to considerations. However, that includes all the mutually-held considerations among thetans – such as the Axioms (which include basic things like the communication formula and how the mind works). LRH says the tech is based on those universally agreed-upon considerations and that this is the reason why it works. My personal experience on several flows has been that the tech of the earlier years does work quite well, and thus it makes sense to me that it in fact is based on commonly-held considerations.
That’s the simplicity of why I think Scientology is not just another “ology” – it’s a path to greater freedom and ability that anyone interested in doing so could walk since it is based on their own most basic considerations. Comprende, amigo? 🙂
Marildi:
I´ve shown my wife our exchange and she said: “what you (Marildi) believe in is what has worked for you, and what you (Rafael) believe is what has worked for you, and ultimately the purpose of Scientology is that it work for everyone, and each one is going to achieve it from their own trench” 🙂
From my part I´m relaxed now, knowing you are at cause over it. Me explico amiga?
Rafael,
Your wife said, “…each one is going to achieve it from their own trench.”
I think she said it the best!
Yes, the purpose of Scientology is that it work for everyone, and what that means – what it HAS to mean and MUST mean – is that each of us is our own “source”.
You have explained it very well, mi amigo. And I’m very glad that you are relaxed about me now – and I appreciate that you cared! Thank you and your lovely wife for recognizing and acknowledging me 🙂 🙂 (a big smile for each of you).
The only urge I got from this was to laugh good.
Are you drunk or something? My friend Geir IS NOT a liar. I contradicted myself many times in this life, but this can happen, it doesn’t mean that I’m a liar. The same with Geir. Back off, buddy…Take a nap!
Dragos: Are you drunk or something?
Chris: 2x was just reversing the vector to make a point. It failed because of ratio of lying to truth and overall intention of the two parties.
OPf! OOPMFF!!!
Alanzo: OPf! OOPMFF!!!
Chris: hahahaha!
Whenever I think of the word Invalidate I also think of the word Evaluate because they both go hand in hand – in order for someone to Invalidate one must first Evaluate, of course when one Evaluates may find there is no reason to Invalidate.
When someone feels invalidated what enters the equation is uncertainty, if you are uncertain about your beliefs you will be rattled up and will become defensive which is a normal reaction-is a “defensive mechanism”.
For the most part a person feels Invalidated when he/she feels is right or holds the truth about something.
In reference to the Church of Scn – Invalidation is a key operational procedure because they must first find that there is something wrong with a person (Evaluate/Invalidate) so they can then offer ways to improve their condition.
One very important thing to keep in mind is that one can Invalidate for some good reason, if someone is being destructive one can certainly Invalidate that someone and feel good about it.
Hear, hear!
En garde!
.)
My name is Mr Truth.
How is you?
To dear rockmystar
we are all fine, thank you for asking, our pig Sally just had 8 babies, and our son made his first million and we are thrilled because he is finally moving out of here and we will have more room for my beloved cats…. I have 22 so far and I know there will be more, I collect strays, also man hehehe…:)
If you interested where I am on the bridge weeeell, when I walk on it! 🙂
But I know of O/W’s I read something about them but that could have been a fib?
We have granddads old dental chair in our parlor, we just call it big chair, I would love to strap you into it and get me my big plyer and pull all your lovely overts and see what is under the truth..
faithfully yours: the catlady…
I just rocked your star hehehe.. 🙂 in fact it gotten moved 🙂
LOL!
PS.. we dont don’t stomach tolorate the truth-reality around here, we find that very disturbing and the last time some one spoken something like truth around here we locked him in the cold cellar we dont tolorate shit like that here!!!
Elizabeth: PS.. we dont don’t stomach tolorate the truth-reality around here, we find that very disturbing and the last time some one spoken something like truth around here we locked him in the cold cellar we dont tolorate shit like that here!!!
Chris: hahahahaha! What are you up to now?!?
rockmystar ….
all kidding aside: the only truth one has in his universe which are: the cognition-realization and they hold no pictures, the truth contain no energy-no mass, don’t contain thoughts, sensations, or agreements…. nothing..
the truth is when one has cognition and that is the truth.
Anything outside of that example: thoughts, which are some form of reality agreement on some subject and sensations which are anchor points these all are some form of energy masses because of that those can be confronted in session and can be as-ised and they will as-is since lies can be as-ised but truth never will.
If one would have total truth in their universe, they would not have thoughts therefore they would not be humans.
The only truth existing in one’s universe is their own reality, but when one can as-is that reality what would be there than?
I have the answer for that… some might call that bullshit.. that too is a viewpoint.. hehehe and can be as-ised…
What is truth? I have worked on that and what can’t be as-ised those concepts no matter how one confronts them to me they are the truth.
I have found some reality-viewpoints that they were so outlandish that I could not believe so I have had sessions on them and more but not one I could erase..
I give you a new reality… MEST is not solid but you know that… spirituality, the reality that one is forever, that one is an entity without any mass can’t be erased.
I have come to conclusion that the Spiritual universe IS the Solid universe and the MEST is just on illusion.
No matter how I wanted to as-is the ‘’spiritual universe’’ its existence I could not.
My reality has become solid 100% real that it exist..
In my reality what I have seen, and understand: the Tone Scale is totally wrong: death of the body is not the indicator that the being is no more the end has come for that being but in fact the being just has regained his freedom
So Death of the Body should be on top of the chart and Birth of the Body which holds the entity in prison should be the very bottom of the Tone Scale…
Because when has the body uses that as on anchor hell is broken lose and out that one only can escape when the body stops working..
I’d like to validate Elizabeth’s viewpoint. 🙂 it makes sense to me and it gives insight and hope, imho.
I agree. It is a viewpoint worth validation. Theta could as-is the mest universe. The universe could not as-is theta.
thanks you guys, now my viewpoint has value.. Because it has collected agreement therefore it is on the way to become solid…. ugh… 🙂
My viewpoints have become solid [ if we talk in terms of concepts-wording here] about the spiritual universe, what is.. since I have experienced so many different realities in sessions that no matter how sceptical I was, my doubts, that it was not real gradually melted away..
Now I simply know…
Dee…
Hell, my dear sister, I have conducted extensive search what is that, why it is call that, what is made up of, who believes in it, why they believe that it exist, what is its value, why one wants to belong there, who belong there, and I have long forgotten the other dozens of different questions I have asked and the answers I gotten.
Because of my research now I know there are millions and millions do have reality what is spirituality and what is Spiritual universe means but these beings are too entangle in conceptual reality which are energy-masses and these beings are stuck to these anchors therefore they can experience the spiritual freedom which is free floating not being connected to any of those anchoring energy-masses.
Talking spirituality is just that talking and nothing more than discussing any other topic and that is not free-floating.. being free is not being stuck to, connected to.. where one do not holds onto MEST anchor of any kind.
LOL! Hmmm…. Little bit of an inversion here eh?
the wind has turned!! 🙂
Re: Elizabeth Hamre 2013-03-23 at 05:41
+1