Fuck it!

Sitting back here in the sofa looking at this calmly… you know what? I am not even interested in salvaging Scientology per se.

I am actually only interested in helping people reach their goals. Read “U-ology”. That’s the only interest. To help people reach their goals.

I don’t want Scientology, Psychology, NLP, crapology, or anything else.

No salvaging of any Scientology needed. As it stands it is a trap and I don’t think it is salvageable.

What is possible, on the other hand is to start, without prejudice (at ALL) to collect all kinds of tools for all kinds of possible goals and wishes (starting with the guy’s you have in front of you) and piece together the tool set that is demonstrably working.

Doing that, and as long as the practitioner really, truly helps people reach their goals, it behooves him well to get those tools tested in order to reach the mainstream and thusly reach the broad general public… so that they too can avail themselves of the tools needed to reach Their goals.

Fuck it.

I want to help PEOPLE. Not Scientology.

(Don’t worry, I’m not going anywhere, I’m just done with worshiping of methodologies.)

157 thoughts on “Fuck it!

  1. AGREED….

    Sorry to all my brothers and sisters who think Scientology can be saved…it can’t. Unless, perhaps if you want to wait 50 years or more and then try it again. In present time…hell no.

    The church just keeps segragating itself more and more from reality. Sorry for the horrible analogy but reminds of Hitler at the end of his reign. He didn’t care how many he destroyed his reality was not going to change.

    Last time I checked, I think reality was agreements. What is the general public’s reality on Scn? Don’t get me started. The public at large thinks Scn is off its rocker. You can’t say “oh well I”m an independent Scientologist” and change their viewpoint. Its like saying “I’m a freezone brain washer” or “I’m an independent raper of women…it’s different”

    1. That someone is inside or outside the COS doesn’t necessarily mean much to me. As long as one doesn’t change his mind about certain things (especially things of suppressive nature, such as considering that people at large are inferior to him because God-knows-why) he is trapped. I personally don’t differentiate anymore between Churchies and Freezoners. I have met nice people and idiots on both sides of the river. I like nice people –the way I consider ‘nice’ to be. I don’t really care if he is SCNist or not.

      1. Right on.

        I think many ex-Scn who call themselves a ________ Scientologist (fill in the blank) THINK they are perceived differently by the public than a “regular” Scientologist.

        Oddly enough, Scn is what made me successful and well liked by my customers and business associates. However, if they knew I was a Scn, they wouldn’t like me. How’s that for irony? Eeh fuck it

        1. Hehehe I had tried countless times to explain to non-SCNists the difference between me and a Churchie. I failed to explain it to myself adequately though. I mean I still had ideas from the Church….verbal tech, altered tech, valences…stuff like that. My SCN case has been among the hardest to crack (the relief of dealing with it is unimaginable) because I use it to deal with life, and it’s somewhat ‘part of me’.

          In any case, I’m truly glad that SCN made you successful. I can’t say I didn’t have ‘wins’. I did. But I gained such stubborn case too 😛

        2. Gaeglefan1023: “Oddly enough, Scn is what made me successful and well liked by my customers and business associates. However, if they knew I was a Scn, they wouldn’t like me. How’s that for irony?”

          So you get that too, huh? So do I. I’ve never brought up Scn at work, and my colleagues accept and respect me for what they see, for what I am.

          I are quite sure that would change drastically if I told them more about my past and to be honest that’s not an explanation I feel like giving.

          1. Splog…I think this holds true for many. Lucky for us we have blogs like this to share and create A+R+C. Even with the early wins I had I still withheld driving people into the org because I knew the shit we had to deal with to get our gains would be too much for most people.

            1. gaeaglefan: “All Scn is the same to everyone on the outside”

              So very true! One can’t explain or justify.

              Splog: “Even with the early wins I had I still withheld driving people into the org because I knew the shit we had to deal with to get our gains would be too much for most people.”

              Me too! This also applies to the ’70s as well. Although I did give books as Christmas presents one year, early in my tenure, to all my customers as a public. Boy did I learn something. Of course not enough! Most were kind and the others I just labeled SP’s or 1.1.

    1. Awesome, Alanzo! I didn’t see a place to comment over there. Man what is going ON? Several of us sort of caving in on the last bits of Scientology theory? Who knew it wasn’t a matter of workability but rather of working toward the correct result? We never needed bigger egos.

        1. Elizabeth: “Some has known that!”

          Chris: Yes, but I finally think I know something you don’t know. The ARCx session is not pure Scientology since it works in the direction of “de-construction” rather than building up the ego. Now you really screwed up you squirrel because you’ve only been using fringe Scientology processes and will never be solid as the iron core of a star which is about to blow up! hahaha Start over if you are ever going to be more solid!!! (I used extra exclamation points since I got a discount on them! I can use as many of them as I want to for the same price as one!)

          1. Yes, I do have a problem… but I am wearing cement shoes, iron hard hat, iron girdle, have iron in my boxing gloves, take lots of iron pills, I pump iron and shit nails, I curse like a trooper, and I blog….. now if that is not solid enough, than I will run a ARCB session and see if I can locate something which would make me solid..
            Yes… hehehe… good fun….solidity is only a word.. I must have run over half million arcb’x but I believe it was more than that in the past 40 years… of any one dont belive me.. have break in reality-understanding and dont like me go have a session. do the ARCB shuffle..

          2. Ch… I dont have scale to weigh the body and I did not wanted to buy one, but I started to worry that I have lost lots a weigh because i felt totally weightless, I know I worked -put in lots of session as-ising anchors, like solid masses, but i still did not realized how it effected the way the body handled. It felt, like wind was blowing through it, like the clothing hanged in the air, like once something was and now was empty space. Is a weird sensation, so I started to eat more to gain weight but it did not worked.
            I went and weighted the body at the Dr’s office, it gained 4 pounds yet the emptyness is still there … 🙂

            1. Eliz: Is a weird sensation, so I started to eat more to gain weight but it did not worked.

              Chris: My current way of operating: Lose the identity and individuality and gain in overall beingness. (You have to sort of try to get my meaning since the words are similar to each other, yet I am treating them differently.)

            2. Ch…. I got it.. even the smallest difference with wording gives a totally different reality and of course each meaning is charged.. one item can have hundreds of ‘sides’. by looking at all these sides one really gets to know the subject down to the last atom than it vanishes.. puff..

    2. Alanzo: …. “could not handle the firehose backflow of praise and admiration that comes with any spiritual or religious position, and he went off the rails and became a cult leader for real.
      The bigger the cult of Scientology got, the bigger the cult leader he became.”

      Fantastic article Alanzo! Makes sense with a new thought.

      Also I got a picture of the mob rule fitting, for some reason.(?)

      1. Hubbard’s main failure was in getting stuck on CAUSE and never effect.

        Every created thing has a feed-back loop to its creator. It’s why when you mow your lawn, you step back and admire it when it looks so good. If a plant’s existence is dependent upon sun, carbon dioxide, water, seed, and soil (CAUSE), then Hubbard would ignore that the plant changes (effects) each of these as it grows.

        It is not possible to be cause without also being effect.

        This exposes the complete and total falsehood that lays at the bottom of all Scientology philosophy.

        Hubbard thought he could create a cult and remained unchanged by it. He thought he could remain CAUSE over his cult creation and never the effect of it – or he could decide which effects he wanted, and not “go effect” of the ones he did not want.

        This was his fatal mistake. And unfortunately he has taught every scientologist this same fatal mistake.

        The biggest problems in Scientology are L Rob Hubbard’s own blindspots and insanities.

        And those just multiplied and worsened as the years went on because of the above.

        This is why L Ron Hubbard ended up like he did. This is why he could write and say the things he did in Phoenix, and then come up with Fair Game ten years later.

        I have finally understood what happened to L Ron Hubbard.

        Alanzo

          1. Yeah. The idea of OT itself as a goal is completely wrongheaded. It completely and utterly misses the mark, it literally puts you out of present time, and ensures calamity and pain because it violates the natural law that you can not be cause without also being effect.

            I can not think of one time when this ever entered Hubbard’s mind, where he ever mentioned this. And he lived his life in pursuit of his own cause and the avoidance of his own effect.

            It is the goal of a guy who was not enlightened in the least. And who, through his blind arrogance, never learned what his mistake was. In fact, he actively resisted and ran from learning his own mistake.

            The story of L Ron Hubbard’s life is a tragedy in the classic sense. He was a hero who sought to be like the gods, but his principle flaw caused his downfall. It is a morality play and a caution to others – to get all dramatic about it.

            Alanzo

            1. Alanzo, your last few posts on this thread are really insightful. I agree.

              I also note that he compounded the situation by insistently structuring vertical scales in terms of higher and lower. Cause at the top, effect at the bottom. This really messes things up!

            2. Consider the following ideas:

              Add to that the collapse between the concepts of causation, which is different than the duality, cause/effect.

              Causation occurs continually as a create / choose process. It produces both cause and effect simultaneously and that result could be called experience or perception.

              By aligning cause to good, effect to bad and arranging them vertically, he created an impossible construct.

              Shift the scales he created to a horizontal, that is neither higher or lower but a range of choices of attitudes and responses and the picture is very different and quite workable.

              Eg.

              hope/optimism neutral fear/pessimism

              In a complex situation, there are multiple choices and a predominating set of choices. They are not higher and lower, they are simply the current set of options that have become available or that have resulted.

              What do you think?

            3. I see exactly what you are saying, Maria.

              For me, whenever I see a “scale of higher to lower” from L Ron Hubbard, it was his way to get you to do what he wanted and discouraging you from doing what he did not want. It was his behavioral control gimmick of “positioning” some attitudes and behaviors “higher” so you would want them, and some lower, so you would reject them.

              But your re-arrangement allows the Scientologist to decide on the best course of action based on the infinite possibilities for that particular situation, which no scale or set of rules could predict.

              Which then requires one to ask: why have a pre-arranged scale at all – for anything?

              Alanzo

            4. Al.. my nickle here if you dont mind… The scale only for understanding somethings at first, than it should have been shraded.. Scale- putting levels to measure any being where they are at is a total nonsence.
              Evaluation as its worst…. that puts the beings into little compartments.
              But please take a look where is that being who dreamed up that simple evaluation process and you can see what his invention caused…. segregation…. I am better than you.. .. we alway had that comparison, but he has taken that concept and he truly made it solid..a burden filled with sorrow for many, and a SP -concept was born out of that…

            5. Maria: In a complex situation, there are multiple choices, they are not higher or lower, they are simply the current set of options that have become available

              R: Could it be something like this?:

              So we basically are trying to discover what is not moving inside a universe of apparently random motions to use it as our stable datum to discover the hidden meaning, or structure, of all motions.
              If our stable datum is moving, we will be moving together with it, and we will explain everything else from that “fixed” position, and we might lose awareness that we have become part of that system and that system is defining us.
              So we might delude ourselves believing we are at the position of origin or cause while actually being at effect.
              Our stable datum is not above (as origin or cause) of everything else, it is actually at the same level with all the rest.

            6. Rafael: Our stable datum is not above (as origin or cause) of everything else, it is actually at the same level with all the rest.

              Chris: I think this is just great!

            7. Rafael… are you sure of that level bit? if there is only now than where is the level and is the rest of the stuff still existing? than one talks of the past, established that it is there and it exist…?????so, you are than talking of having considerations piled up mile high….

            8. Elizabeth: …” a burden filled with sorrow for many.” And the reason for why one is putting up a scale is that that person is in fear. Scared to experience. Wants to control. Is that right?

            9. Geir: “Cause at top, effect at top.”

              *****
              From Scn 0-08:

              Can cause or receive any effect at tone 40 (serenity of beingness)

              Must cause total effect, receive none at tone 0.0 (body death)

              Total effect and hallucinatory cause at -8.0 (hiding)

              *****

              Note: on must cause total effect, since the individual believes that he must cause total effect and he can’t, then he stops trying.

              I notice that on this scale, it is not in terms of causation at all, but in terms of causing effects on others (flowing out) and receiving effects from others (flowing in).

              “The way a preclear receives an effect (effect tolerable on self) and the way he acts toward others, including the auditor (effect believed necessary on others) can be observed by an auditor and used to spot the preclear’s Tone level, either chronic or temporary, on any or all dynamics.”

              Reading this over, this is describing an attitude (belief) related to cause and effect, and not causation and its immediate cause and effect duality itself. It is a misinterpretation of actual events or processes.

              Rafael has suggested the presence of a stable datum (belief or fixed datum) appearing within the same level of circumstances/experiences.

            10. Alanzo: “Which then requires one to ask: why have a pre-arranged scale at all – for anything?”

              Scales seem to be a function of comparative reason —
              coldest – very cold – somewhat cold – neutral – somewhat hot – very hot – hottest

              Its only when you add the mathematical measurements that you get high and low on the above scale: -273.15 C ~~ 0C ~~ 1085C

              But we really don’t think of that way, do we? We actually compare it to our sense of discomfort and that can be different for different people, unless of course we are working in a scientific sense.

              Scales can then be useful for detecting patterns, recognizing dangers or benefits, etc. But it seems clear to me that the higher/lower designations are directly related to mathematics in most cases. Some scales really are higher and lower. I will bet you are taller (higher) than I am. And mountains are definitely higher than valleys.

            11. I guess we can consider ourselves as being cause or effect depending on the context/frame of reference/stable data we are using to look at things

            12. Scales work well on the objective world, on fixed and solid circumstances, but the subjective world is fixed and solid only to the degree that each person considers it to be, so we need to really look at each situation as it is and not try to force it into a rigid frame

            13. Just an amusing sideline to the overall discussion:

              I got to thinking about Alanzo’s comment that certain behaviors are positioned as higher or lower. This led me to look up the etymology of behave.

              behave (v.)
              early 15c., from be- intensive prefix + have in sense of “to have or bear (oneself) in a particular way, comport” (cf. German sich behaben, French se porter). Cognate Old English compound behabban meant “to contain,” and alternatively the modern sense of behave might have evolved from behabban via a notion of “self-restraint.” Related: Behaved; behaving.

              Be + Have!

              So then I thought I would look at attitude:

              attitude (n.)
              1660s, via French attitude (17c.), from Italian attitudine “disposition, posture,” also “aptness, promptitude,” from Late Latin aptitudinem (nominative aptitudo; see aptitude).

              aptitude (n.)
              early 15c., “tendency, likelihood,” from Middle French aptitude (14c.) or directly from Late Latin aptitudo (genitive aptitudinis) “fitness,” noun of quality from Latin aptus “joined, fitted” (see apt).

              apt (adj.)
              mid-14c., “inclined, disposed;” late 14c., “suited, fitted, adapted,” from Old French ate (13c., Modern French apte), or directly from Latin aptus “fit, suited,” adjectival use of pp. of *apere “to attach, join, tie to,” from PIE root *ap- “to grasp, take, reach” (cf. Sanskrit apnoti “he reaches,” Latin apisci “to reach after, attain,” Hittite epmi “I seize”).

              So really, how one behaves is one’s identity. I do this and I do that. I respond this way and I respond that way. Maria behaves! And there goes Maria. Just look at that amazing conglomeration passing through time with such a clear and recognizable pattern! She is behaving just like Maria!

          2. Geir: “You point to something interesting here. Cause and effect are two sides of the same coin, I believe.”

            Was Hubbard ever truly and properly acked for his work? Not as adolation, I mean a proper complete ACK. This ties in nicely with what Alanzo said above, in Scientology terms, when a comm is not acked the cause becomes the effect of his own cause.

      2. deE: “Also I got a picture of the mob rule fitting, for some reason.(?)”

        They swarmed him! Those pesky little beings swarmed him! They’re good at that you know.

        1. Maria: They swarmed him! Those pesky little beings swarmed him! They’re good at that you know.

          Laughter! Good one, then I got from that, creating a monster then having to control it.

  2. Hehehe if somebody thinks that Hubbard was a well intended man, realise that he wouldn’t want people to be inside this rat cage. And certainly an incomplete Bridge with tons of abberation and frustration wasn’t his purpose. SCN wasn’t meant to be psychotherapy, but as long as OT is suppressed, it is! It is the bait…the cheese…and many pay way more than they get from this tech –that’s what I have observed. So, yeah fuck it!

    Use what can work, and don’t use the motto that “It works!”.

  3. Here is a bit from a note I wrote while looking at what year Scientology seems to went downhill

    —————————————————————————————————————

    Listening to old timers from the 50’s the pay were well above average for auditors, LRH were generous and not too paranoid (yet). The 50’s were the era of discovery, the era of major lectures like the PDC’s that up till today seems to be the biggest volume of information on the spirit ever done. From the 1960 he started trying to create a clearing system to fit all PC’s and a training system that will produce the perfect auditor (that however was also the start of the robot auditor)

    There were, as an example no grade chart in the 50’s. People were run on what were in re-stimulation at present, Auditors were not programmed robots, they had to think with the tech. You assess the PC, find out what is needed and wanted and then deliver that to the PC.

    That is why the Life repair auditing is such a big success even today – you handle what is wrong with the PC in present time. Is it really making sense to do grade 0 communication processes when one can see that the pc have lots of problems and that level 1 will be more appropriate? The grade chart is a nice guide but each and every PC is different.

    Can it thus be that a simple “what’s up buddy?” can tell you exactly what processes from what level should be run right now? Hows that for keeping a PC interested in his case.

    ——————————————————————————————————————

    1. Kin, the Grade Chart is more than a nice guide. And the levels aren’t arbitrary in their sequence. For example, before you can audit a pc on problems you have to have him at a high enough level of communication where he can confront and communicate about his problems and thus gain the ability to handle problems in general – not just a particular one. And this principles goes for all succeeding levels.

      Sure, if someone wants to merely help another person with what is currently giving him trouble in life, you might be able – with some pcs – to go straight to that particular level of the Bridge. I say “might” because there are two things to keep in mind. One is that most pcs need the earlier gradients to be able to run higher levels. And the other is that LRH purposely attempted to devise a route that would take anybody to higher points of awareness and knowingness. It appears that he didn’t quite devise it well enough for it to handle everybody – but he did so for most. so he came pretty close (before it got more and more perverted in succeeding years).

      And he also tried to make a standard for training of auditors such that they would get standard results. That too fell short of perfection. But again, he came pretty close (and again, before it got more and more alter-ised).

      The main point I’m making is that Scientology’s best feature is not that it has some nifty tools that can be applied to pcs as indicated, which would be sort of like limiting it to Life Repair, but that it is an actual ROUTE to take a pc to higher levels of awareness and knowingness than the pc even imagined existed – and thus most of pcs wouldn’t necessarily come looking for “help” on that. For many, it would have to be made real to them first that there are such high levels and that they can be attained.

  4. Your intention is really great: “helping people reach their goals”. And I think that a lot of us have the same intention.

    My question is: do you know an other already totally written technology, really workable and efficient, and at the same level of Scientology (or better) , to give to your new contacts in order to teach them how to themselves also to “help people to reach their goals”?

    Because “THIS” is what I have found as really efficient with the LRH Tech. And I have never found this level somewhere else to help people to “help others” in a really efficient way.

    (I hope my English is enough good to tell you exactly what I want to tell you…)

    1. I am not looking at “bodies of knowledge” or “technologies” or “complete systems” or any such. I don’t give a rat’s ass about the methodology or whether NLP is better or worse than crapology. All I care about is using the right means to help that one person in front of me – regardless of what tools he need. Maybe he needs a psychiatric tool, maybe a geriatric tool, a Scientology tool or a Morphology tool. I really couldn’t know until I know HIM.

      1. but why? what make you believe that others need help in the first place?
        what make you believes assume that you are better off than others are?
        what make you believe the new reality what they would be experiencing in that moment is better than any other moment?
        assumption…pure assumption that any one is in need of help… there are only conditions… but who is to say, assume what is needed for others to have a gain or to learn from something?

        1. Elizabeth: but why? what make you believe that others need help in the first place? what make you believes assume that you are better off than others are? what make you believe the new reality what they would be experiencing in that moment is better than any other moment? assumption…pure assumption that any one is in need of help… there are only conditions…

          Chris: I was watching Hershey my chocolate brown cat play today and noticed how she was doing TR0 on the dust motes floating through a bright ray of sunlight showing them off as it passed through my bedroom window. She was having quite a good time while I got ready to “work.” I slave and work to buy food for her to eat and put a shelter over her head. Tell me who is more intelligent, she or me? hahaha (me of course since I can talk on a cell phone — even then I have to relay her messages for her — who is serving who?)

          1. Ch…. finaly you are getting it…. and ” people” believe that animals are just animals, ignorant etc…. those beings who have animal bodies have not reached the bottom of the scale where human belifs are.. Animal for example communicate on a unimaginable level which ”humans” cant comprehand…

        2. Elizabeth: but why? what makes you believe that others need help in the first place?
          …and all the rest of your post. One of the hardest-hitting post I have seen on the blog.
          I find it the threshold of being “human” and being a “spirit”. Being there, giving attention, love what there is, by this letting the other to experience without resistance what the person is experiencing…very powerful “tool” (tool=awareness, Life).

          1. MT…. those questions are auditing questions and their point is to make the person confront, Geir understand their meaning, and most likely he did not payed much attantion to them…
            Marianne I am not here or any place to be ”nice” or do the right thing in order to belong to the group… those realities are confronted and as-ised.. I have no desire to belong into any group yet I am the member of the greates group in the Universe! I am a Free Being… what more one could ask for?

            1. “….those questions are auditing questions” yes, I know that.
              ” I have no desire to belong to the group” in fact there is no such thing as belonging,that is an illusion

          2. MT…””a burden filled with sorrow for many.” And the reason for why one is putting up a scale is that that person is in fear. Scared to experience. Wants to control. Is that right?””
            No Marianne, he was a teacher too, he was good in many ways.. very very good. And he was not scared to experience far from that, and he was not controling intentionaly but it turned out that way.. Fear for him came much later…

        3. Elizabeth
          “who is to say…..what is needed for others to have a gain or to learn from something?”
          “what make you believe the new reality what they would be experiencing in that moment is
          better than any other moment?”

          Thank you for these…they are working here, for me. …..losing some illusions I have created.

    2. Hi Monique. I’m not Geir, but if you want my opinion: I have come across many #$@%$ spiritualities, religions, philosophies that made me be glad for having been in SCN instead of that. Yet, I have found stuff that are really good, and for me, better than SCN. I don’t want to be speicific because I don’t feel like debating it right now. But for me, the answer is yes, certainly 🙂

  5. Has it really taken you this long to reach this level of consciousness? I realized this when I was 13 years old and I didn’t even know anything about Scientology nor I needed any other form of religious belief to know that the best thing a Human being can do is to assist other Human beings improve their lives and reach their goals and yes, like you said, I first made sure that I was on a position where I can actually do this because it is not wise to try to assist others improve their lives when your own life is immersed in “crapology”. When in history have you heard or read that one person salvaged a religion? You shouldn’t worry about salvaging Scientology simply because you are not in a position from where you can actually achieve that. I support your thinking about assisting other improve their lives and reaching their goals and the best way to do this is one person at a time, one situation at a time, provide the tools and train them how to use them and tell them to pay it forward. You want to save humanity? Do it one person at a time – start with you so you won’t “fuck it up”!!

    1. Madhatter: Has it really taken you this long to reach this level of consciousness?

      Chris: hahahaha you are funny madhatter! Well now that Geir has finally arrived to the level of your 13 year old consciousness, he can now begin to puff up his ego to the size of yours! How long do you think that should take? Should he use hot air or just get a compressor?! hahahaha!

            1. Elizabeth: Did you look into the cat box lately?

              Chris: Yes! And there is almond roca in there! (Wait, it doesn’t taste exactly like almond roca. . . what the ?)

      1. LMAO!! sounds funny and egotistical but believe me is not an ego trip. If you think hard enough about it, it does not have to take a life time to get there for no one, it is just a matter of realization, just like in GI case, he realized that there is no need to belong to any church or organization to help your fellow human beings. I think in his case though, he got caught in this idea that you must be part or a member of Scn to do that when in reality you don’t! It is important to note that often times people think of things as being unattainable or that it takes for ever to reach certain level consciousness or that you must go through trials and tribulations and be crucified to achieve a high level of consciouness. Remember that consciousness basically means – a constant state of being in present time – awareness if you will and the way you reach that is via realization! That’s what happened in my case and believe or not at the age of 13, I realized that I didn’t need to belong to any religion or organization to help those who needed help. There is nothing wrong in being part of groups or organizations who form to help others because there is power in unity but when the group starts detouring from its original purpose and it doesn’t correlate with your purpose and goals, then it is time to leave that group.

        1. Madhatter: “I think in his case though, he got caught in this idea that you must be part or a member of Scn to do that when in reality you don’t!”

          Me: You think. And you thing wrongly 😉

        2. MadHatter: “Remember that consciousness basically means – a constant state of being in present time – awareness if you will and the way you reach that is via realization!”

          It seems to me that not everyone can easily do that, or do it at all, much less easily. Most people need a gradient approach – i.e. a path that doesn’t necessarily take them quite as far as that point you describe but makes it possible for them to find their own way from there. And the best way I know of for doing so is Scientology minus the flaws that were additives to the original conception.

  6. So what I think you are saying is

    You don’t give a fuck
    But you do give a shit

    I can go along with that. I look at various ologies and isms in the world these days and I keep coming back to these simplicities:

    Observe
    Learn
    Communicate

    One can get into all kinds of complexities from here (and that majority part of me that is hyper-OCD can have a lot of fun with those!) but if I just stick to those three things and pay a little attention to one or more of them each day, things seem to come out alright. Funny how that works (:-\))

    Alan

  7. LOL. 🙂

    I love the chicken-egg; it is so determined, with such a clear decision.
    (By the way, I’m sure the egg was first, before the chicken!)

    I was already wondering how you wanted to sort it out without getting caught up in all the complexities.

      1. All the smart science kids know this one;

        An almost-chicken laid a chicken egg which hatched into a real chicken. Basic evolution 🙂

  8. The best that be said about Scientology is that it’s a severely damaged brand. This is (almost) entirely the doing of the Co$ and COB. “The Why Is God” thinking is epidemic, when in fact Scientology has been destroyed by a long history of “Scientologists” acting like utterly contemptible assholes. They have made Scientology a discredited joke in the mind of the public and Co$ is on a short-list of most thoroughly dead agented organization in the the world. It is broadly understood to be a suppressive group, even if the public has different nomenclature.

    It’s very sad since the technology could actually help a lot of people.

  9. A sane viewpoint, Geir. Where the point becomes “to be a Scientologist”, or to be a “loyal upholder” of any whole system, person or dogma, reason has surrendered to self-serving implanted misdirection. There is, in my own view, a tremendous amount of valuable data and techniques in the patchwork of contributions that actually came from many sources, and were presented to us under the umbrella of the term “Scientology”, and there is also a great amount of self-serving misdirection, inadequately tested “standard workable tech”, impressed on people with various types of force and misused emotion. I think its valid to say that there is enough good that has been developed through that system that it shouldn’t be as criticized as it is, but I also think that the tremendous amount of criticism is nothing more than a rebalancing from so many of us having been so absolutely (and blindly) supportive and defensive of all things Scientology before emerging out of the matrix to gradually re-experience greater degrees of free, unbiased thought. In the end, it remains true that we all need to be wise enough to evaluate each and every idea on its own merits, rather than by where it stands in relation to any “system”, or “source”.

    1. Dexter: “I think its valid to say that there is enough good that has been developed through that system that it shouldn’t be as criticized as it is, but I also think that the tremendous amount of criticism is nothing more than a rebalancing from so many of us having been so absolutely (and blindly) supportive and defensive of all things Scientology before emerging out of the matrix to gradually re-experience greater degrees of free, unbiased thought.”

      That is a great explanation for so much criticism, which has perplexed me. I thank you for expressing that.

      Also, I’m curious and would like to ask you the same question I asked David St. Lawrence recently. Do you deliver the whole Bridge and if not which parts of it do you deliver?

      1. Marildi: “That is a great explanation for so much criticism, which has perplexed me. I thank you for expressing that.”

        Chris: But the rest of the reasons for the criticism leaves you perplexed? This is dictionary definition confirmation bias in bloom.

  10. I’m not sure of you’re making the best while throwing away “scientology”, while I’ve not notice any problem with its application by intelligent people like in the Ron’s Org, but I very understand your way to focus on the purpose of you to help in the way you describe: to help people to reach their own goals, and having no restriction on the sources of what could help your purpose; for me it’s a quiet honest and pragmatic way to be and do. And yes, I understand too that as you have hard time to try to start from the scientologic base as it is in hte CoS, that you could try to built a new edifice and inspect/evaluate for yourself each particle before to put it in place. ML Didier.

  11. Frankly, Geir, this is in line with what I’ve thought about you all along. The hang up on a specific name and methodology is not something I associate with you.

    Rather I associate the ideal of applying the principles of Open Source to the idea of helping others through some sort of a spiritual technology. And that is something I also see as having potential value.

    1. It’s true that I have been going in that direction perhaps since before I walked out of the Church. But in the last couple of weeks I made a leap or two.

      1. Leaps, eh? Possibly a precursor of the Easter Bunny’s appearance? 😉

        Seriously though. Congratulations. You seem to be having a banner year going on for insights and changes.

          1. Mark, the bunny Easter video was Perfect. David Bowie was appropriate too and he’s always good.

  12. Geir, playing devil’s advocate (please bear with), I ask if you would have come to that level of courage and freedom of expression and thought and insight without making it up the Bridge? Since you did, I think it’s a fair question.

    Having said that, there is a point we can likely agree on, is that I have no interest in salvaging the Church of Scientology, nada.

    You also mentioned in your article: “What is possible, on the other hand is to start, without prejudice (at ALL) to collect all kinds of tools for all kinds of possible goals and wishes (starting with the guy’s you have in front of you) and piece together the tool set that is demonstrably working.” Isn’t that pretty much what LRH did to start with?

    1. Except he made a cult. And put the cart before the horse (the method before the goal) – and decided what goals a person must have.

      As for your first question; I have no idea. But the Scientology Bridge did it for me. Other things could perhaps have as well. But here’s the point: People are different and have different goals and expectations – and Scientology apparently fails to meet most people’s expectations. That is why they leave.

      1. Yes – the “whole package” as it is delivered by the Church, is not meeting most people’s expectations.

        Simply because the meal contains too many poisonous ingredients.
        And not to forget: Auditing is extremely expensive.
        And while being on the Bridge or studying – the Church doesn’t get tired of trying to force you to donate.

        But that all does not necessarily mean that different parts of the tech would very much meet people’s expectations.

        Another problem with all the special goodies from LRH: They are hidden in Millions of notes, lectures and congresses. You got to work yourself through them.
        That is something for people who are willing to invest lots and lots of precious time.

        It needs someone who knows LRH’s work and who distills the goodies and puts them into context, understandable for a wide audience.

        I find it amazing that no one has done this until today.
        “The most brilliant insights and techniques of Scientology” would become a bestseller.

        Unfortunately my knowledge of the tech is extremely limited. And I’m not even clear.
        Otherwise I’d sit right down and start writing the book.

        Well, I’ve done the three L’s.
        I doubt that without having done them I would not think about starting such a big project.

        I envy all of you who HAVE the background to write such book.
        I hope that I have inspired you a bit …………….

        1. Daniel I really like your messages. But don’t invalidate yourself for not having a ‘Clear’ label, or some other, again 🙂

          If you do that, you will save a lot of people a lot of trouble. If only labels are valid enough to talk, I’m leaving this nazi party now. 😛

    2. Alaska: I ask if you would have come to that level of courage and freedom of expression and thought and insight without making it up the Bridge? Since you did, I think it’s a fair question.

      Chris: Permission to chime in? I would have, only I would have made it 20 years sooner.

  13. Isene: I don’t want Scientology, Psychology, NLP, crapology, or anything else.

    Laughing my ass off! It’s great to have reached that point. Bravo! 🙂

    PS: Being the business my mate and I were in for 20 years, brought us in contact with all those oologies and we tried most all, experienced and played with them. We settled only onto some individual meditation which worked for us.

      1. I also love the entire movie for the light it can shine on our illusions. There is a great varying degree of the solidity of which our illusions are made. Some are lighter than cigarette smoke while others substantial and holding their form and changing but very little for thousands of years at a time. What do you suppose makes the difference?

  14. If you’re still telling people that you had “huge gains from the Scientology OT levels,” then you’re still promoting Scientology. The “fuck it” statement will simply be interpreted as your being temporarily “PTS” to “SPs.”

      1. Geir is “slightly loony” …me too. I like being loony and I like loony people. Being loony is fun!
        People like me for being that, it encourages them to be that! So we get crazy and wild! Lots of original creations are its result.

        1. Nice! This topic reminds me of how a person that doubted SCN was considered a PTS, and how a person that even THOUGHT of anything negative against high-ranking staff and SCN was considered guilty too. There were even sec check questions about thoughts, no?

          That was a nice way to implant onself with not-ising his own disagreements and dubbing over them that everything about SCN is so great. 😀

    1. Life is a smorgasbord (Google is your friend) of goals, opportunities and tools. None of the tools even remotely as important to the people and what they seek.

      Read my post again, Briana. Without prejudice or filters or blinders.

      PTS to SPs. Hmmm… interesting generality right there. Who are “the SPs”, Briana?

      1. “None of the tools even remotely important to the people and what they seek”. YEEES!
        And if you substitute “the people” with ME and “they” with I ?

      2. Ask the Scientologists, it’s their belief system.

        Just as much a part of their belief system as interpreting every mediocre change as a gigantic win. That’s how Scientologists survive, by believing that they are having enormous wins. They propagandize themselves.

        And, yes, I’m using the word “they,” and I am generalizing. Take a good look inside your own mind. Are *you* still, in some ways, thinking like a Scientologist?, and are you still seeing “SPs”?

        i hope not. 🙂

    2. Why does it have to be black or white?

      That is a logical trap. “I’ve had gains from SCN, thus it is all good”. “I haven’t had any gains from SCN, thus nobody else can have”. I suppose that is how people either stick with it fanatically or fight against it fanatically, or abandon it completely.

      There can be infinite variations of what it can/cannot do.

      1. …and nothing in SCN ‘works’. A tool CAN work or not. And SCN has a huge variety of tools. How would one know if they CAN (potentially) work, unless he tried them all? And beyond that, it takes certain intentions to make it work, for according to SCN itself “considerations are senior to the mechanics of matter, energy, space and time”.

        1. I have read the critic’s arguement that “it works because you think that it works”. I don’t really argue about that. I just don’t invalidate the “think” part. If you think that something is so and so for you, then so it is. If you doubt it, then it is doubtful, and so on… 😛

    3. Briana V.,
      I had great gains too – with standard auditing. That’s a fact – no need to deny it. But I also experienced a lot of suppressive, crazy crap (the longer I was in, the worse it got). That’s a fact, too. The “fuck it” statement does not contradict the facts. It is a statement, a resume, a decision in the now.
      If Monday is nice and sunny and Tuesday is cold,raining and storming, I don’t need to say the weather in the last days was bad.Fact: Monday nice and sunny – Tuesday cold, raining,stormy.
      What’s your experience (having been in) – only bad weather?)

  15. Proposal to Geir:

    I’d find it extremely interesting to read people’s opinions to such question:

    “What might happen if the number of members continued to decrease fast while the media would attack the Church even stronger?”

    The church will ‘collaps’. Yes. Somehow. But how???

    Which scenarios for such ‘implosion’ are imaginable, which maybe most probable and improbable?
    What kind of ‘escapes’ could DM see at the moment? Which options does he have and will have when things get really much worse?

    Has such question been asked on another blog yet?

    And what might happen afterwards?

    Will DM take refuge in an African country and take it over as its dictator after a while, imposing Scientology upon its people like others tried to impose the Sharia upon Mali?

    Will the Fort Harrison and Sandcastle become hotels for tourists already in end 2014? (most probably always fully booked by nostalgic ex-Scientologists 🙂

    Sorry for not being too serious at the second part of my post.
    But I am serious about the first.

    1. This has been discussed a few times over at ESMB.

      I think that we may see suicides of people close to DM if the implosion speeds up, generating a collapse.

  16. So, is there going to be a new topic or maybe a forum to discuss new tech or refinements of older techs? 😀

    1. I’m with Daniel on re-issueing SCN pieces to the broad public. If there are issues with copyrights, they can be handled by re-writting stuff from scratch by altering the text without altering the meaning. ‘Clearbird’ has done something of the sort, but I haven’t checked it out in detail…

      The Church can have the copyrights over terms but cannot have copyrights over the essense of things.

      1. I thought it could be useful to have a book or books that contain SCN stuff that don’t require a line of trainning to be applied. I thought stuff like study tech and assist in particular, would match this criteria. And then, I got a cog: Ever since I stopped considering study tech -the misunderstood word(s) phenomena in particular- I stopped having that phenomena. I can read a text and see a word that I don’t quite grasp and continue reading and have no problem with the rest of the text at all! No blankness, no wondering about it, no tendecy to blow etc. I’m sure Ron knew about this. Actually it is mentioned in an instance somewhere in Student Hat. But not much stress is put on it. If I wanted to relay something from SCN to the broad public, that would be something like “if you want to have a problem, consider that it exists –or that it can potentialy exist!”. Want to have a reactive mind? Consider that there is one….then to make it even more real, try to resolve it (counter-create it) 🙂

  17. Geir
    There is a simple way of helping another person to see, get conscious of what the person is delivering in the moment. Nothing else is needed in this case than just being there
    for the person and by providing a clear space the person will come up with an idea what s/he will do and also what tool s/he will use. What do you think?

  18. Great that you want to help individuals in the first place. But there’s one thing that bothers me. What if there are good things unique to scientology, the gold nuggets that can’t be found anywhere? (I may be wrong in this point, of course, but I don’t feel it was proven to me.) Why not extract them and give them out for free use? I’ve been telling this repeteadly a long time. The subject of scientology seems to be going to die and I don’t think we can do anything about it. And the unique pieces could be lost, too. Well, that’s a possibility, too.

    Such a Tone Scale is not that bad. Actually scientists researching muscular response in different moods (kill me, but I can’t recollect the name of the project) developed very, very similar scale. That kind of acknowledges validity of the tone scale per se. Now, I’m not talking about all the comments and conclusions that Hubbard added to it.

    I didn’t have time to read the whole discussion about the tone scale. But I find that thinking naive that in the free arena of public discussions there will be every any sensible content on anything. The arguments can be sifted by somebody who understand the thing enough and has good enough logical thinking. And those with similar or better abilities can then help him improve it.

    So you do whatever you please. I’ll stick to this. I’ll be very pleased if you ever stop ignoring that.

    1. Of course. Any and all workable tools and methods should be tested and put on the sorgasbord. No prejudice as to whether it comes from LRH, Jesus, Gödel, Satan, God Almighty, Hitler, Wundt, Vinaire, Alan Watts or you. What works… works.

      1. Fuck, Geir, you’ve got me again 😀 First I had to laugh when you mentioned Vinaire and then I saw me – ouch. No, I don’t have the ambition to be any kind of a “source”. I’m only interested in the result and of course I’ll be happy if I can contribute to that.

        Just a note about the testing – where there is a chance to do the standard scientific testing, I’d be glad to see that happen. But I don’t think this should be interpreted as either that way or highway. I think that even anecdotal testing has its value and if something looks good enough based ot that, let’s put it out. Just the stamp “scientifically tested” would be missing.

        1. Again: Of course. Anyone should use whatever tool they deem fit for the purpose at hand, whether tested or not. The practitioner, the therapeut, the coach will any way be judged by the results of his work (as it should be with any type of job). Use what works or seem to work or have hopes to work – BUT BE OPEN ABOUT IT. If you experiment on a guy, then you need to ask him and be completely transparent about it. The scientific testing helps in choosing the tools that demonstrably works. Such testing would be the dream for anyone wishing to help another. Just think about being a coach for some athlete and knowing exactly what methods work at what percentage levels for each type of athlete and situations. If I could coach a boxer and choose among the three top methods that has a better than 80% chance of decreasing the reaction speed by 15% over a one month training period… I would be overthrilled. Until such exists, I will have to go by anecdotal evidence and gut feeling. But I must remain completely open for the workability of what I use, and never fall into the trap of defending a method, That is where one will run into the ditch. Goal senior to method. Always.

          1. Geir: Goal senior to method. Always.

            Chris: Yes, and which brings us round to the question whether ends justify means, ever. The answer to this must be woven into the both the method and the goal. I preemptively do not know the answer to this. My knee jerk reaction is no but when I consider what improvements have been made in medicine and other helpful arts and which methods stretched the envelope of acceptable ethics, I just shake my head and don’t feel smart enough to judge.

            1. As long as the Goal include all the effects desired (including potential side effects) – then “the Goal justify the Means” is not dangerous. In fact it is an obvious logical conclusion – a tautology if you wish.

            2. That slope seems so very slippery to me. Of course what you say is right if applied with good will, and yet leaves the door so very opened for abusive practices. Maybe most obviously in the fields of biology and of mental help. I’m not big on safety measures but in this case I wonder what the poka-yoke can be?

            3. Chris T.: “That slope seems so very slippery to me. Of course what you say is right if applied with good will, and yet leaves the door so very opened for abusive practices. Maybe most obviously in the fields of biology and of mental help. I’m not big on safety measures but in this case I wonder what the poka-yoke can be?”

              Me: I wonder what definition of “the end justifies the means” is in use here? Most often it is used to rationalize something very dodgy going on, like Snow White for instance. i know it can be applied to other circumstances, I’ve just never see it used in other circumstances.

              I’ve long held the view that the means ARE the end, this nicely sidesteps the temptation to indulge in dodgy shit (as all you are going to get is the result of dodgy shit).

              I don’t think there is a viable poka-yoke for biology and mental-health, which is probably why those fields are so heavily regulated. CoS tried to install one – after session exams and success stories, and we know how well that worked out.

              Had any more thoughts about this since you posted?

            4. Alan: Had any more thoughts about this since you posted?

              Chris: No. It’s a rare brick wall that I don’t even have an intuition of hope of “if I confront it, it will resolve.” The traction on the slippery slope seems to be provided by the goodwill of the practitioners and upon the wisdom of people to know better than to let ideologies do their thinking for them.

              What definition of “the end justifies the means,” indeed. In a simple manufacturing process we just mean the “result regulates the process.” There’s no moral involved, maybe aside from responsible disposal of waste products. But in dealing with people, people’s emotional health, mental well being — ?

            5. Chris T.: “What definition of “the end justifies the means,” indeed. In a simple manufacturing process we just mean the “result regulates the process.” There’s no moral involved, maybe aside from responsible disposal of waste products. But in dealing with people, people’s emotional health, mental well being — ?”

              Me: I came to a similar conclusion. If you build a car, it’s easy to test that the wedling robot is doing what you designed it to do. Or that the human really did tighten the wheel nuts. Etc, etc.

              With humans, I can’t find anything better than “peer review”, as in the way Medical Ethics Committees work – present full factual data to a board of your peers, and they review it looking for things you miss, or get you back on the straight and narrow if they think you are drifting.

              This process is of course flawed and almost anyone could find its flaws in a few minutes. So whilst it sucks greatly, it also seems to suck much less than any alternative.

        2. profant: Just the stamp “scientifically tested” would be missing.

          Chris: I tend to agree but then the stamp of scientifically testing is missing from all weight control and hair regrowth products (except maybe Rogain which has poor results.) Not saying that FDA or even local building inspection is a best solution, but imagine our culture without any standards? The quality and safety of buildings? The snake oil that would pass for cure? Benign forms relying on the placebo effect would do no harm but other products could and would surely be damaging. This is the category that Scientology falls into and while protected as a religion would no longer be protected when claiming curative powers.

          1. No standards is an extreme and that’s definitely not what I’m talking about. If everything was to be scientifically tested, we would have things in many areas missing. It’s just that one needs to know that he’s taking a risk when he’s taking it. And that is the problem with scientology — LRH often claims that his work is “a science” and “proven beyond any doubt”.

      2. Yes, Geir, but how can you test anything validly in face of the fact that it is always “placebo”
        for each and every being? Also, during processing, as in your article, there is a chance of unknown inputs….

      1. I know, it’s been a while. Major IRL stuff going on. Which is kinda good for my life and kinda bad for me being in the know of current activities re: Ronology 😀

  19. This needs a rather long, thoughtful comment that will take a few days of spare time to get ready.

    The conclusion of the post is absolutely correct. The corporate Scientology organization has, among other things, given the subject such a bad name that it is not marketable.

    Conditioning of personnel to “keep scientology working,” etc. has closed their minds to other approaches. Anyone pointing out any sorts of interesting effects that need more investigation is immediately attacked.

    The main selling points of Scientology were how much it could help you be more able in life, but then, if one actually goes into a Scientology org, one is told that all of one’s life and work has to be devoted to Scientology, and anything else is “just bank.”

    A huge weakness of the auditing techniques is the maintenance of PC folders, inaccessible to the PC. No business person, government worker, European who has studied the history of the rise and fall of Communist and fascistic governments, etc. will allow their personal information to be stored for potential future misuse.

    Many individuals who were involved with the development of Scientology techniques (partial list: David Mayo, John McMasters, Mary Sue Hubbard, Alan Walter) had perhaps 15% of their work incorporated into “The Bridge,” and they were then kicked out, where some of them did their own thing, and others simply retired. Given that Scientology is a compilation of successful actions, there is no reason to ignore other useful accomplishments.

    I need to elaborate on all of these points and complete the thoughts before posting it.

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s