Improving upon Scientology

I have had this idea that it should be possible to improve Scientology through public discussions. That discussions on this blog could be used to sift the good from the bad until we end up with elements that are worth proper testing.

But my idea was misguided – as evident from recent discussions.

There is no hope for improving Scientology through public discussion. The only hope there can ever be for Scientology as a subject is via strict scientific testing. Because discussions in the presence of beliefs break the hope for rational outcomes.

For Scientology to survive as a positive contribution to Man, it needs its valuable parts properly validated. There is now 63 years since Hubbard got the show on the road. And today the number of Scientologists worldwide is less than 40000. It is an abysmal state for this body of knowledge. One may argue that the Church of Scientology is all bad and has done nothing but destroying any chance for expansion of this subject. But there has always been splinter groups that could have expanded outside of the church. And especially in the last decade since the church has stopped bothering those who practice it freely. And even the free use of Scientology does not invoke any visible expansion.

Something serious needs to be done to salvage the good in Scientology – the good that I personally have experienced in so many ways. I have a lot to thank Scientology for, and I would like others to have similar gains as mine. But at the rate we are seeing today, the vast majority of people on this planet will never have a chance to experience it. Not until the subject wanders off into oblivion.

Instead of playing this minor game where everyone looses – I believe proper scientific testing is the only way to ensure all those who can benefit from Scientology may have a chance to do so.

And so this blog returns to a place for interesting discussions with no overall purpose and a safe sounding board for many, at least until I change my mind about that too.

115 thoughts on “Improving upon Scientology

  1. What a nice message 🙂

    I’m adding that I think that anything can be done. And also, it doesn’t matter what happened up to this point, and I think it would be easier to deal with one’s own case and the case of the immediate family and group before ‘expanding’ to the rest of the groups and the 4th Dynamic. Some seek solutions through society –that’s pretty much total effect…psychology and neo-scientology-activist-group.

    Oops I broke my oath of silence again 😛

    1. Neo-scientology-activist-group=The idea that SCN (and one’s case) is dependent upon the implosion of psychiatry, suppression and other mocked up social issues.

  2. The idea of STRICT scientific testing is nice, but it’s also complicated.
    – you need people with a real scientific training.
    – you need people who can understand and properly apply the scientology principles and processes
    – those people mustn’t try to make whole scientology right or wrong
    – there would have to be resources so that they can afford do it.

  3. We can’t make you OT because we need to create a safe environment for OTs first.

    Yes, we are totally dependent on you oh great one social-issue-handler. Please tell us what are we allowed to do? Oh we are allowed to work for you to change society –to change the bad people ‘out there’. Yes sir. Please let us know from time to time how bad things are out there, so we will donate money to the IAS and work for you and thus probably make it possible to be free. Freedom means to be totally dependent on you, sir.

    1. SP…””We can’t make you OT because we need to create a safe environment for OTs first””.

      The OT do not need safe environment.. the OT is not restimulated therefore any environment is safe…. and safety is only needed who has fears…. OT dont have such on emotion..

  4. An open discussion in which everyone can participate does not have the chance to lead to separating the good from the bad.

    Scientific investigation – I think this could be only done with some of the Scientology tools.
    Not even the Church has done it. (Why not ???)

    A different approach to separate good from bad:

    A survey among indies could be done in order to find out e.g.

    Did you have wins on the Purif?
    Answer on a scale from 1 to 10.

    Did you have wins with the study tech?
    Answer on a scale from 1 to 10.

    Did you have wins doing TR 0?
    Did you have wins doing TR …?
    Did you have wins reading book A?
    Did you have wins reading book B?

    Did you have wins on a life Repair?
    Did you have wins on L 10 … L11 … L12?

    and so on.

    And more:
    As far as Ethics is concerned I would break the subject down into many small subjects from which each of them should be evaluated asking:
    Is subject XY rather not helpful oder helpful? (scale 1-10)

    I would then propose that 3 or 4 bright OTs who are very experienced with the tech would discuss within a closed circle. A start could be that each of them would draw his own conclusions and develop his own theory for a solution and make this known to the others.

    If there were three circles of this kind and in the end each circle would publish what they finally had found out – that would be interesting, taking us a little further towards the truth.

    1. What I want to see is testing e.g. Dianetics auditing to see if it factually a) raises IQ, b) improves memory, c) decreases common colds, d) reduces reaction speed, e) increases longevity… etc. Test Self Analysis for memory improvements. Test L&N for whether or not it can induce illness if done incorrectly. Test purif for decreasing levels of toxidity in the body. Test OT levels for increase in paranormal (ESP) capabilities. Test cases for recall of past lives (not just surveys as with Marty’s). Test study tech for demonstrable increase in understanding, in reading speed, in ability to apply the material, in amount of discomfort experienced in study with or without it. Etc.

      1. Geir …
        Yes – that would be wonderful.
        But this would mean to test very large numbers of people under scientific conditions. It all can be done. It would last many many years. And who would pay for it?

        It will be harder and harder to find public support for such investigations as the reputation of Scientology is going down the drain.

        I believe it is extremely important to make the media understand that

        – the organization is absolutely suppressive
        – the entire package Scientology as it is presented is dangerous
        – there are many valuable tools in Scientology worth keeping

        It would make sense to pick out just two or three tools and provide evidence that they work. This would break the ice, I would think.
        It could be an assist, the study tech you mentioned.

        Education is a terribly important subject. Any progress in this field would result in a large impact.
        Testing the study tech would not be too complicated, not too complex, not too expensive.
        It would be a beginning.

        I am asking myself why the Church has never done it …
        I asked. They haven’t.

      2. The first thing that will have to be addressed is the flaws in scientific method as applied to living human organisms.

        – How do you establish your base line groups for testing, given that every individual involved arrives with a unique and complex conditioned physical, emotional, mental and social state that cannot be identified with any certainty? This includes the administrators of the processes and the recipients of the processes. Thus, there is no base line. Never was, and never will be. All of the humanities, and all of the biological testing done on living human beings is fatally flawed, as it assumes that there is some kind of “normal” human being. i.e. What exactly is normal, and how can you identify normal human beings so you can test them with complete confidence that normal is normal and results will not be skewed by deviations in normal.

        – Assuming that you can solve the previous point, how can you isolate these groups in order to administer these processes, given that any input that is received during the course of processing will inevitably introduce uncontrolled change? How do you ensure that extraneous agents of change do not interfere with the results over time?

        – Assuming that you can solve the isolation problem, how can you determine if an active agent of change is or is not the isolation itself. After all, human beings are social, some say pack animals. The first test that would have to be done is to find out what the effect of isolation is on living human beings. I don’t think such a test has ever been done.

        – Assuming you can solve the previous problems, how can you ensure that the base line and testing groups are exposed to identical physical, mental, emotional and social agents of change while their progress is being charted over longer periods of time?

        – Assuming that you can solve the previous problems, how do you solve the flaws in the testing procedures themselves?

        —–IQ tests, for example, are fatally flawed, for they depend on self-answers, level of interest in the participant, and repetitive testing using the same materials. The tests themselves have not been tested and are little better than an assessment of test taking abilities, current state of knowledge and memory, current state of mind, and so on. Another flaw lies in the time interval between the first and second testing with the same test — how can you establish that the change in test results has not come about because the individual being tested has had additional time to consider the answers to the tests. []

        —–Testing on the incidence of contracting the common cold is predicated on the false premise that the common cold can be identified. In fact, there is no such thing, only a set of symptoms that may be considered to be the common cold when no other diagnosis is suggested.

        —–Personality tests suffer from the same flaws as IQ tests, with an additional flaw of self-deception introduced. Individuals doing these tests attempt to get the best result on their test, are unable to self-assess accurately, and will answer differently at different intervals of time even when there are apparently no agents of change applied between testings. The tests themselves are not tested. Are they actually representing scientific quantified improvements or are they based on what individuals along the line have arbitrarily decided are better or worse characteristics?

        And of course, there is the placebo effect on testing, which has been tested somewhat, though certainly not with any real baseline standards in place as I noted above:


        Personally I don’t think any of the human potential or psychology sciences are actually sciences in any other sense than estimations.

        1. As long as there are objective claims in Scientology, they can be identified as having occured or not by formal testing. What one wants is a statistical significance above that of the background noise of life. That would do away with the isolation and other problems. As long as there is *significant* improvement over a large enough number of people (regardless of their initial situation), it can be measured and statistically determined whether there is in fact an objective improvement made. There are plenty of statistical tools available to determine this.

          Getting objective data from subjective experiences is also well within our reach. Much can be gained from studying e.g. the science of subjective pain.

          So, I believe it is entirely possible to do so. Lest there will be something of proven workability in 100 years that will eclipse Scientology completely.

          1. So long as it understood that one is assessing self-reported subjective states, based in uncontrolled conditions, and in only terms of statistical significance, then all is well.

            Some of the claims can be dismissed immediately, for example, “free from common colds.” This is an absurd claim — it can be dismissed right now with no need of any testing, as it is a specious claim based on an ambiguous illness.

            I think it does matter what the prior situation was — on an individual that experienced these symptoms several times a year, a significant change would be experiencing those symptoms only once a year. The question still remains whether the individual can really identify the same symptoms before and after.

            Perhaps the answer lies in using a wellness approach, where the questions and surveys cover a broad span of life conditions and work with a continuum rather than symptoms. You can read about this approach here:


            The Illness-Wellness Continuum illustrates the relationship between the allopathic medical paradigm (or any other symptom-treatment system) and the wellness paradigm, which is based on self-responsibility.


            1. Several other claims on my list can easily be tested – like improved reaction speed and improved memory. The last one being an operative claim in Scientology and very easily tested. And I would love to see the results from that on the various levels on the Bridge. I bet we would get some surprises. People often think they know, when they only actually believe.

            2. Sure, but once again, you are faced with the unlovely picture of the flaws in the testing.

              As an example, I went online and did a test on reaction time.

              – The first round I scored on the upper middle of the percentile.
              – I went and had breakfast.
              – Two hours later I did the test again, my results were better
              – Two hours later I did the test again, my results had dropped
              – I ate dinner and had a nap
              – I did the test again, my results had dropped
              – Two hours later I did the test again and my results had dropped again

              I got friends to do the test and he too experienced variable results.

              You can see the test here, along with the results of the test.

              With all my auditing, and even with a tremendous number of test runs, I was never able to get into the top percentile.

              My friend, who has never had any auditing, but has had martial arts training consistently scored higher than me.

              My other friend, who has never had any auditing, but is a world class gamer scored higher than both of us, coming in on the very top of the percentiles.

              Even weirder, the average percentiles change with the day of the week, the time of the year and the time of day. The time of year changes appear to be quite consistent.

              I have taken this change from one time of year to another to mean that this supports my notion (opinion, really) that human beings are an open system.

              I mean really, why should there be such a difference between July and December scores?

            3. Such things are mitigated by increasing numbers – more people, more test points, etc. Then you find correlations. Standard statistics.

            4. Did you go and look at the link? There have been 5,778,761 clicks so far.

            5. I am writing a little book now – A practical guide to the deeds. The Game of Life.
              I dream of releasing it with help of David Miscavige within the CofS. Despite what you might think I gave the Responsibility to Ron to Research and Discover Scientology. 🙂

        2. Maria… right you are.. Human behavior can be tested and compared because human behaviour is a condition and way of thinking have a established thoughts beliefs and because of that can be surveyed.. but a free being… who do not even think?

          And again humans who have their own reality would be judging what is spiritual gain- reality? Scientific experiment would be a total failure..

          And scientology is not lost… in fact very much alive and billions and billions have received its benefits through auditing and course, TR’s ant they know what is confronting means.

          They are the BT’s and Clusters LRH has talked about.. but his reality on that subject was minimal and he has not realized the power of communication and he did not seen understood clearly what has happened in any session.

          Not only one person was in or is in when in session but countless numbers are and same goes for when these persons were taking courses.. The BT’s Clusters these Beings without the body they too were studying and doing TR’s partaken in co-auditing, did the emeter courses and did every action and have been every session same as Joe Do was in, who believes he is by himself. Only human thinking has that I am a singular being… that concept is truly human
          BT’s Closter I call them Free Beings because they do not have a robot body and they are not stuck to robotic ‘’thinking’’ because of that they don’t have that notion that they are singular..
          Spiritual Universe is free of worries, fears, and it is not in danger of aberrational behaviour and thinking..
          There is fresh reality exist in the Universe… new game has begun…the Black Tide has been confronted… so no worries mate, rest at ease : The Spiritual Universe is doing well, it is in good hands..

          PS; the Spiritual Universe is the oneness state.. where one knows: all knows… hehehe no secrets here…

  5. In my opinion Scietology does NOT need salvaging because that has already been done. All the basic materials are available in many different lists and webb pages etc etc.. there is lot’s of it, and the basic stuff is really what is needed to slavage. I have done the OEC, FEBC Class IX, read all the books, listened to 2000 taped LRH lectures, and when discussions like on this block starts taking off … I learn something new about Scientology. This means to me that it doesn’t matter how much you study it, there will still be something to learn. Therefore still IMO what really makes you able to judge ‘good’ and ‘bad’ tech/Scn is NOT how much theory you know, but how well you are able to apply the stuff. Scientology, like many other philosophies, are only workable to the degree they are USED, APPLIED or PUT IN PRACTICE. Discussions between people who even advocate that they do not APPLY Scientology is like having the blind lead the blind. Therefore I would find it valuable if those people who apply Scientology in life on all dynamics, auditing and training, if THEY wold chip in with their experiences, and the rest keep silent and listen… that way we might be able to move somewhere..
    I wish you all a Happy Easter…


    1. Per,

      You are wrong.

      Scientology works and survives well only to the degree you apply the data in “how to study a science”.

      Which you have not done.

      And most others have also not done, which keeps scn in a state of disrepute.


    2. Not everybody is willing to invest many many years of studying the tech.
      The idea is that it should be made available to anyone who wants to use this or that tool.
      To make this possible the tech should be prepared so it can be easily supplied depending on what an individual wishes to achieve.
      But first all suppressive parts of the tech need to be cut off. All the ‘tools’ implemented by the Church to protect it and its interest.
      When I go through the Ethics book I feel sick on many many pages. (e.g. “Ethics protection”)

    3. +1
      yes less talking and more hours spent in session whould give less want of blogging..

  6. I’ve finally figured out the whole thing.

    When you create a cult, the cult creates you, too.

    Hubbard could not handle the backflow of praise and admiration, and he went off the rails and became a cult leader for real. The bigger the cult got, the bigger the cult leader he became.

    Nothing in his philosophy allowed him to pop his ego balloon. Nothing in his viewpoint ever allowed him to recognize that we are all just bozos on this bus. Nothing allowed him to let it all just fall if that was what it was always going to do.

    So he went insane, and he began putting Maoist reconditioning techniques and every form of brainwashing he could find into it so it would always go up and never go down.

    That’s all that happened. Hubbard was just a man, just like you and me. And the backflow of being a cult leader was too much for him. And he blew it.

    Game over.

    So what?

    Things rise and fall all the time. Nothing survives forever.

    The point is to have fun, keep surfing, and never get all puffed up over it.


    1. It is interesting to read opinions about Hubbard. But he is dead. What remains is what he has left.
      Now the question is: Would it be helpful for mankind if – to start with – the most helpful Scientology cognitions and tools would be made available to the public. A kind of ‘starter package’.

        1. Write a book! Shoot videos and explain, demonstrate.
          People NEED help for coping with life. They need manuals which help them.
          Be the first.
          Others will follow.
          This will help to raise the reputation of Scientology.

        2. I agree with Daniel. In your book, put most of the emphasis on the potential that lies in Scientology, and only what is absolutely necessary on the warnings. That’s “the secret”!

          And you do have the power to influence, so think well what influence you want to bring about. 🙂

  7. Daniel sums it up well in his words:

    An open discussion in which everyone can participate does not have the chance to lead to separating the good from the bad.

    That is an absolute!

    When you do such things in the public, the result will be the lowest common denominator.

    Kind of like the saying: a camel is a horse designed by a committee.

    But more like throwing your pearls in front of swine.

    With a subject like scn, it will only work if done by one qualified and competent person and main leader , who does his own research and improvements and builds his own bridge.

    Then he teaches it is to new minds, new people, new public.

    Similar to what the bible says:

    New International Version (©2011)
    And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the wineskins will be ruined. No, they pour new wine into new wineskins.”

    New Living Translation (©2007)
    “And no one puts new wine into old wineskins. For the wine would burst the wineskins, and the wine and the skins would both be lost. New wine calls for new wineskins.”

    Then speak to those nearby who will listen and those from far away will come.

    Gain wisdom, the right knowledge and understanding and they will be like a crown of glory for you by day and a guiding light by night.

    Knowledge without wisdom is dangerous.

    Quote from:

    10. The tenth virtue is Observance, Evaluation and Absorption. With Observance (to observe) Evaluation (to evaluate) and Absorption ( to absorb) a person recognizes and accepteth from the ancients such things as wisdom, knowledge and understanding, which has taken thousands of years to learn, through experience, that which has proven to be good for society. Without Observance, Evaluation and Absorption, a person beginneth back even with the ancients, and thus casteth aside his profit in the world. Such lessons are recorded in all the various religious and holy books of all religions, philosophies, and spiritual teachings of all the past. Impartially read them and evaluate all of them, and hold fast on to that which is good. And cast the rest up to experience.

    1. Any leader of such a movement has the liability of turning into a cult.

      I’d much rather have the Ant Hill Innovation model á la Linux and Wikipedia.

    2. “An open discussion in which everyone can participate does not have the chance to lead to separating the good from the bad.”

      What I mean is: Who is able to analyse the 1.000 comments following the invitation to comment and to summ it up in a couple of conclusions.

      The data given by people who have had different experiences must be made somehow manageable.

      This starts with very specific limited questions.
      Geir has put down such questions (specific statements about Human evaluation).

      Now I feel a survey would help which would result in answers for every statement:

      Statement A
      true /useful on a scale from one to ten

      Statement B
      true /useful on a scale from one to ten


      Then it would be interesting to discuss the results.

      1. Daniel: “Who is able to analyse the 1.000 comments following the invitation to comment and to summ it up in a couple of conclusions.”

        Whenever someone on this blog tries to conclude on something after a long discussion, it only leads to yet another discussion. Very few conclusions seem possible. So, I conclude [ 🙂 ] that it is futile. I gave it a very real and decent shot, though. Time for another angle.

        1. oh..noooooo. no group agreement please… you all can have that valance, it was totally usless piece of shit in the first place…gotten nothing more than being stuck in nothingness.. believing that I have attained elightenment…. nothingness is not enlightemnent.. that is a curtain to cover the dirty filled up closet with billions of years accumulated garbage..

  8. I have begun to take a much wider view of the subject of Scn. I think the workable bits will survive the organization. For some time I’ve felt the “church” was simply the latest 3rd dynamic manifestion. In a decade or century from now, who knows? At the end of the day I don’t think it will be the “church” which saves the technology. If anything, they have been the most instrumental in its destruction. So, that leaves everyone else.

    Geir, it sounds like you are looking for objective validation of the results of applying the technology. I don’t know if that is possible, and even if you could produce something scientifically respectable, what would the value be? I’m of the opinion that everything one experiences in Scn, specifically results from auditing, is subjective.

    Here’s a related question – has the field of psychotherapy subjected itself to scientific rigour? I’m no expert, but I don’t think so. Sure, they study and observe and measure and poke and prod. Nothing wrong with that, but in the end what do they really have? Have they objectively validated their technology and techniques?

    Why don’t psychs use ice baths anymore? Could either be:
    1) It doesn’t work
    2) Replaced with a more workable, effective technique
    3) Too unpopular to continue

    Why wouldn’t the same apply for the technology of Scn? Maybe in a hundred years Scnists have determined doing weekly condition formulas was detrimental to production (just as an example), so they stop doing it, and instead apply them when needed. Obviously, within an insane, fundamentalist church this isn’t going to happen. The church has destroyed free-thinking and judgement.

    Anyway, there’s a point to my post…somewhere in there 🙂

    1. When I read Marty’s and Geir’s blog I find many many interesting posts from intelligent people trying to contribute something with the goal of sorting out the good from the bad in Scientology. It’s always gets down to the same subject.

      The point is:
      – the subject of human spirit, existence, universe etc. is not an easy one
      – the subject Scientology (LRH, tech, DM) is extremely vast (lots of data)
      – things are different from what the Church explains and presents. So lies must be found
      – then the good has to be separated from the bad
      – and then the question comes up: How can the valuable parts of the tech be prepared in a way that they can be understandably presented to the public to be then easily ‘consumed’, ‘digested’?
      – and maybe the biggest problem: What kind of organization will take care that all this is done with much responsibility?

      This all cannot be done deriving from a ‘democratic’ decision between (experienced) Scientologists as there are too many opinions from extreme > follow the tech exactly as described by LRH and don’t ever change a bit start from scratch <.

      I believe that a few strong personalities like e.g. Geir will come forward and present smaller or larger bits of the tech as they feel it is right.
      There will be books and videos and small organizations which function self-sufficient – like e.g. the mission in Haifa, Israel.

      Like with e.g. NLP eventually there will be different 'schools', different directions.

      The main point right now is: The organization CoS like it is – must not survive!
      Even reforms would not make it better – maybe even worse in long terms.

      And this is why:
      Thank you, COB for having introduced so many suppressive elements into the Church which finally result in public protest and lots of Scientologists leaving the organization. If there would be much less suppression – who knows – the CoS would have 500,000 members world-wide. A nightmare to imagine what would happen if THEN the dear leader would turn on the suppressive tools like disconnection etc.
      Deep down the Scientology CULTURE is enwroughted by self-protecting, controlling, intimidating, aggressive, mind-controlling elements.
      The hole, declares, disconnection, billion-year contracts, long working hours and the inability to cope with criticism and to do necessary reforms are just the tip of the iceberg.

      I hope that I have made myself clear.

      If a wolf enters the scene it is essential that in spite of his sheep's clothing he can be still identified as being a wolf. Entirely covered with sheep's clothing he is most dangerous.

    2. The answer to the ice bath question is 1, 2 and 3. But more importantly, current medical ethics on testing forbid live human testing that could be damaging to the test subjects.

      This has been a subject of discussion and debate in both the medical and psychological fields of testing. In question are the ethical considerations in using the results reported in the experiments that were conducted on living human beings in the Nazi concentration camps, in Chinese and Korean POW camps, and experiments conducted by Cameron, et al in mental institutions. This information is available but it is NOT subject to further testing on the grounds that it is unethical.

      At best, any emotional or mental experiments done on live human beings are assessed using self-reporting, and statistical estimations in uncontrollable conditions with uncontrollable subjects using uncontrollable processes and methods.

      In pharmaceuticals, for example, a particular symptom or set of symptoms is monitored and the reduction of the symptoms are statistically measured. If the drug produces side-effects, these are monitored as well. If the beneficial action of the drug falls above a certain range and the detrimental action of the drug falls below a certain range, then the drug is considered to be scientifically proven. The drug is approved along with a complete description of symptoms it will treat, a complete description of contra-indications that will reduce its efficacy, and a complete list of known detrimental responses that must be monitored.

  9. Scientology is a subject whic h requires it’s complete application to meke it work. My experience is that I had and keep plenty of gains from TR’s, Purif/RD, grades and so on up to OT3 (on this I had a major phisical gain which I discoveded by chance few months after: I played two hours of tennis after months of no phisical training and miracle the day after I did not have a single muscle or joint which hurted and is still so after 24 years). But continuing with my “Bridge” on OTV and OTVII the poison of suppression from the churh vanished what could be obtained and after the third weird EP check left the Church as the source of unworkability. What is also missing in scientology is a teacher, someone with good knowedge of the subject who guides the student to realize the most important and vital in the subject. Another missing part in the Church is pure and simple ARC and real care for the PC and not care only for his contribution. So Scientology needs testing, yes, but before it needs application of all the real basics to make it work.

  10. “I have a lot to thank scientology for, and I would like others to have similar gains as mine.”
    Very good post and very good direction as I see it. The above sentence is my favourite from the post.
    I love the picture, this is how I feel in life most of the times these days.

    1. Marianne – I am glad that you had and have so many wins! Honestly.

      I personally know a person who has taken auditing going up to clear. He has had endless wins, has always been treated well, has nothing to complain about from his personal experiences.

      He does not fully understand why I am so ‘antagonistic’.

      So I say:
      I see your point and your feeling not wanting to harm the Church which has done so much good to you.
      But you – as a member of the Church – do have responsibility for how the Church behaves to others. You are not permitted to look away when you see that e.g. families are torn apart.

      The same is true for Tome Cruise.
      (Hi … !)

      Geir Isene, Paul Haggis, Jason Beghe, Luis Garcia and family Lugli as well as myself: we all have ignored for too long what is going around us until we found something specific which made us extremely angry. Until then we were sufficiently peaceful, not protesting against DM’s different kinds of suppression. One or the other stayed ‘peaceful’ for more than 20 years !

      How many Germans – and other Europeans – did not do something about concentration camps and starting wars agains other countries …
      They all were afraid of being punished for their protests.

      Good lord – then people were risking their lives.
      Not letting DM proceed will NOT risk anybody’s life.
      We just need to stand more up for our beliefs.

      1. Daniel
        This post of yours found me in an angry mood which I am rarely in but it’s a natural anger.
        You know, my emotions happen to be completely free.

        “We just need to stand up for our beliefs”. BELIEFS! YOU take apart all the beliefs in your post or me? I don’t have time for it now. Also, you wouldn’t benefit from it if I do it for you. Read it over. Find them. It’s not an advice – do as you like.

      2. Go into sessions handle your ARCb’X and when you have confronted all that you will be finally in ARC with your self and the Universe around you, than you will also understand what is what… that first one needs to take responsibility for self before one can so called handle others and put their ethics in.

        1. You won’t feed me with this! Being in ARC with myself or with the Universe around me means ALL emotions free! Not in bliss all the time! When another is plain stupid, I CAN be angry! And when another has a lot of beliefs, I can tell that that is so. Not in an evaluative way, but not to say a word would be lying.

          1. MT….. soon as you say ” it is not so” that is evaluation and no matter how nice way it is presented..

          2. marianne i know that there is lots of wind blowing in Hungary… take up kite flying..
            in fact it is a fantastic sport, I have seen the indor champion flying his kite.. it was a work of art.. and there was no wind indor.. yet what he has done was pure magic…. your reality on my reality what is in my universe is your reality and not mine…

          3. MT….”You won’t feed me with this! Being in ARC with myself or with the Universe around me means ALL emotions free! Not in bliss all the time! When another is plain stupid, I CAN be angry! And when another has a lot of beliefs, I can tell that that is so. Not in an evaluative way, but not to say a word would be lying.”
            Nothing but contradictions!

          4. MT… having bliss…. we dont have that problem any more, I admit that for a while we were suffering from bliss infestation.. it was realy bad… but the last one was eaten by Indigo 4 years back..he was a good hunter that cat..

      3. Daniel: Nice post. “We just need to stand more up for our beliefs.”

        Hear, here! Personal Integrity!

  11. Allow me to generalise a little bit.

    I wonder WHERE_THE_HELL have people that ‘know better’ read in a single LRH sentence that they can tell others how things are and what to do? And where did the rest read that they should follow such guys?

    Geir finished THE FUCKIN STANDARD TECH BRIDGE and still he wants more. Why intercept him? If everything is perfect about this unquestionable tech, why isn’t he as well as others fully satisfied? Why is he pissed instead? O/Ws? He finished the fuckin Bridge, what O/Ws? He’s not supposed to be the effect of any. If he is, then again shove up your perfect Bridge.

    Learn to learn, know-all-ers.


    1. SP;

      SP;…..OT8 is not end of the bridge, far from it it is the point when one should be able to take hands in matter and continue with solo auditing since by that time one should be able enough to take responsibility for self.
      Long as one has ARCB’s left: something not understood, have no reality on, have problems, have conflicting realities, do not understand what is happening, have millions of miss understanding, still looking for answers, has fears, do not trust and believe that different is available
      But most of all if one still have lots of unanswered questions that is the good indicator that the bridge is not the end but a point from where one needs to continue: since not all the solutions were found so far.

      1. Hey Elizabeth 🙂 long time no see.

        Well, by ‘end of the Bridge’ I only meant the Bridge of Standard Tech. I was pointing out that it is incomplete, and so it shouldn’t be fought for fanatically. I know you have developed further from that 🙂

        For me no case would mean total responsibility over all Dynamics. So that would be the end of all Bridges, from my perspective.

        1. Right… good to see you!
          to me is where I am at… no levels, no separation, no right or wrong, good or bad, lower of higher, no location, no future, or past, simply IS…

          1. It sounds good !!!! Good to see you too 😉 I came right on time for the SCN revolution 😛

  12. Geir: I really think that the paradigm is an underlying problem that has to be addressed. You touch on it in your automation article, that needs to be further explored. I say this because an individual is not a thing at all, but an OPEN SYSTEM.

    Here is an article describing the problem that faces any wellness process that serves an open system:

    1. Fuck, I’ve known a little about open systems for quite a bit and it never occurred to me that the problem with many approaches to man is that they are looked at as a closed system.

      Thanks Maria for your insight.

        1. Maria: Well I hope it helps with your project! I think it might.

          Chris: Possibly Vinaire’s 12 Steps of Mindfulness can be of some use to help give people a nudge in the right direction? With the current attitude toward Scientology and with the fuck it! post over here, the last thing anyone wants is yet another ideology or construct. Nevertheless, this is a good description of how I “deconstruct.”

      1. Spiritual state is a open state.. and not a system…. 🙂 Humans have systems millions of them, stronger the system because they are agreed by more or forced to agree to the laws. Any system is on enforced reality.

        1. Elizabeth: Spiritual state is a open state.. and not a system…. 🙂 Humans have systems millions of them, stronger the system because they are agreed by more or forced to agree to the laws. Any system is on enforced reality.

          Chris: Once again I see and say that none of this is about any usefulness or worth in Scientology… It is about personal will; desire to see what is around the corner; You’ve learned a few tricks – all you needed to know from Scientology — empty that shell. The rest of it was your own smarts and will…

    2. Maria: “You touch on it in your automation article, that needs to be further explored. I say this because an individual is not a thing at all, but an OPEN SYSTEM.”

      Chris: Leave it to you to research and unearth an over 40 year old Nobel Prize awarded to Ilya Prigogene for his work on dissipative structures, something I’ve been dabbling in by researching Godel, Heisenberg, and via the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Clausius and Thomson.

      This is a great get on your part and I don’t want to diminish what you are looking at in any way; however, let me mince words a little by referring back to our discussions of the SELF on Vinaire’s blog. Your reference states: “A human being is an open system, too. We take in energy from all the sources around us, organize it, transform it, and return (dissipate) it to the environment around us.”

      For this discussion and in the context of what you’ve brought up, I would like to separate the human being from the individual and say that yes, a human being is an open system, but an individual is not. An individual in this sense is a mental construct which is a closed system or maybe better said, “a closed set.”

    3. Maria: Here is an article describing the problem that faces any wellness process that serves an open system:

      Chris: Maybe what is applicable to the human being is not applicable to the individual and vice versa? Maybe Scientology processing condenses, reinforces, and enhances the individual while making us less human? And possibly this entire construct of enhancing the individual is at odds with the way life is really laid out?

      If I am in agreement with you, and I think I am, and if I am right, then possibly Scientology processing processes in the exact opposite direction; the completely reverse vector of what is physically good for our well being; in the opposite vector of what is good “for our soul?”

    4. Maria: “Geir: I really think that the paradigm is an underlying problem that has to be addressed.”

      Chris: Possibly the paradigm which needs to be addressed is whether it is better to have more ego or less ego? Maybe we can ask whether Scientology processing naturally results in more or less ego?

      1. Your last three questions are very thought provoking Chris.

        What we’ve got is this conglomeration of energy named the body. And it is associated with a myriad of energy conglomerations called the mind. Both the mind and body are open systems? It must be, how could it be otherwise?

        Superimposed, we have a layer of mapping, which is really a definition layer, with the name human being? Kind of like a demarcation of the limits of self-preserving awareness and processing range or capability? Like a property line? i.e. anything within this line is part of this collection, anything outside of it is not part of the collection. Inside out / outside in.

        1. Maria… my dime…
          Human concept is a nothing more than set of rules, condicions, beliefs.
          Just imagine any game: they all have rules for those who wants to play.
          originaly the Human Life was a implant, that implant contained all the rules, regulations pictures, beliefs, born live die and that was the end of the game.
          In fact that implants name was Human Life. and one was vieweing it as any movie one would EXP: ” Gone with the Wind” but the implants energywas very heavy, same as now and the being who has viewed it gotten stuck so much so, that while he views it believes that ”life” is his…

        2. Maria: Your last three questions are very thought provoking Chris.

          Chris: The way I’m seeing it is to say the self, the ego, the identity, the “i”, is a sticky little expanding sphere of considerations that doesn’t exchange with the world outside itself. This ballooning ball of considerations is what I confront when auditing. Furthermore, it seems that is all there is to confront when I audit.

          The main relevance to your post is that of the difference between the closed and open systems. Where I see identity as closed and being as open.

        3. Maria: It must be, how could it be otherwise?

          Chris: I think it comes down to identity being different than the operational systems. Check out whether you think identity being a “conglomeration of filters” fits.

          1. Perhaps conglomeration of limitations would be more accurate? Limits: confines, restrictions, boundaries, perimeter, restraints, dominion, circuit, monopoly, etc.

            I am not sure that filters are anything than more than a tuning function, like on a radio. If the tuner is fixed into position, then you get only one channel and that would be identity?

            1. Maria: I am not sure that filters are anything than more than a tuning function, like on a radio. If the tuner is fixed into position, then you get only one channel and that would be identity?

              Chris: Ah, that can be good.

      2. Also are you speaking of Freud’s definition of ego? Because if you are, it is the mind — under his system the mind (psyche) is mapped as id, ego and super-ego or more accurately, “it,” “I,” and “over-I.”

        Or are you speaking of that which notices all this?

        1. Maria: Or are you speaking of that which notices all this?

          Chris: I was using ego as a slang for one’s own identity. And your question brings up that defining “that which notices all this” as the beginning of the construct for that identity. For me, this avid constructing of the identity; this avid construction of self and then the buying into this construct is what I spend my time deconstructing.

          Deconstruction of this identity leaves an “entropy of self” as the remains. Then I want to propose that there is lying at the bottom of this deconstruction a healthful balance of entropy of self vs what is so far unknown just outside or before if you will, this self. If I called it a healthful equilibrium, maybe that metaphor will communicate?

        2. Maria: “. . . under his system the mind (psyche) is mapped as id, ego and super-ego or more accurately, ‘ it, I, and over-I.’ ”

          Chris: Reviewing my use if ego, probably I shouldn’t have brought another system of the mind into this mix. By ego, I meant that self generated and self constructed sense of identity. Not so much in the sense of someone asks you who you are and you say “Maria.” But rather in that sense of you ask yourself who you are. You answer, “Maria” and really buy into that consideration rather than being mindful of its being a consideration. (I’m not sure I cleared up anything with that.)

  13. A while ago I proposed that the various practitioners use standardized tests to evaluate PC’s before and after processing, and looked into what it would take to do this. Unfortunately it is quite a lot. For example, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality test in its current form (so called MMPI-2 RF) costs $21 for five tests, plus you need a bunch of supporting documents. Also it is quite involved to do. Not the end of the world, but precisely no-one was interested in doing it. I suspect because no-one really thinks they would get reproducibly positive results.

    I did hear that the CoS back in the early 80’s thought they would do some research to show that NOTs would reduce the incidence of cancer and so forth, and they could publicize this and look like heroes. Again, unfortunately, they found the opposite to be the case – a higher than expected incidence of cancer. The research was canned forthwith.

    I think the bottom line is that Scn promises superhuman attributes, always has, and doesn’t deliver. Until we can actually produce OTs who really can read what you have on your bedroom table, or bend spoons at least, it is merely one of the many placebo-like personal improvement fads that come and go.

    I haven’t discovered OT yet, but maybe someone can. If we ever do, then we can start talking again about SCN making a comeback.

    1. R A
      “think the bottom line is that Scn promises superhuman attributes, always has, and doesn’t deliver. Until we can actually produce OTs who really can read what you have on your bedroom table, or bend spoons at least, it is merely one of the many placebo-like personal improvement fads that come and go.”
      I recomend that you attain first a state when you know and have a solid reality what its means being a entity without body and without human considerations which contain very narrow limited ideas, thinking, beliefs =reality.
      Than you would not be asking for proof of any kind because when in that state one do not have the need to give such on examples in solidity to prove that one IS, and most of all for self that what one can do because one simply knows what one can do.
      One when attain the state one is separated from MEST its realities which makes the MEST what is.

    2. OT is not a thing therefore it never will be discovered.. it is a state of mind, a concept which is totally different from one being to the other: what is.
      But long as one associate with beingness, doing-ness havingness of some kind, and compare it to any reality than one do not talk about the Spiritual Universe what simply IS.
      Dont look for it it is not lost.. becouse it is not thing.

      1. Elizabeth: OT is not a thing therefore it never will be discovered.. it is a state of mind, a concept which is totally different from one being to the other: what is.

        Chris: Must be something in the water… My cognitions are popping like corn. Check out Katageek’s post (just click it) from his blog just now.

  14. Life is varied and the results of one’s life are based on one’s will.. We are not ball bearings on an assembly line. An individual can decide that Dianetics or Scientology worked or didn’t work or various other evaluations and those evaluations, decisions, etc. are senior to any procedure.

    Any results that ever occurred in Scientology, “good” or “bad” had to start with a willingness to be the effect of the procedure. Early on, one is inculcated into the understanding that “no results” could quite definitely mean that one is PTS, NCG, FPRD case, drug case, wooden, solid, wide open, shut off sonic, shut off visio, etc., etc.

    I could, if I wanted to, go through Dianetics and other tech bulletins, and come up with a list a mile long of all the reasons Hubbard used to possibly explain away “no results”. This is quite introverting to people. The mind is VERY powerful and just a minor suggestion that one is deficient in some way if one does not achieve the exalted gains advertised by this “science of the mind” can alone be enough for a person to attest to gain.

    I personally don’t think the subject is worth testing but to create a “sterile” environment free from all the mind bending hypnotic suggestion, in order to apply the Scientific method, would require so much sifting that most likely it would just slip through one’s hands with nothing to grab hold of in the end.

    In order to accurately test (if this is even possible), all prior Scientologists would have to be eliminated as subjects — too much baggage. It would have to only be for the individual and not “the group”. In other words, the testing would have to be done for the benefit of the individual only. There mustn’t be peer pressure of any kind. No one could ask a subject if he or she wanted to write a success story and others would not be allowed to talk of any results (good or bad) to anyone else in the testing environment.

    But, you’re talking about testing life force and that just goes south real fast. Some people are more gregarious, effusive and talkative and so may appear to have “gained” more than another more somber individual. In this case, the individual doing the testing could easily fall prey to evaluation simply by relating better to one type of subject over another.

    Oh my goodness. The thought of this undertaking actually makes my stomach turn.

    I’d rather go watch a sunset.

    1. S.S.F. “I personally don’t think the subject is worth testing but to create a “sterile” environment free from all the mind bending hypnotic suggestion, in order to apply the Scientific method, would require so much sifting that most likely it would just slip through one’s hands with nothing to grab hold of in the end.””
      E.. if one would create a Sterile environment than in that space there would be no restimulation so the persons would key-out and than the test would not work. ??

    2. Nice:) I agree. Only I don’t agree with the mind being very powerful. I would say that the being exerts power onto himself by mocking up stuff and projecting them to himself and hiding the fact that he does it to himself 🙂

      1. You’re right that it’s impossible to exert power on yourself, of course, you’re not a thing to exert power onto. That’s why one needs to pretend that he is a thing. And I think that’s about where case can become possible.

      2. yes.. power is interesting… if one believes in that one has it than it exist.. but power it self is what? In MEST one object pushes the other object which is lesser in amount but I would call that force… same as having money: I have more so I command control over the ones who has less, they obay the power= the amount, people respect the amount $. because they know it is force..

        1. “He who lives by the sword will die by the sword” hihihihi nevertheless, according to the dude, before one can operate by postulates, he must be at least willing to use force –just saying. Screw money too. Those who need it to have power, don’t have any power of their own. They use society’s power. Like others use God’s power. Like others use reality’s power. 😛

          Goodnight! 🙂

  15. 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.

    1. I suggest you get in touch with David St. Lawrence, and people like that and find out what he is up to with his project of workable technology. He’s pretty much doing the same thing with his efforts to employ what is useful to people in terms of their own goals and wants. He clearly isn’t interested in defending or promoting Scientology per se, but has been doing extensive work with people on what they really need, want, and have as their aims and goals, using at least forms of the various processes. He may already have done this work to no small degree. He likely knows who has been working along these lines over the last many years. May be a very fruitful discussion line for you to open up.

      1. Thanks Maria, I have been pushing the Open Source model of spiritual counseling for some time. I consider that I am refining the available technology to assemble the largest toolkit of workable technology possible. I am not bound by any considerations of what authority figures have said about what is to be done and is not to be done.

        My version of this is to support anyone who is interested in advancing their ability to deliver needed services to pcs. In turn, I have invested several years in selecting out the useful bits of technology from the suppressive processes that diminish a beings ability to gain abilities. I will work with anyone who wishes to compare notes and results on auditing to enable each of us to deliver better results.

        I work closely with people who have a great understanding of Alan Walter’s work and with others who are highly trained Church C/Ses and auditors. As long as a person is actually delivering technology, he or she is a possible source of actual experiential data.

        I test and verify everything, including any experimental programs and processes I come up with to solve a pc’s problem. My pcs are free to offer their observations of anything they discover in session that will make auditing easier for others. As a result, I am handling pc problems that have never been addressed in the church and I am auditing every day with pcs on four continents.

        I am happy to share ideas, but I have no desire to make others conform to what I do. For example, most of my pcs are solo auditing several times a week and they only request sessions when they run into something they cannot easily handle.

        1. David:

          Am I right in concluding that your workable technology website is where you are publishing information that you have found? Or are you planning to publish at some point? I would be very interested in such a publication.

          Also, I note that you worked with Alan Walters — as I understand it from his posts on ESMB, he was working with a number of individuals doing something similar to what you are doing. Did he make that information available to you, or did he go the route of copyrighting all of that information under the Knowledgism umbrella?

          I also saw that Roger Boswarva was participating in this effort — are you also working with his information?

          As you can see I am a very curious individual!

        2. Good for you and the PS’s, I to talk with solo auditors , I fact just gotten off the phone with a Texan.. They are too winning by soloing almost every day..

    2. The one who want to change want the different, want to know different they will do it by them self and no one can force other to change who are not ready to see differently..

      Change can be enforced only with violent shift of energy that would move the person out of the regular groove..

      What can move one out of the old is: heavy loss, major car accident, etc.. that shifts one view, of course brick falling on one’s head works too and illness-fear of loss of one’s body, that usually shits energy flows but seldom words alone: The need has to be there first that change is wanted.

  16. Ever since I started to write in this blog (I hadn’t really written in any other before) I have said much about SCN –some positive and some negative stuff. I don’t want it to seem like double talk.

    I think some awesome stuff can be done. I think though that the awesomest stuff are obscured. I think you are given a route to follow, so you wont follow a route to freedom. And I’ve seen myself and others so fixed and perplexed by it, that I’m repulsed now.

    Standard Tech is not spiritual freedom, it is psychotherapy. It was put there so that people wont ‘get’ that freedom. It is a substitute. And even that, you need to get rich before you can get…or sell your house or something.

    It is a fraud.

    Handle your ser facs and your o/ws etc…next lifetime you will have to do it all over –unless you awaken as a being now. Top of the Bridge and still cannot exteriorise with full perception? This is ridiculous. In ’52 Hubbard exteriorised them first thing and had them pull and push their bodies with energy beams from the outside, and now this? SCN is a flag and lots of theories about workability and fanaticism and heartbreaks. If you wanna know SCN read LRH, in my opinion. Read the good stuff. Screw the groups.

    Goodnight 🙂

    1. Jan: “Less than 40,000 Scientologists worldwide …. ouch ! Knew myself it’s far less than official church figures, but so few ?”

      Chris: I feel that Geir was generous using that number. My own estimate puts it at under 10,000. Maybe way under and includes Sea Org and staff. Here in Phoenix, the birthplace of Scientology, there are approximately a dozen active Scientologists.

  17. I have had some discussions in the past with people that have some thorough knowledge of Standard Tech. Most of them high on the OT levels. When I mentioned something about spiritual abilities I got invalidation of those abilities as an answer, or invalidation of LRH for mentioning those abilities or I got ignorance or some answer which I could not figure out (such as “find your MUs”).

    Really guys? I guess -from their point of view- all those OT materias which are not confidential are part of Ron’s sci-fi books then (?) If so, why play wish SCN in the first place? A well and happy human being is a Dianetics product. What is the EP of SCN, ‘a Clear Planet’? –A planet wherein COB has cool status? Do you think SCN is about study tech and admin and ethics and RELEASING parts of one’s case? Those are preliminary steps….what are the rest of the steps?

    If you think that by not supporting this, I am anti-SCNist, I am proud to be that. I KNOW there can be more than that (SCN or not). And I want others to know about it too.

    1. Spyros: I KNOW there can be more than that (SCN or not). And I want others to know about it too.

      I’m with you. My mate was OT7 and he back in ’86 started looking into other methods and I joined him. We both had wins in Scn but found many other practices to have wins in also and particularly towards spiritual enlightenment. We continued to use some of the knowledge of ARCx or check to see if other entities hangin’ around, looking at the events of the day, even without a meter, but mainly in truth and communication between ourselves. We had a special life and also helped others. He had an very peaceful transition and meditation was his saving grace. Me, I’m still working on it and have lots to learn yet. So there can be an excellent life after Scn and much more rewarding.

  18. How nice. I’m really glad to know 🙂

    What practices did you use? Maybe it will be useful for Geir’s U-ology too (time to get busy? 😛 )

  19. I had a great conversation with the one and only Dexter Gelfand about this, he had amongst others a Co$ magazine from the 60s in which claims were made about the expansion and the growth of the church – by now all intergalactic lifeforms would’ve gone “Clear” at least 😀 . Maybe the most powerful EP of reflecting about my short lived flirt with LRH and his tech: if the whole stuff was even half as powerful as he claims, wouldn’t people rush in because they got so excited by what they observed in Clears and OTs? High quality products get positive feedback by word-of-mouth. Here we get hilarious, downright trashy, creepy fake enthusiasm by movie / showbiz stars, many without even a GED (high school dropouts!) <- creepy fake enthusiasm obv. referring to Tom Cruise and the awful video of the 2004 IAS event.

  20. Although confidential materials can remain confidential, I don’t see any (honest) reason why the (detailed) EPs should remain confidential too. A success story of the type “I’m feeling so great and life is so bright” could fit on many points of the SCN Bridge and in other practices too as well in prozak users too!

    It would be of practical use to create a database that will contain what one can achieve through a particular level of a particular practice –and I mean other than just to feel good about it.

    One should know where he is heading towards before he takes a journey. That will be of use both to the people that want to take the journey as well as the people that offer that journey (and U-ology too 😛 )

    1. I now think the whole idea of banning a pc’s “hidden standard” is a trap. That the person shouldn’t have a “hidden standard” in auditing is very strange. I would rather have a person say what he wants to achieve and then go ahead and deliver that – nothing hidden and no “you are going to get what this auditing will do, and there’s no other expectations allowed”,

Have your say

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s