Spend your time and energy on what you can control rather than what you cannot control. Far too much effort is spent on elements beyond a person’s control. It may be unproductive to spend time and energy on the weather, world politics or your mother-in-law unless you can actually control or influence these. It is futile to spend energy trying to change the past. Life can be divided into three categories:
- That which you can control
- That which you can influence
- That which you cannot control
In the quest for a better life, the above serves well as a priority list.
Category 1 should include your own thoughts and emotions, your own actions and how you treat others. These are elements you can gain control over. Category 0.5 would include your family and friends, your workplace and your teammates in any sport you engage in. These are elements you can half-control or influence to a greater or lesser degree. Although Category 0 often steals attention, it deserves none. It serves best as an energy void. You should not spend attention on what you cannot control. It is valuable to learn from past incidents, but being stuck in past incidents is essentially an effort to change the past and results in energy wasted. It is good advice to first gain sufficient control of category 1 before too much energy is spent on category 0.5 all the while no energy is spent on category 0. Top athletes spend most of their energy on category 1. Politicians spend most of their energy on category 0.5. Some politicians, like in Northern Ireland, spend too much time on category 0. You cannot change the past. And you can only influence the future. But you can control what you think, feel and do right now. A great soccer player like Lionel Messi of Barcelona FC has achieved an amazing control of his own actions on the field. He has awesome skills and abilities as a soccer player. He also manages to positively influence his team mates, he “lifts” the whole team whenever he plays. And unlike most players, he doesn’t spend much energy on what he cannot control, like protesting a referee decision. If you never spent energy on category 0, you would be more in control of your life and influencing your environment more. In the start of a relationship there are two people hopefully in good control of themselves and without any control or much influence over the other. As the dating commences, they gradually influence the other person. If the influence is good and agreeable, they may end up as a couple. If one of them doesn’t settle for influencing his partner, but instead tries to control her, you end up with an abusive relationship. The attempt to “mold” or “over-influence” you partner is an effort to move your partner in under your control. Category 1 should be reserved for yourself. You should never try to control another person. You should instead try to influence others in a good way. You can be fully in control of your own performance at work. This includes the limiting of bad influences from others, and the acceptance of good influences and help. You can positively influence your colleagues and customers by focusing on category 0.5. You can “hit the wall” by drooling and complaining over stuff beyond your control. If all of your job resides in category 1, you probably don’t have colleagues or customers and the job would be boring unless you don’t like company. If your focus is mostly on complaining about factors in category 0, you should quit your job now. Category 0 is always huge. What matters is how much you can be in control of yourself and how much you can positively influence others.
A life of struggle with very little control of self and little influence over the environment
A path to a better life can be:
- Achieve control of you – your thoughts, emotions and actions – especially those actions in the fields that matters the most to you
- Increase your positive influence where it matters the most
- Spend little to no energy on matters outside of your control
An interesting life of with good control of self and good influence on the environment
It may sound simple to say and hard to practice. True. Practice may not make you perfect, but it will make you steadily better.
Geir Isene - uncut 
200% agreed. ‘You’ just cannot cannot another without making it a sin. Even the influence, must be accepted by the other or else it is a sin too. A very important factor is also what self means for each person too. As -for example- to control body is not the same as to control thoughts, in general.
I can imagine a SCNist would totally disagree with what I said, that controlling another is an overt. I mean to enforce control. There can be co-operation. If a person in a job doesn’t know the job, instead of telling him what to do over and over, you can help him know what to do by himself and control himself etc.
And yes, to influence people with the same advertisement over and over on youtube isn’t optimum either, from my perspective.
Oh so TOTAL KNOWLEDGE, RESPONSIBILITY, and CONTROL is a recipe for unhappy narcissistic delusion?
Now you tell me.
Thanks a lot!
Alanzo
Sorry, Al.
But better late than never.
HaHa…heading for a ‘Post containing nothing?’ Or, with some shift of perception, is there any-thing here at all?
No-thing…just a vibrant flow…animating space, manifesting itself as thoughts, words,
pictures….Life. Geir, it’s fluid, once again fluid…
Geir…Life is in control….over
You are great
Geir
How do you define control?
“to exercise restraining or directing influence over” (Webster)
Thanks. Who/what exercises restraining or directing influence over who/what?
What you can control + What you can influence – What you cannot influence = What you will finally take
Again, I’ve read something on that order in the Problems of Work. But undoubtedly a fundamental difference is eluding me 😉
Reference?
LRH promotes control on all dynamics. This certainly does not. Quite the opposite.
http://books.google.com/books?id=r-3xf9I2GIAC&printsec=frontcover&hl=cs#v=onepage , the last two paragraph of “The Secret of Efficiency”. And following chapters build on that.
The article here goes into the distinction on what you cannot control and that overconfidence is a real threat to one’s success. Learning to Not focus on what you cannot control is more important than trying to overextend one’s reach. Scientology is a lot about overextending one’s reach into overconfidence.
‘Learning to Not focus on what you cannot control is more important than trying to overextend one’s reach’. In it lies the possibility of true control (of Life, of the one Dynamics, one Flow). Your example with the soccer player shows the know-how.
It looks to be only ‘first’ dynamics but this is not so. The definition you gave for control:
‘to exercise restraining or directing influence over’
As he is playing better and better, ‘HE’ is expanding…team-mates play better, spectators at home e.g. get into a better mood and talk with their spouse more cheerfully or make a better coffee, a better quality soccerball will be produced by a company for the next match…a little boy watching the game decides to be as good as him…etc. that is he is ‘controlling’ all parts of life without the ‘need’ to control.
Just by being there where he is and doing with pleasure what he is doing.
Geir
Do you think that overconfidence has to do with overwhelming? (per def. taking space, if I remember well).
Geir: LRH promotes control on all dynamics. This certainly does not. Quite the opposite.
SP: But just for the record, that was not what I meant as self determinism in all dynamics. Self determinism as 2D would mean a self determined 2D, same as 3D and the rest. That’s what it is for me. For me there is no control from one individual to another. I could start differentiating between self determinism and manipulation, and what I think LRH meant and what I think he didn’t mean, but I no longer want to play this. For me, SCN is no more. It’s like having a glass full of orange juice and bleach called Scientology, and telling the guy who drunk it that what killed him was the bleach, not the orange juice, and that the orange juice was good. I think we should jet some fresh juice instead 😛
hehe – cool analogy.
🙂
Spyros: I think we should jet some fresh juice instead 😛
Dee: Fresh juice Indeed!
Hi Geir. I think this is what Vitak was referring to from POW:
“…We discover in examining control that the limits of control should be extended only across one’s actual sphere of operation. When an individual attempts to extend control far beyond his active interest in a job or in life he encounters difficulty. Thus there is a limit to the “area of control” which, if violated, violates many things. There is almost a maxim that if an individual consistently seeks to operate outside his own department he will not take care of his own department. As a matter of fact, in Scientology organizations it has been discovered that a person who is consistently involving himself with things far beyond his actual scope of interest is not covering his actual scope of interest. Thus there is obviously another factor involved than control. This factor is willingness not to control and is fully as important as control itself.” (Problems of Work)
But, as LRH said, and as we know for ourselves, there is no monopoly on wisdom, And I actually liked the way you expressed in the OP the same basic idea – and extended it.
Also, you wrote “LRH promotes control on all dynamics.”
Do you have a reference for that? It seems to me that the above would apply to the dynamics also, as he says “in a job or in life”.
Reference for starters = Dynamics and the Tone Scale. A main point in my article is to never attempt to control another. LRH trains one to do that to a very large extent.
…and thanks for the compliment 🙂
Marildi; I’ve missed you.
I’ve missed you too 🙂 Especially when I saw your new photo on Linkedin. The very earnest and nice guy you are came right through. Even more than your blog photo for some reason (but I like that one too).
One thing I’m busy with these days is finding out more about Buddhism. I think it might perfectly complement what is good in Scientology, each enormously enhancing the other. 😉
Cool 🙂
Well Geir, I read that as control of all of ONE’S OWN dynamics. There is not just one set of Dynamics for everyone. The Dynamics are not ‘the shared playing field’. The MEST universe is the ‘shared playing field’, roughly speaking. Each and every person has his/her own full set of 8 (possibly more) Dynamics. It’s when you try to ‘control’ the dynamics of others and start interfering with their self-determinism that you start getting trouble…..
The 4th Dynamic isn’t “your mankind” and “my mankind”, it is “Mankind”.
You may want to review the tech on 8-C to grasp LRH’s take on control.
I guess I’m not very familiar with that tech. What time period is it from?
SHSBC
It appears to be from 1957. 17th American ACC is titled Control on All Dynamics. It has 43 lectures. Here are some titles: CCH’s, Future of Scientology, ARC Triangle and Associated Scales, Communication and Isness, The Parts of Man, Problems and Their Handling, Running, Control? (possibly “RunningControl”?), The Scale of Techniques, Control-The Lowest Possible Process. etc
I never got that far in the lectures so I wouldn’t know.
I do get that LRH means, as I understand it, that one can be exterior to “the dynamics”, all of them. That is a pretty advanced state I would say. I wonder how far he actually got in that direction?
Geir-“…dynamic isn’t “your mankind” and “my mankind”. I know it gets crammed down our throat by ethics, et al that way but the references add a bit more. Not referenced much any more but an old favorite of mine is Issue 16-G The Journal of Scientology mid June 1953 Tech Vol 1 title This is Scientology – The Science of Certainty. The Triangle of Certainty of Awareness.
begin quote
“Simplicity, it would be suspected, would be the keynote of any process, any communications system, which would deliver into a person’s hands the command of his own beingness. The simplicity consists of the observation of three universes. The first step is the observation of one’s own universe and what has taken place in that universe in the past. The second step would be observation of the material universe and direct consultation with it to discover its forms, depths, emptinesses and solidities. The third step would be the observation of other people’s universes or their observation of the MEST universe, for there are a multitude of viewpoints of these three universes.
Where observation of one of these three is suppressed, hidden, denied, the individual is unable to mount beyond a certain point into certainty. Here we have a triangle not unlike the affinity, reality, communication triangle of Dianetics. These three universes are interactive to the degree that one raises all three by raising one, but one can raise two only so far before it is restrained by the uncertainty on the third. Thus, any point on this triangle is capable of suppressing the other two points and any point of this triangle is capable of raising the other two points.
….
Each of the three universes seeks to persist indefinitely. Each is continuously caused, and each is continually receiving an effect. Each has its own adjudication of what it should receive as an effect and what it should cause.
Time itself consists of a continuous interaction of the universes. Each may have its own space; each has its own particular energy.
The urge of any of these three universes towards survival is subdivisible for each of the three universes into eight dynamics. There are, then, four groups of eight dynamics each: the eight dynamics of one’s own universe, the eight dynamics of the physical universe, the eight dynamics of the other’s universe, as well as the eight dynamics of the triangle itself.
These dynamics could be subdivided as follows: the first dynamic would be that one most intimate to the universe which could be said to be the dynamic urging the survival of self. The second dynamic would be that one of the persistence of admiration in many forms in one’s own and the others’ universe. This admiration could take the form of sex, eating, or purely the sensation of creation such as sex and children. In the physical universe it would be that light emanation similar to sunlight. The third dynamic could be said to be that dynamic embracing persistence of groups of objects or entities. The fourth dynamic would concern itself with an entire species. The fifth dynamic would concern itself with other living species and would embrace all other living species. The sixth dynamic would embrace, in terms of survival, the space, energy, matter and forms of the universe as themselves. The seventh dynamic would be the urge to survive of the spirits or spiritual aspects of each universe. The eighth dynamic would be the overall creativeness or destructiveness as a continuing impulse.
Each impulse is concerned wholly with systems of communication. Communication requires a viewpoint and a destination in its most elementary form, and as this grows more complex and as it grows more “important,” communication grows more rigid and fixed as to its codes and lines. The reason for communication is to effect effects and observe effects.” end quote
====
As to your comment the 4th dynamic would be the urge to survive as an entire “mankind” but that dynamic exists as each of our own viewpoints. Back to the original post – we cannot control some other persons “mankind” dynamic but to the degree we interact we may be able to influence it.
The diagram in this reference is the ONLY place I have ever seen LRH have this triangle. It shows very clearly we are not all one and thus the current view from an MAA on ethics is incorrect. We should be able to come up with the idea that not being in the SO, not doing xyz, etc may not be most optimum for our own 8 dynamics even if it is optimum for some other person. LRH on 8-C and control would apply to our own individual dynamic components. I have no need to control yours. No problem – we almost never meet another person even in control of their own universe.
Sapere Aude, thanks for refreshing me on that interesting data. Btw, in case you didn’t know, the whole of that Journal of Scientology edition can also be found in the book Creation of Human Ability as part of the chapter “This is Scientology”,
A particularly interesting part of what you quoted was this: “The second dynamic would be that one of the persistence of admiration in many forms in one’s own and the others’ universe. This admiration could take the form of sex, eating, or purely the sensation of creation such as sex and children. In the physical universe it would be that light emanation similar to sunlight.”
On that last line, do you know of any further LRH data about “…that light emanation similar to sunlight”, or do you have any ideas of your own about it?
What I like about that Journal of Scientology article (or section of the book) is that besides the triangle concept it is a description of many different fractals (including some that are in addition to those in the excerpt you quoted) – and it seems to me that triangles and fractals are two true principles of the makeup of this universe.
The book “Creation of Human Ability can be found on the internet too. One site is here: http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Books%20chrono/1954%20CREATION%20OF%20HUMAN%20ABILITY.pdf
Oops,I didn’t quite get the whole website pasted. Here it is: http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/Books%20chrono/1954%20CREATION%20OF%20HUMAN%20ABILITY.pdf
Well, I guess just that much is all that will “paste” but it does take you to the website.
Thanks SA. That’s pretty much the scenario I had in mind. People get ‘control’ confused with ‘force’ and enforce and inhibit and that kind of stuff.
Fundamentally I think what LRH meant by control has to do with being very thoroughly in communication with someone or something, to the point where one could completely BE that other person or thing. With that, ARC and Two-way comm has to be involved at the least, if not outright Serenity of Beingness. If they are not, then you are involved in an intention-counterintention situation, agree-disagree and want-don’twant reverse vector type flows happening. Then you have actually lost effective control and are involved in oppterm type stuff.
I don’t mean “force” at all in this article. I do mean control. Never attempt to control another unless you need to save a drunk guy or some such.
There are so many references to “control” in Hubbard’s work that I think this search term would rank int he top 5 of all his work. It is a very mixed bag – like the creations in his life… good: auditing, bad: SO/RPF. I think that understanding Hubbard’s many angles on control may be a key to understanding his many clear inconsistencies throughout his life. To attempt to control that which you cannot or should not control is a source of wasted energy, overconfidence and creating of enemies.
There are many outrageous quotes by LRH on control. If you want more, just ask.
“When you have people who cannot control people on PE and Registration posts your income falls or vanishes. This comes about from the state of “self-determinism” in the society today. What with advertising and stepped up political and economic controls, the “self determinism” of the general public is only re-activism. As any control we exert upon the public brings about a better society, we are entirely justified in using control.”
“Remember one thing, we are not running a business, we are running a government. We are in direct control of people’s lives.”
Well, since I haven’t analyzed LRH’s conflicting statements on control, all I have is my take on ‘control’ and this is derived from what I have understood to be LRH’s take on it. and it goes like this: The star soccer player is good because he controls the team. His teammates are in the right positions as if by magic. But that’s an example pf practiced sophisticated control. And the coach and manager’s job is to select players who are good at accepting control. It’s all part of the comm formula.
When my wife asks me to bring her a glass of water while she is doing something else, that is control. She ‘borrow’s my body’ to fetch herself some water. Women are great for that. They test a man’s degree of rationality to know if the man can be trusted by observing his compliance with simple requests. That is, by attempting to exert some control. The comm formula comes into play immediately. Comm lag shows up, ability to duplicate, etc.
There is hardly any activity in life that does not involve control as I see it.
It is not control – it is influence. LRH’s definition of “control” serves pretty well as an example of “propaganda by redefinition of words”. Common use of the word aligns perfectly with the OP, though.
Geir, you quoted from HCO PL 21 February 1995, “Choosing PE AND Registration Personnel”:
“When you have people who cannot control people on PE and Registration posts your income falls or vanishes. This comes about from the state of “self-determinism” in the society today. What with advertising and stepped up political and economic controls, the “self determinism” of the general public is only re-activism. As any control we exert upon the public brings about a better society, we are entirely justified in using control.”
The above is the same basic viewpoint as yours where you wrote :
“Never attempt to control another unless you need to save a drunk guy or some such.”
Your “drunk guy or some such” is essentially what LRH is referring to where he says in the above PL “‘self-determinism’ of the general public is only re-activism.” In other words, as with a drunk guy, he considered the general public not under their own control and his attempt with Scientology was to put control in on them in a way that would subsequently result in putting them under their own control.
I advocate control over another’s body when the person himself is physically incapable of controlling it. Hubbard advocates control of the whole population. I believe there is a slight difference, don’t you?
Why draw the line at bodies? What about people who aren’t in control of their own minds?
Everything is relative. In light of what Hubbard envisioned as the true potential of beings, his view of “the whole population” was that it was “asleep” and he wanted to wake it up. He may very well have badly misjudged how to go about doing that, but as to there being a difference in objectives between you and him, I’m not so sure there was any. And case/ignorance is no doubt a factor in the efforts of any of us.
This hits the nail on the head. I draw the line at where no consciousness controls the body. Hubbard advocates wholesale control of population. With his stance, a society like 1984 or North Korea is possible. You must surely see the difference here. I respect the will of others. Hubbard doesn’t – because he thinks people in general doesn’t have a will and that he is above theirs. It’s the cold draft of totalitarianism.
Didn’t get what you meant by “no consciousness controls the body”.
Some of what you say has truth to it in terms of LRH carrying his strategy too far, whether directly or indirectly (intentionally or inadvertently) through others. And it backfired on him. But I think you do something similar and go too far when you express such generalities as “he thinks people in general doesn’t have a will and that he is above theirs”. LRH said different things at different times and for different reasons and with different objectives. You leave out context and drop out time. And as I’ve said to other critics, I think it defeats your purposes.
Speaking of purposes, what I don’t understand, my dear Geir, is why you think it is necessary to keep beating the drum for anti-LRH and anti-Scn. Do you really think most people at this point in time do not understand enough about what all happened that you and others need to keep pointing out the outpoints – basically the same ones being repeated?
Look up the thread and see who brought Scientology into this thread. I am awaiting the day when Scientology will not be mentioned in a post on philosophy here.
Isene: As any control we exert upon the public brings about a better society, we are entirely justified in using control.”
Dee: Boy you can see and feel the frustration they have when you won’t be controlled in the registration posts. Understandably so when one considers this quote. “Remember one thing, we are not running a business, we are running a government. We are in direct control of people’s lives.”
But I’m not familiar with the SHSBC materials so forallI know LRH may have gone off on another tack there.
Valkov
YES to what you write…’if not outright serenity of Beingness’…my ‘mind’ has been wondering for a while, what life can be like, what ‘activities’ arise from when two beings have ‘attained’ serenity of beingness. No goals (in which effort is involved),
no purpose (in which personal intention is involved). Just beautiful! Probabilistic
all along! Each activity is arising then from the here-now…fresh and alive….
Geir- I understand the inconsistencies on “control.” My purpose in posting this quote was to show that the dynamics (1-8) apply to each of us distinctly. There would be one subject 4th dynamic but what would be good for my 4th may be different than yours. If we agree that you have 8 dynamics that are not my 8 then I should not be enforcing or controlling your intentions in those. I may wish to influence them where I see it overlaps and concerns me. I didn’t intend to derail your train of thought with my post.
If you go to the reference I gave, or the book Creation of Human Ability and look at the diagram it shows quite clearly each one of the 3 universes and each with 8 dynamics and ARC. Now, what we do with – and how we use or apply this – may be done correctly or not. My opinion, that is where the disagreements come in. As we expand awareness AND responsibility I foresee that the lines of distinction would become less sharp and the interference would also decrease. We would see more harmony along the dynamics and yet each allowed to continue on their own. We shall see further up the line and maybe find ourselves chatting on this subject again.
Agreed.
Saper Aude: “There would be one subject 4th dynamic but what would be good for my 4th may be different than yours.”
Another reference relating to “THE 4th dynamic” vs. “MY 4th dynamic” etc . (dynamics being thrusts to survive – or to BE). is “Exchange by Dynamics” from HCOPL 4 Apr 72 ETHICS. Here’s an excerpt:
“That means he has to clear up the definitions of dynamics with care and then have the person draw a big chart (of his own) and say what he gives the 1st Dynamic and what it gives him. Then what he gives the second dynamic and what it gives him. And so on up the dynamics.
“Now, have him consider “his own second dynamic”. What does his second dynamic give his first dynamic? What does his second dynamic give the second dynamic and what does it give him?
“And so on until you have a network of these exchange arrows, each both ways.
“Somewhere along the way, if your TRs are good and you have his attention and he is willing to talk to you he will have quite a cognition!”
What I find most significant about this quote is that it makes clear that a person is not his 1st dynamic. He gives to (or takes away from) his first dynamic and it gives to him.
I have thought for some time the usual instructions for drawing the concentric circles of the Dynamics are wrong. I actually believe I read/heard an LRH reference about this but have not been able to find it since. That’s what I get for not keeping notes!
The usual way is to label the circle in the middle as “1st dynamic”, then the first concentric ring around that, 2nd dynamic, etc.
I believe this is wrong. that the circle in the middle is “thetan”, the source of the dynamics. The first concentric circle then would be the 1st dynamic and so on.
What would the area outside the last ring of the dynamics be labelled? 🙂
Valkov: “What I find most significant about this quote is that it makes clear that a person is not his 1st dynamic. He gives to (or takes away from) his first dynamic and it gives to him.”
Yes, I liked that too!
As for the concentric circles diagram, if you follow the google instructions I gave on my post at 2013-05-03 @ 23:31 you will see the “Dynamics and the Tone Scale” article that Sapere Aude quoted, Near the bottom of the page is the diagram you’re talking about. It shows the concentric circles representing the dynamics and in the center of the circle labeled 1 (for the first dynamic) is a zero. There’s also another diagram and some text giving an explanation of both diagrams that concerns the zero, which might relate to what you are talking about. I won’t quote the text because it would make no sense unless you can see the two diagrams it’s referring to.
.
Thanks marildi but I can’t even find that post of yours you refer to, or any instructions for using google in any of your posts. Are we in different universes? 🙂
LOL. It’s practically under your nose, just a few posts down, but I’ll repeat the instructions here, a little more clearly. Google this:
“dynamics and the tone scale” Scientology
[Note – be sure to include the quotation marks.]
One of the Google items that comes up is the following:
[DOC] DYNAMICS AND THE TONE SCALE 231081 … – matrixfiles.com.
http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/…/DYNAMICS%20AND…
DYNAMICS AND THE TONE SCALE …. In Scientology, the statement “A person is his organism,u means that some individual has achieved complete BEING …
When you click on that, rather than it taking you to a website, the document itself comes up. On that document, look near the bottom of the page and you’ll find those two diagrams. Let me know what happens.
marildi, that linkt akes me to a black ‘matrix files’ page that says ‘no entry yet’ in the middle of it, and has no other clic]kable links on it except ‘contact’ which is an email link.
I guess I’ll try google it your way.
Yes, Val. Do that. Just type in the Google search bar the following including the quotes: “Dynamics and the tone scale”
You will see among other things the following, and you just have to click it or on the word [DOC]:
[DOC]DYNAMICS AND THE TONE SCALE 231081 … – matrixfiles.com.
http://www.matrixfiles.com/…/DYNAMICS%20AND%20THE%20TONE%20S…
9. Remimeo. HUBBARD COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead,
Geir
‘I respect the free will of others’. This rang a little bell in me.
If I look at our living ‘enlightened’ ones, or in history the common point in them is that they don’t/didn’t want to ‘change’ anybody, don’t/didn’t go up to anybody to ‘offer their services’. Rather, they are/were ‘by themselves’. The reason behind it could be that when one is really ‘enlightened’, one sees ‘others’ as already ‘awake’,
also sees the ‘ways’ why they don’t see themselves as such, but in no way would such a being reach out for others with the purpose to attract them to visit him.
(no PR, no selling, or no tool – as in your posts)
Still, many people do so, as free will attracts free will.
Here is the link:
http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/HCO%20PLs/DYNAMICS%20AND%20THE%20TONE%20SCALE%20231081%20rohversion.doc
Marildiv, If you wish to copy the link, go to the folder containing the document (e.g.: http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/ → HCO PLs/), right click the document (e.g.: DYNAMICS AND THE TONE SCALE 231081 rohve…), then left click Copy shortcut (on the popup menu).
Thanks for your expertise, Ferenc. And good to hear from you. 🙂
Actually now that I’ve pondered your post, it appears to me the way you put it, it sounds like a reification of the concept of the Dynamics. The 4th dynamic is not “Mankind”, it is the “urge”, “drive”, or “impulse” to “survive as Mankind”.
All the dynamics collectively and each one separately is a postulated urge, impulse,or drive towards survival as, not the thing itself, not the particular concrete expression or example of it or “objectivisation”(“objectification”) of the urges.
The dynamics are urges possessed of or possessed by each individual person and thus are particular to each individual. In that sense I have “my” dynamics and you have yours, and they are not identical. In each of us, these urges are not necessarily equally weighted. They vary from person to person.
iamvalkov: ……… They vary from person to person.
Like! 🙂
There is one Dynamics, one Flow. The ‘individuals’ are manifestations, the ‘theta lines’ (connecting ‘groups’) also, as well as animal and plant forms, thoughts, concepts….all manifestations are under continuous change. This is the reason why ANY ‘individual’ control is futile and is an illusion.
It is THE Dynamics which is ‘controlling’ the change of all forms.
This is a good way of describing it. 🙂
Geir and Val, I don’t know if this is the reference Geir meant but I found one of that title by googling “dynamics and the tone scale” (with quotes) + Scientology. The first thing that came up was this: http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/…/DYNAMICS%20AND... If you click on that you don’t go to a website but you do get the document (cache).
It seems to be a conglomeration of different references on the subject of “dynamics and the tone scale” (maybe from the Second Dynamics book?). There was so much interesting info that it was hard to decide what to quote to give the general idea but here are a few excerpts:
“BEING the organism means being CAUSE within the organism. BEING the other dynamics means being CAUSE within the other dynamics. Of course, it also means KNOWING, TRUSTING, WINNING, BEING FREE, and all the other parts of BEING which are enumerated along the top of the tone scale.
“BEING the second dynamic means KNOWING, TRUSTING, WINNING, BEING FREE, and all the rest, along the second dynamic.
[…]
“And how can one individual be the CAUSE of another’s actions without making that other individual into an effect? Can this be done?
“The way to become CAUSE of another’s actions is to assume responsibility for them without controlling the other’s execution of them.
[…]
“It may seem odd that Mary can be CAUSE if John accepts her effort as his own, but that does not mean that he takes her effort away from her—it means that he allows his BEING to flow into that effort. He validates her effort by letting it be a part of him. He does not invalidate it as itself by refusing responsibility for it. He does not invalidate it as her effort by interfering with her performance of it. He validates the effort by being responsible for it, and he validates Mary by letting her be the one to control the effort. He does not try to control her efforts, and she does not try to control his, but each of them assumes responsibility for the efforts of the other.”
Sorry, the full thing that came up when I googled “dynamics and the tone scale” + Scientology was this (which brings up the document when you click on it):
[DOC] DYNAMICS AND THE TONE SCALE 231081 … – matrixfiles.com.
http://www.matrixfiles.com/Scientology%20Materials/…/DYNAMICS%20AND…
DYNAMICS AND THE TONE SCALE …. In Scientology, the statement “A person is his organism,u means that some individual has achieved complete BEING …
What you quoted here Marildi is beautiful…I find it word by word true.
‘…he allows his BEING to flow into that effort’. This is the first time I see the word
‘flow’ from Ron. This ‘flow’ is Life…
‘each of them assumes responsibility for the efforts of the other’ – yes…mirror….
Marildi
You are awesome, as always! The quotes are perfect.
Marianne, you find the awesome in everybody – which is part of what makes YOU so awesome. 😉
In the reply I just made to Sapere Aude I asked him if he had any data about this part of the LRH quote: “…that light emanation similar to sunlight”. And I wanted to ask you the same question.
Marildi…whenever you write, it’s ‘light’…there is no via (space, computer etc.). It’s not an idea on my part, it’s a perception of this light.
Also, there is an alive ‘flow’ which ‘carries’ this light. It’s NOT intention…no mind involved in it….just A-LIVE.
Marildi – Answering your “light” question here. The other thread has a bit of its own direction at present. To create in the physical universe requires energy. Go to the factors and look where he is stating about thus there is light. etc. I don’t know of specific references. We should remember “light” is just one part of the electro-magnetic spectrum and we only “see” a small portion of the scale. All of it is energy. Only a small part is “light” to us.
What I find more phenomenal is to understand that all life one earth only exists because of light from our sun AND the action of chlorophyl in plants. Only plants convert light energy to another form. All other life forms get their energy from some via from that original conversion from the light. In this way light does ensure a continuation of forms.
Sapere Aude, thanks. I do understand that creation in the physical universe requires energy (which thus makes sense to call such creation the 2nd dynamic of the physical universe), and that the full EM spectrum is more than just the narrow band of visible light. It just seems odd to me for LRH to use the wording “similar to sunlight” if he simply meant by that the whole spectrum of wavelengths. Actually, I wondered if it is the “flow” that Marianne talks about, or if it has something to do with the Higgs field – or both, if they relate to each other somehow.
And yes, it is very interesting indeed that all life on earth exists because of sunlight and the action of chlorophyll in plants. This makes the whole universe, including both MEST and theta, inextricably interconnected.
Sapere Aude
Yes, it’s phenomenal. One part of a sentence from Ron comes to mind: ‘until you
sit in the centre of the Sun.’ Did he mean that figuratively? Or that we are the creators of the Sun too? Has the ‘Sun’ got boundaries if we take space out of the
question? Also, can we say ‘travel’, ‘speed’ of light in the absence of the consideration of space?
Also, the ‘overlap’ on the 7th Dynamics is beautiful. Can it be that the notion of the
separation-division of the 3 universes is gone when the illusion of ‘one’ (the sparate ‘ I ‘ , the ‘person’) is gone? For me it looks that there is a layer of awareness which is pure, kind of fluid where there is no division into universes. Also, before that there is just one ‘potential’, one Source.
Much like one Source is exhaling and inhaling all phenomena. Or one Heart pulsing.
Love this post and relating to it as my life is changing very well. I’m taking control over my environment as needed and wanted to for some years, finally doing something about it. Also expanding into social areas to help with civic duties as an atonement and I do have an interest to helping my community.
The other thread is bogged with videos, at least on my computer. So here is one a fellow just posted over on Marty’s blog….. It is a very soulful interpretation of a great song. I think it speaks to the OP here and to one of Geir’s recently expressed concerns…..
Beautiful…Valkov, I not long ago changed my mind about the movie ‘Casablanca’.
I used to see it as true, timeless love, also romantic. Now I see that they were plain stupid following their ‘ideas’ instead of following their hearts. We may not know what turn it would have brought in the ‘big picture’ but we see examples what happens
when one follows one’s thoughts as opposed to one’s heart.
As I ‘practised’ it while studying scientology, control is: start, change, stop. One is able and willing to start, change or stop any ‘particle’. Also, one is willing to be started, changed and stopped. Also, just be ‘potential’, that is neither control, nor be controlled. Then one is pan-determined over control.
It is related to communication, when one is able and willing to both give and receive ANY ‘particle’ on any ‘parts’ of the Dynamics.
A thetan as a unit, as a point of view in space and time, is as much cause over the dynamics as an actor is cause over a movie.
*I mean if it conceives itself to be that kind of a unit. It is an apparency, very well enchanced by TRs as I have experienced them. By definition, other determinism is to be placed in space and time –to be MEST. A point of view (particularly with mass) in space and time, is that.
Spyros: A thetan as a unit, as a point of view in space and time, is as much cause over the dynamics as an actor is cause over a movie.
Chris: Eloquent.
*…TRs as I have experienced them in the Church as well as in the Church outside the Church. Because don’t think that all those smartasses who have badges from that Church, ever care to re-examine the tech that they have learned (some do. I’m reffering to those who don’t), which is crippling Scientology through ‘apparent ‘outside’ enemies.
An average Scientologist starts with Div 6 squirrel courses, and from that point on it is so easy to build further bullshit based on them. Success Through Communication (see ‘Drills allowed” HCOPL), Hubbard Personal Values and intergrity (with an indefinite, infinite assesment and O/Ws write-up) and Ups & Down wherein you will probably handle your PTS condition with the help of some SP –such as in my case. Insanity incarnated.
Spyros I agree with you about the Div 6 courses, except for the STCC. For me that had a couple of drills about mass vs.significance that were just what I needed. It has the TRs 0T-TR0 through 4 and there is no reason those can’t be done the way they ought to be done.
Also iti s my understanding that LRH did know and approve the course.
I was crammed as a supervisor on the STCC by Melanie Murray, Class 8 and former CMO INT exec, who worked directly with LRH and David Mayo and others on the development of the technology of Scientology in the 1970’s and early 80s. During my cramming cycle, I told her that I thought the STCC was squirrel.
So after saying that, I got a cram on the course. We went through the whole course to find my MU’s on it, and to clear up all my “misunderstoods”.
When it was all over a few weeks later, Melanie told me that she had personally piloted the STCC course, directly for LRH, and was in dispatch communication daily with him on the progress of the pilot.
Squirrel or not, the Success Through Communication Course is all LRH.
Alanzo
Thanks a lot for posting this Al! I owe you one!
Hubbard left the Church before 1980. I don’t know the exact time. In 1980 Mary Sue was in prison. Whatever the Church did, they did it in Hubbard’s name, but Hubbard was not there.
*The Church said that LRH left to research OT levels but they never delivered them, although they pretend to have them.
My idea is that if the Church could harm as much with levels up to OT 8, they might able to harm more with more levels. I don’t think LRH ever gave them more OT levels. They don’t have any levels up to OT 16. They can construct some. And they can even make them partially workable if they base them on non confidential OT materials. So what? I can do that too 😛
I wrote: My idea is that if the Church could harm as much with levels up to OT 8, they might able to harm more with more levels.
I don’t mean harm is done directly to OTs in some subconscious way and people are in danger etc (I have heard that before). What I meant is that you can now see the incinsistencies -as Geir has pointed out- between the apparent end of the Bridge as delivered by the Church, and the end of the Bridge as described by LRH in those old and technically degraded non-confidential OT materials of his.
The Church wanted to make the latter Bridge longer, to keep the potentially outraged members there for longer. They made courses longer. They made all services more expensive. They kept members secluded to void former members to tell them what goes on with the partially phoney Bridge. And they forbid OTs from talking about OT levels, because the dirty secret is that there is no secret –there is no full Bridge delivered.
Spyros, “Hubbard left the Church before 1980”? There is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For example, Marty posted just recently that in his new book he describes working for Hubbard after 1980 and that Hubbard was very much involved, and in fact ordered the attacks on David Mayo.
Where did you get the idea LRH left the Church before 1980?
Yes, I remember you told me that it was good for you. I had some shyness dealt with, with that course. But there is that TR with which I disagree (the one you tell the other person irrelevant stuff to make him forget what he wanted to say).
Also my supervisors were forceful and all my originations were treated as Q&A. I got pains during that course that reappeared later on.
And STCC contains no R factor regarding thetans etc. I had been here as a body as much before in my life. It felt to me like I ‘exteriorised’ from my universe. My universe was treated as ‘bank’. And I perceived the same in some other people too. They got cold, robotic. They fixed their eyeballs on me, but didn’t listen. They forced themselves to do so. They acked but I never got acked. It was just words. I ARC broke when others TRed me.
Thanks Spyros. Lousy supervisors can ruin any course and apparently this has happened a lot in the CoS. Doesn’t mean the course itself is bad.
It doesn’t mean that the course itself is good, either.
All right, there’s an all too typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: “That Process X didn’t work.” Instructor A: “What exactly did you do wrong?” Instant attack. L Ron Hubbard, KSW Series 1
In order to critically examine and truly evaluate the results of Scientology, you must dump the “instant attack tech” that Ron inculcated into Scientologists.
Alanzo
No Al, it doesn’t. It doesn’t mean it is not good, either. That, my would-be ‘friend’, is called LOGIC. He was saying the course was not a good course. He then went on to talk about the demeanor of the supervisors and how they were producing robotic students etc implying it was the course itself that was the cause. That was the context of my response. That was faulty logic on his part regarding the cause and effect of the effects the course was producing on him and the other students. What he posted did not logically prove it was the course, it could be the way it was delivered.
Then you barge in with your usual stereotyping ad hom characterization of my post as ‘scientology attack tactics’ etc. instead of looking at the actual logic involved.
Why do you waste your time, my time, and everyone else’s time like this with your stupid non-seq propaganda?
I didn’t think you could stand the heat in the kitchen and you haven’t been able to, ad-homing me in the same old way on one of my few recent posts. And completely unprovoked, too.
Maybe go chill in bathroom instead; like, go soak your head in a toilet full of cold water.
I did the STCC 4 times. And I suped it probably 30 times.
The STCC course sucks, Val. It is a complete contradiction of Hubbard’s earlier mandate never to water down the TRs. He himself watered down the TRs and added a bunch of nonsense drills which did nothing for a new person’s ability to communicate, and often blew them off because a new person could see it is purposeless bullshit.
Your blaming bad supervision for bad Scientology technology is an application of instant attack tech. In fact, I have never seen you do anything else. I have never seen you say “This particular tech from L Ron Hubbard sucks”. I have always seen you blame the people who were trying to deliver that Scientology tech to help others, just as Hubbard trained you to.
Just stop it, Val.
Wake up. Every piece of Scientology technology is not like every other piece of Scn technology. Differentiate and stop A=Aing when it comes to Scientology technology. YOU have the power to see whether it worked or not, and even to improve on what L Ron Hubbard created, despite his claimed ability to “rise above the bank” and your “inability” to do so.
There is no bank for Hubbard to rise above, and for you to stay below.
Therefore, you are free, Valkov. Free to think for yourself about whether or not each piece of Scientology technology actually works.
The STCC Course doesn’t “work”, and it has nothing to do with the supervisors who try to deliver it.
Alanzo
Well that’s your opinion Al. Beyond that, you are as usual stereotyping me instead of responding to what I actually said to Spyros.
In a few words, you are just using the “scientology critic’s attack tech” to invalidate what I’m saying. I believe this reaction on your part was triggered by my positive statements concerning a scientology course; we all know your position is that there is no such thing as a “good” scientology course, that scientology doesn’t work to benefit anyone, that it only indoctrinates people into an ideology etc etc. You could post your opinions of scientology without the ad-hom towards me, but you just can’t, can you? Andobviouslyyou did not follow my previous recommendation , so after you read this post, before you reply, go soak your head in the toilet like i suggested. The cold water will do a lot to help bring you out of your sheep-like knee-jerk critical serfac.
Personally, I liked the course, especially the way it broke the basic Comm formula into smaller bits and had a specific drill for each part.
I think it is an underrated course. And I don’t think it is a ‘watered down’ course at all. I suppose it can be watered down and ‘quickied’ in the way it is delivered. And I think if it is sold as a ‘quick little course’, people will blow. It is not a quick little course. There are a lot of drills on it, including the 2 basic TRs that can take a long time to EP.
I grant my experience my be atypical because I had done the TRs 0-4 previous; I was not a new public and I liked the in-depth exploration of communication and the polishing of skills it offered.
It may be good for a new person or not, I don’t know. The basic HAS course of TRs 0-4 maybe be good for a new person, or not. I would guess that course had blows, too. But I think the STCC is a great course for those who are interested in the materials on it and motivated to do it, and have the time to do it also.
So you had some blows. So what? Why don’t you tell us about the people who did complete the course and what some of them thought about it? Or is that against the critic’s code you have sworn to follow?
Scientology courses are really not for everyone.
Well Spyros, I’ve just been looking at my STCC course pack and right at the beginning there is a 2-3 page summary about Scientology, and right in that it repeats several times throughout the text that “you are not your body or your mind, you are a spiritual being”.
How much more of an “R factor” about ‘thetans’ do you want?
Clearly my experience of it was very different from yours. My supervisors were neither ‘forceful’ nor did they invalidate my originations. They let me work with my twin pretty much undisturbed.
Maybe the supervisors you had, needed to do the STCC themselves more than you needed to do it! 🙂 Obviously their TRs were out and their ARC was low as a result.
Val wrote:
Maybe the supervisors you had, needed to do the STCC themselves more than you needed to do it! Obviously their TRs were out and their ARC was low as a result.
Here you go again, Val. More instant attack tech, straight from L Ron Hubbard.
Alanzo
There you go again Al. The critic’s instant attack tech towards anyone who doesn’t agree that scientiology is all bad.
Do you really think that being ‘forceful’ and invalidating the originations of students is a good practice for supervisors, teachers, or instructors?
Which was, of course, my point. And as usual you completely overlooked responding to it.
So why don’t you tell us, do you really think that being ‘forceful’ and invalidating the originations of students is a good practice for supervisors, teachers, or instructors?
Huh? Huh? Tell us Al.
Is that how you were as a course supe?
I used to be in the Church and then I left, and I realised that Miscavige is a bad person and that solves it now, everything is fine. Let’s malke some money.
Yes, you helped Miscavige mess cases up and you left and now it has nothing to do with you although you continue to use the same tech. That’s why I don’t care to contribute to the independent field either anymore. I don’t doubt that there are good people that both deliver and receive. But I have see most being oblivious as to what the Church did and why it is shrinking and why most people hate it. Do you really think it’s a single person’s fault? About 8 million people have joined the Church at what time or another, and it’s all Miscavige’s fault? Do you think that if he leaves then everything will be alright? When Scientologists contribute to other Scientologists getting messed up case-wise, does it have nothing to do with them? What hypocrisy –it’s all DMs fault. Yeah right!
Miscavige must be some really kickass OT if he has managed to control all those people all by himself. I can imagine him as some sort of an alien God with thousands of tentacle comm lines dictating to Scientologists what to do all day long. Wow that gives us a new definition of power and KRC –being SP. Let’s be SP to be OT.
Spyros : ……… When Scientologists contribute to other Scientologists getting messed up case-wise, does it have nothing to do with them? What hypocrisy –it’s all DMs fault. Yeah right!
dee: yeah right! 🙂
Control is basically start-change-stop. There is no-nothing (thought, force, not proper to the situation emotion…) in it.
I think a person can be in a ‘must’ control role, when that person was stopped in controlling something or somebody. The trick is to let that person control, until finally
the person will get back the confidence and the ability to do so. It is also true for the other role, for the ‘being controlled’.
I observed in life, when there is an agressive or arrogant person who tells me to do
something and I, with true presence and a real Yes do what is asked, the person calms down and is even surprised and gets happier (though I rarely see such persons nowdays).
In male-female control games when there is no division in the minds AND in the bodies of the couple (own body is accepted, loved), there is just a free flow of energy and true control (start, change, stop) can be exercised.
I
There has from time to time been hue and cry raised by various people demanding ‘testing’ of dianetics and scientology processes, so I’ll post this here.
One of the leading practitioners of TIR has made Ann Arbor MI her home since the 1970s. She began practicing TIR here in 1986. after some Sea Ogre ‘missionaires’ swooped in and took away her scientology misson/franchise in the early 1980s and gave her the boot.
She was already Clear and OT III, HSDC trained, and acquainted with many of the leading scientologists in the Southeastern Michigan area, like Ruth Minshull and others. In fact her entire family was Clear or above and were acquainted with/aware of Frank Gerbode.
Anyway, here are some quotes and links y’all may be interested in. I think this is a perfect example of what Marty called “integration” in a recent blog post. Here are people who have been working on ‘integrating’ with the society since 1986 or before, and have likely helped many thousands of people along the way.
Check it out and decide for yourselves…..
TIR
http://www.facebook.com/TIR.ORG/info
“Traumatic Incident Reduction (TIR) has undergone rigorous review during 2011 by SAMHSA’s National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices (NREPP). We expect this review of TIR to be completed shortly and included in the NREPP in early 2012.”
SAMHSA – http://www.samhsa.gov/ – Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
http://www.tir.org/training/ws/tirw.html
In Michigan: http://www.eventbrite.com/event/4272126044
“This program is approved by the Michigan Social Work Continuing Education Collaborative for 26 hours.” Approval No. 121911-02
The review of TIR by SAMHSA was in fact completed and TIR has been included in NREPP.
Here’s another way of looking at control (I’ve substituted caps for the italics in the actual quote):
“Remember, when you are explaining this to people, that it is WILLINGNESS to control on any and all Dynamics, and that it is not an OBSESSIVE or COMPULSIVE control to own, protect, or hide on any Dynamic. All the ills of Earth come from an obsession to own, control, protect and hide on other Dynamics than Self. The true enlightenment of this world has come from Willingness to be along any of the Dynamics.” (Dn 55)
And here’s another way L Ron Hubbard looked at control:
“THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them.”
– L. Ron Hubbard, “Off the Time Track,” lecture of June 1952, excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
Be sure to clear the word “only”.
Alanzo
Alanzo: “THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM.
– L. Ron Hubbard, “Off the Time Track,” lecture of June 1952, excerpted in JOURNAL OF SCIENTOLOGY issue 18-G, reprinted in TECHNICAL VOLUMES OF DIANETICS & SCIENTOLOGY, vol. 1, p. 418
Dee: Thanks, wondered where I could find that. 🙂
Yes, that issue consisted of excerpts from a lecture and you quoting that one line takes it even more out of context. LRH was stating an isness, not giving advice.The last few lines are particularly relevant to the general context:
Here is the complete issue:
————————————————–
Off the Time Track:
L. RON HUBBARD lecturing, June 1952
“Free theta is attention units free enough to be directed of your own volition …. An unreduced facsimile is one that still has the capability of absorbing your attention unit output …. At 1.8 you will find real pain …. A human being behaves like an attention unit. This is factual …. The concept of aloneness was installed as a control mechanism …. The aesthetic band is practically a disintegrating band. For instance, you can
generate music and practically own people …. You become to some extent that with which you agree…. Somebody thought this universe up—literally—that’s why you can disintegrate engrams …. You can place on your future track facsimiles of future high level beingness…. Unawareness of your present time body is good health…. The more heavy facsimiles you pick up, the less active you are—for example, an athlete…. Bring two free energies together and you get matter…. Invalidation occurs at cancellation of any thought, emotion or effort by any thought, emotion or effort …. Regret is trying to make time run backwards …. The only way you can control people is to lie to them…. Decision is sanity. The degree he’s capable of decision determines his sanity…. Sex is a harmonic of aesthetics and pain…. Theoretically, if you were high enough on the tone scale, you could run matter as an engram and disintegrate it …. MEST is motion in super apathy …. Give a psychotic time and space …. Care of the body is the worst obsession we have. It’s like taking care of a baby by painting his toys …. Only the very aberrated love their eccentricities …. The preclear will tell you everything wrong with his case in the first session, but he’ll usually give you the wrong side of it …. Moses was so good he could probably enter into a cave and cause it to bite people ….
The degradation of Man is primarily on the fourth dynamic. Every time a man does something dishonorable or unethical he has the feeling that the whole race is degraded…. On the seventh dynamic, look for overt acts against aesthetics…. If you could look at a man’s facsimiles, it would look like an alarm clock some kid had taken apart…. This business of requiring photons for sight is a major aberration …. Run all the times a preclear tried to keep someone from knowing…. The mind is very good at approximating, at setting up symbols…. Data which is socially unacceptable is almost always aberrative…. You can probably process the main body of theta with technique 80 …. You don’t need a MEST body to run engrams …. You identify people as their MEST body and they identify you as your MEST body. Straight wire back to the first time you identified somebody by their MEST body …. As you go up tone scale, you reach new levels of ARC with your own kind …. At the level where you don’t feel the need to arm-yourself-against, where you trust, that is the level of true brotherhood…
————————————————-
That is the complete issue?
What’s with the ellipses?
These look like someone’s notes. And I’m sorry, these are random statements that if you look at them as they are – without believing that you are being fed the secrets of the universe – many of these look insane. And they are not connected with each other at all.
” A human being behaves like an attention unit. This is factual.”
That is factual? No it’s not.
“The concept of aloneness was installed as a control mechanism. ”
Look at that statement again: “The concept of aloneness was installed as a control mechanism.”
By whom? Alien implanters? Is there any evidence at all for alien implanters? Isn’t the observable fact (yes, fact) that human beings are social animals solid enough evidence to question this statement?
And wouldn’t someone who was trying to control people’s minds lie to them and tell them that their emotions are from alien implants that only paying customers of Dn and Scn can get rid of?
Wow Marildi. I can’t believe that you just put this here trying to provide a better context for Hubbard’s statement that the only way to control someone is to lie to them.
What, exactly, is the context that I am missing?
Alanzo
Yes, that is exactly what is in the tech vol. As I said, and as you yourself quoted in your post, above it is “excerpted” from a lecture.
Compare these two and see what you get:
“Remember one thing, we are not running a business, we are running a government. We are in direct control of people’s lives.”
&
“THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM”
Oh, and… surely there must be a way to justify oneself out of the most obvious conclusion to this synthesis. There must be a way… ponder, ponder… can anyone come to my rescue… hello?
Here’s the full context following that line in the transcript. The line in all caps has been passed around among the critics countless times. They just glob onto it without knowing what they’re talking about.
THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN CONTROL PEOPLE IS TO LIE TO THEM. You can write that down in your book in great big letters. The only way you can control anybody is to lie to them. When you find an individual is lying to you, you know that the individual is trying to control you. One way or another this individual is trying to control you. That is the mechanism of control. This individual is lying to
you because he is trying to control you – because if they give you enough misinformation they will pull you down the tone scale so that they can control you. Conversely, if you see an impulse on the part of a human being to control you, you know very well that that human being is lying to you. Not “is going to”, but “is” lying to you.
[last sentence is underlined in original]
Check these facts, you will find they are always true. That person who is trying to control you is lying to you. He’s got to tell you lies in order to continue control, because the second you start telling anybody close to the truth, you start releasing him and he gets tougher and tougher to control. So, you cant control
somebody without telling them a bunch of lies. You will find that very often Command has this as its greatest weakness. It will try to control instead of leading. The next thing you know, it is lying to the [illegible]. Lie, lie, lie, and it gets worse and worse, and all of a sudden the thing blows up. Well, religion has done this.[Following sentence is underlined] Organised religion tries to control, so therefore must be lying. [end underline] After a while it figures out (even itself) that it is lying, and then it starts down tone scale further and further, and all of a sudden people get down along this spring-like bottom (heresy) and say, “Are we going into apathy and die, or are we going to revolt?”and they revolt, because you can only lie to people so long. Unfortunately there is always a new cycle of lying.
(Technique 88)
Omg. That is outrageous: “Organised religion tries to control, so therefore must be lying. ”
And Hubbard erected an organized religion. Wtf?
Great catch, Marildi.
And Hubbard erected an organized religion. Wtf?
Great catch, Marildi.
Dee: Great catch Isene!
I know, Geir. LRH apparently contradicts himself in various ways. But my point is that it would take a more thorough study of things he said than is usually done, to get a true idea of his meaning AND his intentions. And there is the fact that he changed his mind about things as the frame of reference changed.
I’m not unwilling to see that he “changed his tune” at times in ways that can be criticized. But the tendency of critics to leap on something without really understanding it is what makes it difficult to have a credible discussion.
Here’s something that could put the above in perspective:
“Because there can be so much uncertain, stupid control, some of us begin to believe that all control is bad. But this is very far from true. Control is necessary if one would bring any order into confusions. One must be able to control things, his body, his thoughts at least to some degree, to do anything whatever.
“A confusion could be called an UNCONTROLLED RANDOMNESS. Only those who can exert some control over that randomness can handle confusions. Those who cannot exert control actually breed confusions.
“The difference between good and bad control then becomes more obvious. The difference between good and bad here is DEGREE. A thorough positive control can be predicted by others. Therefore it is good control. A non-positive, sloppy control cannot be predicted; therefore it is a bad control. Intention also has something to do with control. Control can be used for constructive purposes or destructive purposes; but you will discover that when destructive purposes are INTENDED, bad control is used. Thus there is a great deal to this entire subject of CONFUSION.” (POW)
I see that full context only as a strengthening of the quote. It makes the “critic’s favorite quote” just so much worse. I do agree that context is important. In this case, you should do your best to hide that context from critics.
Geir, I think what we should do is not hide anything from each other. The purpose shouldn’t be to cleverly convince the other person of what we have already made up our minds is the way it is, but to see things we may not have looked at before.
I’m just as guilty as the rest of you, I’ll admit, but what I can say truthfully at this point is this: LRH went in a wrong direction but I honestly do not know if it was because he thought he had no choice under the circumstances than to use force or if his motives were less noble. There are plausible arguments for both viewpoints. And I don’t know why I let myself get into these kinds of discussions because they aren’t pleasant or even productive.
I do learn a lot from the exchanges with you – as is evident in my blogging since late last year. You have helped me a lot to evolve my viewpoints. oO, thank you for that.
Can I ask in what way your blogging has changed that relates to me?
Whatever it is I have learned a lot from you too. I told you that not long ago, so you know I’m not just saying it now. I’m better at looking without quite as many filters. 🙂
Marildi: “Can I ask in what way your blogging has changed that relates to me?”
Me: “yes, of course 🙂 You helped me look much more closely and critically at concepts in Scientology that I have held dear for many years and not really dared to look at before. Like the fact that I had blind, positive, spots regarding Scientology basics. I have reconsidered the Factors – and I no longer believe the first dozen to be speaking the truth. And I was the one that did that legendary Factors seminar in Russia back in 2008 where the audience was on fire and lots of them said it was the best seminar Ever on Scientology. Just one very basic example. So, thanks.
Hubbard: “A confusion could be called an UNCONTROLLED RANDOMNESS. Only those who can exert some control over that randomness can handle confusions. Those who cannot exert control actually breed confusions.
Chris: I didn’t copy this entire passage of Hubbard’s, I just wanted to indicate the reference. None of this statement is true outside the metes and bounds of Scientology. Knowing what Is real to me now, Hubbard’s statements here look like utter nonsense. I don’t see any depth of understanding about randomness, or confusion, or a cogent sense of what can be controlled. In this passage I read a man who is on the ragged edge and dangling by a thread, if that. From his own works, I would describe Hubbard in this context as a PTS Type 3 in need of sedation and bed rest.
You know what the honey badger says. 😀
Marildi: You know what the honey badger says. 😀
Chris: “Non sequitur?”
It was a fun way for me to say you’re full of it. Cuz honey badger don’t give a shit. 😉
Ok, got you. 🙂
Hubbard probably had fantastic moments when he couldn’t believe his luck when adulation and money abounded. Then when he was forced to run away from each place that he tried to live and his world shrank down to the size of his little Bluebird buss on that ranchito in Creston it must have been hard for him to rest. If he had instead lived an honest life, doing honest research, and faced his detractors calmly with his scientific facts in hand, how do you suppose the landscape of Scientology would look today?
Marildi –
I’m not seeing a new or different context that the statement I quoted from does not fit in with.
How, exactly, is my quote from Hubbard about control taken out of context?
Alanzo
Marildi wrote:
I’m just as guilty as the rest of you, I’ll admit, but what I can say truthfully at this point is this: LRH went in a wrong direction but I honestly do not know if it was because he thought he had no choice under the circumstances than to use force or if his motives were less noble. There are plausible arguments for both viewpoints.
If a guy throws a baseball through his neighbor’s window one day, it can be an accident.
If he does it again the next day, it can still be an accident.
But if a guy gets up every day for 36 years straight and throws a baseball through his neighbor’s window, trains others to throw baseballs through his neighbor’s window, and even sets up an ethics system which makes it a high crime NOT to throw baseballs through his neighbor’s window – that shows INTENT TO THROW A BASEBALL THROUGH HIS NEIGHBOR’S WINDOW.
That’s my conclusion from asking myself that very same question that you articulated above for over a decade.
And I don’t know why I let myself get into these kinds of discussions because they aren’t pleasant or even productive.
They might not be pleasant right now, but that will pass.
But these discussions are productive.
Really.
Alanzo
Geir: “You helped me look much more closely and critically at concepts in Scientology that I have held dear for many years and not really dared to look at before.”
Is that because I have pointed out the contradictions you’ve expressed, primarily the one concerning your praise of the tremendous benefits you got from Scientology as compared to your otherwise bitter criticism of it? If so and it’s a matter of you feeling that you’ve improved on that contradiction, I must tell you that you need to come up with something better than reducing Scn to being a mere “placebo effect” as the primary reason for what it is capable of. Sorry, but that just doesn’t cut it. It is specious reasoning at best and will only convince those people who themselves are either biased against Scientology or biased towards you as a sort of guru of theirs – ironically, the exact thing they criticize others for who are biased towards LRH. This, btw, is one of the things I mentioned having learned from you as regards filters, as I no longer tend to take whatever you say (on non-Scn subjects) as necessarily correct.
One other thing on the subject of Scn, When I recently asked you if you knew anyone who had advanced to a degree similar to your own as regards the huge gains you made, and if so which practice they used to do it, your reply was that there were at least 5 people you knew who did make similar gains – but you said nothing about how they did it. And when I TR 3’d the point, you still didn’t answer that part of my question. You discourteously just dropped the exchange and gave no reply at all (and that is just one of a number of times you have done this in our exchanges). Anyway, your silence and lack of any reply made it pretty clear that there is actually no one you know who has achieved great improvement through a specific, delineated practice. They may, as people sometimes do, have made great advances because of being unusually able and gifted in themselves. but we’re talking about what routes of gain are potentially available for the majority of people.
This gets down to my main point about Scientology, which you still seem compelled to deny – which is that it is a practice you yourself more than once described very succinctly as being “the best we have”. And I should remind you of some other words of yours in a blog way back, to the effect that one’s “urges” to defend or attack only limit one’s freedom in that area. I believe the student (me) has surpassed the teacher on that score, and the main reason I continue to post here is simply because all of you guys are like old friends to me, whom I still like in many ways, regardless. (Yes, even Alanzo and Chris :))
Marildi: “Is that because I have pointed out the contradictions you’ve expressed, primarily the one concerning your praise of the tremendous benefits you got from Scientology as compared to your otherwise bitter criticism of it?”
Me: No, it is your insistance that Scientology basics is fully concistent that made me look more closely at it.
As for the 5 people I refered to, I do not have intimate knowledge of all their methods of improvement. But they are at par with the few I have known inside of Scientology that got similar gains.
You: “No, it is your insistence that Scientology basics is fully consistent that made me look more closely at it.”
Fair enough. That was an overstatement on my part. But it does not negate the main point about Scientology, which is that it is “the best we’ve got” and capable of the kind of incredible gain you yourself admit to personally.
And you are still hedging and dodging the fact that you can’t name one other single practice that you know of which resulted in similar gains to those of Scientology. Simply brushing this point off with “I do not have INTIMATE knowledge of ALL their methods [plural] of improvement” is the kind of evasive BS that surprises me about you sometimes.
Marildi: which is that it is “the best we’ve got” and capable of the kind of incredible gain you yourself admit to personally. And you are still hedging and dodging the fact that you can’t name one other single practice that you know of which resulted in similar gains to those of Scientology.
Chris: Every philosophy, religion, science of mind, psychology, and 12-step readily get the same results as Scientology. Not to see this is to deny much and to look with very narrow blinders. If you don’t believe me then ask a Christian whether Jesus has improved their life. If you need links to see the evidence of these wins I can provide, but really? Believers believe their belief-systems and swear by them. This is a no-brainer honey (badger).
Honey Badger don’t give a shit what belief system works!
Honey Badger BELIEVES!
Chris and Al, you guys are as intractable and incorrigible as the honey badger.
Nevertheless, I’m sending you both a big honey badger hug on this illustrious Dianetics Day AD13. 🙂
haha, We’re a lot more than just that! *love* back on this holy day!
Yes, Chris, I guess you guys are a lot more than just that. You boys should watch the honey badger in the video again and see if you don’t see yourselves well reified. 😀
You have power over your mind – not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength.
Marcus Aurelius
Maybe that’s why Roman Empire last for so much time.
Geir: You have power over your mind – not outside events. Realize this, and you will find strength. Marcus Aurelius
Chris: Awesome post. This really backs up my own opinion that men and women through the entire age of modern genetic man have worked these things out and continue to do so to their own satisfaction. And who else’s satisfaction should we be seeking when it comes to the meaning of life and existence?
So, if I’m going to test this practice it would be:
Category 1: my mind and everything I have learned which has immediate and/or concrete results. Techniques.
Category 0.5: my communication to others in the sense of dialectical method and better understanding. The influencer-follower correspondence.
Category 0: the Scientology controversy and creepy scenario. The news. The mainstream media, the conspiracy theories, the religions, the shit on the world, the darkness, the Internet. lol
Lots of stressful on that 0 category that it may resemble the GPM’s worst stuck bolid.
Another one could be to Scientology:
Category 1: the organize and corporative religion.
Category 0.5: The world.
Category 0: people.
😀
Looks pretty right 🙂
I have now ideas flow about the anatomy of control. Maybe it will be beneficial for somebody in some way to write it here: I think that in order to increase the control of some system, it is important to break the whole system down into controllable structural elements – inputs, processes/storages, outputs, and feedbacks. Then it is adequate to know that this system could be controlled more by understanding and using basic elements of control – continue-change-start-stop. The change could be also quantitative and/or qualitative. Those elements could potentially on three different causational levels – thoughts and/or language and/or actions. If the process of control is going on, it is also important to see the consequences of that control – potential gains/non-gains/losses/non-loses. The control should be applied in the context of necessity and/or importance. 🙂