Book release: From Independent Scientologist to just me

Like I did with the book, “Six months in the open“, I have compiled a running record of all Scientology-related posts on this blog.

This new book shows my gradual changing views since I started this blog in June 2010.

The two books combined gives a unique insight into an OT8’s journey out of the Church of Scientology and into the realm of the Independent Scientologists (“Six months in the open”) and then the unraveling of a Scientology-conditioned mind resulting in a free mind (“From Independent Scientologist to just me”).

This book is the distillation of Scientology-related posts on this blog.

Get it at

Or download it right here (291 pages, 5.4 MB).

As usual, it is free and available under a free license.


48 thoughts on “Book release: From Independent Scientologist to just me

  1. Geir – I haven’t read the whole thing. I skimmed through and read “rotten attitude”. I could not agree with you more on that. Thanks for writing this. Can you please make the first one, six months in the open, also available as a pdf download. I hate reading something on scribd and would rather download and read the pdf. Thanks in advance. Now back to reading.

  2. Some of us have already read every one of these posts. 😉 As well as the ones you haven’t included, all of which are your archives.

    Also in the archives are some pretty interesting comment threads that went with each of the blog posts. And many of us have been on our own journey, along with you, Geir. Thanks for that. 🙂

  3. Great job!
    What’s next? I would be fascinated to read about how a ‘free bird’ perceives the world while flying. In other words, just about an ‘ordinary’ day of yours, actions, thoughts as related to the everyday life you live and the way you see life happening around YOU in the here and now, perhaps minute by minute.

  4. HaHa …I have just read the chapter ‘Dreams’. As you say there is No Real World Out There, I would be interested to read about how YOU ‘follow your way’ from the kind of ‘Inception’ viewpoint?

  5. I will try to put into words an interesting phenomenon. I started to read your book and there it is again I have already touched upon. It has been a learning experience for me to look at this phenomenon on the blog (and got conscious of it in ‘life’ too). Thank you Geir for running this blog.

    There is a YOU-SOURCE which is timeless. (the you behind ‘Geir’ but, interestingly it is also ‘Geir’). I read the first chapters and perceive the very high wavelength behind the appearing words. As I read on, it is interesting to see how this wavelength is changing depending on the topic and/or the beings you write about. Sometimes it is ‘dense’, at other times it is ‘light’, or even ‘fluid’. There are ‘turning points’. ‘Sensing’ the YOU-SOURCE and reading what you write about is making it possible for me to perceive these wavelenght-energy manifestations in between YOU as a source and ME as a source.
    You can do this short exercise if you are interested in doing it.
    Re-read a chapter of yours from the motionless-theta-source. Whenever there is a sense of a wavelenght, an energy and the slightest ‘discomfort’, it is not you, there is something to look at /observe to ‘make it into’ a ‘you’ (theta).

  6. Geir
    I believe it’s a ‘past’ for you. But I love it, I just love it. HaHaaaa….
    Here is what you wrote : ‘ I am seeking a purpose for my seeking.’ (in Seeker, 2011)

  7. Hi Geir,

    I was intrigued to see you found Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem as a base for much of your analysing.

    Using this, I also found that Hubbard’s Axioms were terribly flawed. It laid bare the much larger flaws of Scientology (that resulted in crimes against humanity by the Church of Scientology) – which meant it was not any sort of absolute truth, but based on fabrications lower than those of even mathematics.

    Scientology lies to cover these contradictions only exacerbated the flaws.

    It is human nature to see past problems to find something that works for us as individuals. You’ve done this. We all have.

    Gödel blew my mind. Still does.

    When the basic truths are disproven, they are no longer basic truths.

    Love your logic, Geir. ❤

    1. In my search for what I consider truth, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem is the deepest truth I found so far.

  8. For me, too. It put everything in perspective.

    A good friend of mine once commented about Gödel and Scientology and simplified it like this:

    The problem with axioms and particularly with scientology is Goedel’s Incompleteness theorem. Now Goedel’s theorem has interesting history. At the turn of the century (20th) Hilbert one of the premier mathmaticians ( at least I think it was Hilbert) put out a task to the math dudes of the day that it was time to wrap up mathematics by putting it on a sound axiomatic footing such that it could be shown that mathematics particaulalry number theory was true and complete and that being so, the truths of mathematics could under pin science and establish science’s basic truths thus proving that science was true as well. In other words mathematics could actually be a pure truth and the truest knowledge we have. In keeping with this Alfred Whitehead and Bertrand Russell pretty much wrote a multi volume text showing this ….at least until Goedel came along and in a small paper threw blew everything apart.

    This stuff is really complex and i dont even dare state the theorem in its original becasue frankly it sounds greek (it is greek has a lot omegas and stuff) But it says that given an axiomatic system of sufficent power (enough to handle basic arithmetic, yes, even that simple an axiomatic system) there exists statements that are unproveable. that is to say truths that are unable to be proved true within the system (It is supposed to be be complete. there ought to be no statements it can not generate or show to be true or false) and falsehoods that are unable to be proved false by the same simple system. How this is done is quite beyond this little message but you can google it and perhaps read a book called Goedel Escher and Bach by Hoffstadder which is a weird trip. this is some strange shit. (Goedel went sort of mad was a bud of einstein at the Institute of advanced studies at Princeton. he almost did not become a citizen of the US because he found errors in the US constitution and wanted to discuss them with the immigration people. Albert saved his ass.) It basically uses paradoxes which the sytem can not handle to show that any axiomatic system can generate statements that could be either true or false deep sixing the idea that math was the true underpinning of truth. Confused? you bet but no worries. In its original format it is rather powerful. Taking it to the SCN axioms is a stretch i grant but it is a thought.

    After all that I sort of concluded that there are a truths that scientolgy can not encompass and falsehoods that it can not detect. It is the nature of this universe and axiomatic systems themselves. Further the bridge would have to be incomplete and possible impossible in the current universe ever to be complete. This is taking Goedel alot farther than it was intended but if the scn axioms are stronger and more complete than arithmetic it must be so.

    think on that or …..better not…take a walk instead.”


    1. Hi Sheila. The only thing I know about Gödel’s theorems is that he proved mathematically no system can be both complete and consistent. So far, with regard to the philosophy of Scn, i.e. its basic principles, I see it as incomplete but consistent. (Not even getting into the subject of the tech – which *should* be based on those principles but at this point is not, at least not in the CoS.) What do you think – do you see anything inconsistent in the basics? I’m referring to things like the Axioms, the Logics, the tone scale and other scales, etc.

      1. Hi Marildi,
        To answer what you said briefly:
        The tone scale inconsistencies begin with its name. It was supposed to be emotional tones, but then it included unproven states of being and actions, and became something that was not a scale of any kind at all. (lots more inconsistencies in it, i.e., the below body death tones)

        The axioms don’t explain the beginning. They start with a something. There is also an unproven assumption that life began with ONE thing, not several or more at the same moment. There is no explanation for these assumptions, therefore, they are not Axioms. They also become illogical, but I’m not going into detail on that here.

        There are inconsistencies throughout scn. The only consistency is if it doesn’t work, it’s somebody’s fault, or they are unqualified, or something else or someone else influenced them. Those are monstrous excuses for failure that can and do apply to every religion when it doesn’t work – but we don’t call those religions “technology”. Those are inconsistencies that point out the basics don’t really apply to everyone all the time and therefore, are not basic truths at all.

        1. Thanks, Sheila. I can see you and I read the materials differently. And on the question of proof, I don’t think anything in Scientology has been “proven”, at least not scientifically – but the same would have to be be said of other philosophies. Regardless, I happen to think that there are *observable* mechanics described in the basic principles, and those are what make Scientology produce the results it gets.

          Also, I can see that you and I are using the word “Scientology” to mean different things. Your last paragraph got away from the original topic we were on, which was the basic principles in found in early Scientology materials (that “Scientology). You got into a completely different subject, and I agree with you as regards the corrupted version of “Scientology”.

    2. Haha good post ausie Sheila. I like to think that the more wework e with these ideas and work them up and downthat we become more familiar and it becomes easier. For me, it is hardest to let go of my fixed ideas.

      1. Thanks, Chris. 🙂

        I know what you mean about the difficulty letting go of fixed ideas. For me, it’s hardest to let go of my routines – my fixed behaviours.

    1. Sure. Never done it. If you can convert the pdf to epub, feel free. Otherwise, gimme a pointer to how and I will produce.

      1. Oops – I forgot to check the “notify me of replies” checkbox – sorry for the delay in replying!

        I’ve had reasonably good results creating an ePub e-book using LibreOffice with this plugin:

        I made an ePub e-book from a series of blog articles by just copying the web page text from the browser into LibreOffice Writer and exporting to EPub using the tools provided by that plugin. While I did a little bit of cleanup (for example, images need to be downloaded to local files and pasted into the document – copy+paste of a web page including images puts in HTTP references for the images, which doesn’t export properly even though it renders in LOWriter) I didn’t do a lot to polish it up, so I don’t know what’s involved in making something really professional-looking using these tools.

        It’s possible that when you get to a near-final state using LOWriter+eLAIX, you can then import the ePub into Calibre and polish it up. I don’t know for sure about that, though. Calibre could also convert it into other e-book formats (e.g. for Amazon’s Kindle).

        All of these tools are free, and LOWriter can import MS Word documents and export to PDF.

  9. Congratulations Geir, for being a “truth seeker”. I have considered myself such all my life. I abandoned God in favor of science when I was 18, in search for “my truth”, and I’m now 69. In all those years, I gradually rooted out beliefs and replaced them with science, as a “truer truth”. I majored in Physics in college, which provided an amazing foundation. But I never really understood the full consequences of my search for truth until I ran across Alex Rosenberg’s book, “The Atheist’s Guide to Reality – Enjoying Life Without Illusions”. It is a brain-warming book of about 330 pages, which will challenge everything you’ve ever believed, and which I will be re-reading a number of times. From someone who is a bit further from belief systems than you, and a bit further down the road away from them than most people, I recommend the book to all truth seekers. And again, I congratulate you and all seekers of truth. Never give up 🙂

  10. In the PDF you write that it’s licensed under the GPL license (a license-license?) version 3.

    Where can I download the source code for the PDF?

    1. hehe – yes, it’s a license license 🙂

      E-mail me and I will provide it. Otherwise it is a compilation of posts on this blog – so it’s all in the open 😉

          1. Thank you Anette. I imagine your journey into and out of Scientology was difficult, but very interesting.

            1. Thank you Isene. I guess you went on a wild ride in and out of Scientology. Must have been something else.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s