Scientology and mindfuck

He will eventually turn around.” “He’s just going through a phase.” “He’s still a kool-aid drinker – give him a couple of more years and he will wake up.” Etc.

You may cringe at the arrogance of the ex-Scientologists and Anonymous when they condescendingly belittle you with statements like the above. Like they somehow “know” what you are all about. Like crack pot tarot card readers. Even when they themselves never even set a foot inside a Church of Scientology.

I used to cringe. Because that arrogance does nothing but create animosity. It serves only to prolong any recovery from the Scientology mindfuck.

But, they are more than half-right.

What I find in common among the majority of scientologists – in or out of the church – is a worrying introspection. A tendency to look inward, find faults with themselves, worry about being PTS, about committing overts, about having missed withholds, about being restimulated, about their postulates (not) coming true, about being effect (of SPs), about what might have caused that ulcer, etc. Much looking inward and toward the past. I used to do the same – but oddly enough it was OT 8 that got me out of that. Ironic it is. (Google the terms above if you need to)

Scientology is the opposite of the Fuck It ideology. It makes for over-serious people wrought with emergencies and nervous anxiety about not having control or “being cause”. In my experience, it tends to make people less productive.

When I recently assessed what could or even should have been a tailored and compacted Scientology route for me, it would have gone like this: TRs, OT 2, OT 5, OT 7, OT 8. Interestingly, these are among the least introspective levels in Scientology. Although I did get gains from looking into incidents in my past and querying my inner mind, the more outward looking processes did the most for me. And I believe they make for less of a mindfuck.

One thing that helped me a lot during my 25 years in Scientology was that I never had much expectations of what to gain from the various levels. I was curious and open to what they could bring. Not having expectations means not being prone to disappointments. Looking back, I believe this was my saving grace.

I have been pondering this for a while now and just had to get it off my mind. Having said that, I think most of you are waiting for a report from our US trip.

Yes, it will come. After I have collected the pictures and found the time to structure a report. As a teaser, I can tell you this; It was one hell of a ride. We got to meet with so many wonderful, exciting and hugable people and lots of amazing places. Like Chris and the Grand Canyon, making 10 videos at Karen De La Carriere’s (soon to be published), meeting a world class dj in NYC, doing a demo auditing session in front of 200 people in LA, and much more. I will leave you with a picture I took overlooking the Grand Canyon:

Grand Canyon

86 thoughts on “Scientology and mindfuck

  1. Hey, glad you’re back and by what we have to look forward to shows you were very busy. Nice space at the Grand Canyon huh, and to have the pleasure of meeting Chris, wow.
    I can relate to what your OP says and to be sure the f**kit ideology is much superior. The mindfuck think is very hard to get rid of until you give in and experience life at it’s best while giving yourself credit for improvement, wherever you are on whatever bridge. It’s like, take what you got and look more outside of yourself to really enjoy and live a life worthy of yourself. Give a f**kit to those things that keep you introverted, especially those negative things you learned. You can be right and you are, plus maintain the belief in yourself. No one knows better than you.

    Off the box now. I am no body but love to spout! Like the rains from the sky, it helps the grass grow. I love the rain from wherever it flows. This Op inspired me. 🙂

  2. Interesting. I just read the first parts and I agree that extroversion is the key. My gains were on life repair, False Data Stripping, training (KTL, LOC, Levels I-IV), TRs and Objectives and a lot of the grades. And being on staff raised my confront! HUGE WINS. The OT levels didn’t indicate nearly as much as the lower bridge did. And just leaving the Church gave me tons of gain!!


  3. Welcome back, Geir! I’m glad you liked America and I’m sure America liked you. 🙂

    I agree with the first part of your post (no surprise :)) And it was nice to read about your specific personal experiences in Scientology. Thanks for sharing those with us. Like!

    I still don’t see the prevalence of “introspection” as you do, though. I personally never felt that way and when I think about the people I am in regular contact with who are former Scientologists, I don’t see that they are introverted in the ways you mentioned either. My own perception about illness, for example, is that it can indeed come about after an enturbulation – but that it doesn’t always. There are other reasons, which are listed out in the issue on “false PTSness”.

    For example, I might get ill when I haven’t had enough sleep or haven’t eaten right – which would come under out-ethics since I know better. Sometimes, it’s a matter of the KRC triangle being out with myself or people I know – e.g. there isn’t enough Knowledge, or Responsibility taken to get the knowledge needed, to get health under Control. It’s even a precept in “The Way to Happiness” – to “Take Care of Yourself” (which includes: Eat Properly and Get Rest, etc.).

    And the phenomena of overts and withholds doesn’t have me or others I know introverted about it – it’s just a piece of knowledge that we are aware of and can observe manifesting in ourselves or others. Also, being aware of the fact that restimulation can occur just makes things more understandable at times – and you can be that much less effect of them. This is true of any of these datums.

    I wonder if a scientific poll were taken if it would show more of what you have observed or what I have observed. If part of the observation includes comments by posters on various blogs, those individuals may not be a good cross section of former Scientologists – after all, there they are posting on blogs about it. However, I can easily believe that CoS Scientologists are as you described – but that’s because that organization is geared to create that mindset and keep it going.

    That’s my 2 cents, just to give you a run for your money. 😀

  4. Scientology and the “Church of Scientology” have nothing in common. The subject has been distorted and destroyed accurately since the 80’s. Being an OTVII and having run OTVIII by myself, I had a realization that the basics were out. So I inspected and saw that the objectives and TR’s were never really EP. So I started to be audited by an auditor pre 80’s and first of all I was repaired on MY INT (how many times I got out int on OTVII) I discovered to have completed OTVII at least 4 years before and that I was making up case to be run. Then I run all my objectives again (I did them on student auditing and did not get the result), Now I am redoing TR’s (by some one directly instructed by a Ron student on TR’s) and I got a few hours of real instruction to really understand all the components of the “simple” OT TR0 and I got the most dramatic case change, few hours of drill and an expansion of beingness really unexpected. So the issue is not Scientoloy, the real issue is lost tech and altered tech. So Scientology does not work the same as a recipe of a cake were the salt is added instead of the sugar. We have plenty of “Scientologists” which are out int, out list, out TR’s out ARC, ou of life and totally certain that they are in the right side as they have the “TRUTH”, but unfortunately their life is much worse than non Scientoloists.

    1. Hi toreanzos. Well said. I agree – “the real issue is lost tech and altered tech.” And I also.always thought OT TR 0 was undervalued. Can you say more about the instruction you got on it?

      1. I’d say the real issue is a belief that a methodology dealing in human potential will surely and inevitably create a certain result. As in One Size Fits All. And then there is the issue of the vast majority of those availing themselves of the tech dropping out – regardless of them being introduced to the tech in the CoS or outside. And then there is the issue of no proof in sight of the proclaimed Clears or OTs ever having been made. The list goes on, really.

        1. “I’d say the real issue is a belief that a methodology dealing in human potential will surely and inevitably create a certain result. As in One Size Fits All.”

          You mean like Buddhism? It too has a distinct methodology and a “One Size Fits All”.

          Most of the rest of your comment goes back to “lost tech and altered tech” – even if LRH had a part in that. Which would be beside the point, in any case. I’m sure you can see that.

          The significant point is just this: When the tech is applied in the form that adheres to the philosophical principles underlying it, what are the results it is capable of producing – even if that tech isn’t perfect. And I’m sure you know that – you yourself intend to get more auditing! Contrary facts, I would say. 😛

          As for no Clears, I don’t get why you continue to talk as if the definition of Clear never got changed – when you know better. Why is that? It appears to be sheer propaganda – and misleading.

          On top of it, right on your own blog there have been quite a few posters – even the trustworthy and illustrious Dan Koon, for example – who attest to the immense gain they got from going Clear. So what’s the point of diverting attention onto an old definition? Is it because that level of the Bridge wasn’t particularly one where you yourself got the biggest gains? People are individuals and vary as to which levels really bite for them – which is one of the beauties of the tech and indicates that it actually is a methodology for the individual.

          The State of Clear may not meet the original sky-high goal and hopes of LRH, but you know very well that the gains for many are spectacular. You know that – so again, why put attention on what the State doesn’t include, instead of what it does?

          Btw, even you have a “methodology” for dealing with human potential, don’t you? So the above statement of yours is strange. Contrary facts once again. I know, now you are going to say that your methodology is not fixed and that Scientology tech is. Well, even though the tech can be improved on this point, it is just not true that the tech is entirely fixed, as many people trained and experienced in the core tech (not altered versions) will tell you. And besides, “fixed or not fixed” is a separate issue from your statement above – which basically invalidates any methodology at all. Including Buddhism and your “u-ology”.

          The tech can be improved upon and should be – but would discard it even as it is? No!
          You wouldn’t! In fact – as I say, you plan to get more auditing.

          Lots of contrary facts, don’t you think, my dear Geir? 😉

          1. Excuse me…excuse me…

            Inserting myself here: You mean like Buddhism? It too has a distinct methodology and a “One Size Fits All”.

            Could you please explain, Marildi, exactly and specifically, how Buddhism has a distinct methodology and a “One Size Fits All”?

            Also, throw in for a bonus why, if Buddhism does have these things, then this is somehow evidence that what Scientology has is a methodology dealing in human potential that will surely and inevitably create a certain result. As in One Size Fits All.

            Buddhism may do it and Scientology may not. And Scientology may do it and Buddhism may not. But the existence of one is not evidence for the other, is it?

            If so, show me.


            1. “Could you please explain, Marildi, exactly and specifically, how Buddhism has a distinct methodology and a ‘One Size Fits All’?”

              Tell me Al, are there different methodologies in Buddhism, other than the differences between sects? Each sect has a specific doingness – a specific methodology.

              As for “One Size Fits All” I understood that to mean the tech (or “process”), not the result (or outcome).

              And as for Scientology creating a certain result, I think we have to understand what “a certain result” actually means. The EPs (end phenomena) are expressed in a general way. Using Clear as an example, the EP is “a being who no longer has his own reactive mind”. That doesn’t mean that all individuals who go Clear are equal, but that each of them has gained an ability to not be the effect of their own reactive mind.

              For any piece of tech, in fact, individuals start out with different potential and end up with different degrees of ability. That even works for word clearing, btw, based on my many hours as a word clearer. For example, two students clearing the same word can have quite different depths of understanding. Furthermore, when a given person clears the same word at some later point in time he often gets a deeper understanding. It’s the same with auditing, per my observation.

              I believe that the same principle Dexter stated regarding the deconstruction of the Scn valence applies to the subject of gains in Scn – i.e. it depends on ”a variety of factors, including one’s degree of indoctrination [in the case of auditing: pc hatting and training], one’s current environment and connections, and a person’s inherent sanity…”

              ARC, marildi 🙂

            2. p.s. On another subject, I saw on Marty’s blog that Dan Koon said you could email him with the questions you have for him. How did that go?

          2. Actually – there is not one single contrary fact in what I wrote. Not one. It does however point to several misunderstandings on your part. To name a few: There is not one single provable Clear by any of LRH’s definitions. That is not to say that people didn’t get gains from any auditing in that area. It simply means what I said: Not one single provable Clear or OT. Period. Secondly – I am not refuting any methodologies per se – Scientology or Buddhism bot produce gains on the right people for their methodologies. The problem is that a fixed goal cannot be reached with a set methodology. Bringing up Buddhism in this regard does not help the defense of Scientology one single bit. Thirdly; I have never promoted any methodology of my own that I said will produce any fixed result. Forthly; What I see as the main value in Scientology is the parts that tend to Not introvert a person on himself or on Time (especially the Past). I am not advocating the eradication of Scientology as you seem to oh so straw manly imply. I call for cramming, Marildi. Or at least some word clearing of my comment above. In all friendliness, I might add 🙂

            1. Firstly, tell me this – is the attainment of Nirvana, for example, provable? Or any other subjective gains to be had in Buddhism or any other practice?

              Secondly and thirdly, on the point of “fixed goal” please see my reply to Al. (And if necessary, go to Cramming. :D)

              Fourthly, the “introversion” part of Scientology tech I see as just a step, a gradient, to better prepare the individual for positive gain – after which positive gain can be achieved much more easily and rapidly, either with other parts of Scientology or some other practice or on one’s own, IMHO. Besides, along with the negative gains come re-gained abilities, don’t forget. Ref: the Grade Chart.

              Eliminating the stimulus-response factor in a person’s life, for example, is highly beneficial for most – and often, or even most of the time, it is the necessary gradient, in practical terms, before they can go on to get a great amount of positive gain – or at least before they can rapidly move forward towards positive gain. Not too many people can “just get off it”, you know. And not too many people can achieve with other practices the gains of Scn as quickly as they can be had in Scn.

              In long friendship, 🙂
              marildi ————————–

            2. I am not discussing Buddhism here, and I have no idea why you brought that red herring into the discussion. My original post stands. The goals that LRH set up are defined and fixed – e.g. Clear (various definitions), OT and Total Freedom (and Theta Clear etc.) No methodology will produce that every time. The belief that it will is the real issue here. As I stated above. Interesting how all the “contrary facts” just seem to fade away, eh? 🙂

            3. No, Geir, it wasn’t a Red Herring. I was making the point that your statement about tech being “not provable” has no real meaning or significance since that could be said about many, if not all, personal improvement practices. Buddhism was just an example, and I even added “or any other practice”.

              But the main thing I want to say is that I think it’s fine to debate whether this or that piece of tech, ethics or admin works, but I don’t think there is any point in putting a lot of attention on where LRH fell short on his promises, because that gets into differences of opinion on what he actually promised and whether or not it was achieved – and that isn’t even what matters! What matters, or what is the correct evaluation of importances, is what Scn actually can and does achieve – which you yourself have said is more than any other practice. You’ve said it’s “the best we have”! That is what is important at this point in time – and from there the attention should be on how it can be improved.

              And there’s not much point in you continuing to repeat that “the tech is a fixed methodology” and me repeating that it isn’t all that fixed and does have variability. Again, the significant thing – which you yourself admit – is that it produces a lot of good just as it is. And those who know the underlying principles are already making improvements on the variability of the tech in order to make it better fitted to the individual. So what more do you want?

            4. You quoted T that the real issue is lost or altered tech. I said that their real issue is a belief that a set methodology dealing in human potential can produce a set result. It cannot. You bringing in Buddhism into that equation is a classic Red Herring. And it doesn’t help your argument one single bit. Then I said that there are not one single case validating any of LRH’s definitions of Clear (or OT) and that people leave Scientology in droves. All this is fact. So, it remains; The real issue is not “lost or altered tech”. It runs much deeper than that. And no “contrary fact” in sight.

            5. Why do you keep repeating things that I’ve already addressed and explained? Like the point about Buddhism. It’s like you believe that if you just keep repeating it enough it will sound like a strong argument.

              The same goes for you repeating yet again that the tech is a set technology, when I’ve just said that there is no point to our debating that when the proof is in the pudding – which you admit is delicious, for crissakes.

              And you again said definitions (plural) of Clear. Are you really so lacking in your knowledge of what the issues state that you don’t know LRH ultimately gave a definition of Clear that he said is the one that fits all cases and is the one that is to be used? Do you even know what it is?

              And so what if people leave Scientology in droves – are we now going to go round and round again about the CoS? Why are you so determined to promote all the negatives?

              Lots of contrary facts, I’d say. The primary one being that you know very well how great the gains are but choose to emphasize all the extraneous matters. I don’t get it.

            6. I understand.

              Understand this: No methodology, no matter how internally flexible (no amount of decision gateways or if-then-else statements) will ever ensure a set result as long as it deals in people. It must contain complete openness, areas left to the practitioners discretion (free will) to be even close to ensuring a set result. That Scientology produces gains (in me and others) do Not refute this simple fact.

              People having gains in auditing does not validate any state of Clear, no matter what definition, or OT or a reactive mind or Xenu or any of the cosmology Hubbard proscribed.

              Me bringing in Hinduism into this discussion would be a Red Herring, though.

              I am trying really hard to understand why you seem so incapable of understanding my communication here. Real hard. But this time I will give up much earlier than before if you do not make an honest effort to understand mine very quickly.

            7. “I am trying really hard to understand why you seem so incapable of understanding my communication here. Real hard.”

              Amazing. That’s basically what I just said to you in my last comment.

              “But this time I will give up much earlier than before if you do not make an honest effort to understand mine very quickly.:

              That method of handling others is not the highest:

              “The methods of handling others could be assigned to three general categories. The
              highest category would be one of enhancement, where the individual seeks by example and good reasoning to lift the level of those around him to the point where they will partake of the projects of living with him….The second category would be that of punishment drive, or domination. Here the individual uses alarm, threats, and the general promise of pain unless compliance is given by the others around him…”

            8. p.s. Geir. Here’s a post from Haydn James, which says in a nutshell what I’ve tried to say (first paragraph) as well as what you’ve tried to say (second paragraph). I think it should be left at that. Why keep whipping a dead horse?

              “There is no doubt that Scientology contains the seeds of its own destruction – the Church of Scientology is all the proof anyone could need of that fact. But I wouldn’t be an independent Scientologist if I didn’t think those destructive points could be defined and avoided in the future. After all, a great deal of work has been done by many on that subject — it is really what the various blogs and articles have been discussing over the last few years, separating the good from the bad.

              “And though there are a number of such destructive seeds, among them you would have to list the ethics/justice system, the money system (corruption) and management/mismanagement.”

            9. “There is not one single provable Clear by any of LRH’s definitions.” I have always seen this as a red herring. Not surprising it is repeated from Norway, as herring is popular there, no? 🙂

              The real issue is that Clearing Procedures apparently do produce some kind of results for many or even most individuals they are applied to, or who apply them to themselves.

              The relevant question is, What are those results? That is what needs to be studied. It is immaterial that LRH guessed wrong in his attempts to define the state(s) resulting from application of Clearing Procedures. The salient question is, What do those procedures actually produce/accomplish/deliver?

              The EP may indeed vary by individual. That does not mean “There is no such thing as a “Clear”, unless you have bought into LRH’s definitions of “Clear”.

              To that extent I agree with Geir. However a set methodology will produce what the psychologists call “change” and allows a person to better define himself. Is that not what Scientology is all about? Increasing clarity of self-definition?

              Some doctrinaire “Indies” may complain about Marty or Geir that they are now “out-KSW” and no longer “standard” vis-a-vis their conception of Scientology.

              Neither one now calls himself a “Scientologist”. But in fact all that has happened is that Marty is not a Scientologist, he is himself. Likewise for Geir. Geir is himself.

              And was that not the original goal of Scientology and “clearing”?

              So it appears that in some sense, the supposedly “set methodology” does produce the “fixed goal” of making or helping a person be more himself. It’s just that each person is at bottom different from another person. All this is right there in Book One.

              Entering increasing complexities into it will not “clarify” anything.

            10. LOL, Val. You and I must have a telepathic connection. We were writing up pretty much the same points at the same time. It’s either telepathy or great minds think alike. Probably the latter. 😀

            11. marildi, I only skimmed your post on this topic, so I don’t know whether we are saying the same thing or not. There are really a couple of issues I see. Possibly 3 issues actually.

              1. The obvious word-play about “definitions of Clear”.
              2. The lack of address to the issue of – What do Clearing Procedures actually produce or result in, as opposed to whatever “definitions” Hubbard may have tried to formulate about it?
              3. The issue of “a fixed method cannot yield or produce consistent results.” or ideas to that effect. I tend to think this falsifiable because it is an inapplicable oversimplification when applied to many human activities. That is not to say I think any system can produce 100% results 100% of the time.

              So I take your word for it that we are thinking along similar lines or have a similar ‘take’ on these issues.

            12. That does not mean “There is no such thing as a “Clear”, unless you have bought into LRH’s definitions of “Clear”.

              Well, there aren’t any other definitions. So, as there are not one single provable case in existence for any of the existing definitions of Clear, I think it is fairly sound to say that there are indeed no Clears.

            13. I think, like Bill Clinton defining whether or not he had “sex” with Monica Lewinsky, this has become a petty word game. LRH talked a lot about “clear”. In the last chapter of his book, Marty quotes one of LRH’s “definitions” of Clear, or what I choose to understand as a definition. From 1958, here it is:

              “A thetan already has a basic personality, and this is what we are trying to uncover in Scientology in order to make a Clear. And it is as easy as that….. a Clear could be said to be basic personality revealed.”

              That sounds a lot like something you enjoy by virtue of having completed OTVIII in particular, by your own reports.

              The legalistic, formalistic word-play you indulge in originated, as far as I know, in an Indiana(or is it Illinois?) cornfield. It completely avoids any attempt to get at the meaning, spirit, and original purpose of Scientology. Which is of course your right to consider it so. But be aware that I consider it nothing more than a lawyerly, legalistic word-trick, used to obfuscate rather than clarify Hubbard’s basic meaning as stated above. It is a type of “mindfuck” of its own, purveyed by a very few of the denizens, past or present, of ESMB, for example.

              A kind of “Nyah nyah look how wrong Hubbard was about this”

              for·mal·ism (fôrm-lzm)
              1. Rigorous or excessive adherence to recognized forms, as in religion or art.
              2. An instance of rigorous or excessive adherence to recognized forms.
              3. A method of aesthetic analysis that emphasizes structural elements and artistic techniques rather than content, especially in literary works.

            14. wow.

              My statement stands unrefuted: There are no Clears by any of LRH’s definition of Clear. And there are no other definitions of that concept of Clear that I know of – unless you want to indulge in some propaganda by redefinition of words.

            15. Wow indeed. Since I do consider the quote I posted as a “definition” of Clear, I guess my post also stands unrefuted. I guess also that what you consider to be a “definition” and what I consider a “definition” are different. But such are the ways of lawyers. You might consider that profession, you are pretty good at that kind of wordplay. Some judges will no doubt agree with you at times. I however do not.

              No doubt in your mind you have refuted me. Might as well let it rest there.

            16. I can’t resist, so try this for size.

              The core argument to tackle in this sub-thread about definitions of Clear is not whether there is such a thing as a Clear or not, it’s not even whether auditing produces beneficial results or not.

              It’s whether auditing produces *more and better* beneficial results than other approaches.

              Arguing about the semantics of the definitions of Clear is stupid – that horse bolted a long time ago; it’s been well established that Hubbard was lying through his teeth whenever he described Clears and OTs – a classic case of Marketing Dept talking a thing up in defensible ways. I see no need to go down that road yet again here and now…

              Humans have this peculiar knack – give them a safe environment to chill out a bit and ponder stuff or maybe talk to a friend, and they will tend to figure shit out for themselves. At the very least they tend to come up with answers that satisfy themselves. Auditing fits this description nicely, just look at the definition of “in session” – interested in own case and willing to talk to the auditor. So it is not surprising that preclears report beneficial results from auditing, indeed I would be very suspicious if they didn’t.

              The question to answer is “do Hubbard’s techniques give superior (i.e. bigger, better, faster or more) results than alternatives?” If yes, then Hubbard was onto something and someone should distill out the good bits. If no, then auditing is just a formal method to let people figure shit out *and brings nothing more to the party than that*

              I personally don’t think auditing done correctly by a caring individual is particularly special over anything else, that’s not to invalidate anyone’s gains or even my own – gains were indeed made but there’s many roads up that mountain. I think this because of a question posted on this here blog:

              “So where are all the amazing people?”


            17. Good and relevant post.

              But I do doubt that there is any kind of consensus on that horse having bolted a long time ago.

            18. Geir: “But I do doubt that there is any kind of consensus on that horse having bolted a long time ago.”

              Me: Churchies and our friends over at Milestone Two will of course claim that Clear is an absolute state and achievable. But it’s a trivially simple matter to show the cognitive dissonance at work there.

              Everyone else can see that it is not true and that there are no Clears per any published definition of Clear, for much the same reason that everyone else can also see that there are no rainbow coloured apples and under normal conditions on Earth apples fall down, not up 🙂

              One has find a True Scotsman to defend the State of Clear as published (pick any one, they all fail the same test). And the truth is quite mundane – some of Hubbard’s techniques like so many other things in life can be rather beneficial. Hubbard also talked his stuff up a storm and made outrageous claims about it. Both of those things can easily be true. Asl the fellows who make detergents and shampoos – their TV ads consist of nothing else 🙂

            19. I’d like to see in writing Marildi admitting that a) There are no Clears per any LRH definition and b) that Hubbard lied about having achieved them. If that happens, then I will concede that there is a consensus at least here. I am also sure apples will start falling upwards any day now.

            20. Geir: “I’d like to see in writing Marildi admitting that … ”

              Well, let’s ask her. Marildi, what do you think?

              Let’s first clearly describe the question though:

              We’re talking published definitions of Clear in an HCOB or book or lecture. Not descriptions of attributes of a Clear or what they ought to be able to do, just proper definitions. And has anyone ever achieved that?

              Two things don’t count:

              Any subjective proof. All definitions of Clear are objective (one even states Clear is as close as you will ever get to an absolute in this universe, you can’t get more objective than that).

              Anything that reduces to “I feel better than before” or “I benefitted” – that is not part of any definition of Clear at all.

              We can ignore all the nuances of release from the 50s like theta clear and cleared theta clear and keyed-out clear, those are different things.

              Did anyone ever achieve those states? Even, did John McMaster achieve that state as defined?

              If there are no Clears, was Hubbard lying or not? If he was just mistaken and Clear is much more complex than he thought, how would we explain why he carried on being mistaken for 39 years (1947 – 1986)?

              I’m not asking if auditing works or benefits people – that has already been well established and the answer is yes. I’m not asking you to defend if Standard Tech is 100% infallible. Just simply “Are there and *real* Clears?”

            21. That’s what I call a straight series of clear-cut questions. An example of how a debate can be very fruitfully sparked off. Thanks.

            22. Val: “A thetan already has a basic personality, and this is what we are trying to uncover in Scientology in order to make a Clear. And it is as easy as that….. a Clear could be said to be basic personality revealed.”

              I’ll chime in on this oh so narrow slice of text – I wish this blog was wider Geir!

              I think the above statement is a lie, not that Val is lying but that LRH didn’t have a clue about the matter. Personality? Really, God has a basic personality? I don’t think so. Ability to adopt any beingness under the son moon or universes – yes, but a “basic” personality – no, sorry, that is crap. There is no personality present in Nirvana. This is Hubbard playing to the Ego of men. Personality is Identity, identity is a mind construct. .

              Please show me a “Clear” that is NOT reactive. i.e. is not influenced by this so-called concept “reactive mind”. Having associated with many a “Clear: and “pre-OTs” can with great confidence state that none of them was without reactivity.

              That said, I think all this yapping about Clear and OT is just so much hot breath. Naming states is just ego caressing.

              There is something to be dealt with – the mind (which includes ego); processes which assist a being to resolve the issues the being has with that creation of theirs are a good thing.

              Then there is the route of just bypassing the thing entirely and directly experiencing who you really are – a process that seems to have very limited % effectiveness given the numbers embarked on such paths and the few that have achieved any stability in the past 3,000 years.

            23. A thetan is not God. And, the map is not the territory. You are right, words are not adequate, but, failing direct person to person transmission of thoughts, ideas, concepts, and pictures, words are what we have to work with. Complaining about words is kinda like complaining about the weather. If you don’;t care for the weakness of using words to communicate, perhaps you could instead try observing a vow of silence as Meher Baba did.

            24. Additionally, the entire Judeo-Christian tradition agrees, that “God” does have a “personality”. I don’t think or feel you have “the only true answer”.

              I posted an LRH attempt to “define” Clear that I felt was being overlooked. If you don’t like or agree with it, you don’t have to subscribe to it, and are free to go your own way in peace. Preferably without making it a point to tell me I am wrong.

              “In out Father’s house are many mansions.” Presumably you can live in yours, and I can live in mine without throwing stones at each other.

            25. “There is no personality present in Nirvana.”

              This is both true and untrue. I commend to you a little book of interviews in which the Dalai Lama goes into these issues. It is titled “The Buddha Nature: Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism”. Here’s an excerpt:

              “But the basic, ultimate, innermost subtle consciousness will always remain. It has no beginning and will have no end. That consciousness will remain. When we reach Buddhahood, that consciousness becomes enlightened all-knowing. Still, the consciousness will remain an individual thing. For example, the Buddha Shakyamuni’s consciousness and the Buddha Kashyapa’s consciousness are distinct individual things. This individuality of consciousness is not lost upon the attainment of Buddhahood.”

              I recommend this little book of less than 90 pages to anyone interested in Buddhism, because it clarifies a central Buddhist doctrine that is usually misunderstood and misinterpreted.

            26. It is my position that you are a slice of God. I don’t know about a thetan, I’ve come of late not like the term thetan.

            27. I’m not concerned with the ideas of Judeao-Christians. They haven’t made any “clears” or “OTs” either and the one “OT” that came along pointing his finger at the moon wasn’t listened to very well by said followers.

              I’m a tech-friendly person. I think auditing can do quite a lot for a person. I also think there’s a lot more that can be done regarding that subject in terms of simplification and expansion.

              OK, taking your proffered definition: Basic personality revealed.

              That is, I think, a more stringent requirement than the other “definitions” of Clear. Meaning that those that consider themselves to be “Clear” have not uncovered their “basic personality”, not by a long shot. To do so, IMO, would require the being to strip off his own GPM case and nobody gets that done in the Co$ – it isn’t even on their “Bridge”. Until that is done, one is looking through filters (in Vinare’s vernacular)

            28. I’m not getting your point. Name one person ever who has “looked without filters”. It is a given that people look through their filters. And that many have also tried to look at their filters. That’s really what any kind of psychotherapy is about, isn’t it?

              I don’t disagree that LRH may have done better than attempting to isolate and name what he thought were the attainable states. A Zen Buddhist may have just pointed at the moon. How is that any better?

              Yes, the process is what is important, yet engaging in a process may lead one to pass certain milestones.

              How do you know Jesus was not an “OT”, whatever you conceive that to be?

            29. Buddha nature – yes consciousness. Not personality. I suppose this is just another issue of meaning of the words being used. Personality, for me, is persona, a mask, an identity or valance. Buddha nature does not have such trappings IMO. So I think we are in agreement..

            30. “For example, the Buddha Shakyamuni’s consciousness and the Buddha Kashyapa’s consciousness are distinct individual things. This individuality of consciousness is not lost upon the attainment of Buddhahood.”

              Dalai Lama

              I recommend the little book I mentioned.

        2. Geir: “I’d say the real issue is a belief that a methodology dealing in human potential will surely and inevitably create a certain result. As in One Size Fits All.”

          Me: One Size Fits All is the claim for the tech, I think this is a red herring.

          The Bridge looks suspiciously like Hubbard’s attempt to deal with Hubbard’s case so no matter how one tries to rationalize what he claimed and bend ideas to fit that conclusion, it can’t possibly be universal.

  5. Welcome back (kind of strange to welcome you back on your own blog :). Great that you were having a good time. Looking forward to the stories and photos about your trip.

  6. Sounds like a great trip Geir, sorry we we had too much going on to take a couple of days to fly to LA and see you there, hopefully next time 🙂

    As to the other point of your post, in my observation, and my own experience, it takes however long it takes for an indoctrinated Scientologist to not only regain, but accept their own capacity for independent thought about all that the C of S system, with all of Hubbard’s policies having been so repetitively force fed, particularly those that instill an antagonism and mechanism to attack any insinuation that anything that is a part of Scientology should be independently considered, or that anyone upset over what was enforced on them could have a legitimate point.

    I know I came out of the C of S with the “standard KSW viewpoint” that everything that went wrong and was wrong with my C of S experience was due to “out-ethics people who failed to apply KSW”, and that I, knowing this, was therefore “better” than them, and also that everyone in the field had to be, to some degree, “a squirrel”.

    I think that, depending a variety of factors, including one’s degree of indoctrination, one’s current environment and connections, and a person’s inherent sanity, it can take any period of time for the construct of one’s “Scientologist valence”, piece by piece, to erode, and give way to a restoration of being something that represents an individual; some will never get there, perhaps because for them, the idea of losing their instilled and fancied grandiose self-importance (having bought into “one of the elite few who knows what is really going on, with the KRC to do something about it”), and facing the idea of fully reorienting themselves to a different place in the world is too bitter a pill to swallow.

    1. Great post, Dexter. Especially the last paragraph:

      “I think that, depending a variety of factors, including one’s degree of indoctrination, one’s current environment and connections, and a person’s inherent sanity, it can take any period of time…”

  7. I read about see in people things they consider to be wins, that I consider wins no more in myself. I cannot tell whether they are or not wins for them, not only because it would be a rude evaluation/invalidation, but a win is very definitely not something ‘subjective’ from my perspective.

    Example: I used to fix my eyeballs onto the eyeballs of another and think it is wrong if I do otherwise –that it’s not confronting. Well, I laugh at myself now for thinking so. I can look in a person’s eyes and also withdraw and talk to them while I look at the ceiling or something, and communicate very well, and see nothing wrong with that. But I can, so that’s freedom for me, and I have no attention whatsoever on myself –particularly whether I’m in/out TRs or not. And yeah, even after long years since my last TRs, you can say it’s a lasting win. But oddly I got this win by running out some charge regarding TRs too. And I ‘owe’ it to Spiritologie. For me, an ability is something that one can or not do, or else it isn’t an ability –it’s either an inhibition or obsession –enforcement. I used to be very very very introverted to the reactive mind –much much more before I got to learn about it. And I thought it was good to know that I was the effect of those mechanisms…the f@ck it was 😛 Truth for me is, I had gross MUs, but MUs that I shared with others which made ‘bank agreements’. I saw In SCN groups that people also learned from each other –specially from people they considerd to be better than them in one way or another. So, all it would take -for such a bank agreement to occur- would be a high status dude who would be immitated by others.

    I would follow nobody, not out of reaction, but I don’t think a person who would want me to case-gain, to as-is, would want me to follow.

    Although I haven’t had toreanzos experiences, I agree with him about the out tech. SCN was supposed to set a person free, not overload him with musts and shoulds and ought tos.

    cheers 🙂

    1. *but I don’t think a person who would want me to case-gain, to as-is, would–>N’T<– want me to follow.

    2. Ah a thing I forgot to mention before, is that in SCN I became very very stubborn with my goals. Before I was more like “whatever comes”, “whatever is possible”, but in SCN I started to create my goals more, and not quit, and play much harder/bigger games. And I’ve been thinking like that ever since, and it serves me well. On the same time, I became very stubborn with creating problems though, as I took case a bit too much into account. I had those ideas about reactive influences of all sorts, and I blamed them for the barriers that I created. The point of dealing with case is to not have it, not to get to know about it and then evaluate your life based on it. But the way I understood SCN at that time, case was there and I could do nothing about it, than to wait to get audited. And if my friend had been third partied or something, it was something I could do nothing about unless I handled the third party (or PTS condition or O/Ws) the SCN way, I thought, and it so much limited me, and made my life hard. I mocked up myself and others like ‘probably dramatising something’ most of the time. I didn’t grant beingness.

      Case handling -even O/Ws and study tech- is for auditors and sups etc and shouldn’t be made a reason to evaluate/invalidate self and others. That “you are talking baaad because you are guilty of something” is so horrible and irresponsible, and I never found that it resolved anything in my life. I’m glad to now be able to deal with things more instictively and not based on considerations about cases –by treating persons as persons, not subconscious machineries. 🙂

      1. I think the consideration that case IS by itself, is such a mess-up. How responsible, huh? If case was there by itself, one could never as-is it. That’s what you imply when you think that the reactive mind just has to exist, untill one ‘becomes’ Clear, because he is a preclear… but if it was there by itself, one could never be Clear, you know.

        “I am only allowed to live for as long as I act in accordance to my case or handle it some day in session….if I make it.” That’s passing over to the other side, that man is a stimulus response animal, total effect of the environment etc. This can happen, if one creates it. Taking case for granted, granting it seperate independent existence, is a neat way to achieve it.

      2. I feel your pain. We all participated and experienced the same inconsistencies, aggravations, and frustrations. Bolstered by these experiences, I’m seeing a Renaissance of awakening on this blog and the wave is rippling throughout this entire network of people who have shared this experience.

  8. A question for Geir:

    Do you have moments / times of pure unadulterated joy that just bubbles up through you and makes you feel like turning cartwheels or dancing or singing or hugging and kissing — and life is so good you can hardly stand it?

    If yes, Would it be possible for you to attribute/associate it to a core set of behaviors, knowledge, revelation, insight etc? And if yes, could you speak about that a little bit please?

    1. Yes – I have those moments, but somehow, it seems to be slightly harder to get into that *total* groove as time passes. It may just be attributed to what I lost as a result of my journey in Scientology – the zest of non-control. I am struggling to get into situations where I feel the tension due to lack of control, a sort of wild abandon. I am so hard to shake in many areas that toatlly “loosing it” is getting harder these days. I really want to get into crazy, really fucked-up situations. I want batshit. The crazy ravaging of exhilarating emotions are not just “good emotions” – it is All emotions. And the more the merrier. I am looking at what helps me unleash those. When I find a common denominator among such wild abandon over-the-top situations, I’ll let you know.

  9. @ Valkov. the 3 points you listed are basically what I had in mind on my comments too, and it’s sort of a mystery to me why Geir would be putting forth the kind of arguments one would expect, as you said, of a lawyer. It makes one wonder what the button or ulterior motive is, or what ax there is to grind. Here are the points you listed:

    “1. The obvious word-play about ‘definitions of Clear’.
    “2. The lack of address to the issue of – What do Clearing Procedures actually produce or result in, as opposed to whatever ‘definitions’ Hubbard may have tried to formulate about it?
    “3. The issue of ‘a fixed method cannot yield or produce consistent results.’ or ideas to that effect. I tend to think this falsifiable because it is an inapplicable oversimplification when applied to many human activities. That is not to say I think any system can produce 100% results 100% of the time.

    Regarding your point about the “inapplicable oversimplification”, it could also be called “a caricature”, as described in a scholarly draft that Terril Park posted today on ESMB. The author of the draft is James R. Lewis, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Tromsø (Norway) Below is an excerpt from it (note the coincidental reference to Geir at the end):

    “Forthcoming 2013 in Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review 4:2. (Note that there will likely be minor differences between this draft and the final, published version.)

    “The Dwindling Spiral: The Dror Center Schism, the Cook Letter and Scientology’s Legitimation Crisis”

    “The core of Scientology is auditing. Many outside observers, distracted by Church of Scientology (CoS) celebrities, scandals and CoS’s exotic upper level teachings, tend to regard auditing as a sideshow – a quaint pseudo-therapy, distracting attention from the ‘real’ purposes of the sinister Scientology cult. Focusing on the space opera narrative, with its story of the cosmic dictator Xenu massacring millions of aliens whose souls subsequently attached themselves to living human beings, critics often characterize Scientology as an irrational farce (Rothstein 2009). Furthermore, Scientologists, they say, must be crazy, gullible, stupid, brainwashed or some combination of these traits. Particularly for the Internet Trolls who busy themselves spreading negative remarks about Scientology across blogs and chat rooms, this evaluation has become an unquestioned axiom, immune to empirical disconfirmation.

    “It does not, however, take much reflection to see that this portrayal is, at best, a caricature. As anyone familiar with the movement at a ground level will attest, a wide variety of different people become involved in Scientology, including more than a few sane, smart individuals. Rather than being impressed with the ‘space opera’ story (Hubbard 1978, 398), new recruits are impressed with how auditing ‘works’ – or at least seems to work. Though I have myself never been audited (except by the IRS cult), I have seen numerous e-meter demonstrations. Using the same basic technology as a lie detector, in the hands of a trained auditor an e-meter can appear to almost read one’s mind, quickly zeroing in on unresolved issues from the past. I have also seen people being audited who ‘run’ an incident from the past, and have witnessed the relief that followed the session. In order to understand the appeal of Scientology, one must understand the impressive power of this seemingly simple process.”

    “In addition to the researchers to whom I refer in the body of this article, a special word of thanks to academic colleagues…Also, a number of different former CoS members generously supplied information for this paper. Chief among these is Chuck Beatty, who seems to have a handle on Hubbard’s entire corpus of writings. I have had a number of email conversations with Terril Park and Lena Venkova who have helped me to understand Ron’s Org. Geir Isene has always been ready to provide insightful commentary on CoS since the time I moved to Norway…[etc.] Because critics might object to my dependence on former members and independent Scientologists as biasing my analysis, it should be emphasized that the kind of information requested from these informants was technical and ‘historical.’ I am entirely responsible for the interpretive parts of this paper…”

    1. It’s not word-play. Valkov’s complaints about lawyering are not on point. To discuss something it is helpful to have a common understanding of the words in play. If this blog were written in French, I sure wouldn’t be here. So defining “clear” is certainly required if one is going o claim there is such an animal.

      I don’t disagree, that the process is what is important, not the “claimed” resultant state. States, ‘smaits. I’m an OT 233, so you better listen to me. Pfft.

      Looking back over Scn history Hubbard would have been far better to not have talked about these “states” at all.

      For a small donation of $100,000 USD you too can get a nice cert that you can place on the wall and show your friends. Just let me know how you’d like it to read. 🙂

  10. About the attainement of full Clear: I don’t remember exactly what was said in DMSMH about a book 1 Clear’s analytical mind’s memories –whether they’re all available. always etc. I’ve never met any book 1 Clears either, by the way. And I think that’s important, as a book 1 Clear, becmoes Clear by running memories.

    The thing is, for me, there are no minds, so no analytical mind either. I agree, in other words, with the definition in the tech dictionary analytical mind=the thetan, which means the thetan is or not creating, mocking up memories.

    In the PDC recalling memories is reffered to as the worst method of knowing, and some other ways to know are explained which are considered better (everybody interested in SCN should read it all, in my opinion. That’s it’s not part of official auditor’s trainning doesn’t make it lesser). I did something recently. I have been living/working in some hostel lately and it’s a fairly large space. At some point I dropped my keys somewhere, while I was working, and I couldn’t locate them. So I re-created the hostel in my universe and simply asked myself where my keys were (it was just a thought. Not such a complex procedure). And I found them. They were in a hard-to-locate place within some sacks and linen. My point is since there is only the created now, why need memories? DMSMH is ancient stuff, and to some degree even LRH talked somewhat ‘bad’ about it during early SCN times. He didn’t say it was invalid. But he said that since we deal with thetans now, it’s no longer needed. I know that (refined) Dianetics was put back on the Bridge in the 60s, but that didn’t make earlier Bridges invalid either. It’s just that not all could run creative processing.

    1. I think thinking with memories has much to do with bodies and other valences that are thought to be located in MEST. If I perceive directly without body perceptics or other vias, not only I don’t perceive any past, but I don’t perceive any present either. I have to duplicate MEST in my universe to perceive it (the example above) or else I have no MEST, nor do I duplicate it automatically.

      1. *That’s why being a SCN Clear is also related to being aware of not being a body. It seems to me the consequence of not having that valence makes the Clear not have the reactive mind too.

  11. I’d like to invite you to consider the choice of acknowledging the fact that LRH was wrong about clears in DMSMH – Ron certainty admitted this himself in the 9th American ACC, as well as confessing to the mistakes that he made in not being able to produce clears, due him not remedying the preclear’s need to have problems/masses and games, BEFORE he took away the problem/mass away from them.

    Understand that Ron had to originate a radical PR description in order to sell Dianetics, and he did get overly excited about the possibilities of what Dianetics could do, once he saw the results of the veterans that he was using it on.

    To be fair, LRH most likely did work for US Naval Intelligence, which is a full blown government spy agency that pre-dates the CIA. He may have indeed posed as a doctor (according to himself) to get into the hospital wards of the injured World War II veterans in order to debrief them and to gather all the possible information he could from these injured and recovering veterans about what they saw on the battlefield, as these data were extremely valuable.

    The reason that he could not disclose any research information was that it was a federal offence to disclose sensitive classified information to the general public.

    Yes, I agree that Ron may have well made up the entire whole fcking thing but I doubt it.

    I doubt he’d have the balls to publish such a mammoth volume (book 1) without at least some sort of observable, testable, experimental data on the improvements of his subjects.

    The more likely scenario was that he went into the wards initially to get these injured folks to run the traumatic incidents again and again, and he noticed that they became more and more extroverted, more comfortable, less apathetic and less depressed, and eventually began to be more willing and able to confront the traumatic event and more willing to express their anger and frustrations at the time.

    He saw how that the more they ran the incident from start to finish, the more they were able to face the whole incident and eventually lose all the anger/emotions and charge that were associated with it, and eventually became happy, enthusiastic and not really caring too much about the incident.

    This evidently improved their endocrine levels and possible all the psychosomatic ills that they experienced at the time, as was observable by the doctors at the time.

    This, to me, is a more plausible explanation, considering the amount of passion and detail and the brave and bold promises that LRH was willing to make in even just the intro of Dianetics, the Modern Science of Mental Health.

    Yes, he fucked up on a lot of things and he did like to exaggerate and to exercise his creativity excessively, which we can see in his science fiction career, but it doesn’t take a genius to see that a lot of processes in Scientology, including the original Book 1 Dianetics do indeed work extremely well to help one restore awareness, responsibility, control (willingness and ability to start, change, stop), and overall ability in almost any field that one chooses to pursue.

    Being able to acknowledge this freely and allow it to be, without trying to invent bullshit to justify things will bring healing to the pain and dissonance that have entrapped you into not making more gains.

    There is a lot to be learnt from Geir and his demonstration of his infinite ability to take any viewpoint.

    May the diligent student have the boldness to confront the facts and the objective data so that s/he can see the beauty and magnificence in the field of Scientology.

    1. Ayarsee, thanks for your thoughts and the intention. Your posting name fits. (Ay – ar – see 🙂 )

      You might be interested in another very fair assessment of Hubbard and Scientology, from a guy you may have heard of – Ken Urquhart. Ken is unique in that he worked closely with LRH for about a decade, from the mid ‘60s to late ’70s. The first year he was LRH’s butler at Saint Hill and then became head of the LRH household. In the years after that he was LRH’s principal executive aide until 1978 (as LRH Communicator on the Apollo and then LRH Personal Communicator, an international post). After ’78, he did more tech training and became a Class IX NOTs auditor at Flag. He routed out of the SO in ’82 due to disagreements with the way the organization had changed.

      As you can see from the above, this man has high credentials in both tech and admin/management. He was also a personal friend of LRH, although there was a falling out in the later years when LRH changed. The reason I’m telling you all this is because I think Ken’s background shows he is a uniquely qualified source on the subjects of LRH and Scientology, and you might want to check out his blog:

      From his personal account, I think you’ll see that Ken is frank about LRH’s flaws, but at the same time describes his observations of LRH’s plus-points too. In other articles of his that I’ve read on the internet, he goes into the plus-points of the tech as well, and I get that he will be writing on that topic too in future blog posts.


      1. Ok thanks…. i’ll check it out….

        I just realised that I switched valence somewhere in that article and I actually took on a dramatised valence of of you and Marianne in order to somehow covertly dealing with my own bank…..

      2. Marildi said (from the thread below): Got it, deE. We are basically doing the same thing in terms of helping, except that you are contributing to educating the public about the CoS, and I am attempting to help clarify the difference between the CoS and the subject of Scientology itself. That clarification is needed for not just the general public but Scientologists (both former and current) as well.


        Me: I just read your comment half way down the page on the thread above. I have been attempting to do the same for myself. I knew from get go (before I even stepped into the Org ever) that there was no way I’d ever believe in Xenu (it’s actually Xemu) or in most of the theories behind Scientology.

        However, I did see the evidence “all over the place” of Scientology surviving 60 years of sectarian attacks from drug companies and psychiatry and many other interest groups that sought to destroy Sc.

        With the overwhelming data of people being able to get great relieve from pain, and having an elementary understand of Dianetics, I concluded that there was much to benefit from Scientology, if only I would be objective and valiant in seeking out for the useful stuff and try my best to just ignore the things that wouldn’t help me.

        All the wild postulates about OT’s from the PDC and the pre-COHA, pre-Dianetics55 speculations and ideas were a bit over the top, but reading this forum – especially the interactions amongst the comments of the threads, really helped me to gain a more objective view and differentiation between the good stuff and the nonsense.

        I think the good stuff was worth it. I haven’t done much training but I have some decent grounding in the Basic Books, especially Creation of Human Ability and Dianetics 55 and the 9th American ACC. I guess I was reacting against my own bodily and mindful frustrations of my perceived apparent comm lag that you and maybe a couple of others were seemingly attempting to be creating in avoiding Geir’s (and a few other’s like Chris’) questions from another thread in not answering direct questions.

        That had to do more with my own issues with my own bank than anything else.

        I do have a new epiphany though. I think the perceived comm lag actually helped me by creating a vacuum that drove me into deliberately and unconsciously process the data with more rigor. And it also drove me to read even more threads and comments non-stop, and it resulted in more learning, or remembering.

        I really see Scientology as an adventure, a game that Ron created to enable us to gain a direct experiential (—add your own word—) into the game of life, and to “enturbulate” us into confronting the things that we would normally not confront.

        For example, how many dogmatic, religious fundamentalists or even the averge joe do you see actively confronting the things like we do? How many citizens of the 1950’s planet earth were really thinking deep into challenging the very fabric of society to create a better world? How many people were actively speaking out about the cognitive dissonance of many non-nonsensical hogwash that had became part of the norm of the quietly despair and disabling ideas and practices of Psychiatry and the Medical Professional, and the Drug Culture, both in the Medical Field, and in the recreational culture, that were destroying lives and that were enslaving the planet?

        I now see that even the barriers within Scientology are beneficial – not intrinsically in and of themselves, but rather it gives us an opportunity to confront them, and to be used as catalysts for our own cognitions and awakening.

        “You want your preclear to be free? Give him a barrier” – LRH.

        “You want you PC to let go of his games(problems)? Give him an abundance of games(problems) of at least a comparable magnitude” – My interpretation of the 9th American ACC.

        1. I’m going to to continue to read back in that thread…

          But to be fair, I see great value in being empathetic to those who may not share this viewpoint.

          Invalidating somebody who felt that they’ve been ripped off by CoS isn’t going to help him or her, or ourselves for that matter.

          What helps is understanding, acknowledgement and appreciation of what what they’ve gone through, and dare I say, even a bit of sympathy and admiration for the journey and adventure that they’ve gone through.

          Resist the consideration that just maybe, the path between sympathy to appreciation is non-linear 🙂

          1. Sorry, I meant,

            “DON”T resist the consideration that just maybe, the path between sympathy to appreciation is non-linear” 🙂

      3. Hi Marildi,

        I am interested to to know your viewpoint on the good stuff within Scientology. It was never my intention to speak anything bad about Scientology, but I was motivated by a desire to communicate, to as-is, and to reach a state of serenity so that I can pursue the good stuff further.

        I believe I am ready now.

        Spending 100+ hours reading the posts (and almost all the comments) on many threads on this site (and a few other sites) gave me quite a bit of understanding and idea on where I’d like to go. Even though I haven’t finished reading all of this site yet, and I still have approximately 20 threads to complete (which will most likely take me days and weeks, as some of the threads have 1000+ replies!), I want to make a diversion (or rather on path?) back into pursuing workable tech and and the good stuff.

        I have actually made some amazing gains on this blog, and I feel ready to go beyond what I know to build on the greatness of D55, COHA and the 9th American.

        Let me know if you may be interested to make contact and/or communicate or start a thread on this very blog.

        My outcomes are:

        To discover the most satisfying places to take the considerations of the Axioms

        To practise creating fresh, clean, positive postulates quickly and effortlessly

        To reduce effort and increase efficiency in thought, emotion and decisions

        To experience admiration and appreciation continually and radically

        To have higher tolerance, comfort and more frequent and better quality exteriorization

        To view all existence as a game, and to be able to enjoy and start, change aberrations

        To have a great terminal to share some of my most satisfying gains in Scientology

        Let me know if you may be interested.

        If anybody else may be interested also (only if you are willing and able to speak about your gains in Scientology and if you are willing and able to temporarily suspend your view on the not-good), email me on

        Much Love


      4. Also, if you are okay with just sharing the positive energy here, I am ok with that too, we can maybe converse in this thread?

        1. Ayarsee, thanks very much for the comm. I really appreciated it!

          As you have probably guessed, the posters here who used to post regularly seem to have said all they wanted to say on the subject of Scientology and have moved on to other things. (I really wish you would have found this blog sooner!)

          As for myself, I still give the same high praise to Scientology as ever, but in PT I have very little time to spend on the internet. But I’ve enjoyed reading your comments – and if you want to keep posting, I think you should. Who knows – maybe you’ll stir up new interest from old posters or old interest from new ones. 😉

          Much love back!

  12. Yes, I can see the hardwork and passion that you guys have already put in. There are probably more useful data on this site than the entire bridge combined. I still have approximately 35 threads to go, with at least 4000 replies to read!

    I can really see the transformation of each individual as you progress along this monumental journey.

    The perfection of the tapestry is immense. The diversity of viewpoints really allows the honest student to expand his or her boundary conditions and to confront the perceived barriers of their own imagination.

    Enabling us to transcend above the dogmatic limitations of the one way flows of the 50’s and beyond.

    The term Scientology (The Study of Knowledge) could no longer accurately represent the incorrect “applications” of the core philosophy and methodologies behind the misuses of the beta-version tech.

    However, the data and strategies within COHA, D55 and the 9th American are truly astounding.

    ( Notice how I am now beginning to originate the required communication? 🙂 )

    The Axioms (although incomplete) also presents a powerful and tremendously functional extension of the various Factors in play.

    The Adventure of Scientology is definitely more exciting than most games, and to graduate beyond, to transcend above, offers even a greater choice of possibilities.

    Most have not truly mastered the data within the ACC’s, or even know about them. The lectures and congresses are mostly failed sales pitches, but the ACC’s are truly a different breed.

    May we enjoy our chosen games 🙂

    For Marildi


      1. Thank you Geir!

        It looks like I’ve only scratched the surface 🙂

        I’m so glad I found you guys ^^

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s