No beating around the bush here.
Read Anette’s post on her blog, then consider this:
Lives are ruined in the Church of Scientology. Every day.
The root cause of the harm done in the church lies within Scientology itself. No matter how you want to twist and justify what’s going on in the church, there is no way that the church could end up doing this much harm while it has in its possession the ultimate tool to do everything right. There simply has to be one or more root causes within the teachings of Scientology itself to make this cult evolve as it has. And the root cause(s) is not “misapplication”, “lost Scientology knowledge or tools”, “bad management”, “bad policy” or “a faulty ethics system”. There is something very wrong with the basic Scientology mentality. The mindset. The fundamental approach and principles.
Because if the fundamental principles, approach and mindset was sound and right, the decent people in Scientology would have straightened out the scene a long time ago.
So, if you are knowledgeable in Scientology, it lies within your powers to help uncover the damaging root cause(s). To convince others there are none or to defend the infallibility of Scientology makes you an accomplice to the crimes committed by the church.
And if you have gotten gains in Scientology. If you know it can do good, you harbor the motivation to uncover the reasons within Scientology that perpetrates the damage to people’s lives. Because if you want to save the good before the subject becomes dreaded beyond repair, you need to be quick on your feet to find the evil within and root it out before the good suffocates.
Let’s get to the bottom of this, let’s dig out the harmful parts to help stop the harm, save the good within and again focus completely on helping others.
Geir Isene - uncut 
Same with Christianity. Same with Islam. Same with a lot of stuff. If you look at Scientology as a test then it is up to each individual to pass it. LRH posed the question at one time: Did I do right or did I do wrong? And the condition you find yourself in at the end will be your answer.
Yes – same with everything one has sufficient knowledge of to root out any detrimental root causes.
LRH: “Did I do right or did I do wrong? And the condition you find yourself in at the end will be your answer.”
Chris: Yes, this will be the look back for us all if we care to judge ourselves in this way. However, within the framework of Scientology, this is the disingenuous hypnotic disclaimer placed in everyone’s head to introvert them away from taking a critical look at Scientology itself. It is the trickiest trick in the book, methinks.
Methinks too 🙂
Its like: “You are the only one responsible for yourself, but if you do as we say you will get supernatural powers, if you don’t you will burn in hell for endless time, and if you criticize us we will ruin you utterly”.
Hah hah … it’s so close to mafia actually: “If you pay us the cut you will not get your shop on fire. Did I do right or did I do wrong? And the condition you find yourself in at the end will be your answer”
Vinaire ““I” exemplifies the digital nature of this universe probably.”
Probably? Are you guessing.? yes or no… Since every universe is unique….? think of that and please let us know …
Good one MostlyLurker! Funny,
Well said… fantastic Thank you!
Are you talking about two different concept? When one is doing good I don’t believe that is introvertion.. on the opposite… one is looking at the Universe around one and not thinking of ones failure!
But again looking no matter what still is the MEST and inside or outside= these are just considerations same as I am doing good, I am doing bad.
Don’t look for failure within the church since failure EXIST in each individual in their own track and the failure is their accumulated counter-postulates which held them back… So lets get off the blame wagon… and move up to take responsibility for self because that alone counts and the rest is crap.. just passing the buck.
One of the striking, clanking, startling life changing realisations for me when I got off OTVII and out of the CofS in 2008 was that for all that was promised in ‘the game where everyone wins’ it just didn’t work out well for anybody. The wreckage of lives was like a horror story. So Dan…..we did wrong…..and with the best intentions in the world.
I don’t think it is the same with Christianity or with Islam. I think this is just a way of dispersing your attention away from Scientology and what it was set up and maintained to do to people.
For instance, lots of people murder people. But because lots of people murder people, this doesn’t mean that Joe didn’t murder Bill.
Scientology was set up and maintained by L Ron Hubbard as a deception which exploited the spiritual vulnerabilities of people in order to take everything of value from them that they had. Yes, there have been other spiritual deceptions in history, but few like Scientology.
Geir is right: Defending the detrimental (or trying to disperse peoples’ attention away from it) makes you an accomplice.
Alanzo
Yes, another way of stating what LRH wrote in Chapter 19 of APA on Responsibility.
Here’s LRH’s definition from Chapter 19 of APA:
No.
This definition of responsibility is the source of much abuse in Scientology. It is used to make the people who have been harmed by Scientology “take responsibility” for the abuse committed against them. It is the source of the doctrine in Scientology that you “pulled it in”.
This definition of responsibility is probably the reason Mike Rinder sustained over 50 beatings by David Miscavige, instead of just one.
This is why Sea Org members and other staff stay in Scientology long after they have seen everything they need to see to know that Scientology does not do what it says it does.
This definition of responsibility is not why a person is an accomplice if they defend the detrimental in Scientology. You are an accomplice because the people who have been harmed by Scientology need the detrimental things exposed and addressed, not covered over by assigning cause to effect.
This definition of responsibility confuses and obfuscates cause with effect. People who operate on it become totally co-dependent and blind to source points and cause points in their environment, and they become stuck to every problem they encounter because they mis-assign ownership to them.
This definition of responsibility leads to complete insanity.
Alanzo
For full context, this is what follows the excerpt you quoted:
“There is a Scale of Responsibility between Full Responsibility and Full Other-Responsibility where the former is above 20.0 and the latter is at 0.0. Complete negation of responsibility is complete admission of being under the complete control of the environment. Assumption of Full Responsibility is a statement of control of the environment and persons within it without necessity of control.
“There is a cycle of responsibility. One acts and seeks to negate his responsibility for such action by placing the ‘reason’ at another’s door. This works as long as one succeeds in making another accept responsibility for the action. The moment this action fails and another does not accept it, the entire action comes back at one. It is then a matter of fault and fixed (by another) blame and stirs the emotion of guilt. Before this cycle begins, there is no aberration, no matter WHAT has been done, no matter WHAT has happened to anyone. The action occurs but is no cause for discussion or justice until one seeks to shunt cause elsewhere than self. This starts the cycle and eventually comes back as fault. Full responsibility is not FAULT; it is recognition of being CAUSE.”
Thanks, for the extra context, Marildi.
Let’s apply this to the 5 year old that Geir mentioned and the pedophile priest.
Is the 5 year old really responsible, but only apparently not responsible, for the acts committed on him by the priest?
If we make the Priest responsible, are we really “shunting cause elsewhere”?
And even if the 5 year old “takes full responsibility” for what the Priest did to him, and saw how he was “cause” in this situation, isn’t that just a little insane to you?
Just slightly?
It would be a clear case of obfuscating cause and effect, right?
There is an assignment of responsibility here that is objectively true, without regard to Scientology ideology, don’t you think?
Alanzo
Another bulls-eye.
Allen,
Someday we will discuss this verbally. Keep it in mind if you will. I’m interested but not on a blog.
Dave
Absolutely, Dave.
I really enjoy discussing things verbally with you! You are an extremely intelligent and highly reasoned individual.
Especially when you agree with me.
Alanzo
“And the condition you find yourself in at the end will be your answer.”
Yes, and if you follow the core effort of Scientology all the way out, then any condition you are IN is a bad condition. Conditions are the product, you are the creator. You shouldn’t be IN a condition.
Scientology is about disappearing the physical universe or at least disappearing from it. That disappearing will likely be seen to be a harmful condition to whatever remains involved.
The constant problem with Scientology is the AMBIGUITY within the thousands upon thousands of truisms and claims.
Example:
The purpose of Scientology is to improve conditions.
Right. What conditions? Whose conditions? For how long? To what purpose? It is a meaningless, and ambiguous concept until you answer those questions.
What will improve conditions for a theta being versus a composite being of MEST and theta? Is there even a good reason to improve the composite’s conditions? Wouldn’t it be better to simply disconnect the theta being from the whole shooting match, even if it means that the composite being will sicken and die? Shouldn’t death be celebrated when someone who has done all the processes of Scientology finally exits the game?
Maria: The constant problem with Scientology is the AMBIGUITY within the thousands upon thousands of truisms and claims.
Chris: Pivotal problem with Scientology. Well put.
Compare Scientology (or Chriatianity) to Buddhism, and you’ll find out very quickly what is wrong at the root of Scientology.
.
Please give us your view on that in a 5 point bullet list.
I shall give you THE FALSE DATUM of Scientology that is embedded in Scientology Axiom #1, and which is expressed here in Scien tology 8-8008:
“One of the control mechanisms which has been used on thetans is that when they rise in potential they are led to believe themselves one with the universe. This is distinctly untrue. Thetans are individuals. They do not as they rise up the scale, merge with other individualities. They have the power of becoming anything they wish while still retaining their own individuality. They are first and foremost themselves. There is evidently no Nirvana. It is the feeling that one will merge and lose his own individuality that restrains the thetan from attempting to remedy his lot. His merging with the rest of the universe would be his becoming matter. This is the ultimate in cohesiveness and the ultimate in affinity, and is at the lowest point of the tone-scale. One declines into a brotherhood with the universe.”
There goes love, compassion and kindness in Scientology with the US versus THEY thinking of THETA-MEST theory. MEST does not come from theta to entrap theta. Individuality does not merge with MEST in Nirvana. That is Hubbard bullshit.
Theta and MEST are two aspects of the same system. In Nirvana there is neither MEST nor individuality to serve as the boundary. There is simply no boundary.
.
I was hoping for something ultra-succinct 🙂
Buddhism, “Observe things as they are, not just as they seem to be.”
Is individuality the absolute?
.
Is individuality the absolute as Hubbard made it to be?
.
Vin: Is individuality the absolute as Hubbard made it to be?
SP: Where did you read that? What I understand from what you quoted, is that unlike some other spiritualities, SCN does not assert that a thetan is naturally one with ‘the’ universe, an he is certainly not ‘the’ universe’s child either.
Spyros, Do you have to read Hubbard to know the truth?
IHMO, truth depends on absence of inconsistency. Hubbard is not consistent where fundamentals are concerned. This is explained on my blog under Scientology.
Thetan is a theoretical absolute postulated by Hubbard, and, as such, it is part of this universe. This is because all mental considerations are part of this universe.
.
Vinnie: “Thetan is a theoretical absolute postulated by Hubbard, and, as such, it is part of this universe. This is because all mental considerations are part of this universe.”
You are obviously conflating the map and the territory. Your assumption that they are the same object of knowledge is simply an arbitrary A=A.
Now of course you have every right to postulate and believe the map and the territory are the same thing, as long as you keep in mind it is simply one of your axioms, something assumed as true without proof.
Please clear my supposed misunderstanding here.
.
Vin,
I didn’t say I supposed you had any misunderstanding. I did say that in your thinking you seem to make no distinction between “the map, and the territory”. A “map” is a mental or symbolic representation of some reality that exists apart from the map. Some people consider them to be 2 different objects. The “reality” may or may not also be a mental construct, but if it is, it is not the same mental construct as the map.
By some kind of sleight of hand you seem to reduce, everything existing, first, to a “mental construct”, then you equate all mental constructs rather than differentiating between them. This is not Buddhism. I think most Buddhists differentiate many different levels and qualities of “constructs”. And Buddha never claimed that all reality was a “mental construct”, although that maybe the interpretation of some. Buddha refers to many different “worlds” or “universes”, including different Heavens, Hells, and many different kinds of beings, gods, spirits, demons, etc. At least he is quoted as doing so. But who really knows, as during his lifetime he forbade his disciples from writing down anything he said. Buddhism is all “verbal tech”, and has had 2500 years to accrue.
So, what is your reality, Val? Tell me, so I can correct myself.
.
.
Why would you seek to correct yourself when you are already correct? I think you’re fooling with me.
I am not inclined towards the hard sciences like physics, but I hear that these days, some physicists are considering the existence and reality of a “multiverse”.
You might find the correction you seek there, in modern physics.
I have looked at the idea of “multiverse”. It is simply a conjecture at this point. There is no proof of it.
Also, there is no reason why there cannot be a superset of all these multiverses called “universe”.
.
Vin: Also, there is no reason why there cannot be a superset of all these multiverses called “universe”.
Chris: Yes, I am seeing all this talk of dimensions, etc., a study of sets. It is too bad that our mathematics is so far only the pertinent language of this set. Oh the wonders that await! That process which we refer to as wave function and which metaphorically to me looks like TV Snow may be processes simply waiting for an abstraction; however, that abstraction will need to come from an abstractor whose make up is part and parcel of a superset of this one.
My question is “How much potential do I possess to abstract that next dimension?”
That superset is the DIMENSION OF ABSTRACTION.
.
The whole theory of relativity is based on the premise that there is an upper limit ‘c’ to the speed of light. At this limit the relativity between space and time becomes quite evident. The Newtonian model of absolute space and absolute time no longer works as this speed is approached.
The question that has been there in my mind for some time is ‘What makes the upper limit of the speed of light such an absolute quantity?’ The answer seems to be ‘the physicality of this universe.’
What is ‘physicality’? How does one define it? Physicality would be defined by perception through our physical senses. These perceptions are consistent with the measurements made through the use of physical instruments, such as, those used to measure the speed of light.
What is not physicality? The abstraction that we perceive through mind (as a sense organ) would be a departure from physicality. That is no less a perception but it is different from the perception through the physical sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. We do not seem to view mind as a sense organ, but look at it as a computer. But mind is a much generalized concept, which encompasses many different functions. One of those functions is that of a sense organ. For example, we can sense time slowing down or speeding up, or space becoming fuzzy or very bright and clear.
Thus, we find mind to be a sense organ that perceives in the dimension of abstraction. The upper limit of that dimension is the perception through the physical sense organs of eye, ear, nose, tongue, and body. But mind goes beyond that. It is the mind that perceives the pattern of three underlying three cups, three plates and three spoons.
This dimension of abstraction has been there all this time. The progress of mankind is measured in this dimension. It has long been recognized as such in the eastern philosophy of the Vedas. Now it is time to look at this dimension scientifically.
Science recognizes the four dimensions as
Space x
Space y
Space z, and
Time
The fifth dimension seems to be
5. The dimension of abstraction
The upper limit of the dimension of abstraction is physicality.
The Fifth Dimension
.
Valkov, your map v territory in this example is a strawman and Vinaire’s Buddhism references are red herring and become an appeal to authority. He should just stick with his own viewpoint as I find that to be the most consistent. No appeals to authority needed here.
Chris, it is entirely possible that I have misread Vinaire, as I do find his treatises tedious. However in the post I was responding to, it appeared to me that he was taking a reductionist approach, arguing step by step to arrive at the view that it is all “mental”. This is similar to dismissing everything by saying “there is no RWOT anyway”.
From one viewpoint there is, from another there is not. Each view is in itself incomplete.
As I say, I may be misreading or misunderstanding Vin’s theses; if his logic seems good, I think that may demonstrate the limitations of logic. Where does the manual say life, existence, reality and the universe are logically based or explainable by logic? They may either be based on nothing 🙂 or based on axioms.
Either way that is the old false dichotomy expressed by “the Buddha view” vs. “the Karma view” that Zen tries to avoid. Thinking and logic cannot solve it. Direct perception perhaps can, is the theory.
So if it is a straw man, it is because I thought that is what he really was saying/doing.
Valkov: Direct perception perhaps can, is the theory.
Chris: We are off to a good start. I don’t know how I became the Vinaire advocate. As you know, I used to write some pretty gnarly invalidations to him going back a year or two. But also, back then, I was quite a bit more in lockstep with Marildi and still a Scientology proponent . . . gradually I changed.
I won’t try to justify Vinaire’s social veneer when blogging. His social relationships are his own, so I will leave that alone. But with regard to his KHTK, he has worked out a little system of looking at things which is surely based on “direct perception” or as close and getting closer as I’ve seen. Though he conjectures and speculates, he seems to be aware of doing that when he does and it doesn’t become a bother when he and I communicate.
But why doesn’t KHTK improve his social skills? From what I can see, they have even deteriorated. Because this is the litmus test for me – if the creator or spokes person of a self-betterment methodology does not exude the fruits of the methodology, it seriously discredits it, at least it does for me.
I’m not promoting KHTK nor practicing it as an ideology, just making a stab at explaining it and Vinaire, nothing mysterious about KHTK that I can see. I don’t know how much time he devotes to the actual practice of KHTK. On the other hand, I’ve watched him take apart complex philosophical issues much to my admiration while stating it in a condescending way. This condescension might be cultural. It might be organic. I don’t know, but like my tinnitus, I tune it out because there’s shit I’m trying to figure out and can’t waste time on Vinaire’s social faux pas. On the other hand, I have also found him to be warm and funny to me so go figure… Regarding KHTK not fixing this, I think he would need to want to spot this inconsistency in himself and do something about it. At least that would be my understanding of any self help ideology. So far, this does not seem to weigh on his conscience! hahahaha
I’m not sure if Vinaire would call what he does reductionism. You’d have to ask him. Good luck with that! haha. My own looking results in a use of what might be described as both reductionism and also holism. Holism because we really can’t extrapolate a human from a hormone, and yet there the small bit is working its life away. For me, I need to zoom out to get the big picture, then zoom out more and get the bigger picture, and so it goes. In a nutshell, Vinaire uses universe to include all that is manifest — everything which is real to us. MEST objects and such of course are included. But then he also includes everything else which is real to us as well. Our thoughts are real to us, so they are included.
Regarding the RWOT, Real World Out There, Vinaire and I seem to have worked out that for us, there is one. But it’s not like the cartoonish way it’s laid out for us in school. The most real thing I can say about what I think about that is that there are processes going on. This is a little bit like the inner workings of a TV set — processes going on, and then finally a series of pictures are projected on the inside screen of the cathode ray tube. So, we perceive, receive input from those processes. Then as you might put it, “Through sleight of hand” abstract the perception which we call our own. My own abstractions include the use of the pronoun “I” but I no longer think of it in the Thetan sense. I don’t think these models work for me anymore.
KHTK meditates upon these abstractions. That’s as simple as I can say it. Meditates, or simply looks at one’s own abstraction. In this framework, an abstraction could be the scene one is looking at in a crowd of people at the market, or some problem the wife is giving us at home, or simply the thought or thoughts upon which one has their attention. And this is how I sort out paradoxes. Imagine sanding a piece of wood with sandpaper and then feeling with your fingers to see if all the rough bits are gone. This is the whole of his logic and looking for inconsistencies. I do not think of him as a promoter of logic as the best religion, only logic together with looking for inconsistencies as the best tool for detecting and erasing inconsistencies. Auditing in the hands of a skilled practitioner would do as much. KHTK is not so dramatic nor sexy as auditing for there is quite the buildup of false claims and promises attached to auditing.
Now I don’t even know if I addressed your comment. His and my ideas are not original, far from it. I think his organization and various scales of relevance are brilliant and he is possessed with a dogged determination to write these things down and organize them. Way more than I.
CH… hold it right there!!!! Just hold it!
Auditing… with auditing one can achieve anything what one wants to achieve!!! But it has to be applied-used- get into session after session and daily to erase those counter postulate, those ARCB’s, those problems and most of all the O/W’s has to be coughed up! and the nattering would stop once and for all!
There are thousand and one bloody good justifications are given, explained why it not works by 1000 and 1 persons who cant see further than their justifications.
These wonderful critics are the complainer that scientology do not work.. lets string up LRH. DM etc . etc.. but not one is working on self and handle their ARCB’s with self.
Auditing works and the thousands time I say it do.. Chicken shits those who complain but wont get counselling of some kind.
Elizabeth: ” . . . and the nattering would stop once and for all!”
Chris: Ok. At loss for words. hahahaha
CH…..”KHTK is not so dramatic nor sexy as auditing for there is quite the buildup of false claims and promises attached to auditing. ”
PS; there is nothing sexy about auditing… it is hard work all the way…. even when one is auditing the item ”SEX” and what other similar considerations are with that topic. When one has session one not playing with ones sexual part and hold the cans with the other hand… That was a bad remark from you!
Confronting is not easy…. look at all the tens of thousand of blown persons… if being in session would be pleasure-sexy;; people would beat the auditors doors down to have a session and with that a good climax!
Hard work. and more hard work… confronting.. Please read that posting in my blog
“”The most difficult session I had as a solo auditor””
sexy.. my foot!
Ok, well I believe you, but you got to admit the promise of becoming God is pretty sexy!
it seems you have sex on your mind today! go for it..
I never thought that… god and sex? no kid… sex and humans: yes…and birds bees etc: yes but they don’t think about it like humans do, every 20 second for man? GOD REALLY MADE A BIG JOKE WHEN HE CREATED THE MALE ANIMAL!
CH…. please read it again…I have copied it out from my blog again..
Maria. … The auditor’s code…. This was posted in Geir Isenes blog too.
It has great importance and it should be in place at all times. That code will allow the PC to continue and not being left stuck in the incident. That code beside the Rudiments allowed me to continue and erase the bank. Here it is how it has worked for me. In the solo course at ST Hill we really had to know all the words and do the demo, than drill and drill with a partner first than under very watchful eyes of Bert Griswold.
When I started the solo sessions that was in, the ack, too the complete communication cycle between the auditor and the PC. Worked very well. Being a PC was not easy I had in the first 10 years of soloing huge obstacles to confront and overcome. Some of the auditing questions put me into coma like state which could last for hour or two, those times I could come out for s second or two just enough to repeat the auditing question “ I repeat the question etc….” than I would sink back into that incredible un-conscious state…. This could go on and on. But the question was there to ask, the code was kept the TR’s in, the way I have learned in the solo course: what is the difference between the auditor and the PC.
I would like to share the most difficult sessions I ever had out of the tens of thousands. The topic was HELL but I won’t repeat the auditing question which triggered off such a huge mass which lasted for three days. That concept whatever it was held me twisted, bunched up in agony nearly un-conscious.
The session started early afternoon, yet I could not get out of it by late evening, I was exhausted hungry, felt panic since I could not see pictures but that twisted agony.
It never happened before to have 8 hour session in one sitting, but I had to end it. Fallowing morning I went to work I was in the zombie state, all day and driving was very difficult since I was not conscious. At home back to session, same all over, occasionally I could surface enough to repeat the auditing question. Again I could not get out. This time I stopped to eat than back to unconscious state. The session was almost 11 hours long. In the morning back to work same state continued, but by being having some thoughts surfacing I realized I was in trouble and felt panic what if I can’t pull myself out? big time panic….set in…
At home eat, than back into session, with the same auditing question. The most difficult part of the session just started, because realization has come I must look beyond the unconsciousness, I must find my way out in order to see what I was in. I must find a tread, a picture which will give me something to continue with something to fallow. It worked, very slowly; I pounded the walls of Hell at first with just a smidgen of returning energy, since my thoughts were less than whiff of smoke in the autumn evening
But the auditing questions continued, the ack.’s were there to. The pictures started to roll and I have come out of the depth of Hell. The cognitions rolled in for days and I could not go into session for a month. Auditor’s code well learned and being kept can take any PC out of any incident. That session was 6 hours. Wins galore, Hell as=ised, the universe rejoiced…………
We’re here, we’re queer, get over . . . oops. Wrong quote.
We’re here, if we’re interested in knowing about that, we try. We audit, we study, we think, write and discuss. Each of us has our own take on that. Each of us will have our own unique experience of that. It will be self-similar, recursive, and repetitive for that’s just how, as the generations pass, I see the world. It is an interesting game to ponder these things.
Chris, thanks a lot for your write-up. It clarifies some things for sure, towards a more holistic understanding, which is much needed. Vin may be good at abstracting and atomizing but that does not lead to a holistic understanding on the part of this reader. Understanding as I mean it is having a comprehension of the orientation of the viewpoint.
He reads like some of Hubbard’s books which are little more than outlines or “Reader’s Digest”-like summations which are fleshed out in many hours of lectures.
That said.
I was responding to ONE rather short post by Vin, in which he appeared to be dealing in an abstract reductionism that has been characterized in philosophy as “everything is mind”.
I get what you’re saying about the RWOT. This actually relates to my recent post to Vin about the 8 Dynamics, which is a Hubbardian construct that has been, I feel, broadly misunderstood and in fact, “reduced” from an infinity-valued calculus to an almost one-dimensional cartoon. You might read that post to get the gist of it.
The RWOT as I “see” it indeed has “processes” ongoing in the background. These processes are driven or energized by the viewpoints each of which is engaged in creating its own version of the 8 Dynamics. This results in the co-creation of what we call the RWOT. What each of us “sees” or “perceives” as the RWOT depends on various factors, such as Vin’s famous “filters”, self- or other- imposed limitations, considerations, identifications, etc etc. Most of these can be subsumed under the rubric of “Levels of awareness”.
So yes those processes are going on. The joke in Hubbard’s take on all this is that he perceived or inferred that the “viewpoints”, actually our deepest basic “selves”, eternal or not, (that is irrelevant and immaterial), are the sources both of the energy which drives these processes, and probably the source of the processes themselves.
That’s pretty much the long and the short of it.
Valkov, By some kind of sleight of hand you seem to reduce, everything existing, first, to a “mental construct”, then you equate all mental constructs rather than differentiating between them.
Chris: Vinaire’s writing and logic are quite good and quite a bit better when he he just makes real life examples from his own experiences. His metaphors (we all use them, we must) are the thinnest I have seen and I mean that in a positive way. Arguing what Buddha said is a useless waste of time for the both of you. No one knows what Buddha said by now and really, what does it matter? Ultimately, each individual “life” unit has to work this out for themself. There are helpful pointers (metaphors) along the way but no help when an epiphany is needed. We just each have to do that. As far as I have seen, this seems to be the spiritual game period.
Arguing about “what Buddha said” is not entirely a waste of time when Buddhist scriptures are appealed to as the “authority”, as you mentioned. When those scriptures say “Buddha said….” it is assumed that is what Buddha said. To point to Buddhism as an authority and then misrepresent what Buddha taught, I feel is worth disputing at least in passing.
If Vin has “good ideas” of his own then let them stand on their own and appeals to Buddha should have no part in it. He comes across as a parochial sycophant of Buddhism standing up for the “home team” versus the “upstart Westerner”, not a credible source of his own wisdom.
But then, I am a notoriously hard to pleas curmudgeon.
That was my poorly made point.
You know there can be infinite universes in SCN…and ‘the’ universe is an agreement universe…which means it isn’t one.
as absolute as you wanting it to be…or made it out to be, or believe it is, individuality what ‘”is” is a belief. It’s is intangible: how one see’s self and see’s others.
SP… hehehe… right you are. if every body would erase their considerations-agreements -thoughts, than we all be communicating minus computers-telephones!
Uni- means ONE. There is only one universe that I know of. A person may imagine anything, but that imagination is a part of this universe.
The mental universe is not separate from the physical universe. Physical and mental are two different aspects of the same universe.
That is how is see it, Hubbard thinks differently but he has no monopoly on truth.
.
So there you are.. you just proved it that there are list 2 universes, one is yours and one still belongs to LRH who’s body has vanished by now but as a individual spiritual being very much alive among those of you who think-eat sleep LRH
I have no universe. I am part of this universe, and so is LRH.
.
yes… that is one viewpoint… we use those viewpoint depends what we want to say–convey with our communication and depends where the wind blows from: what valance we want to put out.. how we want to be seen by others..
All viewpoints are part of this universe just as all thetans are.
.
correction: the viewpoints are the considerations that there is the Universe, without such belief there is no universe.. and there are many who don’t see this planet because they don’t have the consideration that it is here.. where ever that is.!
right… but there are no thetans.. just view points that there are.. same goes for saying : I am the body.. or I have a body.. really? I wonder who’s idea was that in the first place in the Cosmos?
V….. come to think of it… not one soul is in the MEST-energy Universe . that is just belief and that is the lie.
You have quite a belief. 🙂
.
🙂 yes. since I been around this universe a few times.. and I knew where you when you did not have a body as on anchor.
So, Elizabeth, you are right and anybody who disagrees with you is wrong. Eh!
.
In some ways I do admire Vinaire’s certainty in his viewpoint. But for the rest of us who are not that certain, arrogance is harder to muster.
Perhaps he seeks to win by wearing others down by “repetitive duplication”? This would be simply contagion of aberration, wouldn’t it? Was he thus worn down himself? When faced with such tremendous “certainty”, I tend to wonder, “Valence?”
OK on your considerations about “universe”, but those are still just your axioms, not necessarily anyone else’s. “Universe” has many definitions.
Universe, definitions:
Noun
1. All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in…
2..A particular sphere of activity, interest, or experience.
To these I would add Hubbard’s, 3. A whole system of created things.
What the word “universe” does not cover or account for, is “consciousness”
To me, consciousness is part of the universe.
.
V…..”To me, consciousness is part of the universe.””””
Big Time! 1000% …Right you are.. Cool reality!
Since consciousness is awareness and that to is built -anchored into energy… the beings base-anchor is that energy so in my reality consciousness is a doing-something.
.
Good! Our minds meet!
OK, that appears to me to be a 100% non-answer. That’s like me asking “What is air?”, and you answering, “Air is part of the world”. So,
What is consciousness?
There is no scientific basis for consciousness that transmigrates and wanders about. There is no consciousness, which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there.
According to Buddhist philosophy there is no permanent, unchanging spirit which can be considered ‘Self’, or ‘Soul’, or ‘Ego’. The consciousness should not be taken as ‘spirit’ in opposition to matter. It is a wrong notion that consciousness is a sort of Self or Soul that continues as a permanent substance through life.
Consciousness is only a sort of awareness of the presence of an object. It does not recognize the object. It is perception that recognizes the object. When the eye comes in contact with a color, for instance blue, visual consciousness arises which simply is a awareness of the presence of a color; but it does not recognize that it is blue. There is no recognition at this stage. It is perception that recognizes that it is blue.
Buddha explained that consciousness arises out of conditions. There is no arising of consciousness without conditions. Consciousness is named according to whatever condition through which it arises.
* Visual consciousness arises on account of the eye and visible forms
* Auditory consciousness arises on account of the ear and sounds.
* Olfactory consciousness arises on account of the nose and odors.
* Gustatory consciousness arises on account of the tongue and tastes.
* Tactile consciousness arises on account of the body and tangible objects.
* Mental consciousness arises on account of the mind and mind-objects (ideas and thoughts).
The Buddha declared in unequivocal terms that consciousness depends on matter, sensation, perception and mental formations and that it cannot exist independently of them.
‘Were a man to say: I shall show the coming, the going, the passing away, the arising, the growth, the increase or the development of consciousness apart from matter, sensation, perception and mental formations, he would be speaking of something that does not exist.’
I am not presenting Buddha as authority. I am presenting Buddha because I share his reality.
.
CONSCIOUSNESS
.
Vinaire: There is no scientific basis for consciousness that transmigrates and wanders about. There is no consciousness, which expresses, which feels, which experiences the results of good and bad deeds here and there.
Chris: See, as off topic as this is, if you stop your comment right there, you make your point the best. Though I think your idea has merit, the rest of your post is an off topic synopsis of some Buddhist principles and we aren’t discussing Buddhism. This is a violation of the discussion policy. I don’t mean to be mean, but we must all follow the discussion policy so that our ideas become effectively shared.
Without putting attention on any participants of this discussion (per discussion policy) what inconsistency do you notice in the content being discussed?
.
The synopsis of Buddha principles. I like them, but they are on the wrong thread.
So. I am on the wrong thread. End of discussion then.
🙂
V.. don’t go… you comments are welcome in my universe!. I told you that more than once.. and Buddha or no Buddha… I don’t mind you quoting at all.. your quotes is like a dash of spice and that too also enhances the flavor of this blog. Please pussy cat do stay and purr.. even if that purr sounds like Buddha..
Hshehehehe I like your descriptions, Elizabeth
Chris: “This is a violation of the discussion policy.”
Me: What discussion policy? You mean Geir’s informal one that goes something like “say what you want, it’s all good and I’ll let you know when I think you’re being an ass in my living room”?
Or do you mean the one V has on HIS blog and keeps trying to ram down the throat of a blog owner of a blog site that isn’t his?
Yes. 🙂
I’ve somehow put myself in this sandwich between Vin and the readers that won’t read or take him seriously because of these rough social edges. I find myself defending his good works because I’ve seen things there that cut deeply into these philosophical concepts that we discuss; and then feeling like I’m becoming an accomplice to his social faux pas. Plus he is warm and kindly toward me. Chrishna! I make enough blunders of my own without taking on anyone else’s. I suppose I’ll figure it out.
Earlier, when I was writing that I don’t think these concepts are laid out quite rightly this idea of consciousness is one of them. Now someone might take that as a cop-out (evasion) on my part. Marildi was nailing me on this very word a year ago and I didn’t have any good answer for her then and left her unsatisfied. Words contain the sum total of human understanding but if humanity doesn’t understand something, then to me it follows that there would not be a word to hold the place of that missing understanding.
Anyway, in the spirit of trying, conventional orthodox consciousness is to me a conglomeration of processes. It makes no difference if we call them processes, or applications, or considerations, or programs, or macros, or all of the above. I think of consciousness as that awakeness that all life-forms enjoy. For me it seems to exist in biology and more, no matter what drivel L Ron Hubbard used to damn the biologists. I no longer believe in Static as the ultimate in consciousness or even in static at all for in the sense of this universe, it would be the ultimate in entropy — not a good thing so far as I can tell. So Vinaire is just paving a road here. He’s trying to stop bypassing every single obvious thing that there is to observe in the UNIVERSE in favor of made up ideas about things which factually are speculations. In my opinion, we’ve plenty to observe and to learn before we start running out of something to learn from and need to reach outside that set of what is.
Elizabeth: SP… hehehe… right you are. if every body would erase their considerations-agreements -thoughts, than we all be communicating minus computers-telephones!
Spyros: What do you mean by “than we all be communicating minus computers-telephones!”? Can you rephraze?
Just think! how would you communicate if you did not have… thoughts=considerations and agreements? you answer this one….:)
No considerations=nothing to communicate to…actually no considerations regarding the existence of communication either! :p
Can you rephraze?
“Telepathy”
Vinaire: Spyros, Do you have to read Hubbard to know the truth?
Spyros: I only mentioned what SCN says, not any ‘the’ truth. And again in SCN, there is no ‘the’ truth as there is no ‘the’ universe. YOU say there is ‘THE’ universe, so you assert to communicate ‘THE’ truth.
Vinaire: IHMO, truth depends on absence of inconsistency. Hubbard is not consistent where fundamentals are concerned. This is explained on my blog under Scientology.
Spyros: In my opinion, truth is not a product of evaluation.
Vinaire: Thetan is a theoretical absolute postulated by Hubbard, and, as such, it is part of this universe. This is because all mental considerations are part of this universe.
Spyros: Fine, but I hope you state this as your own opinion, not as the truth.
All one may express is one’s own opinion, for truth is relative and never absolute.
.
The degree of truth depends on the consistency among considerations.
.
Fine, but it’s your consideration.
It includes any consideration that one is aware of.
.
It does for you.
You are using “I” as a filter.
Now, you may say this is “your” consideration.
.
I wonder what kind of filters you using when you are talking about the ”I”
The same topic was brought up by you about a year back.. and guess what one year before that.. Even Marildi hap pointed that out so it seems your cycles go =takes one year to complete. Go look it up in this blog and you will find it…LOL.
Vinaire: You are using “I” as a filter.
Now, you may say this is “your” consideration.
Spyros: I considered that you considered it, as you communicated it. If I thought that it was truth/reality then I would be somewhat forced to be considering it myself from then on, no?
By ‘I’ and ‘you’ I meant beings with individual universes, yes. Being two beings doesn’t negate that they are two beings.
You can make reality by agreeing or you can say that it is reality to make the agreement. The second seems a bit reversed/other determined to me.
agreed
“Thetans are individuals.” This is true but being thetan is a condition in itself. A thetans is like a human compared to “homo novis”:D
A thetan is a spiritual entity and as such it comes with an ego unit:) The size of the ego unit is crucial.
Yes, What we call a ‘being’ or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’, according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies.
…
Thus, ‘being’, ‘individual’, or, ‘I’, is only a convenient name or a label given to the combination of these five groups. They are all impermanent, all constantly changing. They are not the same for two consecutive moments. Here A is not equal to A. They are in a flux of momentary arising and disappearing.
One thing disappears, conditioning the appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. There is no unchanging substance in them. There is nothing behind them that can be called a permanent Self, individuality, or anything that can in reality be called ‘I’. But when these five physical and mental aggregates which are interdependent are working together in combination as a physio-psychological machine, we get the idea of ‘I’. But this is only a false idea of self. There is no other ‘being’ or ‘I’, standing behind these five aggregates.
There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you move the thought, there is no thinker to be found. Here we cannot fail to notice how this Buddhist view is diametrically opposed to the Cartesian cogito ergo sum: ‘I think, therefore I am.’
This is counter-intuitive, indeed.
THE STRUCTURE OF “I”
.
Feed Vin on this one and he’ll spam the whole thread with the chanting of “I” “I” “I”… 😉
Vin, your description of the Buddhist view of the “self” is accurate, but only as far as it goes. This is because the ever-changing patterns have their own “individuality”, when compared one to another. It is possible that in beginningless and endless time, a pattern may be duplicated somewhere, somewhen along the line, but for practical human purposes, each person and in fact each and every physical universe event is unique and “individual”. No two thunderstorms are exactly alike, no two waves of the ocean are exactly alike, etc. Every event has its own “individuality” and is unique, when compared to any other event no matter how apparently similar. That’s why that old Greek guy said “You can never step in the same river twice.” It is the same river, yet it is not. He was an almost exact contemporary of the Gotama Buddha.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heraclitus
There is no absolute and permanent individuality. Scientology is fixated on “I” as if it is absolute and permanent.
.
V… did I just seen the same horse galloping by and you were riding it waving a banner with a HUGE I embroidered on it? 🙂
Vin, who here is claiming the existence of “an absolute and permanent individuality”? No one, not even LRonHubbard, as he was the one who stated axiomatically “absolutes are unobtainable in the physical universe”.
So who are you trying to get this point across to? Let me acknowledge that you are correct, there is NO “absolute and permanent individuality”. All existing individualities will likely endure only as long as the universe endures, and no longer. After that, who knows? Maybe someone will find a means of continuing his existence beyond the ultimate complete end of this universe. And maybe not. That is at this time unknowable, is it not?
The metaphysics of this are interesting. When Brahma inhales everything including you, who’s to say he may not exhale YOU again in exactly the same form you have now? Then you can continue for virtually endless kalpas to cry – “There is no such thing as an absolute and permanent self!”
Val… I would love to hear your comment on what I quoted from Scn 8-8008.
.
Yes, this “I” is the theater of life. Undercutting this is something not that.
Vinaire: Scientology is fixated on “I” as if it is absolute and permanent.
Spyros: SCN separated the oneness of valences and the oneness with other bank agreements. But beyond that, have you read about BEING all 8 dynamics?
All 8 dynamics is the universe. So, being all 8 dynamics is becoming one with the universe. That goes against what Hubbard said in Scn 8-8008.
.
The universe you reffer to is part of the 6th dynamic in SCN.
Not really.
Physical, mental and spiritual are all aspects of a single system, which I call the UNIVERSE.
.
That is one way of understanding it. It is how the typical CoS scientologist purveys it. It is disastrously wrong in my view and is a big reason things got as bad as they did in the Scientology universe, because it is that slight of hand that allows some to begin evaluating for others, assigning ‘conditions’ etc
That view is based on the idea that there is just one RWOT, and that one must recognize and conform to it, and the next step is for someone to claim that he has a better more enlightened understanding than you, and therefore you must listen to him, etc and the whole tired old bullshit game, the “adjustment psychologies”, the priesthoods, etc.
In fact the Dynamics are not “out there” vs. “in here”. Your 8 Dynamics are within you. There is in a sense a set of 8 Dynamics within each person. So the is not just one set of 8 Dynamics, but potentially an infinite number of sets of 8 Dynamics, one set of Dynamics for each existing person or being. Each set of Dynamics is inextricably tied to a unique viewpoint, because without the viewpoint, the Dynamics would not exist. And the Dynamics provide the viewpoints with things to view.
For this reason, no-one can tell another with any authority how to weight his Dynamics, which ones are more important than others etc. Only the individual can and does decide those issues for himself, as he sees fit.
So no, there are not just 8 Dynamics, there are a potentially infinite number of sets of 8 Dynamics because each living being comprises his own individual set of 8 Dynamics.
Interacting, these sets co-create what we think of as “the universe”.
Really, Hubbard explained all this quite clearly in some of his lectures; unfortunately, it appears to me the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept as it was presented by Hubbard.
I don’t think anybody should be telling others how to see something. He should simply be saying,
“This is how I see it. Let me know how you see it so we can compare our notes.”
This is what I have been trying to say through the discussion policy.
To me, dynamic is defined as “urge toward existence” in Hubbard’s system, and it is associated with individuality. However, I do not see individuality as some permanent reality. If there is individuality, it is changing continually. Individuality is like the overall characteristic of a system of considerations. But this system is chnaging continually and so is this overall characteristic.
So, the dynamic is a property of a system of considerations, and not that of some permanent individuality. Essentially, the dynamics (an arbitrary division of the dynamic for the sake of convenience) are a property of this universe.
.
Who the Hell brought “permanent individuality” into this discussion? You did, not I. What does it have to do with anything in general, or Hubbard’s concept of the Dynamics in particular?
I make a post about the Dynamics as I understand them, and you respond with your non-sequitur hobby-horse of “There is no such thing as ‘permanent individuality’. ”
Huh?
However, everything else you say about the nature of reality in your post seems quite accurate and well thought out or observed. The “permanent individuality” thing seems entirely unnecessary to even mention, some kind of ‘held down 7’.
The key point is that any individuality is already “one with the universe”, even when Hubbard postulates it as separate.
Theta and MEST are not two separate realities that are in games condition with each other. Both are aspects of the same reality and they are never in games condition with each other. They simply follow certain physical and spiritual laws.
.
Agreed. As you say, “the map is not the territory.” And the 8 dynamics are not there at all. If someone likes to organize their thinking this way, I think that’s fine. But as to running in a model like this as something which is real, well I don’t see it that way for me.
Chris,
You apparently missed my point completely, about the 2 models of the 8 Dynamics, one of which I see as a very destructive abuse of the basic concept as presented by Hubbard.
That is what I psoted for discussion.
The fact that you seem to have a lot of bpc about Hubbard to the point where it seems you are unable to read any post that refers to any idea of his without automatically responding negatively it does not change my understanding of it.
If you have a better model to offer, please do so. Datum of comparable magnitude, right?Otherwise, what? It’s easy to be a negative critic. ESMB seems like an appropriate venue for that part of your experience. There are quite a few ex-SO who post over there, who shared your type of experience and the subsequent negative feelings. Since I did not, I can’t relate, but I feel I will continue to reflect and try to understand various of Hubbard’s ideas in my own right.
You are of course free to do otherwise.
1. 8 Dynamics is a map. 2. The lines it draws do not in fact exist nor is the model it represents accurately organized. 3. That opinion is born out of examination of this cult not BPC. And whether I have BPC about this cult or not isn’t relevant to the OP. Only the relevance and accuracy of my comments. 4. At this time and in this comment, it is your fallacious logic which shows the bias rather than mine. 5. I already stated you can think with this model if you want, I don’t care, where’s the misunderstanding in this? 6. These days for me, less of a model is a better model. 7. Scientology is a lying, destructive, cult. Only extant Church members have been in duped away from opinion that since 1954. 8. That there are few stragglers in the aftermath of its heyday in the 50’s who want to cling tightly to their fixed ideology is ok with me so long as they don’t freely spread the poison without a counter-argument available to the curious. 9. ESMB was never at any point in my own decompression from this cult a helpful place for me except statistically. I don’t know how many people have walked through the doors of Scientology churches but using the conservative “8 million worldwide members” compared to the 8,000 or so remaining hangers on, that is 0.1%. That’s a ratio of comparable magnitude and I know that to be understated as it does not consider the annual attrition of members leaving droves compared to newbies. 10. The true believer is the critic’s best ally.
Chris, your points #1 and #2 were openly stated by LRH 40+ years ago. He said quite clearly that the division into 8 Dynamics was arbitrary and they did not actually exist as such.
This seems to be a good example of how staff Scientologists, especially Sea Org, were kept ignorant of what LRH actually taught, ie ignorant of the basics of Scientology.
By the way, I wasn’t kidding about ESMB. Of all the sites, that seems to be where you have the most ‘kindred souls’.
“Of all the sites, that seems to be where you have the most ‘kindred souls’.” = Nope.
OK.
Cool.
Val, what you’re saying is not just in lectures. For example, the PL “Ethics” (part of the Esto Series) gives the procedure for exchange and conditions by dynamics. In that PL it is very clear that each person has his own 8 dynamics and that there are also THE 8 dynamics. Here’s an excerpt (WARNING: those who have buttons on LRH excerpts, read no further ;)):
“Then have the person…say what he gives the first 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.”
You wrote: “Really, Hubbard explained all this quite clearly in some of his lectures; unfortunately, it appears to me the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept as it was presented by Hubbard.”
As a word clearer and then a blog reader I have have no doubt that “the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept” – of MANY of the basic words and principles.
Marildi…. you are very good…”As a word clearer and then a blog reader I have no doubt that “the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept” – of MANY of the basic words and principles.”
That is the cause why scientology is failing and not because something wrong with scientology. And that is the reason the “PROBLEM” can not be found and fixed… there is nothing to fix…
E, you and I see both the good and the bad – and we understand the good well enough that we know it can be and should be kept separate from the bad. Those who don’t have enough understanding can see nothing or almost nothing but bad.
The reason Marty is believed is not because of his past – maybe some people look up to him because of it, as you said, but others look down on him because of it. The actual reason he is believed is that he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Scientology – both the tech and the history. He has high training and experience auditing and doesn’t say things that show he has basic misunderstandings.
He also has personally witnessed what went on in management and admits where he himself became brainwashed and went off the rails. Nevertheless, he keeps the rotten stuff separate from the actual tech and continues to wholeheartedly deliver auditing. He has studied many other paths, including his whole list of recommended books and many more – and he still finds auditing to be the best he knows of. If there were something better than auditing, in terms of gains and speed of gain, I doubt highly we wouldn’t have heard about it!
If you truly believed what you write, it would manifest by you practicing solo auditing, a good thing. But you cannot solo audit because Ron won’t let you and blocks you from your spiritual eternity. So is this an example of a good thing or a bad thing?
Ask yourself a similar question, Chris. You’ve written many posts raving about the gains you personally got from your style of “solo” auditing – and yet you’ve decided to no longer do it. Why not? You don’t even need to find and pay an auditor, so you have no excuse whatsoever.
I think you should at least go in session and try to handle your apparent compulsion with regard to me and your continual needling of me personally, with almost word-for-word repetitions of what you’ve said before – knowing very well that I’ve already expressed where I’m at with regard to how I practice Scientology, not how you think I should practice it. And in spite of the fact that you’ve apologized afterwards a number of times, you just can’t seem to hold off for long before you go at it again. Obviously, you’re either under some sort of compulsion or are simply trying to goad.
Marildi: “Why not?” (Don’t I solo audit)
Chris: I’ve been clear and writing about “why not” for months. It’s in those “have your say” comments which you declare as resulting from misunderstood words and by-passed charge.
Solo auditing is Scientology. Say it’s not. I dare you. Say a person doesn’t need to solo audit to go up the most efficient Bridge to Total Freedom that mankind has come up with yet.
The better question to this blog’s most learned and fervent promoter of the good and consistent results of the practice of the standard tech of Scientology (that’s you is “Why don’t you solo audit?” It is the most obvious 800 lb gorilla in the middle of your arguments, ever. I’ve thought about this and am wondering why you are being left alone to harp on the value of Scientology without practicing its most sacred sacrament. Seriously, this reluctance on your part to solo is deserving of its own OP and a new thread. Solo auditing is the exact right place for you on the Bridge and you are even trained to solo audit. You even own a meter. If there were any actual desire on your part to do so, any logistical objection you can come up with could be worked out. There is an answer to that question and until you answer it you are “pulling in” my TR3. It is an irresistible magnet which must break you!~ 🙂 But seriously, why won’t you solo audit?
I am also curious about this. The heart, the core of Scientology is the auditing. There seems to be no valid reason to defend Scientology while at the same time not doing all one can to avail oneself of the core of that which one defends. So, Marildi, why not just go solo?
Marildi: The reason Marty is believed is not because of his past – maybe some people look up to him because of it, as you said, but others look down on him because of it. The actual reason he is believed is that he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to Scientology – both the tech and the history. He has high training and experience auditing and doesn’t say things that show he has basic misunderstandings.
Chris: Your comment is not correct. It’s worse than that. It is crapola. Marty is believed to the degree that he confirms bias. The moment he resigned from Scientology, out came the torches and pitchforks. He may have seen this coming and pre-emptively moved from his home on the water to his defensive compound because he may have more reason to be afraid of Independent Scientologists than of orthodox COS OSA, who have become cartoonish buffoons. He knows what to expect from OSA, having been chinese schooled on LRH GO policies. He has a feel for how far they are willing to go to destroy him legally, financially, etc.,. But a rogue Indie? One of those might just take it upon himself to fuck him up. There’s your religion of goodness.
There are a lot more intelligent comments and acceptance of the whole spectrum of viewpoints on Marty’s blog than on this one. And you are probably the biggest reason I spend less and less time here. Maybe that’s your actual intention – because it’s quite obvious that the tack you’ve insisted on taking – repetitiously, to use Geir’s word – is not accomplishing what you claim you’re trying to achieve.
Marildi: There are a lot more intelligent comments and acceptance of the whole spectrum of viewpoints on Marty’s blog than on this one.
Chris: Not really. Marty carefully screens his blog according to standard Scientology PR technology invented by L Ron Hubbard. Marty allows confirmation bias only on his blog and now that he’s withdrawing from Scientology, he will find that he was treated kindly by OSA compared to what the Indies are dishing out to him. The very thing that I am beginning to respect about him and make me rethink my previous opinions about his sincerity may be the very thing which causes his adherents to turn on and crucify him.
Marildi: If there were something better than auditing, in terms of gains and speed of gain, I doubt highly we wouldn’t have heard about it!
Chris: Sticking your fingers in your ears isn’t the same as not having heard about it.
Amazing. It seems you can’t hold back from reacting to almost every sentence I post! As I’ve said, you appear to be obsessed. Seriously, you should get out your meter.
Marildi: “Amazing. It seems you can’t hold back from reacting to almost every sentence I post!”
Chris: I am simply discussing your written statements. Because of those statements, I am also questioning your sincere devotion to the religion that you harp on for its smooth and efficient workability. I think the evasion and knee-jerk reactions are your own.
Marildi. my dear, right you are again… pointing out that he is also disliked -hated-spat for his activities… the hate part make me smile…. got to be there some envy for who hates him. But hate envy admiration are all meaningless.. he is doing well and that is all. after all he to operates in the present time and not twenty years back like many of the haters… God, I love a good drama…hehehe.. the haters now have a new horse, named: hate and they ride over their self created field of the past experience and they nurture- groom their ARCB’s so lovingly! and that thing just get bigger and bigger all the time! 🙂
Have a lovely day!
Thanks, Eliz. I fully agree – some people are acting in present time and others only think they are while they continue to insist that anyone who sees the good in Scientology “must” be operating in the past. In your beautifully poetic words:
“The haters now have a new horse, named: hate. And they ride over their self-created field of past experience and they nurture – groom their ARCB’s so lovingly! And that thing just gets bigger and bigger all the time!”
Damn, that was well said. You have a lovely day too!
How can the present persist without having a past? 😛
Isn’t it a matter of where your attention is stuck? 😛
If one’s attention is stuck in MEST present time, does it contain past/persistence/time?
+ Quiz: How did LRH call a person stuck in MEST universe PT? 😛
Answer: neurotic. 😛
Anyway, neither E. nor I are talking about being “stuck” in MEST present time. It’s just a matter of having too much attention on the past and not enough on the present – and especially not enough on the future. Let’s not get into word games, you little devil you. 😛
You may remember my comments saying that our attention should be on what can be done with the good in Scn and with improving it. 😉 😛
Yes, I trolled (deviled) a little bit 😛
*I mean how can there be a ‘time continuum’ without a past to continue ‘from’? 😛
Marildi… we have here a glorious garden… I would love to make a nice cup of coffee or tea for you and sit in the shade and share the flow of the universe as it passes by!
Thanks so much, E. I’ll take a rain check on that. 🙂
Marildi: “As a word clearer and then a blog reader I have have no doubt that “the vast majority of ‘scientologists’ or those associated with Scientology never got the understanding of the actual concept” – of MANY of the basic words and principles.”
Chris: This is disingenuous: To fault millions for turning away from this destructive religion, while holding yourself up as an expert, while not even practicing the tenets of your religion by solo auditing. Until you audit, you are just pretending, and a namby pamby panty waist dilettante at that. Did I misunderstand those words, too?
Wow, that’s one of the most Straw Man arguments I’ve seen anybody have the gall to make. For one thing, I never said I was an expert, but I do know enough Scn to be able to spot basic misunderstandings – including the ones I’ve seen of yours.
Ironically, it was you who called yourself an expert in a recent comment. I just had to roll my eyes and leave it at that. But you’re really on a jag today and I see in the comment above you even had to get in for the second time in just minutes your repetitious attempts to nullify. Btw, that’s the lowest method of handling others – nullification – which I guess you know since you’re a Scn expert. Anyway, I’m going back to ignoring you. The time and energy spent on posters like you isn’t worth it. I’ll say it again, I need to move on up a little higher.
Marildi: “Wow, that’s one of the most Straw Man arguments I’ve seen anybody have the gall to make. For one thing, I never said I was an expert, but I do know enough Scn to be able to spot basic misunderstandings – including the ones I’ve seen of yours.”
Chris: Well, if I wrote that you wrote that people blow from Scientology because of misunderstood words and we agree on that, then I don’t see the Straw man argument in that.
Marildi: “I never said I was an expert, . . . ”
Chris: No, you do not hold yourself out as an expert; However, I do consider you to be an expert on Scientology. It is my belief that if polled, the bloggers here who are familiar with your writings would (possibly unanimously?) agree with me. If ever a person was deserving of an honorary PhD in the subject of Scientology, I feel that you do and I write that with respect and admiration for a genuine accomplishment.
Marildi: Btw, that’s the lowest method of handling others – nullification – which I guess you know since you’re a Scn expert.
Chris: Now this is a straw man.
Marildi: “I’ll say it again, I need to move on up a little higher.”
Chris: Does Marty have misunderstood words at this time and at this place for saying he is no longer a Scientologist? And if and when Marty leaves the fold forever, how will that affect your opinion of him? Will that be still yet a little higher? Or not?
It is surprising that nobody has responded to the falsehood in Scientology 8-8008 that was pointed out. Instead I have become a target of criticism.
This tells me that Scientology is simply capitalizing on fixation that already existed in the society.
.
Vin: This tells me that Scientology is simply capitalizing on fixation that already existed in the society.
Chris: Yes, all religion employs “get on the bandwagon” logic.
Sorry it took so long, Vin, but here is some of my take on 8-8008 and the ‘falsehood’ you refer to.
Vin, here’s my take on the excerpt from 8-8008 you posted, and in reference to the concept of individuality.
I can only guess which particular concept of “nirvana” LRH was referring to in 8-8008, but the most widespread popularizer and Western interpreter of Eastern philosophy of those times, the 1940s and 1950s, was Alan Watts. He was still popular in the 1960s when I came across him, but I never saw him as much more than
but a glib and possibly shallow popularizer of Eastern ideas. He has some good Zen-ish quotes, and some real junk in his legacy. I do not believe he was actually a regular or deep practitioner of Eastern methods, but rather a promoter-guru. In other words, he talked the talk, but did not necessarily walk the walk, kinda like the more recent Deepak Chopra, who at least has the virtue of being himself from India so speaks from a more direct personal knowledge of what he is talking about.
In any case, Watts was definitely a promoter of ideas such as “one with the universe”. A close reading of his work shows a basically materialistic orientation. I believe this is what LRH was, correctly, objectingto – a massive A=A=A or conflation between spirit, consciousness, and matter.
This still does not resolve the issue of “individuality”, existence of, but I have already posted about this.
Individuality is a fact in the context of the existing universe. This says nothing about the existence of a “permanent and eternal self”. I recently posted a quote of Dalai Lama on the subject, from a little book of interviews titled “The Buddha Nature: Death and Eternal Soul in Buddhism”. The discussions are well worth reading closely and more than once, because Dalai analyzes the distinctions in some pretty subtle ways.
The fact is, and this is my take on it, not anyone else’s, is that Buddha himself never said there was no such thing. As with many other topics, what he really said is that there was no OBSERVABLE permanent and eternal self. He thought it was just another one of those things one did not need to know, in order to escape from suffering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Watts
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/1501668.Alan_Wilson_Watts
The word “nirvana” is used throughout India since early times and has somewhat differing meanings depending on the religious tradition it is used by – Hindu, Jain, Buddhist etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana
The word literally means “blown out” (as in a candle) and refers, in the Buddhist context, to the imperturbable stillness of mind after the fires of desire, aversion, and delusion have been finally extinguished.
This says nothing about the ‘extinguishing’ of all mind, or individuality. It is only about the extinguishing of suffering, nothing more. And that is all Buddha ever claimed to teach.
Well organized and well thought out post Elliot.
Thanks ole buddy. Vin ought to read Marty’s latest book, Marty really shows much of LRH’s ultimate responsibility for the mess and lays to rest the apologetic notions that “he didn’t know what was going on”.
And it is interesting to observe how many “hard core” scientologists that seem to wake up from a daze after Marty utter such. It’s like “oh, Marty is saying it, then it must be true”. Never mind that facts abound on the Net that has shown it for a couple of decades by now.
True enough. . . Funny to see that. Even more funny to me to see how such a very short time ago I was marching in lockstep with with this very same ideology. Funny to me to see how quickly my own viewpoints race into the past once I let them go. I won’t try to usurp any glory from the early critics who pave the way for this renaissance, but not they can be heard singing this Barbarba Mandrell song — just substitute the word a “Critic” in place of the word “Country.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN50ZU6jVwM
I don’t know any “hard-core scientologists” who have significantly changed their positions, as i have no comm lines to any such people (can you name even one?) but I think a hard copy book provides mass to go with the significances involved. More to the point, books are always “more real” than Internet postings. Except to those who feel the “why of course everything published on the Internet is true!”. And those of the “post-literate” generations are not likely to realize the difference in reality of hard-copy books vs.Internet’s virtual medium.
One who publishes a book is putting his money where his mouth is. When you publish a book, it’s pretty hard to later claim “I didn’t say that”.
Sure information is all over the Internet, just look at ESMB, and so are the contrary claims, which eventually make the Internet seem like a bunch of “he said she said”.
I think that is why your video interviews are drawing so much interest, they are the next-best-thing to having it down in black-and-white print.
As for the credibility of Marty’s book and why I think it will have significant influence beyond the reasons I have posted here, there are specific examples of events he witnessed that lend that credibility. Anyone who reads the book should be able to spot those. And I looks to me like no-one else has reported those from the same viewpoint as Marty has.
So nice try but no cigar, Geir.
Geir you forgotten, Marty has been on IMPORTANT-VALUABLE- POWER brandishing PERSON so people still SEE him as the one who knows.. because of his past importance the man’s word has VALUE! and people love to group around important valuable, well known persons makes them important too be known by and to know such a jewel.
Well, I think the self-congratulatory pride Old Secretary thought she smelled on this blog definitely does waft here, a perfume worn by some posters in particular. I had noticed it but decided not to comment on it, before O.S. posted that comment.
It appears that my point to Vinnie is being derailed. I have some very specific incidents and events in mind, that Marty wrote about that he experienced and witnessed, that provided me with data I did not have before, that resolved some confusion or “don’t knows” in my mind about the events of the 1980s in particular.
So knowing Vinnie’s very early experiences with Hubbard, I actually think some of the specific incidents Marty relates would validate what Vinnie feels about Hubbard.
So I recommended Vin read the book. Does anyone have an objection? Come, let us jump in and muddy the water.
let him go for it to get a different viewpoint… 🙂
humans have on ego… spiritual being drops that ego when drops the body. spiritual being-as thetan do not have on identity therefore no ego.
Spiritual beings are not individuals. Humans are individuals simply because they believe that they are.
Exactly Vinaire.
Somebody understands what I am saying. Haha… Others will come to see sooner or later.
Well, I don’t see how this is necessarily a “false datum” However, it does contain a couple of assumptions made by LRH. One is that this kind of implanting was done somewhere in the past, and the other is, apparently, that this implant is universal. In other words, that every single being in existence has had this done to him/her.
I would have to call “Unknowable” on these things. They can only be considered “LRH’s speculations”. Only in that sense can it be considered a “‘FALSE DATUM”.
I would call it an UNPROVEN DATUM. Even if every single mind you examined to date had this implant in it, that does not prove you won’t run into a whole buch of minds in the future that do not have this implant and never did.
V… thank GOD that Buddhism works.. there is no murder, stealing, adultery, cheating, lying, war.. rape, drug use…..no aberration among all the billions who practice Buddhism!! It really works!!!
LOL! Good point. It’s good to point out that we shouldn’t let ideologies do our thinking for us.
LOL
I mean, this is not exactly the truth.
Not all.Mainly Christianity and Scientology.
Being a “Christain Scientologist” is quite an OT combination. 🙂
.
The above response was to
Chris: Yes, all religion employs “get on the bandwagon” logic.
.
that is the reason there are so many Buddhist, now I know! that get on the bandwagon thingy…:) oh logic… sorry to call it thingy…
How can you tell if somebody is practicing Buddhism or not. Just calling one a Buddhist doesn’t necessarily mean that one is practicing Buddhism. See point #10 below:
10. Do not get hung up on name and form.
Mindfulness is to observe and notice things for what they are. To know something, you do not have to label it, or use words to describe it. Be aware that name and form may act as built-in judgment of what is there.
http://vinaire.me/2013/09/05/the-12-aspects-of-mindfulness-revised/
.
The basic concepts aren’t broken down to being explained based on where the person is on the tone scale. But then, that is why find what you agree with, and work from there, no?
Regarding dankoon and vinaire, Scientology is the worst as it uses the more force against the individual. And Scientology is pro-ego. This is the main difference. And that is why Scientology is basically evil. Because the reactive mind is basically the source of the ego, while Scientology states and pretends that it is against the reactive mind… It breaks down the original reactive mind just to build a new one for it’s own purposes. The fallacies of Scientology comes from the mental problems of it’s “founder”.
Anyway, I did not wanted to be scientific:) and I don’t claim that everything is as I stated, it was just a quick thought.
scn84resistance: “And Scientology is pro-ego.”
Chris: These were good points and go to heart of the Tech, not the COS and of the Founder.
Brother.. evil is what one makes into evil.. if you see evil in anything its there because you see it believe it that way!
So if you don’t beleive that it is evil for example to kill someone without any reason than it is not evil?
Is a tornado evil? Does anyone kill another for NO reason?
You better put the TORNADO into session and than you will see just what-who is lurking inside that immense power…. plus will be that you too will have that cognition and will free that being!
🙂 I’m not ready to put a tornado in session – I’ll let you do it until I can catch up
OK… fair enough… but they are not bad beings.. as you have a meat body they have that kind of energy body… and how they feel is expressed in their own way- behavior, just imagine what kind of tornado you would be when angry?
I will add that the critics who keep insisting “everything in Scientology is WRONG!” aren’t helping at all. Such “all black” views certainly does not uncover the root causes for the detrimental effects. It only makes the job harder.
what do you want from those who’s level is in the sub-basement of blame?
uhm? I don’t get the question.. what do I want? eh?
By reading your posts you have it all .. you are not in need.
How to find the ”wrong-ness, how to get scientology right. That will not come from those who are blaming scientology for anything since they cant se further than their own ARCB’s
.
Yes, the polar opposite ideology is just another ideology. We should look for ourselves without substituting ideologies for our own critical thinking — the more we address life directly, the better.
Darling have I look at the polar bit for my self too and it its exists because I have experience that huge difference what is negative and what is positive…what makes it so!
if that would not exist in reality than this MEST Planet you included and the billions would not be here. All game condition only can be because that itsy-bitsy polarity! It is not ideology but fact…
Yes, we agree.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 did you get it how I feel ?
Yes!
Hi Geir, I agree – the reason why Scientology is defended so strongly by those who are defending it is because of the good in Scientology, not because of the bad. I know that I personally saw the bad for quite a long, long time – maybe not all the bad, but certainly some of it. My hope was that it would be eradicated over time as the subject progressed. Obviously, that did not happen, and so we are where we are now.
One of the bigger mistakes I made in Scientology was accepting that the Sea Org was okay. It was not okay – and I knew it, but did not press it. My thought was – hey, they know what they got into, and they signed the stupid billion year contract, so they deserve what they got. The problem with that is that IS Scientology, even though I never considered the SO “Scientology.”
I am not saying it is the core of what made Scientology go off the rails, but it was a large, large symptom of it.
KSW is also not the cause of it – KSW is another symptom.
The pure auditing and auditor training technology is not the cause of the demise. The basic theory of Scientology is not the cause of the demise. To me, the idea the demise was three-fold:
1. The “Us vs. them” mentality that Ron created all the way back in 1949 with The Original Thesis, and
2. The idea that Scientology is the ONLY route and that that route is complete, and
3. That it is INCREDIBLY URGENT that we get Scientology disseminated and delivered before the world was blown up in an atomic fireball.
Ron created all three points above. They rang true because:
A. Psychiatry and therapists and others did indeed criticize Dianetics. I have the Liberty magazine article from 1950 that trashes the whole movement, for example.
B. The Cold War was real. WWIII was a real threat, and the hysteria was real. So, urgency in creating a sane world made sense, if the solution worked. Talk about a “burning platform!”
C. The idea that Scn is the only route – well, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, and Science- none of these prevented WWI, WWII, Hiroshima, and the Hydrogen bomb – “Science” in particular created the way to kill us all over and over and over – so is there a way out? Now? No. Scientology at least promised one.
So, if you have something that does work – it does help people – and you add to that the urgency of looming atomic war – and you have someone like Ron – a great speaker – fanning the flames, it is easy for people to do bad things for “good” reasons, and for people to overlook the bad for the sake of the good.
Overlooking the bad is wrong – the result is that it kills the good. Evidence? The Church of Scientology. But the good is still there.
This is a very good response, Grasshopper. Very good.
And; Welcome!
Hey Geir – I forgot to sign my name – Mark Patterson. Good to be here!
Hi Mark!
Wow! What a nice big point to view from. Thanks Grasshopper and Geir for the article.
Cece
Welcome!
Grasshopper: the reason why Scientology is defended so strongly by those who are defending it is because of the good in Scientology, not because of the bad
Chris: I have a little different take on this. I think people defend through fixed ideas and in a hope to make their world more solid and substantial.
my reality :::: YOU BOTH ARE RIGHT since there is no such a thing as singular reality an any given item. and because of that … that is so much fun to explore-confront the universe one can see so many different creation similar to each other but not in reality when one looks closer. and each item can produce one hell of a cognition while as-ised.
I am off to the garden. to water the flowers and this is a good example when one creates one becomes its slave -servant who up keep maintain that creation.
Hi Mark!
Very well said! On the SO, I couldn’t agree more. Great, that you are posting here – I liked and appreciated your postings on Marty’s blog very much. – Karola
Marty Rathbun has also been addressing the question of how to save the good in Scientology. Here’s part of a blog post he wrote that I thought was a good basis to operate from:
“To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – affords a person the opportunity and ability to safely view his life and mind and communicate his observations and conclusions with no hint or possibility of evaluation, invalidation or repercussion, it is a positive methodology for assisting a person to increase awareness and ability.
“To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – departs from that formula it is a practice potentially destructive of awareness and ability.”
http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/on-becoming-a-person/#comments
Sure – but it does not address the actual root cause(s) in the basics of Scientology that allows the atrocities to be perpetrated. And until we honestly uncover those, there will be critics searching, and many in the dark in lack of understanding of said basics… and there will be rehashed carping. Until it is truthfully uncovered. No use in protesting critics. Better get to work instead.
The obvious implication of that post iss that there has indeed been evaluation, invalidation and repercussion. Why can’t that be accepted as root cause? Just because critics need the cause to be more evil and insidious to be acceptable to them, or simply that they don’t understand the basics, doesn’t mean the answer needs to be revised to fit their bloodthirsty “needs” or determined ignorance, does it?
Reread Jeff’s post. Then mine.
Consider this: Harm is rampant in Scientology. Has been since LRH held the reign. This is not so in Buddhism despite Scientology’s touting of superior methods in every area that Buddhism covers. If it was only for what Marty wrote, there is no chance in hell that this only destroyed Scientology and left Buddhism benevolent. Nope, there is something else in the Basics of Scientology that is off. And quite so.
Buddhists are not necessarily peaceful and non-violent. There are growing elements in Asia that promote force and violence, for example:
http://buddhism.about.com/b/2013/04/30/more-background-on-buddhist-violence-in-burma-2.htm
I will also post a link to an excellent article on Tibet which shows how the Lamas in Tibet allied for centuries with the secular rulers to keep the majority of people in an oppressive feudal serfdom for about 800 years, essentially making slaves of most of the people. This was all justified by “Buddhist scripture”. There a many parallels to the CoS, especially RTC and the Sea Org.
I believe the problem is inherent in human nature. Buddhism, Scientology, etc are proposed as “solutions” to this problem, but they can be and have been turned to evil and oppressive ends.
The senior consideration is the intention of the people applying the various philosophies, not something “inherent” in the philosophies themselves. They are “solutions” which themselves become “problems” due to human nature.
Here is more on Burmese Buddhists:
Click to access 969.pdf
And here is Michael Parenti’s article on Tibetan Buddhism and how they actually behaved. This is a very thoughtful and well documented overview of what Tibetan Buddhism was actually like for many centuries.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
Well, that sure puts things in perspective. Well done on your great dedication and accumulation of knowledge, Val.
Marildi, Valkov has become so jaded that he can no longer differentiate between the Church of Buddhism and the Tech of True Buddhism which has never harmed anyone in its true form.
Are you slyly misrepresenting me again?
Flatterer!
Ah! But that was not true Buddhism, but only the Church of Buddhism which corrupted its original tech! (humor)
There is a rather big difference between harm being rampant in Scientology and some Buddhists doing harm. In Scientology it seems systemic.
Doing harm is the nature of Scientology. The problem lies with Ron. For example what he says about psychiatrists? They label people. Now look at Science of Survival. Look at the tone scale, etc. That is serious labelling. And you as a Scientologist can label anyone 1.1. or PTS. And you can get away with it. Now, that is harmful. Someone makes a mistake. Wow, he’s a PTS. Really scientific evaluation. Does any Scientologist knows what is PTS? It is like Clear. Nobody saw any Clear:D
And I does not say that everything is wrong in the subject. It can’t be wrong as it is a collection of good things from elsewhere although sometimes altered, squirreled:). But the original part of it, processing (not all original, but ok) contains great stuff.
However it is very hard to separate the good from the bad in my opinion.
OK, we’ve covered Harm in Scientology. Let’s admit there has been harm done by Scientology. Was Help also “rampant” in Scientology since LRH held the reins?
In all fairness, I don’t think you can look at one without looking at the other. And how rampant is rampant?
I am not interested in any agreement on it being harm or help in Scientology. I am interested in getting to the exact root causes of why Scientology a) does harm, b) does not deliver on its main promises, c) does not deliver what I seek, d) traps a person from realizing his spiritual goals… in order to liberate the good and productive tool therein – so as to end up with a set of tools that can benefit the seeker.
That sums up the totality of my rationale in this area.
Well, I have my own problems, so I am only marginally interested in yours. Although if I knew the answers to your questions, I wouldn’t hesitate to respond as helpfully as I could.
Especially this question: “I am interested in getting to the exact root causes of why Scientology a) does harm,……”
This is a good question, but if you think it is Scientology exclusively that does harm, and that the propensity to do harm is somehow unique to Scientology, I think you are seriously off the track.
I think you would be better off asking “Why do human beings do harm to each other?” Systems are created and designed by human beings.
If you try to look at Scientology in isolation, with no datums of comparable magnitude, I think you will get nowhere fast because it would be like being fixated on one tree and there by not seeing the fact that it is part of a forest.
Scientology has many common elements with other harmful systems, religious and political. I see them all as “political” in the sense that they are involved with control of the many by the few, with some imagined benefit to the few trying to do the controlling. The “religious” part is just a cloaking device in most cases.
It also has common elements with beneficial or non-harmful systems. Christianity has been there, done that. It has in its history been through extremely harmful phases, doing tremendous amounts of harm, shedding much blood etc over the centuries.
Why does Christianity do harm? Is it “built into” Christianity to do harm? Answer that, and you will be able to answer your own question about Scientology and harm. You may say “I’m not interested in whether or not Christianity does harm or how it does harm, I’m only interested in Scientology” etc, but I think then you will be off on a fool’s errand wearing blinders, or looking through a microscope at the bark of one tree, forgetting it is just one example of a pattern of human behavior.
It is a principle of the study of psychology, that one doesn’t start out by asking “Why?”, but starts out by asking What?, then asking How?, then finally possibly being able to ask and answer Why?
Of course you probably think you can do it some other way, and perhaps you can, in accordance with your own worldview. But you may find that your answers are idiosyncratic to yourself, like Vin’s answers are idiosyncratic to his own understanding and may not seem very relevant or even understandable to others.
In any case, good luck on your quest. Maybe there is a great book waiting to be written on the subject.
Namaste. May the wind be always at your back etc.
It’s late here,must hit the hay.
Valkov: In all fairness, I don’t think you can look at one without looking at the other.
Chris: Other examples of those who helped are Mussolini and Hitler who also helped by raising those countries up out of economic depression and making the trains run on time. But it this how they are remembered? Hubbard’s insatiable lust for money and power without altruism is how he will be remembered. Even Bill Gates, a capitalist, will give his fortune away to help others, but Valkov, you don’t come across as a defender of capitalism, but in fairness and according to your argument, why not? L. Ron Hubbard is being remembered for cracking eggs, not for making omelettes.
Valkov: Was Help also “rampant” in Scientology since LRH held the reins?
Chris: You argue that Scientology helps but by ignoring the empirical evidence of all those who came and went, and this numbers in the millions of people. To argue that Scientology helps, is to ignore that Scientology has caused more BPC in the world than it relieved, ever, and this is indisputable. There has never been more help available from the ideology of Scientology than any other ideology helps since its inception, if that. With Hubbard at the reins, its most brilliantly energetic and destructively evil programs were run against apostates like Paulette Cooper and the government.
M to you for posting it and MR for writing it… ” To the degree that Scientology – or any other mental/spiritual practice – affords a person the opportunity and ability to safely view his life and mind and communicate his observations and conclusions with no hint or possibility of evaluation, invalidation or repercussion, it is a positive methodology for assisting a person to increase awareness and ability.”
+10 and cheers for me for understanding it and practise that understanding.”
Yes, Marty is doing better, lagging about a full cycle or two behind this blog. I hope we have been of help.
True. And I hope so, too.
Marty’s path seems more of a genuine spiritual path to me than it used to and my own disgust and previous anger with him personally for the ways in which he perpetuated the criminal cult of Scientology has diminished. If he is for real, if his writings are a genuine journal of his path, then I can now honestly wish him well. That would not have been true a short time ago.
You have delusions of grandeur, to use a non-Scientology term.
Watch it, M.
Fact is – Marty has been consistently trailing behind this blog for about 6 months for one or two years now, maybe longer.
My observation has been quite different.
Hello Geir. First time poster here. Linked over from Marty’s blog. Let me ask, whose pride and ego needs stroking the most? Yours, Marty’s, LRH’s.? Mine? Can most of the evil in scientology be traced to LRH’s ego, his false self. His need to be bigger, smarter, greater than all others. Did that infuse scientology with the end justifies the means mentality that ultimately crushed or discarded the individual? And now I see comments here on which blog seems to have broken new philosophic ground first and distanced itself from scientology first. More pride. Isnt pride and ego and its defense and promotion behind most of whats wrong. I find that is the case with most upsets in ones life. So if your looking for the root causes of what took scn off the rails, look at LRH bank, lower nature, pride, ego or whatever else one wishes to call it. I suspect you know that.
Chill, it was a slight comment, if even. No need to be worked up about it.
And then; Welcome!
As for Hubbard and his grandiozeness – obviously he is source. He created the mess. Etc. But that does not explain what exactly it is that makes people perpetrate harm. What exactly is is that hooks people to the cult and start behaving like robots. Now that is the question I had been searching for until Brendan broke that bubble for me. It is the repetitive duplication, the insidious repeating of copying what LRH proclaims as truth. It is the belief that one has to copy. This is even covered in the NOTs material as an issue that should be handled. Well, it is an issue and it should be handled – but not on OT5-7… it should be removed as a mechanism from the subject altogether.
“Repetitive duplication” doesn’t get a big read from me, either.
But I think this would:
“In Scientology …
…have you ever been CURIOUS about duplication?
…have you ever DESIRED duplication?
…has duplication ever been ENFORCED?
…has duplication ever been INHIBITED?”
As I recall, there are a few other button sometimes added to the basic CDEI; but I don’t recall at the moment which.
(This would be a partial instance of, “Using Scientology to run out Scientology.” 🙂 )
G.
Gary.. interestingly scientology what connection one had just blows with solo auditing when one runs group -group agreements, belonging to one, forced to belong, agreed to belong in order not to be alone, etc..etc.. Group belonging into one made up by lots of consideration. because this planet is one large group of meat bodies.. the fun part that in reality we all do each others.. we are not strangers.. but we pretend most of the time in order to have what.. experience? Why I am writing here I am going to give a call!
Repetitive duplication doesn’t get a big read on my meter. But perhaps its important. I think aberration is contagious is a better culprit. Its the false self, the pride and ego in each of us that was appealed to, equally along with the higher calling of the philosophy which justified it. We were hustled.
That is an inherent characteristic of Man, and not descriptive of what makes Scientology into a cult or why it sets it apart from other, more benevolent practices. It is on par with “the problem is Hubbard’s ego”, “the problem is selfishness”, “the problem is misapplication of tech” or “the problem is out-ethics, MUs, …”. None of these are actions directed that explains the forming of an insidious cult. Repetitive duplication is.
I think we give different weight to these issues. That’s ok. Best wishes.
I don’t think that is it. I think the issues that lies Behind the cult is not the issue(s) that Creates the cult.
OLD S….. it seems it is you who have a hang up about PRIDE. interesting item… before one used that word should have a session on that since pride is a weighty consideration: that means it is made out of condensed considerations- and lots of agreements. Pride what its represent is most of the time indicate somebodies ”havingness” a solid item but pride can be taken as in intangible: knowledge etc…. Even a smart remark can be on object of pride-havingness for some one..
Here in this blog we do post because we are at home and here we can hang out
and talk to each other, make friend or enemies…With our communication what we say, we all describe who we are and where we are at. in simple way to say how big a bowl of shit we seat in…. baby….. if you want to continue commenting get ready for a wonderful ride.. but you also will be invalidated.. evaluated same way as you have done in your comment above.
will you stay? 🙂
Attila the Hun!
Elizabeth, as tempting as it is to take a seat in your big bowl of shit, as you put it, I think I would rather stand and maybee see a little clearer the direction I wish to go. In case there was a mis-duplication on language, the word Pride as I use it refers to the false nature, false identities, of a person, which they protect and propel. Its what masks the being. Am I hung up on it, absolutely. If one is not observing and peeling back those layers of your false self whenever you can, one does not progress. The saying is that the unexamined life is not worth living. Perhaps that is what you mean by sitting in the big bowl of shit. I suspect it is. Good luck.
Yes its smells very good around the oriental lilies are opening! great comment.. thank you… I do admit I am a bit last in the universe… and I do need guidance and I feel that your wonderful way of speaking English and your knowledge of just how it is around here in and out of the bowl of shit will help me a great deal to understand better… once again thank you!
PS: You must be sitting on barbs since pain is very obvious in your space it just pouring out into the universe.. yes and the sharpness-style of writing too indicate that you were well trained in marty’s blog.
I take it that you and I will not be friends? 🙂 because of that I feel my life is in total ruin!
Thank you Elizabeth for helping me make my point about PRIDE.
No dear it is I who thank you…. by the way here this blog is a learning field for most of us and not a battle field.
You mean because I noticed that his blog posts closely follow the subject material and evolution of this blog? I am open to being deluded, but this example is not one. Marty reads us.
Marty reads us..??? no wonder he wont post my comments.!
😈
Just because you have such a huge ego… ‘as the old secretary said you have.” you let me write here because I pay you daily compliments…!!!
just between you and I and the lamp post I have wondered why you have not erased some of my comments over these 2 years. I must have written thousands of them….that indicates that you do have good tolerance level. [ I read some of my writing. and I want to erase them..
You see, one of my ex said once ; Elizabeth you are not easy to live with sometimes… that was the understatement of the year! and that made me lough because I was with me 24 hours a day and I did not like me!
That was one of my reason for getting into scientology and continued with solo-ing. To get rid of Elizabeth-erase her.. erase everything about her what ever she was believed in- – how she talked, behaved.. etc.. and She is gone!
Finally I have reached the nothing-what ever and now there is nothing there not to like about me or like me. Not a bad place…. and well deserved I must say..
I have realized now people like me or not has nothing to do with me any more.. They act accordingly on their own reality… Interesting to see and understand that..
Also strangers they tell me everything… that too is interesting..
Having a happy time and I know you have reality on that… 🙂
PS don’t let that ego get any bigger, than you will need to buy larger hats, or had to have them made and that could be expensive in the long run!
Elizabeth: I have realized now people like me or not has nothing to do with me any more.. They act accordingly on their own reality… Interesting to see and understand that..
Chris: Manners notwithstanding, this comment of yours is a helpful piece of self-help advice.
Yes. Elizabeth: +1
Geir, I’m not understanding the colon:word:colon thingy. Explain?
About Elizabeth’s remark, I think she just meant her reputation precedes her. Knowing how he censors, I have no interest in any opinions expressed there since they are cooked. Here one is free to express pretty much anything and can see it go up. This is supremely important for my own morale blogging. Thank you for making that happen.
When you see a colon-word-colon, it is a mis-spelling of one of the emoticons, see here:
https://isene.me/2013/07/03/help-to-lighten-up/
CH… it is ”thing” nothing more.. no mystery..:)
Elizabeth, Sure Marey reads us. His blog has generally mirrored this one for a long time now… Now that everyone here has quit being a Scientologist (except Marildi) Marty has announced he quit being a Scientologist too.
Yeah, you are spitting in the wind if you think he will post your comments, hahaha. But now that he’s coming on out, maybe? I tried about 4 comments a couple years ago and he never published one of mine and anyway, his blog is quite boring to me as are his OPs as we have already covered them here.
I’m interested in a few of the people here, but not so much to discuss Scientology since it has been receding in the rear-view mirror of my iteration for quite a while now. Looking ahead for the next adventures, like tomorrow morning! hahaha
hehehe… fun… we are where we believe we are at.. if one thinks one is grand than one is just that!
He might one of these days will allow me to post there too! 🙂 when that will happen I know for my self that the talk he talk is from experience ..
Unless he is following me, I don’t predict our paths will ever cross. He is going a way and I am going my way. I used to read his blog and see a grand manipulator but then I saw a little change and then seems more and now quite a bit more. It doesn’t matter my opinion of him, but from here I began giving him the benefit of the doubt (in my own world of evaluation!) and no longer wish him to drink acid and die but wish him to continue his path of self discovery and success. We all seem to be fighting a hard battle.
He is where he needs to be, we all are 🙂
Spitting into the wind… those day are over… you see I have erased that compulsion.
LRH made that list just for me. Spitting in the wind is its title, I can mail a copy for you. very affective and since you have that thingy [thing]. , by changing the words around ;Pissing in the wind… it would work on that item toooooo 🙂 Just think what great win-cognition you will have, for sure it will change your life! you will be admitted to Heaven!
It is not enough to point out and even isolate what is good in Scientology. That doesn’t cut it. What is needed is the finding of the root cause(s) of harm, admitting them, hang them out in full view and then move on with what is positive. Until this is done, we will continue to have two camps of pros and cons bickering endlessly over Scientology.
Are you interested in my reality on this too?
The root cause of harm are lies, being unscientific, making the tech for the sake of profit, being dogmatic things like that.
There is something below that. My view coming soon to a blog post near you.
I am very interested, waiting for that for sure.
Posted.
Okay, Geir, here’s one of Marty’s more in-depth analyses of what is at the root of what went wrong in Scientology. First he quotes from Abraham H. Maslow’s book *Religion, Values, and Peak Experiences*:
“When all that could be called ‘religious’ (naturalistically as well as supernaturalistically) was cut away from science, from knowledge, from further discovery, from the possibility of skeptical investigation, from confirming and discomfirming, and, therefore, from the possibility of purifying and improving, such a dichotomized religion was doomed. It tended to claim that the founding revelation was complete, perfect, final, and eternal. It had the truth, the whole truth, and had nothing more to learn, thereby being pushed into the position that has destroyed so many churches, of resisting change, of being only conservative, of being anti-intellectual and anti-scientific, of making piety and obedience exclusive of skeptical intellectuality — in effect, of contradicting naturalistic truth.”
And here are Marty’s comments on the above:
“Such a split-off religion generates split-off and partial definition of all necessary concepts. For example, faith, which has perfectly respectable naturalistic meanings, as for example in Fromm’s writings, tends in the hands of an anti-intellectual church to degenerate into blind belief, sometimes even ‘belief in what you know ain’t so.’ It tends to become unquestioning obedience and last-ditch loyalty no matter what. It tends to produce sheep rather than men.” http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/06/13/dichotomized-religion-sheep-production/
Btw, I found Maslow’s book that was quoted here; http://www.scribd.com/doc/142187640/Abraham-H-Maslow-Religions-Values-and-Peak-Experiences
You are going to have to find a way to argue for yourself. Endless quoting of people who are not respected more than you are, is not good arguing.
I think one point of it HAS to do with the “ethics”-system, as it was/is practiced in the CoS. When I think at “ethics” re Scn, I get the creeps . When I think at “ethics” otherwise, I’m totally fine. It has something to do with, that when you are not toeing the line (not thinking in the ”right” way), you are getting sorted out – literally. This leads to though-conformity and thus thought-control. I can spot points were I went further and further into the (mental) mess, when I was acting against my basic convictions to align, to not have to leave the group and my friends (that by the way, was my real “out-ethics”, acting against my convictions). That was very contrary to my character (not to be confused with not being able to be a team player – that’s different). But one major point that was attracting me to Scn was (the presenting) of being non-conform.
What comes to my mind again and again are the many contradictions. They are enough to drive one into apathy or keep one mentally occupied trying to sort them out and make some sense of them. How can one think straight, with these many contradictions? I couldn’t! This leads to cognitive dissonance with its phenomena. And when you try to handle theses (the contradictions), you have to look for YOUR MU’s (till you find them or till you are “sorted-out”). But that won’t handle it.
The contradictions are implanted into the subject and one of the major problems, IMO.
What made the ethics system possible to implement in Scientology?
Control of behavior and thought – maybe. Scary.
Why scientology has the problem why not the individuals has the problem? who made scientology a problem if not the individual persons?
How can a thing have a problem on its own?
Elizabeth,
Sure, the individuals have the problems with the subject (or don’t have it) and how they use it; me, because of acting contrary to my convictions and not drawing the consequences. After 13 years then, I did. But it meant also to leave people who were dear to me, and the possibility to go up the Bridge (that it was possible outside, I didn’t know at the time).
LRH’s even said to do so (* – I love this), and I was reading it being an “ethics particle” under detention for 15 months. I thought he was right. But he also said that sb who is leaving the SO is a DB, didn’t he? So hypothetically I had a choice to transform from a member of the “elite of the planet“ into a “DB” in a very short time, with my the decision that: I would be much better off outside that door – and that’s were I belong then.:)
* LRH: “If you just mercilessly search out of your life, in the actions and the common actions of your life, all the maybes on a decision level, and if you suddenly assert your decisions where you have withheld decisions, I can guarantee you that your life will smooth out pretty well. If you do that in a big office, for instance, where’s there’s a big staff, it may very well be that by asserting your decisions they fire you straight out the door. That’s where you belong, then. You’re a lot better off outside that door. If this environment has smothered your power of decision, you don’t belong in it. Most of the indecision which you will meet in life is strictly based around choice of environment and the ability to exert decision in that environment.”
On your question “How can a thing have a problem on its own”. Interesting. For example when a cloud hits a mountain and then cannot go further and has to rain – does “it“ have a problem? (“ a problem is postulate-counter-postulate, force-counter-force. It’s one thing against another thing. You’ve got two forces or two ideas which are interlocked of comparable magnitude and the thing stops right there. …” – Tech dicct.”
Of course if you proceed from the assumption that sb postulated or created the mountain and the behavior of clouds, the problem of “the thing” is the problem of the creator(s).
Karola
Karola thank you for your communication..! have a lovely day!
Misinterpretations of Ethics and Responsibility. According to Scientology,you are responsible for everything that happens to you. You “pull things in”, you deserve it. If a stranger hit you in the head with a bottle while you’re walking in the park. Your fault. It just dosen’t add up. It must be shades of grey here. Tell a victim of a child molester that he or she “pulled it in” because he or she had bad karma. I don’t accept that. There are things in this universe that is beyond one’s area of control. There are some uncertainties. If not, then we wouldn’t have a game either.
Anette,
IF you accept the premise that we are god-like spiritual beings who have chosen to limit ourselves, repeatedly over time, until we now manifest as humans, it follows, directly that, nothing — nothing whatever — happens to us which we didn’t, at some level of knowingness, allow to happen.
But, on the strictly human ‘level,’ whether or not the above is true, it is rarely (if ever) helpful to consider ourselves victims. When we do, we nearly invariable diminish ourselves. Similarly, we make others ‘smaller’ when we suggest (or agree) that they are victims. “You poor thing!” Is rarely a helpful comment to the purported, ‘victim.’
And when we raise the ‘victim’ flag ourselves, we’re basically crying, “Look at me, LOOK at me! Aren’t I pitiful? Look how ‘they’ ruined my life; shame on them! (Alms for the wretched?)” I do feel compassion for those who proclaim themselves victims — because, all unknowingly, they are digging their grave.
Responsibility is not equivalent to fault. With good reason, I think, “Shame, Blame, and Regret,” were deprecated in Scientology (I speak here of theoretical Scientology — that advocated in the books) and any attempt to assign ‘fault’ is an attempt to push, “Shame, Blame, or Regret.” I’m fully aware that some Scientologists, who should know better, have wielded, “Shame, Blame, and Regret,” as though they were mighty swords and have thrust and cut with full intent to damage. 😦
I think the point here, is that the only life we control is our own. It’s not so much that we don’t have the ‘right’ to control another’s life, although we don’t, as that, no matter what we do, ultimately, the other person will rightly have the final say.
If we act _as though_ we are always fully responsible for what happens to us, by addressing the person we most readily control, ourselves, we stand the best chance of creating changes that lead to a positive future.
I suppose the advice I would give to a ‘victim’ (if not so bluntly) would be, “Get over it! Learn what you can from it; make the changes in your life that seem best, and get on with creating a great life!”
G.
G.
Well said, Gary.
Hey, you haven’t commented for a long time. Try to do so more often. I always enjoy your comments. 🙂
Thanks, Marildi,
My off-hand response to another’s comment (before I even began to address the opening post) seems to have stirred the pot a bit. 😦
Some have clearly seen my comment as an ‘attack’ on Anette. I regret that. 🙂 Were it possible to examine all my posts on the internet, or all my personal emails, or even all my (post Scientology) face to face interactions it would be hard to find even one instance that was an ‘attack.’ As a libertarian, I don’t attack physically; as an (ever so) ex-Scientologist, I don’t attack verbally — it’s just not helpful.
As to commenting generally, I only post when I feel that I have something useful to say — that has not already been said.
Re. the OP? The ‘fatal flaw?’ There are likely several. Probably one was setting up Scientology (“The science of knowing how to know.”) as a religion. That one bugged me from the beginning. I managed to justify it to myself as a pragmatic necessity; held my nose even so.
G.
Gary, it was clear to me that there was no intention on your part to criticize Anette as there was nothing in her comment that was personal to herself. Besides that, anyone familiar with even a limited number of your posts would know that wouldn’t be at all like you.
I agree with what you’re saying about Scientology being set up as a religion. It was a double-edged sword, as it turned out. Back when it was instituted, I think the intention was to protect Scientology from efforts to either wipe it out or take it over and may in fact have saved its demise – temporarily. Unfortunately, however, it set Scn up to be a belief system and to the degree that it did so, the goals of personal freedom in the basic principles were lost. So what you’ve expressed as the fatal flaw seems valid to me.
p.s. Gary. Another factor besides Scn being made into a religion, and thus being set up as a belief system that inhibits actual free thought, is the fact that Scientology produces such incredibly fantastic gains that it (1) brings about a mindset that keeps one from continuing to search and think for oneself and (2) makes Scientologists, as true believers, vulnerable to the whims of a corrupt management .
In other words, as the old saying goes – the bigger they are the harder they fall. And the tech of Scientology is truly “big”. This is the gist of Marty’ Rathbun’s blog post today: http://markrathbun.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/why-bother/
Ironic, isn’t it? Scientology went down the tubes basically because it was so supremely workable! Nevertheless, there are people who don’t fixate on the negative and can see that the good can be sifted out and the pitfalls avoided. I am one of those and I would guess you are too.
Marildi “Scientology went down the tubes basically because it was so supremely workable!”
Not quite what Marty wrote, was it?
Isn’t that basically what he is saying here:
“L. Ron Hubbard developed a number of unique, aggressive methods for tackling problems of the human psyche. Used intelligently there is nothing that compares to their direct, predictable effectiveness in intensifying present awareness.
“…[Ken] Wilber speaks of people attaining ecstatic, exalted altered states in their particular discipline that they consider to be so miraculous as to be without compare. They are convinced that they have found the only way, which results in a sort of tunnel vision and puts a figurative ceiling on their own continued growth and development.
“…As intensively and effectively as Scientology can focus an individual’s attention and concentration, it just as intensively and effectively conditions those new found abilities onto worshiping and defending to the death the construct that made them possible.”
Oy ve! Marildi! You’ve even turned Marty! I’m not messing with you anymore!
His comm lag is shortening.
Marildi, THAT is your slyest red herring in a while. You had me going for a minute. On the other hand, you had me going because of that little shift, you know what I mean. Congrats. Good job. Love you.
Marildi,
(Replying also here to your followup.)
The religious thing was certainly a ‘flaw’ for me; but, like I said, I doubt there is a _single_ fatal flaw.
Perhaps another was Ron’s setting himself up as a charismatic leader. His desire to be seen as such is demonstrated by his seeming unhappiness with others who became strong ‘opinion leaders’ within Scientology. From various reports, if anyone seemed to be approaching his level of — fame/regard/respect — the dude/dudettes head would roll. This pretty much eliminated culling, by peer review, of the truly bad ideas. (This trait seems to have been taken to the next higher level by the current head of the church. 😦 )
As you (and Marty in your link) note: occasional touches of ecstasy may have contributed to the unquestioning fanaticism. At one time, Ron himself railed against this, he called it, “going up the pole.”
Short of this, it was hard for me to keep in mind that someone who seemed so often ‘right’ could also, sometimes, be dead wrong! I, and doubtless many others, worked real hard to ‘justify’ something that seemed wrong. I mean, really, “how often is Ron wrong???” So, most likely, if something he says _seems_ wrong, at first, I’m probably not quite understanding what he truly meant. For example.
Before I even walked in the door of any Scientology organization, I read, front to back, the (I think it was called) “Basic Staff Handbook.” While reading, I got the various ethics conditions. Ok, Ok, Ok…woah! Grey rags tied around the arm??? “What the hell is some kind of degradation ceremony doing in Scientology orgs?”
Well, even that early in the game, I was _motivated_ to make Ron right. After sufficient twisting and contorting, I could — just — see how this ethics stuff could all be a fun ‘agreed upon’ game. I could also clearly see how it could be turned vile in the wrong hands — that being, the hands of anyone who didn’t see, as clearly as I did, what Ron (obviously) intended.
Of course, in the Sea Org, it was explicitly demanded that one ‘get’ “Command Intention.” Eventually, that became a trifle difficult. 😦
Still, there remain those things that Hubbard/LRH/Ron did get right. Quite a lot of ‘things.’ Some of those things I have used, consistently, ever since. Some of those things I have taught others (non-Scientologists) and seen them apply the principles to their benefit. If I had the chance to do it all again — or not, I’d do it again. I could not in good conscience deprive myself of the tools and wealth of understanding that I got from Scientology. It has enriched my life immeasurably.
However, the shortest way to a ‘sad-effect’ I know is to consider what I hoped Scientology to be and contrast that with what it became.
G.
Great comment, Gary!
Thanks, Gary. One thing I have to disagree with is that on Marty’s post he was talking about “occasional touches of ecstasy”. I believe he was referring to the regularly occurring releases that pcs get – which they often find to be quite a relief and pretty miraculous. I would say this is commonplace in auditing and that this was Marty’s point about why Scientologists easily become overly zealous and closed-minded.
However, as for the rest of your post, I had pretty much the same experiences as you – and came to exactly the same conclusions you did, which was so well put and bears repeating:
“Still, there remain those things that Hubbard/LRH/Ron did get right. Quite a lot of ‘things.’ Some of those things I have used, consistently, ever since. Some of those things I have taught others (non-Scientologists) and seen them apply the principles to their benefit. If I had the chance to do it all again — or not, I’d do it again. I could not in good conscience deprive myself of the tools and wealth of understanding that I got from Scientology. It has enriched my life immeasurably.
“However, the shortest way to a ‘sad-effect’ I know is to consider what I hoped Scientology to be and contrast that with what it became.”
You and your sane viewpoint did my heart good today! 🙂
Gary.. thanks, great comment and I love you for writing it.
yes no matter what happens to us we have created that.. example I was badly beaten this life.. yes that made me the victim till in session I have found the postulate, I had a head on collision.[ You can read that in my blog just how severe that was] I was driven into yet again in session I found the postulate which caused that incident….
As I have inspected my track and the interaction with others over the many life times.. nothing but nothing has happened unless I have agreed to it or postulated it.. It seems even being a VICTIM I HAVE BEEN A CAUSE… Now knowing that has restored my reality on just how much power I have….Garybaby… this kid here is operating with power!
Let’s start off with this little example: Try convincing a 5-yearold that was raped by her father that she caused that raping and see how much of a better person she becomes. If that doesn’t help, then try telling her to simply get over it.
I say this: https://isene.me/2013/05/02/what-can-you-control/
I read your article, Geir, and am in full agreement — so much so that, were I a better writer, I might have written those words myself.
As for the 5-year old? She needs comforting and protection for now; much later she might find some auditing helpful — or a direction to your, “what-can-you-control” post.
G.
In this case, I would string up the “father” who did this, and make a safe environment for the child. The child is only guilty of being human on this planet, and that can be addressed (if she decides to) when she is older, and really, outside the context of being raped. This is the cruelty of rote and unthinking acceptance of data.
Elizabeth,
I envy your experiential certainty! I have had to adopt it as, “a workable truth.” And you have hit the crux of it: if we assign causation of our various calamities to another, to that extent, we assign away our ‘power.’ This is unhelpful to do, even from a ‘meat body’ perspective.
Certainly, many situations are — co-created. “I did this, Marla did that, Joe this other thing.” But! Willingness to take responsibility for my part in the joint creation is hugely important — to me. Certainly, I never want to be, “an agent of blame.”
G.
Gary .. thanks for the comm.
that certainty yes has come after many-many thousand of hours of looking-confronting the crap I have created and believed in.
To erase is taking responsibility and that has to be done what I done to others on every level, To me O/W’s finding those were the rewards, because they were so well hidden, suppressed yet finding those and understanding them really made me understand the self what that self is and the power it has.
Garry.. PS.. when I read your comment I never read or seen “attack” I just seen what you written -plain fantastic view points.
In my reality any one who read more into your comment WAS THEIR CONCIDERATION waken by their stimulation from their own bank.
Love these stuff, so many view points one is funnier than the other.. great day in Paradise!
Gary, You must be in a lot of pain to have puked out all that ruminated Scientology nonsense. Maybe instead of deriding another’s life story, you just stick your own neck out and tell your own story. We’ll listen and let you know how you’ve measured up to being an OT. LOL!
Hi Chris,
There was no intent in my recent post to deride anyone. Geir started me (thinking/ruminating) about the OP issue, then, reading the comments, Anette’s conflation of Responsibility and Fault ‘pressed’ my, “Someone is ‘wrong’ on the internet,” button.
I was nearly finished with my comment before I clicked on Anette’s pic and read part of her blog. My first impression was, “Oh shit! I’m responding to Geir’s girlfriend and she might feel like the whole ‘victim’ thing was pointed at her.” After reading more of her posts, it seemed at least possible that she was, in fact, doing her best to, “get over it.”
As for my own ‘story?’ Well, much of it has already been posted over the last thirty years, starting with Homer’s newsgroup. Never did do a ‘my story’ on exscn. Compared with the stories of others, mine seriously lacks — drama.
Short version: it begins in 1968 at Luke AFB, Phoenix, Az. with a library hardback of DMSMH. No joy getting fellow airmen to ‘try it’ with me. Rediscovered again, in 1969, at the base exchange in Germany. Paperback with response cards! Yeah!!!
Ordered (and read) most of what are now considered ‘basic books’ before I sought & received my first auditing at (let me think) 7-8 Rue de Londres, Paris, France. Got me a whole 5 hr intensive. Wow! (Dis ain’t like DMSMH)
Was referred to George Eggar’s and Blanka Anakin’s franchise in Frankfurt. Signed up for the H.S.D.C. My four year enlistment in the USAF ended in 1970 and I had to return to the States just before beginning student auditing. 😦
Towards the end of the year, I went to L.A. (with a friend) intending to join the Auditor’s Corp. Rejected; wasn’t a certified auditor. 😦 Joined CC instead. Got mucho backlogged FSM commissions paid. Yevonne was the C.O.; I helped lay the rag floor.
(Short, Gary, come on!)
All CC ‘staff’ had to join Sea Org. Ok. Highlight: Promoted to Dir of Clearing, then Public Sec. Heber Jentzsch was my Deputy Pub. Sec for a time. (Where’s Heber???) SS I & II, SO SS I & II, OEC, AB. Blew when I heard sec checks were coming in. Rejoined early 1980’s. Was Deputy Qual Sec for a time (again at CC.) Routed out. Total time in S.O.: about 3 years. Somewhere in there, held various posts at ASHO including Medical Officer, Letter Reg Typist, Dir of Personnel and (demoted myself to) Recruiter.
Hate Rice & Beans to this day. 🙂
G.
Thanks Gary! Thawed my icy cold heart with that story. So you have been around a bit. A good guy trying to do a good thing and help the Old Man clear the planet. Nothing wrong with that. Your warm and sane response to my cold shoulder and lack of knee-jerk shows good character and calm spirit.
Do you feel that you were able to identify and attain personal goals through the use of Scientology? Say a little bit about that if you don’t mind.
Chris,
Thanks and a quick correction: I was never much sold on the “Clear the Planet” thing. Seemed like a (fairly lame), “Big League Sales,” gimmick to me.
My initial attraction, ala DMSMH, was to the perfect memory and super-reliable computation that seemed to be — attainable. I already had a very good memory and decent computation and had devoured books in many disparate fields. Yet it was very real to me that, as good as it was, my ability to recall what I wanted, when I wanted, could stand improvement. Sadly, as with most, my memory has become less vivid, less reliable, less facile with age. So — no big win on that score. 😦
When I discovered in Germany that ‘Ron’ had gone on to, “Build a better Bridge,” his own damn self, I was thrilled!
As a long time SF fan, I was particularly enchanted by the OT levels — which seemed to hold out the possibility of becoming not just a superior human being, but, well, way more. 🙂 Telepathy, Telekinesis! Etc.
I subscribed to and read cover to cover the “Advance” mags and paid particular attention to the OT success stories. Seemed like others had ‘received’ similar abilities to those I coveted — if, perhaps, they could exercise them only intermittently. But just to KNOW that one was a spiritual being running a body? That would be so cool!
It was on silly ol’ ARC S/W that I was slammed with the certainty that I was a spiritual being, and yeah, running a body. It was an unanticipated result from totally non-leading questions like, “Recall a time when you felt great!” With a follow-up question asking you to note some specific sensory modality in that ‘picture.’ Kinda interesting, kinda boring too for a couple of days, then WHAM! WTF?
“That’s it.” Sent to attest the next day. NO PROBLEM. Of course, that ‘running a body’ bit was somewhat awkward — rather tentative and kinda weak for a week. 🙂
Later I had student auditing on Grade 0. That was lots of fun, particularly visualizing comm flows and connections. Then my auditor had to move on to Grade 1 auditing so I was — incomplete on that for a time. Later yet, during some metered action, I read as overrun on Grade 0. Auditor immediately did a Date/Locate.
Now that was the first time I’d had a Date/Locate run on me and I was just a little dubious that it would be effective. It was.
No sooner had the auditor stated the date (and perhaps time) than I was FLOODED with certainty that comm was never going to be an issue for me again. Nor has it, 3+ decades later.
Perhaps even more valuable was just the information about how people worked, gleaned from books, tapes in the qual library listened to during QM posts, and bulletins, P/Ls and such that appeared in my in-basket or were encountered while reading through the Qual Library.
So, in summation, none of my long-term personal goals were actually attained. The processing goals, grade chart goals, were uniformly attained — in spades! And — in time. 🙂
I lost confidence that the — magical — results that I had expected from the OT levels were actually available. (Despite plenty evidence that others had found those levels worthwhile — for them.) That, along with my growing awareness of the non-scientological, out ARC practices of the management of the church in the late 1980’s I began to, ever so quietly, drift away.
If I’ve failed to address what peaked your interest, Chris, feel free to let me know.
G.
That was great Gary. Well told. You understated the drama in your experience, though, or else you never wrote your name truly in blood on the billion year contract? No matter. We all tried to do good things for good reasons and we can’t be faulted for that part of it — ever.
Ch…. I believe one day after a new different cog [ about responsibility] will come your way you will silently apologize to Gary for the above comment you made.
No apology needed. No offense was taken.
sorry you old sweet. that apology meat for splog because I called him slog…! 🙂
🙂
Gary –
L Ron Hubbard taught Scientologists this view of responsibility so that LRH’s victims would be shuddered into silence by other Scientologists. Your use of this abusive definition of responsibility is actually quite disgusting, although I suspect you are only trying to help others with Scientology.
It would be good for you to question and test this teaching by L Ron Hubbard. A good way to do that is to apply Logic 8 to it by comparing another, similar teaching on responsibility to Hubbard’s.
Aristotle has an extremely enlightened teaching on Ethics and responsibility that is really good for an excellent exercise in Logic 8.
Here it is. Listen and see:
http://archive.org/details/nicomachean_ethics_ge_librivox
Until then, stop blaming the victim for the things that others do to them. It, at the least, shows you can’t spot source.
Please?
Alanzo
Alanzo,
I believe I’ve ‘crossed swords’ with you once or twice before. 🙂 Elsewhere.
If you reread my post without preconceptions, you’ll see that I entirely disavowed the whole, “shame, blame, & regret,” bit. The whole point, Alanzo, was that ‘blame’ (or shame, or regret) is rarely helpful — including (but not limited to) blaming others for one’s, “terrible condition.”
G.
+10. right you are!
Gary.. those abilities are there . but under different reality as humans believe what they are, how it happens!
Gary wrote –
If you reread my post without preconceptions, you’ll see that I entirely disavowed the whole, “shame, blame, & regret,” bit. The whole point, Alanzo, was that ‘blame’ (or shame, or regret) is rarely helpful — including (but not limited to) blaming others for one’s, “terrible condition.”
Hubbard liked to use semantics to emphasize a BIG DIFFERENCE and make this BIG DRAMATIC POINT where there was none.
Assuming responsibility, and assigning responsibility, are no different in actuality than assuming blame, and assigning blame. It’s just a different word, with a slightly different meaning.
The slight difference in meaning does not create a difference in real life.
If you assign responsibility, you are also blaming. Hubbard said one was “high-toned” and the other “low-toned” and a bunch of other obfuscating claptrap. You are just playing Hubbard’s semantic game.
You are making a distinction where there is no difference.
If I am wrong, please tell me the exact difference between the assignment of responsibility and the assignment of blame. We’ll take the 5 year old and the pedophile priest scenario.
What is the exact difference between assigning responsibility to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him, and assigning blame to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him?
Alanzo
Alanzo: “What is the exact difference between assigning responsibility to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him, and assigning blame to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him?”
There isn’t difference simply because responsibility cannot be assigned. It can only be assumed by the person themselves on their own determinism. The mere action of trying to *assign* responsibility immediately moves it into some nuance of blame.
This is yet another amazing example of Hubbard’s magic switcheroos. He very carefully defined ethics as different from justice, and responsibility as different from blame. then wrote book, bulletins and gave lectures on how they were different, establishing agreement amongst the audience that this is how it really is (which it is).
And what did he then immediately do both times?
Conflated them and made them the same! Started assigning responsibility for mistakes and created the post of Ethics Officer, and their first orders from him were to start assigning conditions. Both times in direct contradiction to his carefully established agreement prior, bu that didn;t matter as the sheep were already suckered.
Now I see what Geir is getting at – the robotism caused by incessant “duplication” is what set the audience up to be suckered like this.
Alan: The mere action of trying to *assign* responsibility immediately moves it into some nuance of blame. This is yet another amazing example of Hubbard’s magic switcheroos.
Chris: Alan and Alanzo, the tocayo tag team.
Thank you splog.
Now, if you can muster the energy and stand the exhaustion; Could you please explain this to Marildi? Tip: Finding any LRH reference that supports your point makes for an enormous difference in that effort.
Alanzo: ” . . . obfuscating claptrap . . . ”
Chris: Standing ovation.
Alanzo,
(I think I saw someone refer to you as, “Allen.” Does your ‘handle’ mean, “Allen from Anzo?”)
I haven’t seen but a small portion of what you’ve written, nor do I recall in any detail, that of yours which I’ve read. The overall impression is that you’ve long been a staunch critic of Scientology: the tech, the policy, and the heavy handed implementation of either. I agree; that needs to be done. Perhaps to my shame, I have had neither the courage required nor interest in, “standing up to the church!” That’s clearly one area where we differ.
Another area, perhaps, is that nothing seriously ‘bad’ happened to me while public, staff, or sea org member. (Nor did I do anything ‘bad’ to public or fellow staff. 🙂 ) As disillusionment increased, I just quietly disengaged and took with me the ‘wins’ I’d had in auditing and the valuable information I had learned. I don’t recall ever feeling angry at Scientology; I was more sad if, anything, that Scientology had not lived up, in practice, to my high expectations.
That said, I’ll offer my take on some of your points.
Alanzo: “Assuming responsibility, and assigning responsibility, are no different in actuality than assuming blame, and assigning blame. It’s just a different word, with a slightly different meaning.”
From my perspective, responsibility can never be ‘assigned.’ It can be offered, by one who has already accepted that responsibility, and it can be accepted; but it can never be assigned. Similarly, while responsibility can offered, even if accepted that responsibility is only shared. never is it ‘given away.’ Responsibility can also be withdrawn, relinquished or abandoned.
(One of ‘things’ about LRH that truly ‘bugged me,’ even in the day, was his pretence that ‘screw ups’ by juniors were not also his own. He showed feet of clay!)
And that brings us to blame. (Which, by the way, Ron spent far too much time trying to avoid.) People who have responsibility are, and should be, careful about assigning it/sharing it. On the other hand, nearly everyone is not only willing but absolutely eager to share blame or ‘assign it’ to others. 🙂
I suspect, am nearly convinced, that the only reason one points the finger of blame is to deflect attention from oneself. (Perhaps, even, to deflect one’s own attention from oneself!)
Alanzo: “What is the exact difference between assigning responsibility to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him, and assigning blame to the 5 year old for the priest’s actions against him?”
Why would anyone sane do this? Are you expecting me to be an apologist for craziness? Clearly, anyone attempting to ‘assign responsibility’ (which can’t be done!) to a 5 year old is nuts! Ditto re. the blame.
G.
Gary –
I’m “Allen” from Illinois, not ANZO. And Splog is yet another “Alan” that is also different from “Alanzo”.
I think you’ve gotten us mixed up a little in your reply. Which is easy to do.
I can see why you would not want to defend the insane. My point is that LRH’s definition of full responsibility leads to this insanity because a Scientologist is taught to assume cause over all efforts and counter efforts on all dynamics.
This results in a person blinding himself to the cause of others in his life, and therefore you get situations where Mike Rinder sustains 50 beatings from David Miscavige, and no one ever calls the police. Because Mike had to “take responsibility” for David Miscavige beating him. This blindness to David Miscavige’s cause led him to not blame Miscavige for beating him. Mike never pointed a finger at David Miscavige, with tears in his eyes, and screamed “It is YOUR FAULT that you beat me and NOT MINE!”
That would have been assigning correct blame. And assigning the correct blame would have led to an immediate improvement of the condition by Mike calling the police after the very first beating and telling them that he has been a VICTIM of assault and battery.
The beatings would have stopped right there. David Miscavige would have been disgraced and sent to jail. And the Church would probably be slightly less abusive to its members today.
You have to assign correct cause, or correct blame, for ALL factors in a situation in order to be fully responsible for it. This obviously, includes your own correct blame.
LRH’s definition makes people blind to other causes outside themselves – especially when it comes to Church abuse. I believe LRH did this on purpose, in order to silence people who he had abused.
He labeled them “victims” and made that label mean that they were “effect”, “weak” and “sniveling pussies” and told everyone to look down on them for “being a victim”.
There IS such a thing as a victim that does not have all these derogatory labels. And it is very possible to be a victim as part of taking full responsibility for a situation. LRH’s definition keeps that from happening.
His definition leads to very bad effects. It is either crazy or evil, or both.
I personally know of 2 victims of child molestation in the Church who were blamed for “pulling in” the acts of the Scientologist pedophiles who sexually abused them.
LRH’s definition of full responsibility from APA is why this happened to them in Scientology.
Alanzo
Alanzo,
I think I may have ‘spotted’ the source of any disagreement we may have. Feel free to let me know if I’m in error. 🙂
All people who ‘follow’ Christ have their own, personal, conception of Christianity and their own idea of what it means to ‘act’ as a Christian — how they ‘should’ live their lives, even when they fail to do so.
Similarly, all people who consider themselves to be scientists, operate from their own fund of knowledge and their idea of how a scientist ‘should’ act — whether they live up to that ideal or not.
Scientology (capital S) has brought scientology (small s) into disrepute. So much so that, when I share with another particular bits of ‘workable truth’ that I think they might find useful, I often neglect to mention if I happened to learn that, ‘workable truth,’ first while studying scientology. 😦
Scientology (capital S) includes the organization(s) set up by or for Ron/LRH/Hubbard to develop and promulgate scientology and, ever so incidentally, ensure that Ron would never again be strapped for cash. Similarly, Scientologists are those scientologists who are acting for that organization or are, at least somewhat, adhering to its guidelines, rules, policies, and procedures.
In the early days, Ron defined scientology as: the science of knowing how to know. Well, that sounded profound; it was surely good ‘PR’; but I could never truly get what it meant. Ron clearly admired science and scientists; perhaps he wanted to garner some of the public’s admiration for scientists; and, PERHAPS, with a little stretch of the imagination, he could be considered a theoretical scientist. Experimental science, though, is often just incredibly tedious and, like me, I suspect Ron had little tolerance for tedium. 🙂
However, he also defined scientology more broadly as a collection of workable truths: all of those truths, so long as they worked, discovered by anyone, anywhere, at anytime. He explicitly noted that said definition encompassed all of the ‘workable truths’ of science. I liked that one and could embrace it! Without reservation.
Did I say, “broad?” By that definition, everyone, everywhere is a scientologist — whether they know it or not! Without exception, everyone has their own collection of ‘workable truths.’ As they live their lives, they add to that collection; on occasion they drop some ‘truths’ that have proved unworkable.
And this is perhaps where Scientology truly screwed the pooch: by defining itself as a religion, Ron became, ipso facto, the high priest. Ron’s every word (whether well considered or light opinion) became dogma. “Workable truths,” became enforced knowledge (ARC break, anyone?) and couldn’t be discarded when they stopped ‘working.’ (Isn’t it ironic, that K.S.W., “Keeping Scientology Working,” by its insistence on dogma, came to ensure that Scientology would not keep working?)
As the high priest, Ron couldn’t be corrected by his peers because — there were none!
So. I formed my foundation as a scientologist, through reading those books Ron was willing to present as the ‘public face’ of scientology, well before I ever darkened the door of a Church of Scientology. I already had a nice pile of, ‘workable truths,’ and more were added after. Some have since been discarded, some were found only occasionally useful, others form the core of the way I live my life.
But here’s the point: all those ‘truths’ are true as I, Gary York, have come to understand them. And those ‘truths,’ as I ‘read’ them, may or may not be the way Ron intended them to be understood or as you interpret them. (On occasion, ‘failure to duplicate’ may be a good thing. 🙂 )
So, here’s the point: even had we a million years to dispute, it would be impossible to convince me that ‘scientology’ is bad. Should you persuade me that every ‘workable truth’ in my current collection was, in fact, unworkable, that would only mean that I needed to update what I considered workable. By your persuasion, scientology has not been disproved, only that particular collection of ‘truths’ I had, momentarily, held.
On the other hand, over the years, as my knowledge increased and — ever so reluctantly — my opinion of Scientology has diminished. So much has it diminished, so tarnished has become its name, that I no longer hold hope that it can ever be reformed.
I think Geir’s point, in the OP, was to try to try to pinpoint specific things in Scientology, which would inevitably cause any similar organization to fail. At the moment, I can only advise such a successor organization, to:
1. Have no dogma.
2. Take nothing ‘on faith.’
3. Trust but verify. 🙂
4. Neither demand nor expect perfection. (Absolutes, etc.)
5. Be kind.
6. Never promise what you can’t deliver. 🙂
7. Don’t do unto others what you would rather others not do unto you. (I call this one the “Golder Rule.”)
G.
TO Gary…..”the science of knowing how to know. Well, that sounded profound; it was surely good ‘PR’ but I could never truly get what it meant.”
Different knowledge comes from the form of cognitions.
In my reality in sessions the self to finds out ,one discovers what is beyond the knowledge one have had when one erase that old thoughts-considerations-agreements-ideas and that cog is the new reality.
By having continual session one really can see the application of the auditing tech is: “the science of knowing how to know.”
But again the above is my reality I have arrived to having sessions. [tons in fact]
Awesome comment 😎
All right, Gary.
Well I’ve shown how this one part of Scientology – LRH’s definition of Responsibility from the Advanced Procedures and Axioms -when examined closely, is unworkable, crazy, evil, or all three.
You had tried to apply this part of Scientology to another poster here, and I called this “tool” you were using disgusting.
So at least I’ve been able to explain to you why I said that.
Alanzo
Anette, it is true, that you are fully responsible for everything that happened to you. The funny part of it is that on the level where you are fully responsible exists no responsibility or irresponsibility. That is on a plateau which is uncomprehensible for us from this state where we are now. So it is totally stupid (from Ron or Scientologists) to make such statements:D We are not alone in this world. Obvious. There are interconnections. So from this plateau where we are now there are many causes which collide and make the reality we are in. Of course there is karma but karmas are interconnected.
There is not even a definition for Ethics in Scientology. It is both defined for morals and personal matter but finally you get justice, so it is reduced to morals.
A victim would say “I pulled it in”. That’s a scientologist.
A non victim would call the police to handle the man with the bottle or get the child molester in jail.
Exactly. That’s why we have police and justice.
In Scientology the child will be assigned a Liability Condition for accepting such bad PR. SICK!!!
Scientologists are far off thinking Scientology Ethics and Justice is above the law of a country.
Anette: In Scientology the child will be assigned a Liability Condition for accepting such bad PR. SICK!!!
Chris: Anette is understating this. For reals, no exageration, I was there and this was done to my child.
Makes me so angry!
Decades later, I have trouble looking at her, when she is being quiet, without wondering if she is sorting out those experiences.
I can only imagine… 😥
A parent is supposed to put things, good constructive things there for the child to build on. It begins with hopefully enough sprinkling of DNA that they have a chance and then teach them. The years my daughter had none of that in the SO cannot be gotten back and the lack of incidents to draw on leave me wondering and guilty. My daughter has a fair measure of success in her life by outward appearances and standards… Only I know what she never got and this sometimes sort of drives me crazy.
One thing is to expose oneself to crazy insanity, shit and sufferings, another thing is to have caused (directlt or indirectly) another to be exposed. I totally get that. You are forgiven. ❤
Thank you for that Anette. I fantasize about my daughter one day bringing up the subject and saying that to me in a knowing way. But that is my thing and I don’t bother her with it. If it comes up, I’m ready.
My problems with that part of my life have become such vague maunderings that I am able to brush them away with the back of my hand when they pop up inconveniently. The thing is, I want the scars. I don’t want to forget the experience and leave myself open to repeat those types of mistakes. So I keep them and wear them on the inside and filter what’s occurring on the outside. My wife knows, but only on Geir’s blog and now on yours have I felt like letting them out for others to see.
On my nightstand I have a Norwegian book titled: “The grip of a Psychopath. How to free yourself of destructive people.”
That book helped me tremendously to understand what prevented me from just leaving. Sometimes I read a story or two to help me remember the manipulative mechanisms that were used to trap me. To prevent myself from being duped again.
Anette: I can only imagine… 😥
Chris: Thanks for the empathy… appreciated.
Let’s try this; the root cause is
Certainty
So much of Scientology is devoted to certainty, to gettingit all, to the EP being perfect, etc on and on, and it enters in early on the bridge.
With so much focus on certainty, people stop looking closer at what they concluded in the past. Because they are CERTAIN they know. This easily becomes not looking at all, at anything.
Similar to the opening statement in the study tapes – the initial barrier to study is thinking you know it all already – so the barrier to fixing Scn is that the people in it no longer know how to look.
Kind of an odd position for a subject to be in when it claims to deliver “Knowing how to Know”
Alan
Interesting.
How about this one: The stress on Duplication. In study, in auditing, in the materials. To duplicate and then to agree (as understanding equals reality equals agreement). This breaks down critical thinking and free will.
Also another important and pivotal problem with the Tech.
Ch.. Duplication… what is and how it works is unique to scientology. because of that it is very difficult for some to understand.. Duplication-confrontation is the basic-basic to understanding. The fear of duplication is very strongly in-bed-ad since duplication causes the mess vanish and that mess is a vital having- ness-anchor for the being.
To be able to duplicate means one is willing to let go and ready for the change-new.
Confronting-Duplication.. is the only element what is needed for as-issing.
Yes, you are right, but this is just a bit off from what they were discussing studying and accepting the Tech as Truth that needed to be duplicated, understood, and made a part of oneself. You are referring to auditing processes and this other was about studying.
Confronting-duplicating apply no matter what one is doing.. it is still the basic..
I do wonder if duplication is a requisite for understanding.
Which definition of duplication are you using?
DN55!
So what is your understanding of it as used in that book?
I’ll quote the book:
“We call this triangle the ARC triangle. The precision definitions of
these three items are as follows:
1. COMMUNICATION is the interchange of ideas or particles
between two points. More precisely, the definition of Communication is:
Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention and Attention and a duplication
at Effect of what emanates from Cause.
2. REALITY is the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a
communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved
between Cause and Effect. That which is real is real simply because it is
agreed upon, and for no other reason.
3. AFFINITY is the relative distance and similarity of the two ends
of a communication line. Affinity has in it a mass connotation. The word
itself implies that the greatest affinity there could be would be the
occupation of the same space, and this, by experiment, has become
demonstrated. Where things do not occupy the same space their
affinity is delineated by the relative distance and the degree of
duplication.”
Then tell me your understanding of this part: “it is the degree of duplication achieved
between Cause and Effect.”
Easy: One fixates on cause and effect when one has not yet risen above the bank.
Geir, are you evading the question?
oh. one only understands where ones reality is.. you know that..
@Marildi; I was sleeping.
Duplication is to make an exact copy of.
Really agree that certainty is an important, pivotal problem. In looking back, certainty has been peddled in ways that are neither important nor true. Certainty is the easiest thing in the world to have, uncertainty opens the door to learning and understanding.
Yup. I just jotted down my first thoughts on the matterand I’d really like to work this one further. But, it’s 2:45 am here and I need to get to work tomorrow at a sane time
I can pick it up again in about 18 hours 🙂
A note on responsibility:
If one adopts the view that an individual is fully responsible for the condition he is in, then would it not also follow that whenever you hurt another, it is not your fault or wrongdoing, it is theirs?
Seems so.
big topic.. has many sides one has to look at all of them to come to realization that one is totally responsible for all causes…
So, I am responsible for all that you causes, and you have no free will?
you take responsibility of what you cause…that what you experience in the NOW, since you have no idea what I have experience in the NOW you cant take responsibility for my reality how I see in that fraction of the moment.
If you can put ”free will” into that fraction of experience than you are in the MEST universe thinking the MEST way..and have past and future too.
There are no concepts existing in the NOW.
My understanding is that it’s not a matter of fault – it’s a matter of each person having full responsibility for their own condition. Since you’re talking about LRH’s views on responsibility, here is what he has to say about it:
“There is a Scale of Responsibility between Full Responsibility and Full Other-Responsibility where the former is above 20.0 and the latter is at 0.0. Complete negation of responsibility is complete admission of being under the complete control of the environment. Assumption of Full Responsibility is a statement of control of the environment and persons within it without necessity of control.
“There is a cycle of responsibility. One acts and seeks to negate his responsibility for such action by placing the ‘reason’ at another’s door. This works as long as one succeeds in making another accept responsibility for the action. The moment this action fails and another does not accept it, the entire action comes back at one. It is then a matter of fault and fixed (by another) blame and stirs the emotion of guilt. Before this cycle begins, there is no aberration, no matter WHAT has been done, no matter WHAT has happened to anyone. The action occurs but is no cause for discussion or justice until one seeks to shunt cause elsewhere than self. This starts the cycle and eventually comes back as fault. Full responsibility is not FAULT; it is recognition of being CAUSE.” (from the book Advanced Procedure and Axioms)
Soderqvist1: if you assume full responsibility for all actions and all conter-actions, then what is left for me except total effect?
I really like this version of Peter Söderqvist. To-the-point. Nice.
Geir wrote:
A note on responsibility:
If one adopts the view that an individual is fully responsible for the condition he is in, then would it not also follow that whenever you hurt another, it is not your fault or wrongdoing, it is theirs?
The logical conclusion of Hubbard’s insane teachings on responsibility, in one clean, concise statement.
Nice, Geir.
Alanzo
Geir: “If one adopts the view that an individual is fully responsible for the condition he is in, then would it not also follow that whenever you hurt another, it is not your fault or wrongdoing, it is theirs?”
Alanzo: “The logical conclusion of Hubbard’s insane teachings on responsibility, in one clean, concise statement.”
Me: I don’t disagree with either of you fellows – I think you make perfect sense – but I must add this:
I never bought into that kind of thinking, to me responsibility always made sense – if I let something bad happen to me then I’m responsible for me and I must fix whatever shit I happen to be in. But the other guy is also responsible for what he did too.
Just because A takes responsibility for X doesn’t mean that B can then take less 🙂
Anyway, that’s how I always saw it, but I do behave differently with most things….
So my question is: how many other folks reading this thought the same way?
slog ”I never bought into that kind of thinking, to me responsibility always made sense – if I let something bad happen to me then I’m responsible for me and I must fix whatever shit I happen to be in. But the other guy is also responsible for what he did too.”
Yes.. we only can take responsibility for the self… sooner or later that other person will do the same and that will happen.
Al: “So my question is: how many other folks reading this thought the same way?”
Chris: I did, er, do. I also didgeridoo. (that didn’t make any sense – just read the first part.)
You just earned The Pun of the Month Award 😉
I’ll have a go at clarifying this. The concept of, “Full Responsibility,” is truly applicable only from the viewpoint of spiritual being with mega-knowingness who enters games, for fun, with full knowledge of the potential consequences, and who (again, knowingly) restricts his viewpoints, knowledge, and ability (repeatedly, over time) as ‘necessary’ to play his/her/its chosen games. From this thetanish viewpoint, nothing happens to him that he did not first agree to allow to happen. Nothing! (For even thetanish communication to occur, per the comm formula, the thetans must take turns at being cause and effect. If we repudiate all ‘effect’ we also repudiate all comm.)
On the other hand, from the humanish (meat-body) perspective, the responsibility issue is more pragmatic (as you suggested with your link to the article): where is my time and energy best spent? We all pursue our various goals, known and unknown, and muddle our way toward some (usually ill defined) ‘ideal scene.’ Most often, attempting to assign blame to another, trying to shame another, or wringing our hands regretting our own actions is — a waste of time and effort. Time and effort that we could spend more directly in pursuit of what we want.
When we find that our actions have led to a — situation — that we deplore, it’s useful to consider what decisions or actions of ours were — unwise — and do what we can to help ensure that we do not create similar, deplorable situations in the future. And then — get on with pursuing our goals having learned something worthwhile.
Sometimes, sure, when we attempt to make another accept responsibility, when we try to make them feel shame, accept blame, or regret their actions, sometimes, on occasion, it’s helpful for them or us. But a significant return on the effort expended that way is far from guaranteed. Certainly, it’s not something _I_ would bet on. 🙂
A recent (choice) cog:
Everyone makes many choices, every day — even the ‘bad guys.’ Everyone — even those ‘bad guys,’ makes the best choice they can — every single time. Yes, even the psychotic and despicably evil dudes. Every choice they make they see as the very best choice available to them at the time. (Now that’s a compassion generator!)
We concentrate, as a society, more on punishment, prevention, control, justice (or revenge) and spend little time at all on reformation — helping people have a better model of the world, a larger ‘toolbox’ of potential actions, finding better ways to get what they want or even help finding better things to want. That is, in Scientological parlance, shouldn’t we spend more of our time creating a better world?
G.
Gary………..:I’ll have a go at clarifying this. The concept of, “Full Responsibility,” is truly applicable only from the viewpoint of spiritual being with mega-knowingness who enters games, for fun, with full knowledge of the potential consequences, and who (again, knowingly) restricts his viewpoints, knowledge, and ability (repeatedly, over time) as ‘necessary’ to play his/her/its chosen games. From this thetanish viewpoint, nothing happens to him that he did not first agree to allow to happen. Nothing! (For even thetanish communication to occur, per the comm formula, the thetans must take turns at being cause and effect. If we repudiate all ‘effect’ we also repudiate all comm.)
Hi there again.. when the spiritual being is in the game condition. that being never on effect. One always cause at all time even if one ””’PLAYS THE SO CALLED LOOSING SIDE””” The spiritual being outside of the MEST universe= thinking IS: the winner at all times since it is that being has created that game. So there is the power one has at all times and not given away by saying-thinking that I am the looser the victim.
Elizabeth,
I suspect that we are in agreement here, largely at least. The difficulty may lie in the multiple uses of the word, “effect.” In particular, we should probably distinguish “willing effect” from “unwilling effect.”
The view from the top is that there is no such thing as an ‘unwilling effect.’ From outside the universe, any universe, nothing happens that you, yourself, do not either create or allow. For another spiritual being to even impinge upon whatever sensory modality you use, you have to allow that being to impinge. (Yes, “cause/distance/effect,” only literally applies where ‘distance’ in some form can exist.) All this is ‘willing effect.’
As we ‘descend’ into universes and games with goals, purposes, and barriers, some of the barriers we seem to create are to our own knowingness. This must be so because, to thetanish ‘gods,’ there can be NO barriers. So, to play any game in any universe we MUST restrict, to some degree, our ability to know and (likely) our ability to create/do.
Somewhere along the line, after successive iteration of games, somewhere, perhaps on the so-called ‘downward spiral,’ we begin to consider that some (allowed) effects are undesirable. Perhaps we are playing a picture game where the goal is to create the most admired picture. Well, the rules. We have to allow that others can see our picture (else they can’t admire it) and, to induce others to play our game, we have to allow others to make their pictures manifest to us — in other words, create an effect on us. There may be many other niggling details needed, like some way to express and measure the degree of admiration; but so far, so good.
Now we’re having some fun playing this game; but someone comes along and adds an unexpected element: uninvited co-creation. In other words, they start messing with our picture! HOW DID THEY DO THAT??? Perhaps they used a rule, unknowingly, that we had agreed to forget making. 🙂 The gall! At best, now, we’ll have to share the admiration; at worst, maybe they entirely degraded our picture so it garners no admiration at all. 😦
Of course, as humanoids, we have a collection of ‘unwilling effects’ bigger than a mountain. Sounds like you, Elizabeth, have climbed that mountain and planted your flag!
G.
Gary, I went over,!!!!
Please read it. its from my blog.
Crossing-Over.
I can’t recall, have no idea of the topic this session was about, but the end cognition transported me to the outer edge of the solidity: from the MEST Universe into the Spiritual Universe.
Suddenly I have found myself bodiless of course beside an old boulder which was bathed in light. I noticed the pale gray shades, the shadows and everything about this boulder was so incredible vivid and so very alive, living, existing.
I could see the smallest dents and every molecule of the boulder, inside and outside to the tiniest detail and seen ancients moss covering, lovingly draped itself over the boulder: lovers holding each other in embrace for eons.
My attention was on the stone and I realized that represented had a significance, great meaning which was: life itself as I have known that till now and the boulders solidity represented the physical universe and from out of that universe, the MEST, I just have walked out.
Looking back into the distance where I have emerged from was darkness and that darkness was lifeless and held no life, it was void of life-force and it had a name: death.
My attention was drawn away from the ‘’past’ and I become aware of void, void which had no beginning and no end, and was empty, totally empty since I seen nothing and sensed nothing as I experienced that vacuum.
My attention turned was pulled toward on energy to my right and there was shimmering mist, mist which contained all the colours of crushed diamond dust which I call life-force, creative energy and that energy was dipped -infused in the mystery of opaque which was the future itself, the yet to be..
And I was pulled by this incredible phenomenon: I was mesmerized: this mist was so incredibly alive, it rolled, moved within in its own boundaries I have realized there was someone within in but I did not know who was that entity and I felt tremendous affinity emanated from the mist: It was drawing me, to melt into, to become one.
But I also I realized that I needed to step into that void and experience and truly understand its meaning and that was my next step; My cognition was: the void I have created have become what is by as-ising the MEST Universe. By understanding that I turned my attention away from the mist and I moved forward the void and as I did, I felt no fear since I have left fear far behind me in the dark, in the past.
In that moment as I let go stepping into the void that step taken by me again had a significance: regaining trust in self and the same moment I have given up the last uncertainties.
As I flowed in to the void unafraid and as I experienced acknowledged that great void that empty state in totality where I was nothing nobody yet aware in the fullest sense, the mist moved in surrounded me folded me up in its invisible arms and I have heard music, a most beautiful music, it was a waltz to which the soul can only ascend.
As the music and brilliant yet opaque formless mist held me we dance over and we filled that void with life-force, we swirled, flowed and floated in space of our own endlessness creation.
To the total harmony of the universe which was the music as we continued our dance as we flowed: happiness, the joy infused the universe than slowly the mist dissipated I existed I was that void yet not empty.
As the music melted away and so were the surrounding significances and suddenly over the starless translucent dark blue velvet space an intense brilliant shimmering rainbow appeared and held the universe suspended.
I knew I was home.
PS: when I reconnected to the body: tears were rolling down a sobs heaved the chest, and I have realized, had a cognition about what is my role, my future in the universe, the yet to come..
Elizabeth,
Wow. Spent several hours today reading your blog. Again, WOW!
What you wrote above resonates strongly with my ‘ep’ experience on ARC S/W though it is not identical — just somewhat similar. Yours has far more imagery and sensation than mine. Will attempt to continue this off-line if you like.
G.
Gary.. endlesstringofpearls@gmail.com we can also talk since talk is cheap… 🙂
here is the reason for that email title.. also from the blog.
The cognitions are like pearls..
Each one is being born out of pain and sufferings,
They arise out of mystery, secrets and the deep darkness: the long forgotten
Yet how beautiful they are!
They vary in their importance before they evaporate
But they remain yours for eternity in form of invisible knowledge.
The basic cognitions are the rarest of al pearls, since only few exist
But their value is the exchange which buys your freedom out from the MEST Universe.
I wish for you string of pearls containing: happiness, wisdom and knowledge.
It is both – but not as some Scientologists have pushed it. First, this idea is not a root cause, but another symptom. That said:
1. The person who pulls the trigger is the one who caused the event, and who is ultimately responsible.
2. The person who is shot MAY have done something to precipitate it. The ONLY value this datum has is to help the person get over the mental pain of having been shot. NOT to blame them or call them a DB or push them into the mud.
Indeed.
Each person has some area of responsibility in the incident and probably the web of responsibilities goes even further. The best would be to all envolved understand and recognise his responsibility concerning the incident. Therefore it has no real value to take only one person’s responsibility or make him responsible for more than he actually is. Or what responsibility he can take at that moment safely. Unless he is the one who pulled the trigger. Than sane “justice” should get into the picture. Maybe in the form of more education or possibility for making up the damage than in the form of penalty.
+1
Gary, this logic pings and pongs back and forth like table tennis. This is not yours or anyone’s fault, it’s the damn ambiguity of the entire subject. (See Maria’s post.) I think the ambiguity is intentional.
I always tell this when I hit someone hard:D
Well, if I’m an accomplice because I am connected to all you sorts, then allright, I TAKE THE GREATEST PLEASURE IN IT AND SCREW THE REST WHO CAN’T HAVE IT!
Not if you “are connected”. The OP says “if you defend the detrimental”. Do you Michael?
Yes, there is a gross error committed by LRH himself and it was done very early on the scientology time track. I will explain it in this way:
An automobile technician can do a tune up in your car that gets you very happy but do not make you a better person. A scientology auditor can do a superb tune up on your mind and spiritual energetic flows that gets you very happy but do not make a better person of you. The pre-clear and pre-ot levels are a superb tune up but are not needed to make a better person ( of course these could be an aid as there is happines there to be enjoyed ). So, the better person that seeks Scientology ( OT ) is not created with long and expensive tune ups ( which tend to enslave you ). It is created with a lot shorter way using the absent words in the scientology dictionary : decency, honorability, respect, etc. you can add more I am sure.
Hello Rafael SN!
Chris, hi there, a nice family you have, give my regards please to all of them. ( friendship could be one more word 🙂 )
Thank you so much! Good to see you old friend!
wow. coolness.
Geir, coolness is a really good one, I will try it tomorrow and see what happens.
Rafael; “A scientology auditor can do a superb tune up on your mind and spiritual energetic flows that gets you very happy but do not make a better person of you. ”
really? A happy person act-do differently than a negatively minded person.
I wonder where did you get that idea you are writing about.
Even a child when not happy will throw things and cry’s have a fit and a happy child will lough and being peaceful.
Dear Elizabeth Hamre, happiness is a very tricky word. I mean, every emotional level enjoys and is ” happy ” doing different and often opposite activities, so the pleasure you get from something is not always the guiding tool to make a better person ( OT ).
yes there are “humans” who kill and feel great happiness.. but when one erases the abberrated concepts than the OT’s happiness is only on the level of creation-beauty and when one is on that level that being is a better person since will take responsibility for that creation. and will not create anything which harm others. never, they cant because that is not in their nature.
PS: are you well and your family too and your brother? Do say hello from me please!
I recently had a cog about the dynamics –that they are my impulses, not stuff written in books. ‘Naturally’, in life, I want the greatest good.
Thank you, Spyros!
Never quite agreed with, “the greatest good for the greatest number,” philosophy (Utilitarianism?) and so Ron’s redefinition, “the greatest good for the greatest number — of dynamics,” always seemed a little — dubious too.
If I follow you correctly, the ‘dubosity’ vanishes. 🙂 MY dynamics — not ‘everyone’s.’
Thanks again!
G.
Yes, it is completely yours…or better you 🙂 That’s why it’s silly to ‘put (force) ethics’ :p
Spyros and Gary,
LRH absolutely wrote that each individual has his own dynamics. One reference is the tech of “Exchange by Dynamics” as described in 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!”
marildi,
Holding the Chaplin’s hat from above, I had occasion to ask troubled couples to do, Conditions and Exchange by Dynamics,” to good result. Thankfully, this is one area where the sup line, “What do your materials state?” may have prevented a, “contagion of aberration.” 🙂
G.
Yes, I have been saying that all along, about the Dynamics. It is quite clearly explained that way by LRH in lecture. No-one has yet picked upon it when I have brought it up, except a couple of people on Marty’s blog did validate it as the original LRH presentation of the concept of the Dynamics.
The fact is it is not explained or explicated in books to any great extent. I think LRH may have assumed people would know.
I think it is a perfect example of how the CoS does NOT, has NOT, strictly applied and followed the LRH tech and the “core philosophy” as you put it, at all. They have squirreled this concept to be able to dominate and make everyone wrong, pure and simple. Typical human black and white 2 dimensional thinking.
Is it MUs? I no longer think so. It is intent on a reactive level.
Right, Val. For me too it was always clear that each individual had their own dynamics, but I would have to search the books to see if LRH made it clear in any of those. You may very well be right that he didn’t. That HCO PL, however, was the only place I’ve come across the idea of “THE dynamics” – and it also clearly states as well that one has one’s “OWN dynamics”
Yes, it IS the perfect example of how the CoS squirrels. MU’s are no doubt there for many, IMO, but I would have to agree with you that intent is primary – absolutely. As for it being on a reactive level, however, I wonder about that with respect to the dictator himself – and the whole say-so is strictly coming from him. I knew that a decade ago when I was at Flag. Btw, I expect I’ll probably find something out on this point in Marty’s latest book (I’m about halfway through).
It’s a great book. I’ve read through it once, now starting to re-read selected chapters and sections. There’s an awful lot of meaty detail and observations for me to absorb. I am not a fast reader.
It’s a stupendous piece of writing! Both style and substance. I’m just to the part where the young Marty will be going on a mission and DM is the mission ops (operator), and this is where I expect to be getting some insight into him. I just saw your comment about his background on the other thread. Very interesting.
Marildi….. Elizabeth…”Path is how one see’s it, what one experiencing while one walks on that self created Path…. there is no other Path in the Universe ….even when you see others walking on their very own path and what you see is still only yours experience and belief since you will never know what is their experience while walking..””
Dear M.. That goes for all Dynamics .. and that is logical… since one can only experience what one has created for self.
Example: two people: young persons walking down on the street. holding hand their fingers intertwined and their bodies leaning into each other, and once in the while they stop and kiss.
I am walking behind them: I see them and what ever I feel would be the stimulation from that picture. and of course partially I would pick up-experience their energy.
I believe I don’t have to continue.. you will get it..
There is only one Universe .. Cosmos… the one we all creates-experiences in the NOW.. and that goes for those young persons too.
“I believe I don’t have to continue.. you will get it..”
Right, no need to continue, I get it. 😉
And what you say about there being only one Universe, the one we all create in the NOW, is also what is said by many other great minds – in philosophy and in physics.
Valkov: Is it MUs? I no longer think so. It is intent on a reactive level.
Chris: People study Scientology and get it, then later their reactivity kicks in and makes them react poorly to it?
I would agree only to the degree that you are not “made a better person” but are allowed to be more “You.” If done correctly. But this is a specious argument. If I find my ultimate soul-mate who has given me a reason to no longer drink or whore around (for example), did she make me a better person? Or just remind me to be more myself?
Reminds be of a Bill Cosby joke about drugs:
“Why do you take cocaine? What do you get out of it?”
“Well, it enhances my personality.”
“What if you are an asshole?”
Like that.
There is a great amount of good in Scientology.
The two routes on the Bridge are Course Study and Auditing. These work.
The organization also has sales and management to support the Bridge. These fail.
The excesses of sales and management disrupt progress on the bridge. Sales at any cost promote criminal activities. Management by weekly statistic promote criminal activities.
Scientology was supposed to grow by providing good results. The Organization is instead growing by scams and lies.
It all looks simple enough to me. Promoting the Sales Guys over the Course-room Supervisor results in failure.
What in the basic tech of Scientology validates the Admin Tech?
And hey! Welcome 🙂
Thank You for the Welcome. Also, Thank You for the blog. It is uplifting to read how others address the confusion of Scientology.
Gosh, I do prefer my simple point of view.
LRH was correct when he was correct, and wrong when he was wrong.
The Tech is correct when it is correct, and wrong when it is wrong.
Studying Scientology includes understanding L Ron Hubbard.
Mr Hubbard was a very able writer and speaker. He communicated his concepts skillfully, making his communication accessible to many people. He produced an astounding amount of this communication.
LRH sought to empower and improve everyone. His goals were noble. He succeeded to a remarkable degree.
LRH was also a silly and self-centered man. He indulged himself as an Oppressive Dictator. He harmed those around him. He did not restrain himself from paranoid fantasy. He acted as a Suppressive Person, imagining himself surrounded by enemies.
Sometimes I consider the tradition of a ship’s Captain. There is a long tradition of the Captain of a ship acting as a wild and oppressive dictator. If the Captain perceives problems on the ship, then the Captain terrorizes the crew. The crew fears the Captain. Mr Hubbard served in the United States Navy. I have met more than one sailor who resorts to this management style when confronting problems. They are in the valance of the Captain they served.
The Admin Tech is correct when it is correct.
When a Scientologist is coerced into crushing dept, in order to finance a chandelier, this is an act of malice. This is an example of wrong.
My simple conceit is that I am capable of perceiving the difference. Well, not counting all those instances when I goofed.
Hi there!!!!
“LRH was correct when he was correct, and wrong when he was wrong.
The Tech is correct when it is correct, and wrong when it is wrong.”
And who will decide what is right and what is wrong, since each individuals response is different? hehehe…since I really cant see how you see that black cat of yours and you haven’t the faintest idea how I see mine!
But the auditing command do work and they work on all condition. the only little problem is there with the commands they don’t work by them self and knowing them.. They need to be applied to bring results… And miracles of miracles if every one would have lots of auditing… erasing those confusing differences [implanted material] than we all would see the same.. agree on the same.. and that agreement would not happen out of wanting to belong into the same group, or want to be liked than one agrees but the agreement would be the: out of free will.
Long speech… well hell, I love some times standing on the soap box and hearing my self throwing thought out into the universe!
and you should here the cheering going up when I finally get off! hehehe.. some even bring out the invisible champagne to celebrate the silence!! rats….
Welcome to my tautological universe!
+1
The only thing left to do is work out which bits are right and which aren’t. Might be some of us will differ. 🙂
G.
ThanksForTheBlog: “Scientology was supposed to grow by providing good results. The Organization is instead growing by scams and lies.”
Chris: A thorough study of Scientology history shows it has ever been this way. But you will also find that there is no growth there, not since decades, except for in the church’s PR bulletins.
The core “evil” is Repetitive Obedience with an increasing intolerance for free action and choice in the materials application. That is all. That is the core evil.
“Give me that hand.”
“Thank you.”
“Give me that hand.”
“Thank you.”
*** OR ***
“Start …. FLUNK! You smiled … Start.”
In “A Beginner’s Guide to L. Ron Hubbard” Hardeep pointed this out. “If there is any claim of Scientology about brainwashing this is it. Repeat … repeat … repeat …”
Yes Hardeep. Why? Because …
If you control what someone DOES, you eventually control how they think. Look at prisoners who over time cannot function in society because they have been institutionalized. They are forced into a living mold of repetitive acts that SHAPE the person into something they were not before.
If you want freedom, control your repetitive acts.
@Harper; IMO = Head, Nail. Yup.
Geir,
Just had one of those, sometimes spurious, flashes of insight re. the OP: “…uncover the damaging root cause(s).”
[Might be expressed as, “What doomed Scientology?” or “Why would someone accept (or deny seeing) the bad to get the good?”]
You seem to have hit on ‘duplication / repetitive question’ as THE ‘why.’ Harper seems to f/n on that ‘why’ as well. I’d like to indicate (my insight here) that this ‘why’ may be a personal ‘why’ and not universally applicable. Certainly, it doesn’t ‘indicate’ strongly for me.
But, if each of us, as perhaps we must, is doing a personal ‘why finding’ to attempt to answer the OP, each of us may, if we’re lucky, discover our own personal, ‘why.’ And that’s good! The difficulty may arise if we try to push our own ‘why’ on someone else. Bound to create some upset! (May be why this topic has garnered so many comments and no little acrimony.)
Then too, if we’re ‘listing,’ coming up with the wrong _personal_’why’ may itself be a trifle lively.
G.
Great point, Gary. May the listing commence:
Well, as someone who has done TRs, objectives, CCH’s etc., I disagree with your assessment. There is a big difference between allowing yourself to be controlled temporarily and being subjugated to external control. CCH’s and TRs do not do subjugate you to external control. Joining the SO and agreeing to be controlled, or agreeing that in order to free people you must follow the rules EXACTLY – and having people more than willing tell you to do stupid things – that is what is wrong.
Someone sitting across from you just asking you to “Give me your hand.” is not CCH1. CCH1 is doing this with the intention of getting someone through the button of control, and doing it so that it is truly flat. Big difference.
Perhaps. But I do think Harper has a real point. My first reaction when Brendan indicated the same the other day was that of a rejection. But now that I analyzed it, it does make sense. Much of basic Scientology stresses duplication. From two different angles; Auditing/TRs of drilling the notion of letting another control you repetitively and in training the repetitive drilling of concepts, accentuated by GAT where you even do the patter drills until it sticks to your mind whether you want it or not. No real stress is put on questioning Scientology. A whole lot of stress is put on duplicating it.
Ok – but it is not the duplication that is at fault – why not see what is there rather than mix it up with what you think should be there?
At some point “we” decided that it was a “given” that Scientology worked. Initially, we maybe analyzed it, and when we did, we found that it made sense, or “worked” in one way or another. When enough of these analyzed data gets confirmed, then we are asked to suspend disbelief – to accept that because the stuff you already know is true, so is the rest – take it on faith. Now it was never said this way, but it was asked – and asked in forms like KSW and “Safeguarding Technology.”
From that point on it becomes duplication without inspection – which is the culprit in my estimation.
”’Joining the SO and agreeing to be controlled, or agreeing that in order to free people you must follow the rules EXACTLY – and having people more than willing tell you to do stupid things – that is what is wrong.’
‘hehehe 🙂 there seems to be on echo of my reality…. going into agreement than not liking it because not achieved the set out postulate than felling stupid but don’t want to look it one goes into being a victim ….. collects lot of agreement on that from those who were in the same situation.. and what have we than? on agreed upon consideration …..solidly built ugggggggggh.!
Yes, so the problem is with personal integrity. Failure to uphold your own reality. Failure to tell your senior to “shove it”, failure to correct the incorrect.
Letting another hold one’s “spiritual eternity” in their hands.
overt against self -creation. that is the biggest crime one can commit. to lie to self.. there is no bigger crime than that in the universe.
If no law has been broken you have no one to blame except yourself!
If a law has been broken the offender is always responsible for it, never the victim.
As vi all knows charges has been made against the church, ultimately against David Miscavige over the World. in example; Laura DeCrescenzo has been victimized by the church and hold the church responsible for it by putting the church to justice!
One root cause is this:
From the viewpoint of a physical being (a composite consisting of integrated, myriad cooperating life units — as in a human body in a vast interdependent galactic environment or universe), the core effort of Scientology is ultimately suicide, or at least an an effort to exit & end the game and all of its alluring sensations, which have no other purpose but to entrance a theta being to total extinction and unknowing enslavement and oblivion.
Therefore life is fair game on the way out.
i.e. just to clarify — life (the composite) is fair game to a theta being that has awoken and discovered that being depdendent on life (the composite) is debilitating no matter how beautiful and wonderful it may seem, for it is little better than a series of lovely illusions. Illusions are fair game, and all is fair in live and war. Fair game that is.
It is summed up in LRH’s slogan for the price of freedom: “Constant vigilance and constant willingness to fight back is the price of freedom.
I’d like to say that is NOT the price of freedom. LOL
The price of freedom is willingness to experience.
When I was “in” I never questioned anything by LRH. Man, that was a huge mistake. But questioning only wound you up in trouble…
“Two rules for happy living: 1. Be able to experience anything. 2. Cause only those things which others can experience easily.”
M… the second one is not easy to do since it’s takes some guessing what’s make the other person happy. that is almost impossible to guess that.. outside of the usual thing.. money house car. food etc.. but truly happy… no..
+1…except Maria’s freedom def is political and yours is personal.
freebeeing ”The price of freedom is willingness to experience.” good for you! 🙂
I really liked that too.
Brendan noted that duplication may be a culprit. Again, we have this ambiguity problem. Duplication as a process is intended to make a perfect copy that will result in an as-isness (i.e. disappearance) of whatever is being duplicated. This is not the same as duplication of training material, which has a different meaning — this time the meaning is absorption of the materials and integration as a behavior/skill.
Maria.. one can not as-is the learned material since its origin was not yours.. one can only as-is what self has created.
Maria: This is not the same as duplication of training material, which has a different meaning — this time the meaning is absorption of the materials and integration as a behavior/skill.
Chris: And when you know before going to course that place has the truth and you will know it if only you can learn it sets up powerful indoctrination and motivation to duplicate every jot and tittle.
Wow. I just noticed that I have two gravatars now! I must have improved my conditions because there is now two of me!!! LOL!!!
Here is the other me!
I cant make up my mind which of you I like better, love your bunny ears on the other hand that tuft of hair top of your head is really you! 🙂
I like your happy smiling eye!
The basic problems that I see are:
1. Hubbard needed finance to survive. This led to his structuring the organization in a very screwed up fashion compared to other extant religions.
2. Hubbard set himself up as “Source”. Now, some will claim that he gave credit in his books to those before him, but a single page listing a few people’s names is far from giving credit for what ideas came from what sources. He also failed to give credit to many of his source (Crowley for one). He also failed to give credit to those that were working WITH him for the things they contributed. KSW #1 was the defining moment of his failure to give credit, in fact disclaiming others valuable contributions to the subject which were not minor or insignificant.
3. The idea that Scn had the ONLY workable route out and that he’d discovered it and the job was completed. The job was not complete. Certainly not in 1965 when he chiseled in stone KSW #1. It isn’t complete today. Now Elizabeth has managed to carry on using the basics and probably would argue that we have all the tools we need to achieve spiritual freedom. That may be true, and if it is true then a huge portion of Scn can be thrown into the trash as just so much added inapplicable data – a huge amount.
4. The idea that everything Hubbard wrote was gospel. This is a real thought stopper. And while he encouraged people to look and find out for themselves, he never allowed that to be practiced. Verbal tech, find your word, etc.
5. If he found that anyone around him might be as or more powerful/capable a being than himself he took actions to destroy them. Examples: Alan Walter, John McMaster, and many others.
6. Introduction of a flawed Justice system. Used as a means to destroy perceived enemies.
That’s a start…
Good start. I agree.
The root cause of Scientology lies in the fixation on “I” from which Scientology came.
In Scientology one worships individuality. In other words, Scientology builds up the ego. That focus on “I” stays with the person even after he/she leaves Scientology This is hard to spot.
The solution is to just be normal.
.
You seem to be a bit fixated on this concept of the “I”, Vinaire.
Maybe, maybe not. I am simply commenting on what I see in Scientology and Scientologists.
.
But you seem hung up on this. Why?
Anybody can evaluate like you. It is not difficult.
.
But I am curious. Why are you hung up on this single point of the “I”. Looking back on your comments during the past year on my blog, a lot of your comments centers around this one point. Why?
Because that is the is-ness.
.
But why the hang-up?
Why the hang-up? You tell me.
.
Sorry, mate. Can’t help you out on why you have a hang-up there.
You can because it is your assumption. Just look at what is causing you to have that assumption.
I just notice what is there. If there is too much focus on “I” then there is too much focus on “I”. Quite simple. I don’t figure-figure on it.
.
Trying to turn the attention away from your own issues as usual. You see, I don’t find anyone else on my blog posting anything repetitively about the concept of “I”. It is only you that does that. It’s a statistical fact. Maybe you should try applying some powers of looking at your own considerations regarding this and see if you can sort this hang-up out for yourself?
But it is your attention that is fixated on me. Why is that? You refuse to look at where I pointed to in LRH’s works.
.
“I” exemplifies the digital nature of this universe probably. it is unneccesarily given more significance.
.
V …” I am simply commenting on what I see in Scientology and Scientologists.””
V…you just used ”I” twice in your above sentence..hehehe.
This is for sure one of the disastrous points of Scientology. Scientology builds up the I, the ego. Look around and you can clearly see. But it is hard to understand when you did not “duplicate”;) what is ego or what is getting rid of ego.
You should take some more attention on it Geir.
Scientology builds up the “I”. ??????
Your mother was the first who thought you that word and it was she who made it important… And “I” is not in use outside scientology..???? Please think that over! You have swallowed that crap V.. was writing?
When you understand the nature of the universe (our understanding is limited of course) you must recognize that the I is an illusory thing.
But this is stressed all over in Scientology. Even in the assumtion that you are utterly and fully responsible for everything what happened to you.
So where do you get when you make an illusion so strong?
An OT is the Energizer Bunny of Scientology’s or Hubbard’s Ego.
It keeps going and going and going while looking down on others as inefficient and lowly wogs.
.
Your consistent attempts at invalidations are at least… consistent.
You need to seriously look at your hang-ups Vinaire. I think it is obvious to just about every other reader here but you.
I have a question out of curiosity: I never tried Idenics, but you have. How does Idenics compare to other related methodologies in unraveling stuff of the mind?
Scientologists try to introvert other people. That is how some OTs exercise their power.
.
Lighten up, Vin. Lighten up.
Hugs 🙂
By telling us how bad we are is that not the attempt to introvert ? it is and very much so!
Geir, Idenics deals with the subject of identities beyond where LRH took it, even on OT VIII, from what I got. I read a very intriguing description by Mike Goldstein a while back. It’s a short article. Check it out: http://www.freezoneamerica.org/Goldstein/After/part9.htm
M… I just read it… it is good but to get to the so called other side one can audit conditions any condition which all can be audited-as ised.
On the long run it will not make any difference- what- who- and why one puts one, gets one into session. It boils down to a VERY SIMPLE FACT: IF ONE KNOWS ABOUT SOMETHING and NO MATTER WHAT IS THAT. that item DO BELONGS TO THAT PERSON simply BECAUSE ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT! that means having IT.
The problem is the scientologist are looking for sort cut which will never be found.
It takes to get out of the reactive situation: diligent work…. will power, huge one and to want it.. want it more than anything else one ever wanted. in ones existence.
V.. I would love to put you in session and make you cough up ALL YOUR OVERTS what you have done to GROUPS… You natter and natter..
It seems because you have not achieved your goal becoming the one who is by consideration [only] top of the heap. You done well in your life but in scientology, now you just run it to the ground to make your-self feel better that you really did not fail.. since you did not want to belong into the scientologist group with the bunch of loser’s. Yet you comment all the time and show unhappy state .. it is hanging out there. big time!
and that is what you doing.. looking down at us from that mighty elevated state where ever you believe you are at. where even ”I” don’t exist. 🙂 digested please.
1) peaching the ‘only hope for man’, the only way
2) agreeing it is the only way
3) apply the greatest good for the greatest number to protect the ‘only way’
4) disconnecting from one’s conscience by attacking enemies to protect the only way
5) agreeing to ‘open Mindedness’ being bad (basic basic on seeing critical thinking as anti the ‘only way’
6) teaching ‘what is true for you is true’ then crushing you for expressing that state creating intense cognitive dissonance.
7) making it a crime to be critical of Ron or any clear or Ots
8) relying on needle reactions as gospel truth (how many Mozart’s did you meet in Scientology thus sanctioning delusional mindsets
9) having the goal be about becoming a super powered big being/EGO who can control MEST and people.
10) the denigration of most all other wisdom schools
11) and most importantly, Ron getting caught in his own subconscious and unconscious mind and weaving incredible tales through his creative genius and devising auditing proceedures (space opera) that rely soley on needle reactions and charge blowing as undisputable truth. And making any disputes with his findings your evil intentions, with disconnection and a golden rod like a knife at your throat, losing family, friends, jobs, money and life for daring to demonstrate the freedom promised then crushed like a bug.
These are the formula for self induced madness.
Scientology’s particularly dangerous form of ‘only way’ needs close inspection. I believe it is at the heart of a lot of the madness
My investigations have revealed, to me, that the concept of ‘only way’ ‘only hope for man’ and ‘greatest good for the greatest number’ to protect the ‘only way’ is a basic basic on getting a person of conscience to see one’s innate conscience as a barrier to serving the greater good.
If a building is burning and you know for a fact that there is only one way out of the building, any other people promoting other doorways to freedom are in fact going to kill people.
Therefore, any action done to suppress these people who are sending people to their death is decent, ethical and the right thing to do.
Now bring that into a religion and you have human beings causing harm to individuals to protect the majority from experiencing ‘ an agonizing future of tortured forever becoming a solid piece of mest’
Scientology’sversion of eternal damnation and OT level dogma.
Family members disconnect from mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children because one personal family member is nothing to saving millions and millions of mothers, children etc.
Greatest good to save the only way is a concept that has killed and tortured human beings politically and religiously and is at the core of GO/OSHA. It will cause perfectly honest good people to act like monsters thus numbing one’s innate conscience.
It is a most dangerous ideology and one I am personally at war against.
It is a foundational core belief in all cults: we have the one true answer to save mankind and anyone against us is against mindkind. Therefore harming our enemies is saving all mankind.
This is true insanity. And the core reason for Scientology’s uncanny capacity for self destruction. IMO
the only destruction one has by believing all that crap one reads and not examining first if its workable,, just how that crap effects the self.. the life one has.. and by not doing that than one sure has lots of self created ARCB’s, Problems !!
Why being mad at the organization.. why not blame that self for going into something like a dumb critter of a human since animals have much better sense than doing such.
Where is taking responsibility for ones action?
Had to be some good there… could not be all bad… that is impassible if it was all bad.. tremendous learning experience.. good fellow ship.. knowing one has great abilities confronting the daily chores-problems , see and experience different realities.. oh there are so many side to everything…
Because being a student is a vulnerable place to be. Students acknowlege that there is something to learn. They find a teacher and learn from him or her. Trust is established and the student is imprinted by the teacher willingly. So yes in that reagard it is the agreement of the student.
Yet, if a parent abuses a child do you blame the child? In the mid east if a women is raped she can go to jail.
In the ultimate sense we are all responsible for our experiences in my opinion.
But it takes two to tango. There is the abuser and the abusee. I believe this forum is not about how people pulled in being in an abusive organization.
I believe it is about isolating doctrines inherent in Scientology/Ron that create an enviromnent for abuse.
And baby, they are numerous.
Brian: “Scientology’s particularly dangerous form of ‘only way’ needs close inspection.”
Me: I just had a light bulb moment.
“Scn is the only way”
and THAT, is the ultimate eval and inval, for a case and in life.
Much of what Hubbard wrote is not worth the ink, but there are a few gems in the middle. Points 1 & 2 of the Auditor’s Code are such gems, it’s hard to imagine any therapy working at all with eval and inval in it. I think they are more important than anything else in auditing, so when Hubbard blatantly violates that….
The sad part is it took me so long to spot it.
Alan
Good one.
good for you… nothing like a light bulb flashing which brings on new reality.. fantastic..! 🙂
Great Alan! We are in an era in western culture where appreciation of ‘the other’ is taking center stage. For our world to survive we must be able to see the values and truths in those outside our group. And even learn from them.
We are in the beginnings of an open source society whereby the value and success of us as a society is more and more depending on the shared genius of the collective. Scientology was a closed system where only Ron was the genius. An only way.
Think of it…. No wonder some people have a horrible time adjusting to leaving the church. If they agreed that it was the only hope for man, than the only view left for them is no hope. Hopeless. It is cruel and evil to treat human minds with such rubbish.
Open source is the opposite of only way. We all share in the victory of genius.
Brian: “Open source is the opposite of only way. We all share in the victory of genius.”
You da man!
I live, eat, sleep and breath open source (internet geek). Here’s something to ponder:
The internet is the most amazing machine we humans have ever built. As a technology it almost defies description. As amazing as the technology is, it pales into insignificance when compared to the result –
– it is the most powerful communication device ever developed, all the mest is gone from the comm line, and potentially any human on the planet can communicate directly to any other human almost instantly at almost zero cost.
And the kicker: all the technologies that make the internet work are open source, the folk that built the internet invented the term! All those tools given freely to the world for the world to use them as they see fit. And it didn’t happen by accident, the builders knew exactly what they were doing when they did it. Hows that for a gift to the world?
Slog, I was just at a symposium in Toronto called Ideacityonline.com. There I met some of the brightest futurists on the planet. They are changing the world. AMAZING!!
It was there I understood that we are entering the open source society. Jobs kicked it off my making the iPhone open source.
Even look at the festival culture that is happening all over the world. The concerts are about the collective experience of dancing and not focused on celebrity performers.
I believe in the younger generation. They will have open source awareness as normal. Surviving for the whole as natural.
Also what I have observed is there are the acceptence of eastern practices like meditation as the new norm for spirituality.
There is no one charasmatic teacher or ism. It is because meditation is open source. The Vedic culture is open source. No one belief, you are allowed your own commentary, in charge of your own practice etc.
The Yoga accessary Market in America is in the billions per year. The revolution will not be televised.
Splog: Me: I just had a light bulb moment. “Scn is the only way”
Chris: It comes up over and over again. In so many ways and from so many angles, doesn’t it? Let’s continue.
Chris: It comes up over and over again. In so many ways and from so many angles, doesn’t it? Let’s continue.
Me: It’s like a bloody infinite Russian doll!
Yes, my point too.
AND it may be one! LOL
One more thought: Ron said if you destroy theta lines you get a what? An explosion. How many family members and dissidence have had their theta lines attacked.
Scientology is imploading under the weight of doctrines that harm human beings. Some call it karma
some call it learning experience and they move on!
Yes Elizabeth I agree, some do call it it moving on. But the very fact you are here is eveidence that you have not.
These issues are important for discussion. There are still beautiful people stuck in this mind numbing crap.
If any of my thoughts can help just one person think freely again, I am happy to not move on just yet.
But that is my experience.
Got to go eat lunch…. I’ll check back later
Have a good day Elizabeth!
hehehe I am here for very different reason not because I am stuck in scientology… since I am not one any more!
please do read one post of mine.
”To walk the walk of the Solo Auditor: the Path of Enlightenment, The self-discovery.” after reading you can tell me where I am stuck… not before.
you must be a west coaster. since its nearly noon here and lunch time for those who need to feed the meat body..?
And actually Elizabeth I did move on. I haven’t had anything to do with Scientology or Scientologists since 1982, when I quit and then was kicked out lol.
It is because of the new found freedom and wide spread criticism of Scientology making it safe to not have goons destroying your life that “I CAME BACK :-)” to share my experience.
The internet is the game changer. Criminals masquerading behind the mask of religion in this dangerous cult are squarly in the bulls eye of justice and public opinion.
Thank God, it is about time.
that is fantastic… than tell your gains, since you must have learned a lot and had the opportunity to apply those new experience and through them … because of them created a new better experience for self.
I come back 3 years ago will be next month after cutting out in 82. since than I am here and in few other blogs beside mine and yelling top of my longs and telling people “” yes auditing works” but its need to be used in order to have results.. Yes and are those who call on me and ask how I have done it. So my Dear Brian lets here about the good life you are having. and the hell with the past, since we only create in the fraction of NOW. 🙂
I am successful in my field, I love my life. I live by spiritual principles and practices. I know the purpose of life, all challenges are opportunities, I live to meditate and meditate to live.
Regarding the past, that is not why I am here. My posts are about the present. And more specifically my posts are my thoughts and ideas are regarding my self inquiry and observations about Scientology cult mentality, now.
I have deduced my findings down to two simple judgements I am making. And these two should be blazoned across the sky for all to see and be be warned of.
Dangerous groups have these two essential characteristics:
1) the only way
2) justified harming of others to protect the only way
My judgements have nothing to do with the benevolent uses of auditing. It judges the narcissistic tendencies of self appointed messiahs that can distort the conscience of naive students with the sporadic carrot of truth and spiritual experiences that cause the students to incorrectly extrapolate that all the rest of the bridge and it’s standard techs are as benevolent as their first exteriorization and first flashes of “a hah!” moments in session.
In others,” if this cleared up my life, then everything Ron says must be true.
SLAM!!!!! Goes the spring loaded trap on the mouse with the cheese in smelling reach.
Brian,,, that is wonderful that you are doing well and I don’t give a fig about scientology.. LRH. SO. not my trip… since I believe every being is on the right path in order to learn.. no matter how pain full is that learning experience… you see one never can learn if one is happy all the time and just floats like “goja fosh a levegoben.” bird shit in the air.
I hope that the good in Scientology will survive. There is a lot of good also. But it is not the good parts that need the fixing.
Thank you Elizabeth for the dialogue.
Brian the good is out there. each cognition echoes through the Universe.
If others would have solo audited just half as much as I have than on this what I write here would be agreement. Simply because they too would see and understand what I have experience while explored the many faceted Universe.
Brian: “I hope that the good in Scientology will survive. There is a lot of good also. But it is not the good parts that need the fixing.”
+ 1
That’s my viewpoint too. And thanks for all the other intelligent posts you wrote on this thread.
Good post.
To Marty, Geir,
2 wonderful posts. Written by 2 very dedicated former Scientologists, who
went all the (orthodox) way through for many years, until finally came the
other side, gaining and actually practicing the ability:to kick it all to pieces,
throw it all to hell, and now look at it all again with new eyes: as Masters,
not students any more. Seeing what they are seeing, and knowing what they
are knowing. Any chance that was part of the plan? The plan without which
you 2 could not have risen to whereyou are now? Am I going too far? Too fantastic? May be.
Has it ever occurred to you that all this bad, negative blended with the good
and positive, installed in the system by Ron, that you consider a series of mistakes – that
this was part of the grand plan to really get beings free? Sounds crazy? May be it is.
But consider: For you, Marty, Geir, or anybody, being dedicated scientologists
for many years, having to compromise your reality countless times in order to
survive and continue with your wins and ‘eternity’, – to finally notice,see, overcome
incredible inner struggles to admit what you saw and get back your integrity,
and shout it loudly, come what may, this was and had to be an awesome OT task to accomplish.
A task which marks the death of the student and the birth of a Master, of a Free Being.
Independent thinker, and creator of thought.
And not being for sale any more. Is that not the ultimate test of an OT? To see truth
where it is so difficult or impossible to see it? When it is so well hidden by heavy indoctrination,
when it is extremely risky to go for it, when it seems there is an ultimate price to pay for it?
I know you both went through the above, each in his own way. You described those in derail.
I know I did too. And it was Hard and soul shaking. Could anybody be real OT or real Being,
or real anything, by just having always knowledge given to him on a silver plate without finally
getting him to go find the most difficult parts of it himself? No more Ron, Jesus,
Lao Tzu, Guatama, Gurdjieff…around to hold his hand.
You 2 and quite a few others, have cut loose, only AFTER you went through the orthodox way.
Now, you have come up one more step, you can cut loose the teacher’s cord, and become
teachers yourselves. Marty, Geir, how would you have gotten to where you are today, Free
thinking Beings, if you did not have to confront this amazingly difficult situation, risky, heavy,
where devoted, believing beings, accepting everything Ron said for years and years, having to
confront the observation that your own sacred teacher and his system, are not only not perfect,
but also strewed with negative elements? And risking losing everything, by confronting and stating.
You had to go through huge integrity, observation, honesty, and yes: Strength tests, to be able to
survive and go higher.
It is well known that the greatest teachers, while indoctrinating heavily for long periods, than
KNOWINGLY made the right situation for the prodigy student, to kick their teacher’s asses, tell
them, SHOUT at them, that however great they are, they are also wrong and he, the student can do
better now, and then GOES ON AND DOES BETTER!!! this happens in anymasterful teachings
in any subject.
It is more than likely that great teachers, including Ron, have planned this, if they were worth anything.
THEY HAD TO PLAN SUCH TOOL, SUCH DEVICE. Is that not much more probable than
assuming these clever teachers, were so stupid as not to see this coming? You really believe Ron
would say one day: “You have to follow anything I say blindly or you are a criminal and be declared”,
and the next day say:
Those things I tell you are true are not true because I tell you they are
true. And if anything I tell you, or have ever told
you, is discovered to differ from the individual observation (be it a good
observation), then it isn’t true! It doesn’t matter
whether I said it was true or not. Do you understand?”
Sorry, I don’t buy it. Too easy. I think I buy the next one as more likely what Ron really intended:
If you will just stay with me on this line, up to the first milestone in Scientology, and bring yourself
up to a high level of ability and apply yourself to that, you will be free – free from me and from
Scientology too!
This existence IS quite a trap. Ron’s Tech gets you out of many traps, in a big way. You both know,
experienced and stated it. But that is not enough, because HE was there guiding all the time.
That is the Tech. But to get us to become real trap destroyers and detectors, he, YES HE, set up
the ultimate trap, in the most unexpected way and against all odds and left us to get out of this one
without help, and most importantly: ALONE, guided by nothing but ourselves. The ULTIMATE OT level.
Or better to stay humble: the NEXT OT level.
Isn’t that more likely, than thinking this guy was so dumb not to have seen the dichotomies and
contradictions he was setting? So dumb not to have seen how truth, freedom, kindness, theta, were
mixed with ruthlessness, fanaticism, making the whole world wrong?
Life is a game. I think Ron (and others) got that one right. Ron stated clearly that he did not intend
to dismantle this game. Getting everything and everybody good and positive and sacred and eliminating
all bad and negative would have ended the game. No dichotomies – no game. He stated his intention
was just to get beings to play better game. That’s all. And here we are, playing a great game..!
Look at these blogs! God… full of brilliant posts, countless ideas, original thinkers, so many of them,
some sheep, some wolves, many rebels, but mostly beautiful beings. It has been similar with all great
religions: new system/way put forth, very enlightening yet containing contradictions and seeds for both
positive and negative. And some beings use these tools and transcend and others fall deeper into the trap,
and have to go to the back of the line and start all over again….
Good luck to all,
with love,
Hemi
Interesting to see the readers here reply on this one.
Welcome Hemi!
Hemi, this is an incredibly wise post, IMHO. Deserving of being framed and put up on the wall.
You gave the Milestone One quote that is so applicable, and LRH also said something pretty close to “Some day you will have to run out Scientology”.
Thanks for going to the trouble of writing all you did and expressing it so well. I would say you are one of the amazing people that Scientology produced!
Hemi: “Has it ever occurred to you that all this bad, negative blended with the good and positive, installed in the system by Ron, that you consider a series of mistakes – that this was part of the grand plan to really get beings free?”
Me: I doubt it very much, that is an extremely high risk route and will probably backfire. There are too many ways for it to go wrong and too few for it to go right, so relying on it playing out that way would appear to be the mark of a madman. One in a million odds only come true 9 times out of 10 on the Discworld, everywhere else they happen one time in a million.
I don’t think your teacher analogy holds true; getting the student to dig deep and reach higher is one thing, creating a cult that destroys people’s lives is a very different thing altogether. I don’t know what Hubbard was really up to, but it sure wasn’t Tough Love.
Alan
(Sorry, I must have pressed the reply button below your post by mistake. To be sure you get my acknowledgement, here it is again.)
Hemi, this is an incredibly wise post, IMHO. Deserving of being framed and put up on the wall.
You gave the Milestone One quote that is so applicable, and LRH also said something pretty close to “Some day you will have to run out Scientology”.
Thanks for going to the trouble of writing all you did and expressing it so well. I would say you are one of the amazing people that Scientology produced!
Hemi, my vote for the laurel wreath of victory goes to those souls who worked their way out by their own integrity and boot straps.
Of course it could only be speculation that Ron planned this cruel scenario whereby families are emotionally tortured through disconnect and then rise from the ashes to realize their independence.
It is human nature to learn from experience. I would pin the medal on that and not on Ron’s intended creation of chaos as a mouse maze to test and develop strategies to find the cheeze.
That is just my opinion.
Sorry, Hemi, but I have to give your hypothesis and emphatic NO!!!
If you really look at all the documentation of the man’s life you will see that this was not Hubbard’s intention in any way shape or form. Beings have been implanted, trapped and deceived for trillenia. Did it help them? Make them smarter? Not particularly. Trapping while promising to free is a very very old game in this universe.
Hubbard was a complex being, as we all are. I see that multiple objectives were at work in his life. He had a mega-ego, a desire for fortune and fame. He saw a way to achieve that via creating a religion. At the same time he was looking for answers, doing research with the help of others that also were looking for answers. Many things were discovered along the way, but also woven into the fabric was the trap. It didn’t have to have gone the way it did.
He could have said look, I’m getting old, others will have to continue this work. I’ve given you the tools, you’ve just begun to handle your own case so keep going.
Instead he created the world’s most insidious cult. Sucked millions into private coffers and left a 25 years old sociopath in charge.
Hubbard’s problem was he never let anyone really get in and straighten his case out. A failure to apply the tech to himself – ah the irony of that.
One can certainly look upon it as a test. But if you consulted many thousands that now spew hate for the man & subject who were once hopeful followers – no, not a good result at all. A very big fat FAIL in that dept.
Good to look on the bright side of things, but available data does not support your position IMO.
Hemi.. “” wonderful post… thank you! and you are right…. the true beginning starts when one is alone and dare to use what one learned while walked up to the top of the Bridge than that was OTVII.
After leaving the fold comes the real struggle when one is alone no C/S to guide one, no other support and the group to is gone and one has nothing but ARCB’s the pang of emptiness- feeling of being let down -alone. miserable, and in these state one dares to pick up the E-meter and starts to continue with solo auditing because one had wins doing that and problems… ARCB’s were erased so why not take up solo again and continue where one left off while inside ST Hill in the safety of the group.!!
and trusting self with what have one learned one reaches for that knowledge-tools that is when one becomes free of scientology..
What a trip -adventure one enters into: returning the power to self knowing yes I can and no matter what comes one can wade through it because one has learned the tech of the solo auditor and the meaning of confronting!
interesting the battle had more than one side not only confronting the Universe and winning by taking a chunk out of the MEST in daily session but when after 30 years returning from the battle field of self discovery and coming back to look for others to tell the story the great adventure…. only one person would listen and publish the wins and the great CL 6- 8-12 auditors never even bothered to ack. her article the written journey of a solo auditor who has done nothing more but putting aside her life as a human and dedicated her time- her days-years -decades to solo auditing because she knew by than was positive that the tech works and auditing works.
Her dreams which were so small at the beginning soon crumbled as those considerations which held them in place were as-ised and wider vistas new realities have taken place.. than those vanished to.. Ha… the thrill of the adventure never ended for her…..
The realities the knowledge, the power were gained on this great adventure and their magnitude goes far beyond the understanding of the human reality.
Yes. perhaps LRH has for seen the outcome… but again we will never know…
PS: YES I have attained my goal. I have erased the MEST Universe, yes I have returned and on my way here- home I have passed the first light which was the beginning of the Universe!
I love all the above comments. I’ll chime in on my theory. The number one basic problem with SCN is that it is all about finding out what is wrong with you and fixing it. This can drive you nuts. A better approach is acceptance.
The number two basic problem with SCN is that the idea of God is “left up to the individual” but really one ends up feeling that since one is Cause, then one must be God. Or since LRH is Source, LRH must be God. The existence of God can’t really be proven but I can say that since I have left SCN and embraced the idea of God again, I feel a lot better.
The number three problem with SCN is that number one and number two create a co-dependency on SCN. In order to play the game of achieving “self-determinism” one is required to turn your power over to the Church.
That said, I still use some of what I learned in Scientology in every day life. It wasn’t all bad. But it was a trap.
So now you have turned your power over to god? and now you depend on god…..
oh.. well.. there are many paths… and we all have to learn for our self. since no one can do that for us! not even god….best to you!
overall10: The number one basic problem with SCN is that it is all about finding out what is wrong with you and fixing it.
Spyros: Yes, that’s the more Churchie approach. Some confusion between SCN and psychiatry.
overall10: The number two basic problem with SCN is that the idea of God is “left up to the individual” but really one ends up feeling that since one is Cause, then one must be God. Or since LRH is Source, LRH must be God.
Spyros: …with a little twist –that God is reffered to as ‘infinity’, so then it isn’t ‘one’. So, no’one’ is God, nor LRH. LRH was only reffered to as source of SCN, and not source as a God being. The ‘one God being’ was described as an implant.
Offend and defend: Both counter-creations –making ridges. One can just comm and the other can understand it. If no extras get involved, problems can be resolved.
One says “SCN this and that” and the other thinks…”Ohh he must be SP”…that’s an additive and doesn’t resolve anything. Another says “SCN this and that” and the other thinks “Ohhh he must be brainwashed”…that doesn’t solve stuff either + they both inhibit clear communication + generate complexities.
It can be very simple. Each comms his universe=things get as-ised. You comm ‘reality’? You demand from the other universe to agree. Reality=agreement.
I mean for a SCNist it is silly to reject a comm because it is not ‘reality’, and it’s equally silly to impose a comm because it is ‘reality. If it was REALITY, you would AGREE, dude!
In the COS they have some agreements, to some degree, with each other, and they go around talking about “facts” (‘reality’) and “facts” and “get your facts straight” and “Scientology: It works!”. They tell you that you have given your agreement to something which previously didn’t exist for you. So you don’t know what you have agreed with, lol. OK, it is not only the COS. It’s all who preach ‘reality’ that talk like that.
You know, “what is true, is what is true for you. But if you don’t become a Scientologist, you’re going to spend the rest of your eternity shaking alone in the dark” says the Div 6 Prientation film. That’s more contradictory than Christinity where the unconditionaly loving God will burn you forever unless you be a good boy. Yes! Religion got us out of barbarism gh h h h h h. Thank God, I used to be a barbarian untill I met religion.
+1.
In many lectures and written articles LRH sets himself up as a god. Consider KSW, “we will not speculate here on why this was so or how I came to rise above the bank….” He is above us mortals. He also used other manipulative techniques to silence dissent. Again from KSW, “The lower the IQ, the more the individual is shut off from the fruits of observation.” And “, “The service facs of people make them defend themselves against anything they confront good or bad and seek to make it wrong.” Who wants to hbe stupid ? Anyway, I believe that many (most?) Scientologists bought into this and abdicated responsibility for their own actions, and instead operated from LRH’s viewpoint. Of course this can result in all sorts of evil, including going along with child abuse, murder, abortioins, beatings, cheating and lying. It was easier to buy in because of the gains. I believe that lRH created this, but each of us has our own individual reasons for losing integrity.
Yup. The abdication of responsibility is real.
But this is an intriguing angle; On one hand Hubbard set himself up as The True Source of The Only Workable Technology Int The Universe and made sure that was drilled into his followers through repetitive duplication. On top of that he devised policies to ensure you didn’t have to think for yourself – you just have to follow policies, the auditing procedures, the orders from seniors, the C/S, etc. And on the other hand he preached that you are responsible and cause over All Dynamics. These are two extreme viewpoints at each end of the spectrum:
1. Preach ultimate freedom and responsibility.
2. Deprive responsibility by removing freedom of thought and action.
I find this fascinating.
And then: Welcome!
Yes, the ambiguity is so extreme that one can tend to shrug and give up on the whole messy subject.
Yes, what a spin.
Thanks.
Great post! The root cause according to my opinion is the INTENTION and ”communication”/action in the church, that we are always right, and you MUST listen (not we) and OBEY (whatever) we demand. This is a GROSS violation of respect and understanding of human relations and will never ever work no matter how precious tech you have in order to help your fellow man. I believe a thorough understanding of self- and pan determinism would do wonder if they want to truly accomplish this task.
So, whatever the purpose is with SO and tools like KSW, the effect of each have become highly detrimental for the members when lacking the above understanding!
Nice 🙂 Yes, I think that the root cause is that the root purpose is missing (what you said about self/pan determinism plus some other basic stuff)
I agree. When I first started studying Scn, I thought it was covered by the creed — which clearly stated that we believe that the souls of man have the rights of man and it is a crime to destroy the life or sanity of another.
The creed is barely given lip service — even by LRH, for rights are continually violated, disrespected and so on if you have stepped beyond the “safe” zone of being a Scientologist and entered the zone of fair game and no rights to any kind of justice, fairness or respect.
1.1 groups are there to make you agree at first, by projecting a false image of itself, and gradualy make you agree with things you would otherwise disagree and control you in that fashion.
FAIR game has nothing to do with suppression. For me, fair would be to kick a suppressor’s ass if you really had to, not to use violence or otherwise force and threats of force to control others.
The root purpose was to help people or help them help themselves. And in the beginning that’s what you’re told. But then you get to know all the reasons why that cannot happen.The books say ‘read it and do it’, but in the org no, you have to do the course, the TRs, check your ‘ethics’, donate to the IAS, join staff, pay your freeloader, disconnect from your husband (who no longer wants to be a member), and…well why audit any? Better raise a fortune to get audited by pro staff up the Bridge to Total Freedom. Then, halfway, wait for all orgs to become Saint Hill size, while you donate some more money, protest against psychiatry, and install ‘net nanny’ so you wont visit entheta websites on the internet! But you got friends who will love you unconditionaly, unless you decide to no longer be a Scientologist –Tone 40! 😀
Marildi, The 800 lb gorilla in the middle of your argument is that while ceaselessly praising L Ron Hubbard and his Bridge to Total Freedom, you do not partake in the sacrament of solo-auditing. This is the outpoint, the inconsistency in your arguments like no other. You have yet to relay personal reasons showing how auditing has immeasurably improved your personal freedom and abilities. Which parts of the Tech. What is the root cause of this? It might be bad manners of me to point this out, but it is relatively true, isn’t it? You grill the rest of us ceaselessly, demanding reasons why we find the Tech to be inconsistent, and being given them, you deride the explanations as delusions of misunderstood word phenomena. I’ve tried to rewrite this to be the least snide possible. If I failed, well there it is anyway and to be sure, at this point in these discussions, I believe that your addressing this, sharing this particular reality with us all would be cathartic. Isn’t it time? I think it is just for me to ask, and please, save the energy of calling me a 1.1 SOB, because I already know that shit.
I’m aware that I’m late in this discussion. Nevertheless I’d like to put down a few thoughts.
Geir wrote: “It is not enough to point out and even isolate what is good in Scientology. That doesn’t cut it. What is needed is the finding of the root cause(s) of harm, admitting them, hang them out in full view and then move on with what is positive.”
Meanwhile, quite a few intelligent people knowing Scientology quite well have searched for the answer. Have they succeeded in identifying the WHY?
Do we know now what the root cause(s) are so that we can hang them out?
I think the (many) causes of harm are deeply woven into the Scientology philosophy, technologies and policies, now fully being integrated in its culture. And so it lives also in ex-Church-member’s views, values and behaviors.
I think that the causes cannot only be found in LRH’ scriptures and philosophy but also in the way beings react being confronted with Scientology.
LRH has presented himself as a leader who knows the way and can guide us successfully up the bridge if we agree to blindly follow him.
But on our part we have agreed. Haven’t we been happy being able to lean back and be guided, not having to question everything what is expected from us?
Once we had accepted that we want to take auditing and follow LRH, once we had decided to trust him, we became total effect. We had lost control because we had agreed to give up control.
Voluntarily we had handed ourselves over to LRH, to the Church and to DM’s way of directing us. And we were defending LRH and the Church (the way we were going now) against attacks from outside. We had to defend our guide and did not want to hear from others that he did not know the way. We had our gains in Auditing and training and the Churches’ propaganda even made us more certain that everything was positive.
We thought that obeying instead of revolting sometimes had been our free will decision. The truth is that we had been conditioned, did not have a free will anymore.
If there was just ONE root cause for all the harm then at the moment I feel that LRH made us follow him (and consequentially the Church and its staffs) blindly while giving us the illusion that we had kept our free will, freedom of speech and thought. He wrote that we should investigate Scientology very critically (wow) and did not have believe anything. We were not expected to accept LRH’s truth; we had the right to have our own personal truth. (wow).
DUPLICATION might very well be an instrument helpful for conditioning people but there are many others as well.
I feel that in Scientology Ethics is highly polluted with suppressive harmful elements. Going through the Ethics book I easily start feeling sick.
If you have a Fagu fish from which you know that it is extremely toxic you can put it into peaces and investigate each single part if it is poisonous. You identify and eliminate these parts and make it known to everyone.
My proposal is that UNTIL the root causes are identified it could make sense to isolate what is good in Scientology, present it and use it. That’s much easier and will produce results one can work with. So both can be done at the same time. I don’t see why first the evil has to be found before the good can be isolated and presented.
People are as scared from Scientology as they are from a Fagu fish. One never knows. If you’d offer a delicious cheese-cake for free many people wouldn’t eat it even if it was for free once they’d have the information that the recipe had come from LRH.
Publishing to the world at http://www.untoxicLRH.com that the LRH cheese cake is NOT harmful for your health would be a beginning. Also the assists can be applied without concern. And the knowledge of the ARC triangle. All tested.
One more proposal:
There are Thousands of videos from Independents dealing with abuses of the Church. And many from critics making fun of auditing and TR’s. Today I saw one which gives an idea of basic Scientology in practice in a very refreshing manner. Geir had the link on his blog. http://www.youtube.com/embed/emKvMPGSc0s
There should be more, presenting and explaining e.g. assists, the TRs and Auditing.
Wonderful blog, wonderful people, very respectful with one-another. Why doesn’t this blog attract even more people?
Stupid question. It certainly is a dangerous place for people whose stability is based on their bunch of stable data.
D.V.. great post… ”He wrote that we should investigate Scientology very critically (wow) and did not have believe anything. We were not expected to accept LRH’s truth; we had the right to have our own personal truth. (wow).
I also read while at Vancouver’s Mission from LRH that one should use what one has the need for and discard the rest.
Yes, duplication understanding the meanings what one read is helpful.
There was no force applied on any one to accept scientology and its teachings.. every one went in there out of their own will…. or was it restimulation?
again thanks. Elizabeth.
Reference: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_6vDLq64gE
In Sheep’s Clothing, by George Simon, Jr.
Many of you have probably already looked at this stuff. I am just reading In Sheep’s Clothing and I recognize LRH as a master manipulator. Of course, one has to agree to be manipulated. The most important idea in the Liar video is that two are necessary for a lie to work. The victim has to want whatever it is the liar is selling. With LRH’s mastery, and with the workability of the tech, we desperately want it to be true, so we end up selling our integrity for a lie.
One of the earlier posters pointed out that in many lectures LRH sets himself up as a God. I agree. But he also states point-blank that we are all fallen Gods. The gist of this is that some of us are “bigger” fallen Gods than others. He takes the position that this MEST universe is a pathetic version of reality, MEST bodies little better than automatons, and traps for degraded fallen Gods. Continued association will only worsen the degradation until at least one becomes an angel, or a rock. From this point of view the body game is both a very bad delusion, (think the delusory quality of the Matrix) and a trap and there is no reason to treat it well other than what is absolutely necessary so the natives don’t get onto what you are REALLY doing and wipe you out — numbers can wipe out the highest level of God you know. So sneaking and skullduggery and pretending to be a “regular joe” while getting the hell out of dodge is par for the course and the greatest good for the fallen God. And really, who gives a shit about a bunch of animated pieces of meat powered by a degraded God?
The duplicity is built right into the core beliefs.
Buddha observed the same problem with the concept of no-self and life the illusion — he saw that there would be those who would turn their back on everything, go live in a cave and engage in nihilism. And he was right about that. He framed the 8-fold path to ward against this very thing.
Maria, this is very good succinct summary of LRH’s later views as he developed Scientology. The “State of Man”, etc.
Have you heard the expression, “Kill them all and let God sort them out” ?
It reputedly originated in the 12th-13th century with this man, Alamric.
Arnaud Amaury or Arnaud Amalric (died 1225) was a Cistercian abbot who took a prominent role in the Albigensian Crusade. He is most remembered for allegedly advising a soldier, who was worrying about killing orthodox Catholics along with the heretics during the sack of Cathar stronghold of Béziers, “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” (“Kill them. For the Lord knew those that are His own.”)
My point is simply that such views of the relative value of human life vs. the life of the spirit are not unusual, may even be a relative norm on Earth. An example is the Bhagavad Gita, in which Krishna advises Arjuna how to kill with a clean conscience:
“Faced with a fratricidal war, a despondent Arjuna turns to his charioteer Krishna for counsel on the battlefield. Krishna, through the course of the Gita, imparts to Arjuna wisdom, the path to devotion, and the doctrine of selfless action. The Gita upholds the essence and the theological tradition of the Upanishads. However, unlike the rigorous monism of the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita also integrates dualism and theism.” (From Wikipedia).
Duplicity? Each person must draw his/her own conclusions. Gandhi referred to the Gita as his “spiritual dictionary”. It appears Hubbard was right in the great tradition of the Upanishads.
Is it time to develop a new mythology? Hubbard did say that the old ways were a “game that has gone on too long”. And that many of us were pretty damned tired of it.
Valkov –
I don’t understand why you try to bring up other instances of duplicity than LRH’s. Are you looking at LRH’s duplicity and then diving into other examples of duplicity to justify LRH’s?
If some other religious figure in history was also duplicitous, how, exactly, does this relate to LRH’s duplicity?
You never say. You seem to me to be justifying LRH’s duplicity by saying that someone else was duplicitous, too.
Are you doing that? Or what?
What exactly are you trying to show when you do this?
Duplicity? Each person must draw his/her own conclusions.
Yes. The conclusion I draw on LRH is duplicity. Thanks for letting me draw my own conclusions.
Alanzo
Huh? I didn’t “try” to do anything. I responded to Maria’s post.
My question has to do with what is “duplicity”, in life, religion, literature. etc. Is there “duplicity” in all of these, in the Bible, in the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, in Plato, and in Buddhism too? They are all “ideological”. Is any ideology or mythology actually in any sense “good”, or are they all “duplicitous” in some way?
Duplicity in the sense that Maria means?
I suggest you read my post more than once, at least until you get the perspective from which I wrote it.
Valkov: Is it time to develop a new mythology? Hubbard did say that the old ways were a “game that has gone on too long”. And that many of us were pretty damned tired of it.
Chris: My longtime answer to this complaint is to find the art in what you do and create. I use this in my job, love making and especially when making peanut butter and jelly with butter sandwich. We think that if we were GOD then we could create whatever we wanted and then life would be fun and interesting. What we sometimes ignore is that we don’t bother to create even at the level in which we live. Why or why would we be better off creating universes? So dust the top of the refrigerator and behind the dryer. Make a bed. Empty the kitchen sink and polish it up with some cleanser. And as the waitress always tells us, …Enjoy! (If I took that way farther than you meant Valkov, I was just “stumping” to everyone.)
Yes! Excellent comment.
Pointing at the moon harms no-one and can preclude misguided actions and words.
Example?
Your post, in response to which I posted that.
Sorry, I could have made that clearer. Thanks for asking.
Cool!
CH… 🙂 I am going to ask Shelly next time I talk with her just what kind of artist you are! 🙂
PS: creating is the highest -lightest energy in the universe one uses. but what is that energy is interpreted into, now that is a different story..
She won’t tell to hurt your feelings and make you want me for your own! hahahaha
To bad, Oh I just don’t want to take the chance trying it out without her recommendation! tuff luck old bean! You lost! 🙂
But I will make you one of my peanut butter, jelly, and butter sandwiches — You might even like it, and I will like making it!
Think something else I don’t like peanut butter..
Truth cannot be declared.
All one may express is one’s own opinion, for truth is relative and never absolute.
The degree of truth depends on the consistency among the considerations that one holds.
TRUTH
.
Thank you, Susie, for posting this wonderful video. It is worth studying again and again.
Now I understand why it is so difficult for some people to follow this Discussion Policy that I have posted on Geir’s Blog many times. I am just going to post a link to this policy this time.
http://vinaire.me/2012/07/16/discussions-and-what-needs-to-be-avoided/
.
It is the modus operandi of this universe to LIE TO SURVIVE.
For Hubbard, the key to OT was survival. Lying was justified.
.
“For Hubbard, the key to OT was survival. Lying was justified.”
I see this evaluation as mistaken. Survival was the key concept of Dianetics, which preceded Scientology and the goal of OT. The “key” to OT is something else entirely. It is the creation of an effect. See the Phoenix Lectures and subsequent 4th London ACC lectures, where “lying” is quite specifically defined.
Hubbard has said a lot of brilliant stuff; but his behavior and the policy that he implemented has greatly diverged from it.
.
As I have said before, I feel your behavior does pretty much the same to KHTK. I would like to see some real results from KHTK application, starting with its Founder. So far I see none.
Free Will = Unknowingness of spiritual laws.
.
V… V… V…. you just put your foot in the wrong place .. THERE ARE NO SPIRITUAL LAWS….
That’s what he is saying.
Agreed.
Vinaire: Free Will = Unknowingness of spiritual laws.
Chris: See? (everybody) This is what I mean by Vin’s snazzy looks at philosophy. The fact that he doesn’t seem to care a flip of how his comments come across seem brave to me. The way he promotes his ideas with endless repetition and links to his blog — I don’t understand the motivation for that so much. Fuck. There I am in the middle again… what to do? LOL
Ch … you call that snazzy I call that remark = born out of not-know…
If there were spiritual laws, then that would limit spiritual free will. Vin said, “unknowingness” of spiritual laws = free will. See how cute that is?
CH… I know he is very unique, his reasoning make it so.. some of the viewpoints he puts are fantastic!..
That’s what I hate for people to miss. He’s no flatterer, that’s for sure! hahaha
When V.. is not commenting I have noticed the blog loses something… and I miss him. I am one who tease him the most but I also have affinity for him and loads of that. I wonder if he knows that?
It never hurts to say it !
There are laws that determined LRH’s behavior, and which may determine my behavior, or anybody else’s behavior. One may believe in free will, like one may believe in free market system, but there are natural laws, like the laws of statistics, that supercede the free “whatever”.
Intention or free will may seem to create some local fluctuations, but on a long term basis, it bows down to the laws.
People are predictable.
Is this post on the topic, or should I end this discussion too?
..
Off topic.
so it is I who put my foot in the wrong place…. 🙂 well, not a first time and in fact that made me read his comment twice over.. and had to agree.. V…. you beautiful pussy cat… you can be brilliant!
LOL!
V… why that it matters how he behaved, he was not a saint, in his mind I am sure he was perfect same as you think of your self?
He left his foot prints on this planet.
V……”For Hubbard, the key to OT was survival. Lying was justified.””
v… the man lived and he lived created his best no matter what that was, what ever that was… he simply lived his life, as you do your best to create yours.
Even a murderer , killing dozens of people is that is they best they could do. A opera singer sings, that is their best.. people live they live. and we can sit on the sidelines and evaluate. We have nothing better to do with our life? I have..
I want to thank Susie again for inspiring me make the connection:
I learned a lot from this video. I realized why people lie. It is the same reason why some people cannot discuss without getting personal.:
How to Spot a Liar
.
Spyros: “How can the present persist without having a past?”
Me: Because everything is created now. Including what we like to call “the past”.
Yep, but when we are fully aware of creating it, what is time?
Nothing.
+1. . . looks to me like I am doing that with my SO history toward my daughter. I think I’m ready to “get off it.” Timely comment from you. Thank you. And thank you Spyros for the timely question.
Hihihi I’m glad & thank you too 🙂 Yes, I agree, past, present, future… is all created now. So I differentiate now between the ‘now’ and the ‘present TIME’.
Marildi: “There are a lot more intelligent comments and acceptance of the whole spectrum of viewpoints on Marty’s blog than on this one. ”
Me: except he carefully culls the comments he doesn’t want to have there. Like Elisabeth’s and Chris’ – and many others.
I get that what he cuts is the comments that either derail the topic or are sheer entheta. He often states why he has not allowed a comment. Believe me, he posts plenty of comments that contradict his own ideas. The posts range from ultra Scn fundamentalists to harsh critics of Scn and also of him.
Marildi: He often states why he has not allowed a comment. Believe me, he posts plenty of comments that contradict his own ideas.
Chris: Yes, for entertainment. Meat thrown to the dogs. Like Judge Judy putting on idiots so they can be ridiculed. No mystery there. The main point of censorship is that you don’t know what Marty has censored and you can take that to the bank. I am only aware of it because I have been censored there. Once more, you don’t know what he censors because it is censored. Geir is brave in the extreme to allow an open forum here which is why I trust it and live here.
It seems Marildi also Loved It Here – until I no longer sided with her view of the Scientology World. But I can live with that. Life is change.
Marildi: “I’ve already expressed where I’m at with regard to how I practice Scientology…”
Me: I must have missed that. Do you audit? Study?
I don’t audit but I do study. That’s why I know the references pretty well and they’re pretty fresh in mind. But even more to the point of “practice” is the fact that use the principles in my life (at least I try to). I’ve also stated in comments that if logistics made it more feasible for me I would continue with Bridge auditing with no hesitation whatsoever. Btw, I’ve directly said these things in reply to Chris. That’s why his continual badgering looks just a little fishy.
Darling, you must get on with the job. There are many things you could use for solo: Pilot’s self-clearing, TROM are 2 good things. You don’t really need an auditor, but if you feel you do then I’d be happy to assist.
freebeeing, just to let you know, I got that yours was a sincere help flow and I appreciated it. Thanks. 🙂
You’re quite welcome.
Marildi: That’s why his continual badgering looks just a little fishy.
Chris: Because I am OSA 😉
Or Marildi is. Or you both are. Or I am. Or…
Marildi: But even more to the point of “practice” is the fact that use the principles in my life (at least I try to). I’ve also stated in comments that if logistics made it more feasible for me I would continue with Bridge auditing with no hesitation whatsoever.
Chris: Then you know that “Gross Auditing Error #1 is no auditing occurring.” There is no logistical reason that you cannot solo audit. There is a reason but you won’t say.
Chris, I noted that you said you are no longer soloing and said the reasons are all over this blog, but it isn’t clear to me your reasons (I have read all the posts on this blog). Are you doing KHTK now (which I would also classify as soloing)?
Freebeing, The reasons why auditing used to work for me were consistent with the religious system that I subscribed to. Solo auditing from that point of view was tremendously empowering, especially when done over a prohibition of both the Standard Tech and the COS to do so. For anyone who has experienced this, they will know there is nothing like asking oneself an auditing question, watching it read on a Wheatstone Bridge like an emeter, and to simply take what comes up and run that rudiment to an understanding. Imagine my amusement at discovering that I was doing every part of that sequence as it happened. Tremendously fulfilling to undo the boogeymen, to vaporize the fear and trepidation and to know who I am in association with everything that I experience. It is not like I was told but I was never one to have hidden standards, but always grateful for anything I took from the experience of auditing. Altogether, it was a wonderfully empowering experience. I did this for most of a year and filled two manilla folders with session notes. At a point, I understood that experience fit within the context of my own creation of the metes and bounds of the box I was given rules for and told to call Scientology. I discovered that I am all that and then I saw how I was not all that and the box opened and out I came, metaphorically speaking.
Freebeing, people need to follow the path of their personal predilection. Once one begins to blaze a trail, it is my opinion that they should walk that path to an ending of their own choosing. If you wonder at me encouraging Scientologists to audit, while I don’t audit, it is because I cannot conceive of being satisfied at sitting on the sidelines watching others have the fun that I longed for. Scientology is a complete belief system. It has an answer for everything, even when those answers simply turn one round in the squirrel cage. Yet in the hands of a compassionate practitioner, I see no harm in a person, already a Scientologist and heavily invested in the ideology seeing their path through to a finish. That is what I did and I’m very happy that I did it that way because it brought beautiful closure to something I gave the greater part of my adult life to. That was one of the lives that I could have and did live but it was not the only one and only the last part which I described was the necessary part.
Freebeing, If you are with me when I say that truth was consistent for that frame of reference but not consistent and not true for my current frame of reference, then I believe you understand what I mean and why I no longer solo audit. If I ever happen to go back into the box of Scientology, I will certainly solo audit some more. Since that time, I have done all the basic exercises of KHTK and could see their usefulness, however, by now, I am not looking for enlightenment as I already feel enlightened. Rather, I am invigorated to play the game of life, to enjoy it, to participate, to share, to continue to learn, to live out my days, and then to dissolve quietly with the smile and satisfaction that the world continues to turn and that all is right in my universe.
Chris… auditing session … when one is in session has nothing to do with scientology and DEFENETLY ONE IS NOT IN THE BOX!!!!!!!!!!!! where did you get that idea in the first place? Your reality on sessions is not what sessions are about. and you also have justifications same as you accuse Marildi having one. You should listen to your self…
Hmm, well I won’t pretend that I understand you. I have to agree with Elizabeth. Seems you agree with Vin; that you’ll just dissolve into oblivion when your body dies. Perhaps you’d care to comment on the view from your current box on such matters?
Freebeing: Perhaps you’d care to comment on the view from your current box on such matters?
Chris: No worries. “Dissolve into oblivion” is not the way I would write it. I will work on another metaphor. The ball of considerations whose weighted center is the reality of this existence dissolves. You already know something about this from your own auditing… Is your experience of this like mine? I’m not sure. But for me, there is no worry or anxiety about what happens next. My reality is warm and sunny, rich with possibilities. Each of us works this out and comes up with what we come up with. But it is fun to visit about and to speculate about what is greater than great. Hubbard’s “little clinker” you call your soul has no part of it. On the other hand, his “wind that sighs for songs” is better. None of this for me is just as anyone else has laid it out.
Chris… your comment about auditing well…. has been flip… auditors and who solo audits any length of time. puts in sessions every day-hours of it confronting that person will never be flip-knocking that process. not even for fun.. because they understand its meaning, what it takes to be there and what it do in a form of change of as-ising.
Your reality on auditing sessions tells different.
CH….”” Hubbard’s “little clinker” you call your soul has no part of it. On the other hand, his “wind that sighs for songs” is better.”””
”’ little clinker””??? very interesting ….. but not very funny..
Oh goody I get to integrate a little Buddhism into the discussion.
Chris, I sincerely hope it goes for you the way you picture it. It would be a happy outcome, one many generations of Buddhists have sought for.
The “ball of considerations” you refer to is what Buddhists call a person’s “karma”. It dissolves at death, or not, depending on the person. There is not a one-size-fits-all outcome for everyone across the board.
Some Tibetans in particular believe that at around the time of bodily death there is a “window of opportunity” to liberate one’s self from this ball of considerations and go free.
These windows of opportunity happen not just at death, but can occur at various points in a person’s life, often at moments of shock. These “shocks” can be created by a good teacher, or they can occur spontaneously or randomly in the process of living. These windows occur at moments of transition.
Sogyal Rinpoche’s book”The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying” goes into this a lot. It is a book used by staff in many hospices.
That ball of considerations, if it is ‘heavy’ or ‘solid’ enough can obscure the fundamental consciousness of bliss which some believe is the ground of existence. That is why Buddhists strive to resolve it.
Thank you Valkov. That is a good integration and if Buddhism, then sums up very well what I see out there.
are you ignoring the questions I have asked?
Elizabeth: “are you ignoring the questions I have asked?”
Chris: Yes, mostly because you are all over the place on this like you aren’t following the conversation. It’s Marildi’s contention that Scientology is the greatest invention of all time. It saves peoples lives and affords total spiritual freedom in the least amount of time with the least amount of trouble using the best laid path and organized in simple steps. She quotes Hubbard incessantly while not partaking of the ultimate sacrament of Scientology which is auditing. All I’m doing is addressing this one point. Marildi doesn’t feel the need to audit. No matter the smoke she is using about how we don’t like her, trying to drive her away, invalidating her, etc., there is only one question on the table which is why she won’t do what her religion tells her to do. I think it’s plain that I don’t care either way whether she does audit or not. I care that she is writing incessantly about how great Scientology is without doing it. I think this puts her in the category of accomplice to Hubbard in promoting a destructive cult. She is sitting there with an answer to this question that if she was a lurker wouldn’t come up. But she is the premier poster of comments on this blog. This puts her comments in the crosshairs. That’s just the way it is in a social forum.
Your invalidation is supper good.. and now I will take Marildi’s side. I know her reason, and I understand it very well, she is where she needs to be… And how you see her where she is, that is your reality on her but that still not hers and mine.
Self exploration is what familiarizes us with ourselves. Tautological, yes, and that is why I joke about a tautological universe — one that is repetitive and redundant, saying over and over to us the same or similar answers, lessons, results . . . many have done this and do this and they make it, and by make it I mean satisfy their search for truth. Not any one sect either. It’s just important to find one’s way, to soldier on so to speak. Given a good heart, inquisitiveness, and unquenchable desire to know what is true for me seems to unravel the universe. What we abstract (idea of what we see that we say to ourself) seems to be uniquely our own. Our abstraction of life seems to be what we truly own if that. We might as well abstract something pleasing rather than displeasing.
“. . . fundamental consciousness of bliss which some believe is the ground of existence . . . ”
For words, these are good ones.
A person can solo audit without necessarily even realizing it. If you are assimilating data, having cognitions and enhancing your spiritual survival with increased knowingness, then you are getting the same positive gains that you will get from auditing.
I’m pretty sure this is what you think you do and I see no problem with this.
If Marildi is winning and gaining at whatever she’s doing, let her be the judge of what she should do next. Solo auditing on the cans can be helpful for an individual up to the point the individual can make positive gains. After that I’d apply it only as necessary (like an out-rud that the individual couldn’t set straight by inspection). Beyond that I’d push positive gain processes until they didn’t work anymore, then whatever it took to get back to more positive gain processes. (I use the term “processes” a little loosely here as the “process” could be whatever achieved positive gain.)
Frankly, Marildi is as adept as anyone at assimilating data and is the most pan determined person I have seen here. Bar absolutely frickin none. If you had an organization run by personalities with an equivalent amount of ARC and pan determinism, you’d have an organization that would be busting at the seams.
That, in contrast to what we see with organizations today, would effectively show you what is wrong with and what is rightable about Scientology.
As for how and when and where auditing should be delivered, Marty and David St. Lawrence have both said some very good things. They both have learned that it is through excellent communication with the pc that the auditor determines what needs to be run and for how long.
None of what they have said or I have personally seen would conflict with a high-toned person forging ahead on a “shortest path” approach and that doesn’t preclude a non-formal solo approach.
Gosh, 2x, what can I say but thanks. I’ve actually stated on more than one occasion almost exactly what you just wrote – that I don’t really feel I need auditing right now and that I am winning with what I am doing. That “life itself is a process”. Thank you so much for recognizing that reality. You caught me just at the point of not wanting to even respond to this line of questioning any longer because I could just imagine the additional eval from those who can’t or don’t want to accept it, for whatever reason.
If I ever see you in person you are going to get the biggest hug. 🙂
I would recommend you try getting through NOTs/Solo NOTs. It did me a world of good. Perhaps it will do something similar for you.
yes, fun stuff, it brought great change. I loved it.
Thanks for that, Geir. I’ve read the data on the internet about NOTs and, as I said earlier about the Bridge, should it become available to me I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment. It may or may not lie on my future path. But I’m moving along finding my way. 😉
If you really are serious about defending auditing, you really should find a way to try getting through NOTs.
I’m not sure exactly what your point is. Please elaborate.
If you are a serious defender of auditing, you should try to get through NOTs specifically – it is the auditing that gave me the most – in addition to OT 8 and L11.
Okay, but you’re saying the same thing in just a slightly different way. You could be coming from at least a couple of different angles.
Btw, I’m not as heavy on promoting auditing in and of itself as you are. I place a lot of emphasis on training in conjunction with auditing – or even in itself. I could give you similar advice – if you can have it 😉 – which would be: If you’re serious about finding the flaws in the tech you should do more training. JMO.
What are you saying? That doing the Bridge to Total Freedom is not a vital activity?
This discussion has become dispersed. The SHSBC purpose is to give a thorough auditor training. What would the purpose of training auditors be if they weren’t going to audit? This is not making any sense to me. Who is supposed to receive auditing?
Marildi: which would be: If you’re serious about finding the flaws in the tech you should do more training. JMO.
Chris: Kidding, right? 🙂
Marildi: ” . . . should it become available to me I wouldn’t hesitate for a moment.”
Chris: What would this look like? NOTs seems to be readily available.
Your post is thoughtful and well organized but going soft on Marildi’s hardline defense of Standard Scientology does her no favors. It is this hardline defense of Scientology that I aim my arrows, not at Marildi. I love Marildi and respect her thorough investigation of the box of Scientology. If one is very into that box and talking that talk, then it follows that the best thing for all is for them to walk that walk.
And my solo sessions were done model session because that was what I needed to do at that time.
modeled after what…? since you don’t seem think much of auditing what your sessions were modeled after, who’s method did you use? and what class of auditor are you if I may ask if you have used the CofS’s ?
SP ”How can the present persist without having a past? 😛
you little devil … go and chew on the word ”NOW”
There is no time in my ‘now’ ! 😛
It is patently unpopular and in bad form to evaluate a person’s case to their face and especially so in a public forum. My ongoing argument with Marildi is not about her case but about her politics of Scientology.
It is my opinion that a person defending the tenets of a destructive cult should at least themselves submit to those tenets. Not to do so puts one in a similar moral position as the founder of Scientology, who also did not submit to the tenets of that cult but was an infamous fraud and fugitive from the law spending years on the lam.
From what I know about Marildi from her writings I would say that she does not defend the tenets of a destructive cult. She defends what she understands to be scientology (with a small ‘s’ as opposed to the big ‘S” Co$)
That she has yet to come to understand that she doesn’t need all those millions of words, a C/S, a meter, or someone else to unravel her mind is not a moral matter, but a matter of attachment to a fixed dogma that restricts her actions in this regard.
I wasted 20 years waiting to get the time/money together to continue on that ‘bridge’, 20 years that could have been spent doing it on my own. Because I believed I needed to follow that ‘closely marked path’. Hubbard instilled fear in his followers – fear of their own case. This is part of the trap.
No one can free you but you.
“That she has yet to come to understand that she doesn’t need all those millions of words, a C/S, a meter, or someone else to unravel her mind is not a moral matter, but a matter of attachment to a fixed dogma that restricts her actions in this regard.”
freebeeing, that’s not a correct representation of what I’ve said. In fact, I just commented yesterday that I don’t feel the need to get auditing or to do some splinter form of solo auditing. I thought you got that.
As a matter of fact, I’ve stated a number of times that neither I nor others necessarily need to follow the scientology (small “s”) path. However, my whole thrust has been that it is a valid, amazingly workable route which I believe most people, if so inclined, can follow and make great gains – as I and many others have already done. And I’ve also stated that the path can be improved and that anyone is free to do so and to use it as they see fit.
On this blog, where Scn is concerned, I mainly speak up to disagree with the false data about it – especially the idea that it in general does little or no good, only bad. I think spreading false data about it, especially wholesale criticism, is a misleading disservice and injustice on several if not all dynamics.
Your inclinations are your own. I wish you well in your pursuits.
Nothing like a little granting of beingness. Thanks. I wish you well in return.
“Nothing like a LITTLE granting of beingness.” 🙂
LOL 😀
Hey – even a LITTLE is more than I get from certain people. 😉
Actually, I got that freebeeing was sincere. I just wish that to start with he hadn’t bought all the negative things he read about me and then stated them as if they were fact. But he at least recognized for himself the lie that I am defending the tenets of a cult. Twisting of the facts is something that occurs too often on this blog, whether about me or about Scientology or whatever. And then others go right into agreement with what the group think is – the very thing most of them criticize about Scientology!
Yeah, people have a tendency to go from one dogmatic certainty to another. It seems like each person, and I don’t except myself, has a little(or big) supply of “certainty” that just has a need to be attached to SOMETHING.
I think it’s called ser facs. 😀
Marildi: “I think it’s called ser facs. :D”
Chris: Now we’re talking!
I notice that when you receive more opposing viewpoints than you can handle, you seem to resort to generalities and criticize “people on this blog” and some such. It comes across as a failure to address the actual opposing viewpoints.
No Geir, not generalities. It’s that there is a general attitude/viewpoint on your blog and that’s what I was talking about. You’ve done the same kind of thing a number of times when, for example, you’ve categorized ESMB in a certain way. Btw, I don’t post there, not because it’s “more opposing viewpoints than I can handle” but because I don’t expect to get an honest discussion going.
Lately, I’ve started to feel that it’s beginning to be a similar situation here. You allow Chris to continuously try to push off on me his personal evaluations in spite of the fact that I have many times corrected him and asked him to knock it off. He just repeats his version of my viewpoint and his opinion of what I should do . But if I send a derogatory flow to him you tell me to “watch it”. There’s too much favoritism going on with you and with others..
Also, you now seem to have decided that you aren’t going to respond to my queries, while claiming that you already have – when that isn’t actually true. I don’t know exactly why you’ve changed your attitude towards me, but it feels like you have. I got the distinct impression that Chris is trying to drive me away, and it occurred to me that maybe you are too. If that’s the case, so be it. Like I indicated recently, I am the misfit here.
Marildi; I have given you plenty of leeway here – perhaps more than anyone. I say you and Chris are on par. Same with Alanzo and Valkov. The one I reined in is Vinaire – and that is due to impoliteness that I don’t see with others here, you or Chris included. In the past few months I have told Chris and you once each to “watch it”. I think you are being disingenious when you say I play favorites. The statistics are not on your side with that statement. That I disagree more with you than with Chris has of course nothing to do with playing favorites, except you may feel that it does. As for me not responding to some of your queries – I have told you many times why I chose to do that. And I will tell you again: When you refuse to understand a point I am making, even after several attemt at explaining my point to you in different ways, I chose to give up trying and spend my energies elsewhere. There is only so much deliberate misunderstanding or dimness that I can take before I conclude that it is not worth it. You seem very much like a stuck record – and honestly, you are the person that has the most fixed viewpoint here – the person who has changed the least over the past three years. As others move on, you stand back sulking and moaning over why the others are changing. Others have noted this, not just me. If you are unhappy with posting here, why don’t you erect your own blog and invite people over to your sandbox to play?
As for honest discussions, I see you and Vinaire as the two who are the least prone to such: Vinaire because he almost never listen to what others have to say and is stuck on selling his ideology, and you because you are stuck in defending anything Scientology, armed with LRH quotes to the hilt because you seem to be unable to serve your own viewpoints in many discussions.
This is my straight and honest viewpoint about you. You asked. I serve. Please ask for clarifications or extrapolations on any of the above if you need it.
Geir, I’ve already refuted on various posts over a period of time almost all of what you have now repeated once again. I honestly think that you reject and not-is things I say in order to hang on to your fixed ideas. However, one thing I’ll grant is that you have given me lots of leeway to oppose your views. That I always recognized and appreciated. But I have never purposely refused to understand what you were saying. Perhaps you thought so because I wasn’t coming around to your way of thinking. In any case, if I gave you a hard time at times I apologize.
As for the last query of mine you never did answer me in spite of your claiming that you did. Not even once did you explain what I asked, which was where in TRs or in objective processes (plural), other than Op Pro by Dup, was there this continuous duplication that you were talking about – or anywhere else on the “whole Bridge” as you claimed. That was one thing that started me thinking you have changed your attitude towards me.
Marildi I hope you don’t mind butting in here.. If you are a misfit than so am I.. each of us gives here their belief, their energy flow-personality unique to them. That makes the blog.. Yes Chris has been pushing you hard… to hard and it is he who do not solo audit since He is not a solo auditor… and you have stated many times over your reason why you don’t. I truly believe that no ones fucking business if one do or don’t… We can ask if they do or not, but outside of that one should keep their reality about that to them self.
Auditing is a totally personal matter… and if one do not like the other persons for some reason that is their tough luck… and that simply means it is they are the one who has the ARCB’s- and problems and it is them who are re-stimulated by your actions how you are and cant have you the way you are… therefore they insist that you need the change blah-blah-blah.. Don’t back off… E.
Elizabeth, Marildi holds herself out as a true Scientologist. Scientologists audit. Marildi don’t see a need to audit, then in the next sentence continues the double talk. Complains when called out on it. Which is it going to be? Audit or not? Now you are switching sides about auditing? People don’t need to audit? I think you have gotten the wrong idea of what is going down in this conversation.
I think I got the right reality….. very much so.. I don’t have the need to take sides.. but you are pushing her, and she is no more scientologist than I am or Geir or Alanzo. Knowing something like the tech do not make her one. Scientologists are in the church.. Just because she see and believes differently that should be OK with every one.
and she do not lie and say she audits when she don’t.. Marildi and I we have on understanding and that is enough for both of us. Yes I believe every one should continue with being audited or solo audit but I also know the reason why these individual wont continue…and that is that…. it is not their time.. and tell me why are you not OT8 by now? Why not doing the L’s , NOTS etc… ??? because you too have your excuses.. right? and your time is not here yet right? and I don’t want to hear crap either.. and you have not answered my questions.
Elizabeth: and I don’t want to hear crap either.. and you have not answered my questions.
Chris: You aren’t following the conversation.
here in Geirs blog I have seen one person commenting- going back and forth with 3-4 different persons at the same time, even if I was not fallowing what ever and that is your reason not answering my question is a VERY POOR EXCUSE and you know it.
Elizabeth, you’re not butting in. I very much appreciated your post and the sentiment you communicated, which I clearly got. And don’t worry about Chris – I am well aware that he is the one with the problem. The fact that I continue to believe Scientology is a good thing – even though in many ways I’ve greatly modified the views I once had – to him, and others with the same biased viewpoint, means that I must be blind and have fixed ideas.
To me, Chris seems to be under some sort of compulsion, repeating himself over and over and twisting everything to try to present me in a bad light. LOL – I think he makes more comments to me than everybody else combined. I don’t even read the post when I see it’s from him. He’s too off the rails where I’m concerned, for whatever reason or whatever the hangup.
But it’s true that I have come to feel like a misfit here – almost like I would feel if I tried to participate on ESMB. The think on this blog has gone quite a bit in that direction. But that’s okay – to each his own. You may have noticed some pro-Scn posters come and go from time to time. They post a comment or two, get an idea of the overall mentality and then never come back. There are certainly other places where viewpoints like theirs and mine are met with similar realities.
Nevertheless, I know that you yourself are able to get along fine here, even though you believe in the tech. I’m not sure I’m willing or able to do so, however. I haven’t quite decided what is best for all concerned. Anyway, thanks for the comm, my dear. 🙂
I be waiting for you as I promised…. till than we stumble along on this rocky path.
M….. I don’t know if my comment went though or not.. so I do it again.
I will not forget… I be waiting for you as I promised I would.. Till than we stumble along on this rocky Path. Love ya..
E. I got your comm. You have a wonderful way with words. 🙂 Love ya back, M.
Yes.. I believe the tech works, and by now I don’t give a hoot who believes in what…
Marildi: You allow Chris to continuously try to push off on me his personal evaluations in spite of the fact that I have many times corrected him and asked him to knock it off.
Chris: I write to what you write and not to who or what you are. I have become flustered at your inconsistent double talk in the past but now I have that dialed in and am back to loving you. As I wrote a little while ago, you’ve gotten yourself into a Scientology pickle and are bouncing between the eternities and it must be an uncomfortable position to defend outside the box of Scientology where Scientology tenets do not reign supreme.
Marildi: “I got the distinct impression that Chris is trying to drive me away, and it occurred to me that maybe you are too. If that’s the case, so be it. Like I indicated recently, I am the misfit here.”
Chris: Come on — What are you doing?
Marildi: But he at least recognized for himself the lie that I am defending the tenets of a cult.
Chris: He told you what I tell you, to follow your own predilection. The problem is that you are writing in double-speak and that is something that needs a sort out. Until then, we’re just stirring up dust! hahaha
Marildi,
+1. 🙂 Well said. G.
Thanks Gary. Coming from one such as yourself, that was an especially appreciated ack. 🙂
Marildi: “I don’t feel the need to get auditing or to do some splinter form of solo auditing.”
Chris: You’ve already splintered. That is indisputable. Saying some splinter form is used derogatorily meaning that the solo auditing that you would do outside the auspices of the Church of Scientology would be inferior. This is a “Tech Degrade” to working independent scientologists who practice the “true” Scientology that you ceaselessly glorify. Big S, little s, this is a lot of double talk and malarky. You hold yourself out as one of the true Scientologists but I will have to disagree with that. You’ve gotten yourself into a “<pickle of L. Ron Hubbard’s making. What are you going to do? You can’t go forward, you can’t go back, and you cannot stay where you are.
Yes I do, and you who is evading my questions….
+1 Freebeing.
Marildi: “As for the last query of mine you never did answer me in spite of your claiming that you did. Not even once did you explain what I asked, which was where in TRs or in objective processes (plural), other than Op Pro by Dup, was there this continuous duplication that you were talking about – or anywhere else on the “whole Bridge” as you claimed.”
I am astonished that you seem to insist that Scientology does not rely on repetitive duplication – other than in Op Pro by Dup.
What about the use of TR 3, or the training on TR 1 (insisting that it is done right and flunking if not), TR 2, TR 2.5, TR4, TR 6, TR 7, TR 8 (shouting at the ashtray repetitively with the same three commands), TR 9, training drills all through the academy and up to class XII, patter drills, Chineese school drills. Admin TRs, OT 3 running/controlling BTs through Incident 2 & 1, repetitive asking questions in auditing, the CCHs (as covered by Alanzo), repetitive asking of questions on NOTs to control BTs just as the person himself was controlled on his own lower grades. Then consider the need for duplication to pass M4 (see https://isene.me/2011/09/24/the-danger-of-losing-yourself/ )
I think it is obvious to any outsider – as this has been brought to my attention many times over the years and I waved it off – that Scientology insists on exact duplication in training, no critical thought – and exact duplication in auditing (based on the false axiom #12). Different angles on duplication – but still repetitive and insisting on perfection.
It does smack of OCD. Especially the extrapolations called Golden Age of Tech 1 & now 2.
And, as I also commented; DM getting his high rollers through another round of Objectives makes perfect sense to me now – use the tech that is most useful in molding and controlling a parishioner when you want to squeeze even more $$$ out of them. Yep – GAT and Objectives makes for perfect brainwash. It blunts and ultimately robs a person of his or her critical thinking skills. The results are evident.
I liked that TR with the ashtray. I just didn’t like it if somebody thought that because he could scream in the drill, ir was ‘right’ to go around and screan at people because they didn’t do what he wanted. Same with TR 3. Often I got a total ignore when I disagreed with somebody. I got my fake acknowledgement, and we both got disaffected at each other, if there was any affection to begin with.
Yeah I know they can be used without the negative parts. Nevertheless I didn’t experience it often. And what I like about the ashtray drill in specific, is that if you can be forceful, you don’t have to be. If you can’t be forceful directly you can use other means to force. And actually if you can’t be forceful you get more obsessed with force.
I read recently “A strong person lifts others up, doesn’t pull them down.” Fully agreed.
I also like TR 8. A lot. And the other TRs. I find them very useful. But that does not alter the fact that they do rely on repetitive duplication. As others have said, duplication and repetitive duplication has its rightful place in training. But it becomes overdone in Scientology – especially as Scientology is supposed to cover ALL of life.
Yes, I have personally over-over run TRs. I guess I was expected to become ‘flat’ myself, instead of ‘flattening’ the TR. And to some degree I did achieve that. I gained a great skill to not-is my disagreements, and even hide it from myself, and get charged for no obvious reason and even hide that too…
Like “We no longer need to implant you. As of now, you can do it yourself!” –self determinism 😛
We no longer need to implant you, you can do it yourself.
That made me laugh Spyros 🙂
Implants that make you enforce them are highly prized. You have to pay extra for them – Implants ‘R Us sales promo circa 75.2 million years ago
I’m glad 🙂
what you said explains the COSes prices
Geir, here’s one comm cycle we had on this subject:
You wrote the following on 2013-07-03 @ 20:30:
“Marildi: ‘Geir has made the specious claim that “It is the repetitive duplication, the insidious repeating of copying what LRH proclaims as truth. It is the belief that one has to copy”.’
“Sorry, I never said that. = Straw Man argument. Please do try to understand what I am saying before you try to argue against it. And NO, I will not explain it further or give more examples or spoon feed you or clarify or say it in a different way than I already have or even understand what I have said on behalf of you. It’s almost like you purposefully Try to misunderstand what I write. That’s an explanation why I quite often give up on you, Marildi. 10-3.”
And this was my reply on 2013-07-03 @ 20:43:
“Here’s the post link I copied and pasted your words from: https://isene.me/2013/06/30/accomplice/#comment-42382”
You never replied to that post – i.e. you dropped the comm cycle. It wasn’t a matter of me not being willing to understand.
I did get what you said in the post above, but that is explaining “repetitive duplication” in a different way from repetition of “what LRH proclaims as truth”. That was the main thing I wanted an explanation for and I don’t see that there is any connection of the examples you gave in this last post with “what LRH proclaims as truth”.
Furthermore, I don’t even see the “insidiousness” of the type of duplication you gave examples of, any more than I see that repeating a mantra, for example, is “insidious duplication”. And I’m sure there are scores of other examples of duplication in any number of self-advancement methods: The very concept of “method” implies duplication. Life itself is a matter of almost unceasing duplication as that is the heart of communication and communication is what the activity of life consists of it its totality.
Lastly, I appreciated your reply to me, It told me you still have good will toward me after all. 😉
The insidiousness is that the repetitive duplications I listed sets the person up for a) being more easily controlled (the most obvious) and b) getting the person into the habit of duplication often resulting in more automatically duplicating what LRH days svetting the truth.
The straw man is you claiming I said something about any person feeling the need to copy. I don’t think anyone feels such a need to any noticeable extent.
What’s the basis of the assumptions you make in “a” and “b” above? To me, they don’t qualify as “self-evident” truths. And, as I said, why wouldn’t it work the same for the over and over, day in and day out, repetition of a mantra, for example?
As for the claim you say I made, I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to. Please say which post. Maybe I need to clarify what I meant.
As for a) above – I have personally seen hundreds of people come in off the street and quite quickly become much more easily controlled – especially after doing TRs and objectives. That is my personal observation. I have talked to many that supports it with their own observation. The same with b) – although that is harder to spot.
Then for your “And, as I said, why wouldn’t it work the same for the over and over, day in and day out, repetition of a mantra, for example?”
Who says it doesn’t. I happen to believe that such also has long term detrimental effects (also personal observation).
Mind you, I do find it tedious and boring to spoon feed you every point I make like this. I have run out of patience.
You can belittle my query by calling it tedious and boring, but to put it more bluntly it seems to me your logic is lacking. At best what you say is a theory only, not even as good as the theory that the fabulous wins gotten so quickly are what put Scientologists in the frame of mind that everything else LRH said must be true too. That would much better fit “my personal observation”. And it makes far more sense to me than yours – as I already noted, you would have to extend that concept to so many things, almost to life itself – in which case, what’s the value of it?
I’ve run out of patience too – I don’t think you are truly willing to have a discussion but only to have your views confirmed. Have a good day anyway.
Simply put: The incessant duplication in Scientology is both more prevalent and more wide (Scientology encompasses ALL of life, etc.) than other subjects. That is the dangerous part in this.
And you are right. I am not interested in having a discussion with you in particular. It is all too predictable – you defend anything Scientology to the inch of your life. And the range of mental tricks and leaps of logic you are prepared to put on for that end is amazing. I have learned a lot from that – and as I have said before, discussing with you is the single most important activity that has made me scrutinize Scientology so hard as I have been doing the past year. So thank you for that. But my patience with you has run out. It did run out with Vinaire first, though. It is a matter of where I spend my energy most productively.
Good night.
You list out accusations in the form of generalities – and I think it’s because you have no specifics to give without them showing you up. Personally, I don’t think you can accept any direct confrontation. And apparently you can’t confront me, period. Right from the get go on this particular thread, almost all of your remarks to me have been in the vein of Ad Hom generalities and refusal to address the actual discussion points. And when you do, if I don’t fawningly agree, you’re back to Ad Hom generalities.
And since we’re being so straightforward, I’ll note that you and your blog have deteriorated markedly as regards things like respect or ARC or Manners or whatever word you want to use. I don’t think Vinaire for a moment is the only one who is in violation of manners. In fact, he’s not even one of the worst and I’ve wondered why you like to get on his case so much – somewhat like Chris thinking he has the right to get on my case with his self-righteous assessment of what I myself think. Nobody should be appointing themselves judge and jury as if it’s their ordained right. It violates so many things besides Scientology, including common courtesy and consideration.
I suggest you move on and post elsewhere.
That has already been in progress. Just thought I would give you one last benefit of the doubt. Now I’m satisfied where you’re coming from.
Marildi,
Please let me/us know where you decide to post. While I do not by any means pretend to have seen all of your comments, those I have seen have been remarkably worthwhile reading. They have been cogent, remarkably sane, well informed, and interesting. Further, they most often speak to my own, sometimes weak, desire to identify (and where possible, salvage) all things ‘workable’ in Scientology.
That said, I agree with Geir that it is also important to clearly understand what went wrong: to identify the, ‘fatal flaws,’ so that attempts to preserve the salvageable tech don’t again go awry; but, like you, I don’t ‘cognite’ that ‘duplication’ is particularly reprehensible. It is, after all, an essential component of the comm formula, without which, there could be no effective communication at all.
Undoubtedly, there may be unnecessary emphasis on repetition, here and there, in the practice of Scientology — particular since, “The Golden Age of Tech.” But even such rabid repetition/duplication exemplified by, “Chinese School,” (once at least used by Sea Org orgs to drill staff on the Org Board) has pluses which may mitigate the minuses.
I would miss you, Marildi, if you took your light away.
G.
Marildi.. I am with you also.. we will also talk…
Thanks for your support once again, Eliz. I’m with you too. 🙂
Hi Gary,
Your post meant more to me than you might believe. Thanks so much for writing it.
I wish things hadn’t evolved to the point of hard words. The simplicity of the matter is that I don’t see things the way Geir and most others here do. I recognized that a while back, as well as the fact that I’m not going to be able to change anybody’s mind. I should have gone my separate way back then, even though that would have meant losing the comm lines I’ve had for these last 3 years.
Obviously, you (and Geir and others) are right that the flaws of Scn have to be understood, so as to separate them out from the good. My ridge has been on what is considered flaws, which is sometimes sheer misunderstanding, IMO. And that’s what I’ve felt needed to be pointed out. Nevertheless, when I saw the writing on the wall (as described above) I should have taken the viewpoint of “live and let live” since nothing has been achieved now but a sense of being made wrong on both sides. My bad.
Not to pull you or anybody else away from here who finds this blog to their liking, but the place where I’ve been posting is on Marty’s blog – not too much on the current thread but on some threads I’ve posted quite a few comments, including the thread before last titled “Dangerous Thoughts”. There was a fascinating discussion about an HCOB that was originally on the OT VIII lineup but was pulled by DM because it was so controversial and so difficult for the pre-OT’s to grasp it. But mostly, the discussions include looking at the good points of Scn as well as looking at the bad – and also how to improve upon what is already good. My ideas, including quoting the references, are acceptable over there (at least to some people, LOL). And disagreements are mostly discussed rationally. In actual fact, I do more reading of the threads than I do posting as there are so many great comments and I’ve learned a lot.
Again, you really picked me up with your kind validation. You are one likable guy, alone for being willing to speak out, not just now but other times. And as I’ve already said, I like your posts very much too. I will keep my eye out for you over at Marty’s at least once in a while. 🙂
ml, marildi
I will add that I have always had a deep respect for you, Marildi. You have helped me become more thorough in my thoughts and scrutinizings. I owe you much in that regard. I have also seen how courteous and lovable you have been – especially in welcoming new posters on my blog. And I thank you for that. I wish you well regardless of where you decide to post (here or on Marty’s or elsewhere). I hope you appreciate the journey Marty is on and where he is going. Regardless of our differences of opinion and any hard talk on subject matters, I regard you as a friend and my admiration persists.
And as always with me; There are never any residual hard feelings.
Wow, quite the emotional curve for me today, both downwards and upwards. 😉
Yes, I very much appreciate the journey Marty is on and where he is going. Part of my post on his current thread was the following, first quoting from his blog post:
“… It is my hope that somewhere down the line that the audience for the second book [he is planning to write two more], the integral guide, might gain a wider audience [i.e. not just former Scientologists]; or, at least, serve to get some of Hubbard’s ideas into the conversation and mix in future integral mental and spiritual practices.”
And my comment under that was: “That says it all – everything I’ve hoped would occur for Scientology but hadn’t actually put together and articulated.”
Thanks for your comm, Geir. You always come through in the end. 🙂
Awwwww ! Don’t be so hang dog! You’ve still got 2-1/2 days to get your stats up! And even if this Sunday is a bust, there’s hardly any chance you’ll be pulled from this garrison mission and sent over to Marty’s full time! (Joke) I tell ya, I’m a real sucker for a sympathy exciter! Haha
This seems key to me: “The simplicity of the matter is that I don’t see things the way Geir and most others here do. I recognized that a while back, as well as the fact that I’m not going to be able to change anybody’s mind.”
Having any kind of goal of “changing anyone’s someone’s mind” is a tricky thing and a slippery slope.
I think one sets one’s self up for losses when one has that kind of goal or desire.
None of us see things exactly the same way as others do; that would indeed be an undesirable kind of “duplication”, “cookie cutter” viewpoints. That is what the CoS strives for. We are individuals(except for Vinaire of course) 🙂
I was able to successfully post on ESMB because I posted in certain ways and avoided posting in other ways, but mainly because I wasn’t trying to change anyone’s mind except in maybe a very incremental way. Mostly I was trying to contribute what was needed or wanted on the positive side.
You attempted to carve out a niche for yourself here, but it didn’t work out the way you wished for it to work out I guess.
Back to the drawing boards…..?
I haven’t posted on ESMB in a longtime. There’s nothing wrong with looking for the venues that fit you best. We can’t post everywhere! Picking and choosing is wise.
But consider this: at the stage things are at, even people like Karen de la C are focusing on the negatives. I see it as kinda like closing in for the kill on “the beast”, so the Phoenix can eventually rise from the ashes. When that time comes, people who are good at Qual will be very needed.
Thanks, Val. I get what you’re saying, but I don’t know if my wording of “change anyone’s mind” was quite what I meant. It’s more like I wanted (as you inferred at the end of your post) to sort of wear a Qual hat wherever I saw false data or misunderstandings. Nevertheless, you are undoubtedly right that my approach hasn’t been, shall we say, optimum. Obviously – or the results wouldn’t have turned out as they have.
This is yet another example of the huge variety of lessons that can be learned when posting on blogs, and that definitely has included Geir’s blog. I haven’t said that for a while but I do know it is true. And for the record, I’ll say again that I have appreciated him and his blog tremendously. (Many thanks, Geir :))
But to be frank, I still don’t see the value of constant repetition (now a touchy word to use, isn’t it? ;)) of all the bad points – especially the obvious ones that no one disagrees with. But your point that “none of us see things exactly the same way as others do” is something I need to get a better reality on. Thanks for gently pointing that out. I already knew you yourself had that one down better than I and it has often occurred to me that I should try to follow your lead. Oh well, better late than never. 😀
The repetition may seem “constant”, but is that so? This is becoming a very public blog and now that Geir has swung into action and has been making videos in which he is being interviewed for “the inside scoop” on the CoS he is focusing on what he needs to focus on, just as Karen is.
That’s how I see it.
Got you. I guess maybe I just don’t see the real need for it. To me, it’s essentially old news, a variation on the same old theme. What is the point exactly, and who will it reach that doesn’t already know the CoS is vicious and corrupt? Or is this additional data actually for those who can’t get enough of this kind of thing and revel in hearing even more of the gory details? I’m asking you sincerely.
And even if it does reach people who haven’t been reached before, hasn’t the word “Scientology” been smeared enough? Do we have to make the negative meaning of “Scientology” a household word, like Jamestown? There are actually people who know about Jamestown (virtually the whole world does) but many still don’t know anything about the CoS. Maybe the word is beyond ever salvaging, so what’s the difference – but do we have to ensure that? In any case, it’s not my game. And as you basically said, I should let others have theirs.
I don’t see it that way. In fact I think “public awareness” of the CoS is virtually nil, compared to other issues. They have no reality on it to speak of. It is a minor tabloid issue. We’re a long way from villagers with torches storming the ideal orgs, or Int. It’s a war of attrition. The heat has to be turned up a lot more. It will take a huge public demand for anything to happen. It always does.
That’s how I see it in a nutshell.
Okay. However, if the huge amount of data that is already on the internet, accumulated over decades, hasn’t yet reached very much of the public, I’m not sure the approach of adding more is worth putting so much time and effort into. As I say, those who are interested and will pay attention already know the situation. Even Marty’s superbly written books on the subject only sell to former Scientologists, as he himself pointed out recently.
It’s not how much is on the Internet that will make the difference. There is too much data about everything on the Internet. It will take an intense, widespread and continuous media focus. As Marty pointed out, not that many people are interested – yet. It will take a lot of activism to make a difference, if anything will.
Valkov: CoS is . . . a minor tabloid issue.”
Chris: This is true. Scientology has never made an important splash the way only Scientologists think it has. It has come and almost gone with none the wiser despite free labor and the most brilliant organizational technology that man has ever known since the Galactic Federation was in its heyday.
Good points. Another point is that this open forum is not a contest. Nothing to win, just ideas to share and things to learn. It seems that a robust argument between people of goodwill should result in expanded knowledge and mutual respect.
But in practice did it work out that way?
Between true bloggers it does! 😉
Is marildi being excommunicated?
Not at all. I recommend that she moves on for her own sake. She seems increasingly uncomfortable about posting here. So instead of staying around complaining, I already suggested she did it right her own way by erecting her own blog. If not, then at least go find another place where she will feel more comfortable. That’s all.
Valkov wrote:
was able to successfully post on ESMB because I posted in certain ways and avoided posting in other ways, but mainly because I wasn’t trying to change anyone’s mind except in maybe a very incremental way. Mostly I was trying to contribute what was needed or wanted on the positive side.
What name(s) did you post under at ESMB, Valkov?
And when did you post there?
Alanzo
Last time was probably 2 years ago or more. And I keep that name private.
Interesting.
Did you ever post to beliefnet?
No, never “beliefnet”. Haven’t even seen it. Does it still exist? I started posting online back when Geir started running his The ScnForum which Claire now runs. Never involved with Internet vis-a-vis scientology before that.
isene: “She seems increasingly uncomfortable about posting here.”
It’s statements like that that give me the desire to lace up my boots and jump in, but not in a kindly way. Even though that statement is evaluating, patronizing and belittling I think you have enough sense to not really mean it the way it comes across.
That said, you should also realize that it is the counterpoint that Marildi brings to this blog that gives it its actual life. Without her it has the smell of death. Your negativity may draw agreement from many but I have yet to see it improve any condition. This has descended to the point where instead of looking at how a valuable piece of tech like objectives can be protected and improved, your entire rant is on how dangerous it is.
To contrast that idea, I would invite you to consider the force factor of ethics abuse and how people might really respond if that wasn’t so severe. Personally I’ll bet few people would ante up for retrains on TRs and Objectives if it wasn’t for the threat of heavy ethics. If that were the case, Orgs would have to sell products that were desired and deliver the service in a desirable way. Simple.
I won’t dispute that repetition of anything – while under duress – could be harmful. It is, however, the duress, the force, the fear instilled that is the root of the problem, not the repetitive process.
Your thread on Lies is very apropos in this regard. Lies are used to convince parishioners of all manner of things and if you don’t toe the line, lies are used to discredit you. That was a behavior that always appalled me. Early I my history I thought it was just individuals that lied. Seeing it as an increasingly endemic organizational problem is very disheartening but it at least identifies the worst manifestation of the organizational aberration and that opens a door to solution.
So basically I’d say we should look at that problem and what can be done to sanely expose it. I say sanely because if I were in an org and even marginally winning, the antics of most of the protestors would do little to make me think they were saner than the organization they were attacking. If we are to be effective we have to collectively demonstrate a very high degree of sanity both in the targets we select to attack and in the attack.
hahaha You crack me up 2X — That’s some good drama about poor Marildi. Armed with a battery of nitpicking questions and a refuting Hubbard reference for every response, I sometimes think she is just doing the front half of emeter drill #20 without doing the back half – hahaha. But then she shrinks and cries foul when asked to back up her own inconsistent statements about her religion. This isn’t cruel or evil of us to ask her to explain her comments. You are making a mountain out of this mole hill as is Marildi but she has written thousands of words about her mistreatment and my badgering and still not addressed the question of why Scientology is supremely good but auditing is not for her. (“smell of death” I loved that one — more please? hahaha) Here’s one of her wink emoticons to help you take my biting remarks in fun! 😉
+1
G.
Oops. That, “+1,” was intended for 2ndxmr’s comment. G.
Well 2ndmxr –
How do you get huge numbers of people to go against their own ethics and their own nature, and even get mothers to disconnect and fair game their own children, if there wasn’t something inherently subversive to the basic personality in the tech itself?
Yes, each individual is responsible for his own actions. But the environment and the data available with which to make decisions about those actions, and the forces used against people to comply with Scientology dictates about those actions ALSO exists. We must not look away from that factor in the situation which also exists and which repetitively prompts a person to obey Scientology’s orders on how to behave in order to “handle life”.
So is it really just individual people all acting on their own reactive minds in their own out-ethics and suppressive ways, un-prompted by Ron?
Or, is there something else at work here?
So again I ask: How do you get huge numbers of people all going against their own ethics and their own natures, and even get mothers to disconnect from and fair game their own children?
The intelligent way to handle this is to turn around and closely examine the tech itself, and NOT to blind yourself to it as the major influencing factor of being a Scientologist.
Alanzo
And by the way, 2ndmxr, I do agree with you about Marildi’s value on this blog. She is extremely valuable here. She DOES remind people about any good there is in the tech, and she does act as a very valuable counterweight to the discussions here.
A person can go too far in assigning evil to the tech. Marildi, and others of her ilk, 🙂 are a necessity in staying accurate and not turning all dark-minded – and WRONG – about Scientology.
Logic is defined as a tool to preserve truth throughout the reasoning process. Marildi, and other pro-tech Scientologists, continue add discipline to the reasoning necessary to preserve the truth in examining the good and the bad in Scientology.
Hubbard was wrong about groups. Groups CAN evolve truth. In fact, as social animals, groups have always created and maintained and passed on the only truth man has ever evolved.
Also, as an ad-hom note about Marildi herself: she is one of the most logical and disciplined and emotionally mature Scientologists I have ever come across on the Internet. She is extremely intelligent and her questioning and counter-points are extremely well-placed.
I do not want her to leave. But I also understand what it is like to post in an environment where everyone disagrees with you. It is very difficult, and it can really wear you down.
So I certainly do understand her wanting to, maybe even needing to, leave. I wish her the best and hope that she continues to do what she sees is the best for herself.
And so if she feels like she wants to or even needs to leave here, I understand. She is always welcome to post any where I post.
Just sayin….
Alanzo
Alanzo… thank you for writing that comment about Marildi.. I do feel the same way. and when reading comments like hers or yours above and Valkovs or Marias I wish I could write like you people can- clearly- right to the point.. but I was not given that gift.
Thank you again. Elizabeth
Alanzo,
+1
Except for one overly broad generality (everyone disagrees) and perhaps the occasional too definite characterization, I agree with everything you state here. I don’t recall that ever happening before! 🙂 (I need to update my ‘mental model!’)
And, in at least partial contribution to the OP, it may be that one major flaw in Scientology is Ron’s elevation of ‘certainty’ to the status of a virtue. Certainty is the father of dogmatism and few would consider dogmatism a virtue. Certainty can be a virtue — if, and only if, you happen to be entirely right. Yet, even then, continued willingness to consider another’s opinion — to ‘duplicate’ their comm — yields better results, in practice, than repeated insistence on one’s own rightness.
In fact, it would seem to me impossible to actually ‘improve’ if one is unwilling to be wrong. Seen thus, dogmatism, ‘being right,’ and certainty are, in their own way, all barriers to progress. We make ‘maps’ — perhaps ‘mental maps’ or models, that capture our understanding of how the world works and how people are. Through education and experience, we (should) continually revise that map. Note, however, that revision of the ‘map’ is impossible without acknowledgement that the map, as is, is imperfect — that it’s wrong!
As I recall, it was Alfred Korzybski, one of Ron’s acknowledged influences, who first noted: “The map is not the territory!” To the extent we lose sight of that, (ha!) we are lost.
I grant that certainty may be required to attract followers; but the scientology I respected was about enhancing self-determinism and personal ability — including the ability to discern truth; neither of which are particularly desirable traits in followers.
G.
Sorry about the generality, gfyork.
As an SP, I am compelled to make them. 🙂
Alanzo
And of all the people of your ilk :), I have to confess you are one I have an irrational 😀 ARC for and in many ways a high respect, crazy as that is. So there. 😛
(In other words, I like you too, Al)
In fact, the human race is notorious for atrocious acts against brother, sister, mother, father and children. This is called domestic violence. 25% of women in the U.S. have experienced domestic violence at the hands of men, the majority of whom self-report as Christians on census information. This alone is a HUGE HUGE HUGE number. And there is nothing “fair” about assaulting, intimidating or beating up a woman or child that is smaller than you are. It seems that many men consider the women and children in their vicinity to be fair game if they don’t “behave” themselves. [http://www.statisticbrain.com/domestic-violence-abuse-stats/]
My own father was a violent S.O.B. who thought nothing of having affairs, terrorizing us, and leaving the family so he could pursue some more skirts. No repetitive process taught him to do that. Oh yes, we were “fair game” for his episodes of acted out hostilities.
The human race is even more notorious for its acts of violence and atrocity against women. It is only in the last century that women have had rights of any kind in any country anywhere in the world. The vast majority of women throughout the world still do not have the full rights and protections afforded to men.
Why do these men do this? And what needs to happen to ensure that the perpetrators learn to do otherwise or are at least curbed from their violent behavior?
If you can answer these questions, then you can easily find what is done in Scientology that exacerbates, encourages or augments that behavior.
These were a few of the questions that I had hoped Scientology would have an answer to. And at least for me, the answer turned out to be that there is a sickness that runs like a virus throughout human society, a sickness that perpetuates a constant effort on the part of the male members to dominate, subjugate and eliminate all opponents by any means that will be tolerated, and even means that will not be tolerated.
Let me put it this way — if I am walking down the street at night and I encounter a group of women who have been drinking and partying coming towards me, I know I am safe. If I encounter a group of men coming towards me who have been drinking and partying, I hide. They are dangerous and unpredictable when they are acting as a “pack,” sometimes even when they are sober.
Yes, Maria, human beings can be vicious animals.
Just look at Chimpanzees, and you can see that their viciousness and violence is true for human beings as a species in very similar ways.
But in order to get huge numbers of humans all being vicious in the same way, that takes religion.
The teachings in Scientology from L Ron Hubbard are the common denominator of the specific ways that Scientologists are vicious in completely different areasand from all around the world. It is the teachings of Scientology that all this specific viciousness has in common.
Therefore, we must examine this common denominator of the teachings of Scientology in order to eliminate the special and specific viciousness of Scientologists.
Alanzo
No, I am not so sure it does take religion. Please explain which religion teaches men that it is okay to rape women?
Maria, Not to pick on Islam exclusively, this is just the first link that Google popped up. -Chris http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/002-rape_adultery.htm I am an equal opportunity hater, though and am willing to pin this tail on any jackass religion out there. Rape is sadistic violence usually against women. It’s a subset of violence against women. Arcane religious tenets usually give men domination over women’s bodies. Actually, I’m not sure why I used the word arcane.
I like this one: Not Muhammad, but “Allah the Exalted” who told the men to rape the women in front of their husbands – which is all the more reason not to think of Islam as being the same as other religions.http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-rape.htm
My original statement was this:
———
But in order to get huge numbers of humans all being vicious in the same way, that takes religion.
———-
I was thinking about huge numbers of people all specifically hating homosexuals because of a passage in Leviticus. Or huge numbers of people wanting to kill Jews for being “Christ-killers”. Or huge numbers of women disconnecting from their children because they are “SPs”.
This is the specific viciousness which comes from following religion.
You can not make all of mankind less vicious by scrutinizing Scientology. But you can make most Scientologists less vicious by getting them to scrutinize the parts of Scientology which prompt them to justify their vicious acts in pursuit of ideological purity and uniformity of belief.
We’re not trying to change mankind here.
Nor is the viciousness of mankind a justification for the viciousness of Scientologists.
Alanzo
So what you are saying is that religions are the instrument by which human beings justify the ownership (and thus rights to abuse, subjugate and harm) of other human beings based on a particular quality or status. Or are you saying that religions were invented and/or intended to enforce such behavior?
Maria: Or are you saying that religions were invented and/or intended to enforce such behavior?
Chris: For me, spirituality is what we think of ourselves in the ethereal sense. Religion begins when someone begins telling someone else what to think about that spirituality and consequently about more solid manifestations of life. There is not too much leeway right now in my thinking for religion.
Alanzo, good point on the homosexual reference.
Consider this as a possible — religion has a very real and valuable function in a society but it either shifts from being spiritually oriented to being a political instrument or it is usurped and used for that purpose?
i.e. Perennial truth and spiritual progress are the beginnings and those beginnings are absolutely corrupted by political / social control mechanisms intended to protect power positions and subjugate others. The hallmark of such mechanisms is always coercion, abuse, domination and the destruction of rights and lives in the interests of expanding the sphere of power and influence.
Maria: religion . . . political instrument or it is usurped and used for that purpose?
Chris: I can’t think of another reason for the existence of religion except for political purposes.
I mean, yes, that is what religion is for.
Hmmm… come to think of it, that was the whole point of the constitution of the U.S. — separation of Church and State.
Excellent.
Maria: “No, I am not so sure it does take religion. Please explain which religion teaches men that it is okay to rape women?”
Me: Do you really want an answer to that? Because the simple answer is that so many of them do it. Start with the Abrahamic religions, all three of them.
It’s not blatant of course, and it’s not like 10 year old boys are given Sunday School classes on successfully committing rape, but it’s there in the underlying attitudes and insiduously pervades so many things. The Bible clearly and unambiguously states that it perfectly OK for a man to sell his daughters into slavery, that enemies defeated in battle are to be slaughtered and their animals and womenfolk are fair game, that women are subservient to men and are to obey their husbands.
yes, you will find it very hard to prove a direct causal link between a specific religion and violence against women. But you don;thave to look very far to see the blind eye being turned either.
In my opinion, spirituality should not be thought of as the domain of religion. Historically, religion has played a political role more than the role of liberating the spirit. Spirituality should be its own domain.
For sure.
Yes. As Maria says, if you want to know the “root causes” of why people act in harmful ways towards each other, look in to human nature, not to some system of repetitious duplication. Those systems are symptoms, not causes. They are in the beginning the products of human nature, although obviously at this point they are part of a vicious cycle of cause and effect.
For that reason it is also worthwhile to examine the systems and work towards changing them in positive directions by appealing to humanity’s better nature and the creation of more civilized institutions and mores. I think this is what Geir is doing, and it is a valid approach.
I don’t think there is anyone posting on this blog who does not at bottom want to go in that direction.
+1
Adding that one should expect a self-(or other-)betterment system to statistically have less of Man’s common ills. Not the same as outside the practicing of such systems. And certainly not more. When we see the tolerance level of Scientologists on par with or even lower than the rest of society, then something isawfully wrong. When disconnection is rampant, love is belittled and care is lacking – then something is awfully wrong. In the system itself.
Maria: “These were a few of the questions that I had hoped Scientology would have an answer to. And at least for me, the answer turned out to be that there is a sickness that runs like a virus throughout human society, a sickness that perpetuates a constant effort on the part of the male members to dominate, subjugate and eliminate all opponents by any means that will be tolerated, and even means that will not be tolerated.”
Me: I doubt very much it is a sickness. The simplest possible answer is the one that resolves all the questions, and it is simply this:
You are an ape. All apes do this – just look at chimps and gorillas. It’s wired into our social behaviour.
Don’t be distracted by spiritual factors or personal experience of yourself as a spiritual being – that is by no means the major factor at play here. Simple observation reveals that genetically homo sapiens is an ape, and ape behaviour is the dominant factor. It’s an awfully big one too, and getting around it is going to take a whole lot more than a few hundred hours of auditing IMHO.
None of this excuses asshole behaviour on the part of male human of course – we have intelligence so as a lifeform need to use it more.
Splog — you mean that 800 pound gorilla standing over there? LOL! Ha. We joke about it and make like it has no influence! Do you think that the antidote is increased intelligence? Do you think that along with increased intelligence comes the need to explain impulse/instinctual behaviors? Or do you think that the abusive behaviors are learned and inculcated at such an early age that they appear to be “normal” animal behavior. I am not so sure that I see animals raping and abusing one another except for very specific purposes and under very limited circumstances. i.e. chimps don’t rape each other, they are polygamous naturally. Gorillas don’t mate one on one, only one male has mating rights. So I am pretty sure that this is not a matter of I am an ape!
Maria: “So I am pretty sure that this is not a matter of I am an ape!”
Me: I am pretty sure it is, all large primates exhibit these behaviours, and chimp rape is anything but uncommon.
Homo sapiens differs from the other great apes in only two significant ways; 1) we have much more intelligence and our ability to abstract is vastly more than the other apes and 2) survival rate of males is much higher (even in times of war).
The second leads to modified social patterns as we have too many males for a “one dominant breeding male” system to persist – the ones who don’t breed have intelligence and are quite liable to scheme ways to game the system. Hence in the west monogamy is the norm; more tribal cultures are often polygamous but very seldom in a way that excludes all males except the head honcho.
There are certainly other factors in play in human society, but your original question was about wife beaters and drunken louts. When those fellows do what they do, I see very little evidence of intelligence and certainly almost no caring and nurturing; I see men who are being driven by something more base, almost animalistic. They might not be very smart in human terms, but they do have enough brainpower to be rather effective at being abusive, which takes this primate behaviour to a whole new level not seen elsewhere. But it’s still primate behaviour.
I realized that some of my info on primate behavior might be out of date, particularly the info on chimps, so I decided to go and look up some of the research on primates and came across this information:
“In a new book, Demonic Males (Houghton Mifflin), which Wrangham wrote with science writer Dale Peterson, he reveals how he found a glimmer of hope that humanity could reduce its violence and overcome its five-million-year rap sheet of murder and war. Wrangham bases his optimism on the discovery that bonobos create peaceful societies in which males and females share power–while the biologically similar chimpanzees live in patriarchal groups in which males regularly rape, beat, kill, and sometimes even drink the blood of their own kind.
Wrangham’s theory is that human civilization would be more civilized if women seized more political power through elections and used it to counterbalance the male instinct to constantly define “enemies” and attack them. To make this advance, however, women must first abandon a tendency they share with female chimpanzees: to reward and select aggressive males as their mates. “The example of the bonobos reminds us that females and males can be equally important players in a society,” says Wrangham. “And by giving us a model in which female action works in suppressing the excesses of male aggression, the bonobos show us that in democracies like our own, women’s voices should be heard more than they are.”
http://harvardmagazine.com/1997/01/right.chimp.html
Maria: “In a new book, Demonic Males (Houghton Mifflin)…”
Excellent find Maria. I haven’t read that particular reference myself, but what I have read led me to the same conclusion. I don’t know where you live, I live in South Africa and huge portions of the population here live in a tribal culture. It’s also the rape capital of the world in all forms: male on feamle, male of male, male on children.
You can see this same behaviour of chimps being heavily dramatized here – agressive males and subservient females. I imagine this still exists throughout the world, and when males do this they are simply acting out primal impulses, (plus the 1 in 40 or so that get their kicks from inflicting pain)
But I do want to stress two things though – Europe and the USA have made enormous progress in this area in the last 100 years, recall that US women have only had the right to vote for about 100 years. Easy to lose sight of that so there is hope for us after all. Secondly, by no means do I mean by “subservient females” that they must have pulled it in, to use a Scientology term – that’s just insulting to women.
Ah, South Africa – I have been reading about the violence there. And yes, it is remarkable the progress, at least in parts of Europe — for eg. the country of the owner of this blog!
This is fascinating information:
“Out of almost 5,000 mammal species in the world, there are only two in which males live with their relatives in social groups and occasionally make trips into neighboring territories to stalk, hunt and kill members of neighboring groups. Chimpanzees are one. Humans are the other. And we are so closely related that a blood transfusion from one species to the other will save a life, if the blood types match.”
That’s pretty amazing.
and this:
“Our violent primate nature, shared with chimpanzees, is bad news, especially when you add that both chimps and humans are extremely sensitive to imbalances of power. Gangs of males — either kind — know perfectly well how vulnerable a stranded individual neighbor is. And regularly take advantage of the situation in murderous ways, as has now been repeatedly observed among chimps in the wild. It does not require an anthropologist to observe similar behavior in humans.
But there’s good news, too, Dr. Wrangham is quick to point out. Both humans and chimpanzees are strategically very sensible species. We both can – and do – adapt our environments. We can avoid contexts in which violent behavior is likely. And evolution also offers us another model for how primates can behave: bonobos. These are apes who ‘make love not war.’
Professor Wrangham describes both humans and chimps as sexist, but the bonobos are not. Why? For starters, there is increased social pressure from other bonobos in the wild — they live in much larger groups than do chimpanzees. And bonobo females form strong alliances with the result that females are at least co-dominant with males. Then there’s the “copulatory behavior” which is a release for the inevitable pressures of living in groups. Chimpanzees fight, bonobos … well, you know.”
http://www.paulagordon.com/shows/wrangham/
There are a series of interview with the author at the above URL that could be valuable information to the discussion on this blog.
Maria: . . . Chimpanzees fight, bonobos … well, you know. . . .
Chris: Bone?
Yes! That’s how they got their name. They grunt “Bono! Bono! Bono!” as they do it.
Chris, you are a genius.
hahahaha, yeah, I sure am! . . . a regular legend in my own mind! hahahaha ( I gotta get me one of those monkeys!)
Chris, those monkeys can only live in pairs or larger groups. If you got just one, it would simply sit around sadly and pine away, because to be healthy and happy they need to “get some bono” frequently.
Well we already have a group at my house unless you are an inter-species bigot and think I shouldn’t mate with a monkey!
Chris, sending you a message via Facebook, about Kalamazoo etc.
Agree – wired in hard.
I agree, it is the force and duress, invalidation and domination that are the more fundamental problems, not repetition in itself.
One thing I wonder about: I have seen defenders of Scientology, and Miraldi in particular, claim that much criticism is due to misunderstoods on the part of the critic. Now, how likely is it that someone who was fully pro-scientology that starts to scrutinize the subject and ends up criticizing basic tech all of a sudden has acquired misunderstoods about those basics? How does that work exactly?
It is because the misunderstood technology is FATALLY flawed. The idea is that if you know the “correct” meaning of all of the words, then you will correctly “understand” the subject. Understanding is defined as affinity, reality, and communication. So if you misunderstand, then you have a failed or lessened ARC? And if you understand, then you have a high or increased ARC?
I feel competent to address this comment. 🙂
You said, “The idea is that if you know the “correct” meaning of all of the words, then you will correctly “understand” the subject.”
Not quite. It’s more like, “You have no hope of understanding the subject, ‘having ARC with it,’ absent a correct understanding of the individual words as used, in context, to present that subject.
(The symbol, “->,” means “implies.”)
Logically it’s that, “misunderstood words -> failure to understand the subject,” not that,
“all words understood -> subject understood.” There’s more to understanding a subject than just getting the words used understood.
Not to mention, of course, that most words have multiple definitions, and which definition conveys the intended meaning in a particular sentence is up to you to guess/intuit/discern based on context and your on-going understanding of the subject.
It’s not like, “Get the words right, and all will become clear!” Picking the ‘correct’ interpretation is always a ‘by guess and by gosh’ thing and part of being a ‘fast-flow’ student is an ability to make good guesses and a concomitant willingness to ‘revise your understanding’ when, reading later, you discern that your previous ‘understanding’ doesn’t fit.
(And, by the way, “word-clearing,” has always been my least valued tech. 🙂 )
G.
All good points.
However, I was responding to this particular phenomena described by Geir: “I have seen defenders of Scientology, and Miraldi in particular, claim that much criticism is due to misunderstoods on the part of the critic.”
In fact, I think yours is the workable viewpoint. It is not the commonly held viewpoint however, as defenders will ceaselessly look for alternative definitions or even obscure definitions to make a particular statement more palatable, more agreeable, or more consistent, even in the face of offensive and completely inconsistent information with which one may never be able to have any “high ARC” with. Oh, you may well be able to comprehend it all right, but that comprehension may elicit a response that is not at all friendly!
Awesome post. Clarity. And your previous posts brought important points to the front. Without watering down your cogent and realistic remarks about domestic violence, I think you have given drunken women too much credit.
LOL! You may be right about that these days but statistics are definitely on my side when it comes to being fearful of groups of drunk men or just packs of men!
Maria,
Yes, I take your point! Neither duplication nor understanding implies agreement. And while increased C _may_ increase R, it can and sometimes should diminish it.
G.
Exactly. And this points to the fallacy of the RC triangle as posted here:
https://isene.me/2011/08/19/arc/
Main point is that if Understanding equals ARC and R is agreement, then Understanding equals agreement. Thus understanding Nazism equals…
This may not be a condemnation of ARC, but of understanding. I won’t claim to be able to communicate this very well, but most philosophical things that we know aren’t laid out very well when we look too closely. This is an example that counterintuitively may tend to show that understanding is itself an abstraction, neat and complete.
. . . and my comment is not in defense of ARC nor against it — just jogging the neurons back and forth trying to shake something out.
Geir,
(Whew: nearly drowned revisiting that link! And I note that I, too, contributed to the depth of the water.)
Geir: “Main point is that if Understanding equals ARC and R is agreement, then Understanding equals agreement. Thus understanding Nazism equals…”
ARC -> Understanding; True; Understanding -> ARC? False.
At least, ‘false,’ from our typical human ability to communicate, establish affinity, and ferret out our areas of agreement, build upon those and either resolve or disregard our areas of disagreement.
Affinity, like trust, can, if one wishes, be mustered, offered, or manifested by solitary choice. Affinity does not, “take two to tango.”
On the other hand, Reality (as shared agreements) and Communication do, in fact, ‘take two.’ Further, we can’t increase our R without some measure of communication, nor can we increase communication without some measure of agreement. (“Hello’s to and ok’s from walls notwithstanding. 😉 )
It may be possible to ‘muster’ understanding: to ‘allow it’ to manifest, summon it, permeate, or whatever. Understanding, itself, implies neither reality nor affinity. And, again, perhaps communication is not even necessary.
Perhaps it’s sufficient to realise Ron was not a mathematician. He stipulated ‘equality’ in ARC = Understanding. Equality, as I recall, usually stipulates a bidirectional implication. (Vinnie?) In this case, the implication is unidirectional. 🙂
G.
Hi Gary,
You’ve hit upon what I consider to be one of the most prevalent MU’s in Scientology and on a term that couldn’t be more basic. See if you don’t “agree” :). Have a look at the definition of duplication from the Tech Dict:
DUPLICATION, 1. cause, distance, effect, with the same thing at effect as is at cause. (5411CM01) 2. the flow of creation. Duplication is the process by which a thing persists. (2ACC-13A, 5311CM30)
Also, here are some definitions of “agree” and “agreement”:
Agree: 1. to have the same views, emotions, etc.; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often followed by with): “I don’t agree with you.” 2. to be consistent; correspond; harmonize (usually followed by with ): “This story agrees with hers.”
Agreement: 1. the act or fact of agreeing. 2. Harmony of opinion; accord.
In the context of a comm cycle Reality is defined as “the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved between Cause and Effect.” (Dn 55)
So with that and the above definitions in mind, it seems clear to me that if someone highly duplicates a specific Communication – in accordance with the ARC triangle, that would mean a high Reality AS REGARDS THAT COMMUNICATION PARTICLE OR IMPULSE, and that’s because “the two ends of the comm line” would be in agreement, i.e. they would be consistent, would correspond.
Obviously, there may be a disagreement – in the other sense of “agreement” – with the data being communicated, but in the comm cycle iself, the duplication (agreement/correspondence) between Cause and Effect would nevertheless be high – as would the Reality.
What say you?
Marildi,
“I agree.” 🙂
Were I to say to you, as part of a conversation, “Women are EVIL!” You could ‘duplicate’ my comm. If you did, you would, ‘take my meaning,’ as I intended you to within the context of our conversation.
I might have intended, variously:
1. All women are always evil all the time — including you! Go away now.
2. Some of the women I know are vicious bitches!
3. My wife just left me and I’m all torn up.
4. I get the sly humor buried in your previous comment — you dirty dog!
As the ‘source point’ of that comm, it’s up to me to ‘intend,’ SEE TO IT, that my intent is properly received by you. If I intend that you receive #4 and you, instead, ‘get’ #3, well — I screwed up! On the other hand, if you get that I intended #4 and pretend to have gotten #1, well — now you’re just messin’ with my head. 🙂
I generally recall best the definition (from memory — no refs handy), “Communication is Cause, Distance, Effect, with intention, attention, and duplication.” As I recall, there’s some additional bits explaining matters.
G.
Gary,
Man, did that communicate! 😀
And I’m glad you got what I was trying to say because the MU on “Reality” I saw as one of the main reasons there was so much trouble among posters seeing how A-R-C are a triangle and that each point rises or falls with the others. Talk about basic MU’s on Scientology – the ARC triangle couldn’t be more basic. I don’t recall how much of the thread you participated in (or the one following it where the discussion continued) but believe it or not there were MU’s on each of the points of the triangle – commonly so.
Well done – you remembered almost all of the Comm Formula: “Cause, Distance, Effect with Intention, Attention and Duplication with Understanding”. (HCOB 5 Apr 73)
The fact that “understanding” is there along with “duplication” is another place where it can be seen that the two are different in the context of a comm cycle, even though many people use “duplicate” to mean “understand” – slang Scientologese leads to so many MU’s and thus rejection of the tech quite often.
But the main thing I wanted to say is that your emphasis on “intention” is near and dear to my way of thinking – probably the most important element of communication and existence itself. And you are so right that it’s a matter of intention on BOTH sides of the comm cycle, a very important observation to make You described the whole thing so well! (Did you miss your calling as a teacher or something? :))
Marildi,
Wasn’t even a course sup. In college, I did earn a few bucks as a Proctor (undergraduate teaching assistant) for intro Sociology. Closest I came. 🙂
G.
Marildi: I saw as one of the main reasons there was so much trouble among posters seeing how A-R-C are a triangle and that each point rises or falls with the others.
Chris: hahaha Let’s do this again. Each point does not in fact rise or fall with the others.
@Gary: Now, if I agree completely with something, it follows that I also understand it completely?
Geir,
You asked: “…Now, if I agree completely with something, it follows that I also understand it completely?”
I’m not sure why you asked that question of me. Do you somehow believe that your question is suggested by something I said?
To answer, no, I do not believe that complete agreement implies complete understanding; it likely takes the whole package: high A, high R, and high C to imply (strongly suggest, make it likely) that one actually Understands the person, place, thing, or subject.
Mind, complete understanding _may_ arise concomitant with complete agreement (or without any agreement at all); but the latter does not imply the former. For instance, one could completely agree to execute, step by step, a series of commands with no understanding of those commands at all — why you’re asked to do them, what they’re supposed to accomplish, how doing those commands align with your pursuit of your own goals, etc. You got your ‘orders’, you agreed to do them; but — wtf? Add some Affinity, perhaps a lot of Communication, and Understanding _may_ dawn.
My take, as I stated in a prior post, is that Understanding _may_ exist entirely absent A, R, or C. But increasing A, and R, and C can lead to increased Understanding. And that, perhaps more methodical approach, may be the wiser path to take for those of us who can’t rely on ‘insight,’ inspiration or sudden ‘flashes’ of Understanding.
G.
Gary, here again are those two definitions of “agree”:
1. to have the same views, emotions, etc.; harmonize in opinion or feeling (often followed by with): “I don’t agree with you.”
2. to be consistent; correspond; harmonize (usually followed by with ): “This story agrees with hers.”
In your post I got that you were using the word “agree” with the meaning “to have the same views…” but I don’t see that as fitting the meaning of “agreement” in the definition of Reality: “the degree of agreement reached by two ends of a communication line. In essence, it is the degree of duplication achieved between Cause and Effect.” (Dn 55)
As you can see “agreement” is used in the context of duplication, which aligns with the second definition of agree: “to be consistent; correspond…” – i.e. in order for what emanated from source point be duplicated (i.e. a copy be made) at effect point, “agreement” would be based on the second definition, “to be consistent; correspond”.
Basically, the meaning of Reality in a comm cycle has nothing to do with agreement in the sense of having the same views; it has to do with how well the duplication at effect point matches or is “consistent” (definition 2 of “agree”) with what emanated from source point. It’s the same idea you expressed in another comment in your “Note 2”, where you said “the course materials had been, literally, mis-duplicated.” Likewise, in any comm cycle one has to duplicate (copy) the communication so that both ends of the comm line are “consistent, correspond” before Understanding is possible.
Did I make myself duplicatable this time? For some reason this idea just doesn’t stick with people and the meaning of “agree” keeps going back to “have the same views”. I’m counting on you to either give me a better argument than what I’ve written above and convince me otherwise, or this time tell me “I fully agree”. 🙂
Marildi: “For some reason this idea just doesn’t stick with people and the meaning of “agree” keeps going back to “have the same views”.”
Chris: Yes, that seems to be true. Possibly there is something that you are doing at your end of the comm cycle that is making this happen? If not, possibly at Hubbard’s end of the comm cycle? There are two more places to look for a reason.
So Chris, what does “agree” mean to you? In your mind, does it default to one particular understanding?
iamvalkov: “So Chris, what does “agree” mean to you? In your mind, does it default to one particular understanding?”
I think you’re all missing the elephant.
The word is not “agree”, it is “reality”. It is the ARC triangle, not the AAC triangle. “Agree” in the usual sense of the word was never part of the definition of ARC.
The first mention of ARC is in Notes on the Lectures, go back and read it. It’s all about reality.
Somewhere along the line reality got described as “we agree something is real in the same way” and from there it’s not too far to shift it over into agree as in “have the same viewpoint”
You can all argue about the various definitions of the English word agree if you want, but you are still chasing butterflies down the wrong alley (and that’s probably an alley Hubbard wanted to coax you to go down)
The concept in play is “Reality”
OK, what does :”reality is agreement” mean to you? Have you seen/heard that sentence before?
iamvalkov: “OK, what does :”reality is agreement” mean to you? Have you seen/heard that sentence before?”
me: Yes, I’ve seen it and heard it many times. It means nothing to me as I spotted that it’s bullshit. What I didn’t spot was Hubbard subtely shifting one over into the other.
Reality is not agreement in the same way that milk is not eggs, even though they are frequently found and used together.
splog, I call bullshit on your bullshit. If you were arrested for a crime, the jury agreed you were guilty, and you were jailed or executed for the crime, that would be a reality brought about by agreement. It wouldn’t make a spit of difference whether you actually committed the crime in question.
Val your argument is not logical. If he did not in reality actually commit the crime then THAT is the reality. That he is unjustly found guilty does not change the reality of his lack of commission of the deed.
Well it may not be “logical” to you, but that won’t get you out of jail or bring you back to life if you are executed for the crime you didn”t commit, because a jury agreed that you were guilty and created the reality of your execution by their agreement.
Here’s a song title from the 1970s: “What if they gave a war and nobody came?”
Another example “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” That would be a tacit agreement to let evil triumph. Probably for the “best of reasons.”
Obviously you were never an activist.
iamvalkov: “splog, I call bullshit on your bullshit. If you were arrested for a crime, the jury agreed you were guilty, and you were jailed or executed for the crime, that would be a reality brought about by agreement. It wouldn’t make a spit of difference whether you actually committed the crime in question.”
You are missing the point. The point is whether reality and agreement are THE SAME THING or not. I claim they are not.
Agreement can indeed prouce new realities, but that’s something else entirely. Bravery can produce injuries, doesn’t mean bravery and injury are the same thing.
So – if the ARC triangle is to remain a truism, then it follows that if one has complete Reality with someone, one does Understand it completely. And if one Understands someone (or something) completely, it follows that one does indeed have the exact same reality. And Affinity and optimal Communication…
Geir: “So – i the ARC triangle is to remain a truism, then it follows that if one has complete Reality with someone, one does Understand it completely. And if one Understands someone (or something) completely, it follows that one does indeed have the exact same reality. And Affinity and optimal Communication…”
Me: Well that statement is deeply flawed on two counts.
ARC is not a truism, we demolished that idea a rather long time ago 🙂
The word “completely” does not belong in there, as it is an absolute. What would “complete reality” even mean? How could you have such a thing?
Gary’s statements about ARC are the best I’ve ever seen – all three factors present has a tendency to increase U, this is something we can use to our advantage. But the reverse is not necessarily true. Just because A leads to B does not mean that the presence of B shows an earlier A.
Al, we agree on this. I am simply exploring the (obvious) outpoints in the theory.
If the theory is true then it follows that increasing one corner increases the other two and thusly increasing one toward absolute maximum makes the others follow suit. And U = ARC (bidirectional or not), and if at least ARC=>U, then Lim(R->Inf) = Lim(U->Inf).
Good catch and for me that 88008 model is reversed. Reality is not there because you and I say it is. We say it is because there is something there that we share innately.
Marildi: I’m counting on you to either give me a better argument than what I’ve written above and convince me otherwise. . .
Chris: I am going to stick my neck way out and say this hasn’t happened in one of your comment cycles on this blog yet.
That was my point to marildi recently. She tries to either convince or be counter-convinced, which is exactly where she is setting herself up for a loss.
Val, you’re getting into the words too much. It was just my way of saying, “Look, I don’t want to come off as a know-it-all but to me it’s clear which the definitions apply – however, I’m willing to listen”. Jeeze, give me a break.
Marildi: “Val, you’re getting into the words too much.”
Chris: Really, Marildi?
Like Hubbard, and sanctimonious preachers the world over, it is somehow better to preach to others what to do and how to live than to follow the discipline of a path oneself. That takes a personal commitment beyond joining and club and wearing some colors.
Marildi, (Just doesn’t seem polite not to capitalize the ‘M.’)
I’ve read your comment, slept on it, read it again and spent several hours this AM reading or rereading prior comments in the thread hoping to better see your comment in context. I’ve read it again and _still_ have some confusion. 😦
I assume that something I wrote in a prior comment led you to believe that I was in error. Given my respect for your command of Scn materials, I’m fully prepared to believe you may be right. I just — don’t get it. 😦
Rather than ask you to, ‘try again,’ let me lay out my current understanding of the two things we seem to be discussing: 1. The comm cycle, and 2. The ARC(U) triangle. Perhaps we can then more easily clarify and/or resolve differences.
1. The comm cycle.
I’m tempted to take a shortcut here and just say: I agree with you! (But that’s a cop-out. 🙂 )
Mechanically: Cause, Distance, Effect, with Intention, Attention, and Duplication leading to Understanding.
I suspect the only possible elements that might harbor disagreement between us lie with “Duplication” and “Understanding.” In the comm cycle, duplication and understanding refer only to the person ‘at effect’ properly ‘getting’ what the person ‘at cause’ intended to convey. No ‘agreement’ with the content of the comm itself is implied. Any ‘agreement’ at this level is strictly confined to, the mechanics of communication: was what was sent over that comm line received? As you pointed out: “Got that, thanks; I do/do not agree” is entirely possible.
2. The ARC(U) triangle.
While ARC(U) participates, if sometimes modestly, in all comm, we normally think of it as a tool that can be used to help us in our relationship with others. In this case, mutual agreement (or disagreement) dominates the R. If there is an objective reality, what I and others have sometimes called, “Actuality,” what usually looms largest between any two people is the extent to which they agree — or not.
Any individual agreement or disagreement is rarely of overriding importance: it’s the balance. Do I ‘share’ enough with this person that I feel I understand them? Do I like them even though their comm is often distasteful?
Obviously, for that balance to be determined, many individual comm cycles must occur.
And, last because I’m running ‘dry’ here, as (and if) affinity increases, as (and if) communication continues, as (and if) the agreement/disagreement ‘balance’ is seen to favor agreement, we also and inevitably come to feel we better understand the other.
—
Have you spotted my error?
G.
Aw, Gary, thanks for this comment. You are one I can always count on to make a full and honest attempt at discussion. There isn’t any more I (or anyone) could ask of a person. I mean – that’s it! That’s the sum and substance of potential harmony and working things out – even if it ends up with agreeing to disagree, because then we’ve at least understood one another and simply have different opinions or viewpoints.
Yes, I think you are right about “Duplication” being the crux of the problem. In the reply I just wrote to freebeeing (near the bottom of the page) I tried to do a better job of stating my understanding of the materials. The important thing I wanted to clarify is that it’s not just duplication; it’s duplication WITH understanding, as per the comm formula.
Also, ARC can apply to a particular comm cycle OR, as you’ve indicated, it can apply to the overall ARC between two people – which you summed up as “the balance”. And I would agree with you that the “balance” is definitely brought to any individual comm cycle and affects every part of it, including the duplication and understanding. Please see my comment to freebeeing too, for further clarification of my own understanding of this whole subject.
Btw, I only write “marildi” (a nickname) with a small “m” because I like the looks of it better. Seems a little more aesthetic or something. But I have the same quandary as you when I write “freebeeing” since he doesn’t capitalize it either. However, at the beginning of a sentence, I figure any word gets capitalized, so I started capitalizing it there at least. In any case, no biggie – “What’s in a name…?” Or the spelling of a name. 🙂
marildi,
Woops! Looks like I should have read all the comments ‘pending’ before answering any. I took your prior comment as a response to mine.
Regardless, looks like we’re on the same page. 🙂
G.
Marildi: You are one I can always count on to make a full and honest attempt at discussion.
Chris: Write this comment to one who disagrees with you.
Gary: “My take, as I stated in a prior post, is that Understanding _may_ exist entirely absent A, R, or C. But increasing A, and R, and C can lead to increased Understanding. And that, perhaps more methodical approach, may be the wiser path to take for those of us who can’t rely on ‘insight,’ inspiration or sudden ‘flashes’ of Understanding.”
Me: this is how I see it too.
Awesome post. Nice take.
G: “It’s not like, “Get the words right, and all will become clear!””
Me: But that is EXACTLY how Scientology has always worked in practice. I know of one, and only one, reference in all of Scientology that clearly lays out what to do when you understand the words and it still doesn’t make sense. It’s the “what do you consider that means” reference in the Study Tech. If there’s more than that one, please point me to it.
And even that reference *strongly* implies that working through “what do you consider that means” will reveal an MU, which when cleared up will result in all becoming clear. Every other reference speaks loud, long and clear that MUs are the only thing that stands between you and understanding.
Hubbard uses this method over and over in all of his Tech – the idea he wants you to have is given prime spot up front and center, and there is always a reference somewhere about the alternate view, but that reference whilst not at all hidden, is simply never used. It’s hidden in plain sight.
Splog,
“What do you consider that means?”
You know, I concede that such a question could — could — be used with evil intent. It also seems likely that at some time, in some place, some person did so.
I also concede that a student could (and perhaps many have) floundered on that question.
At this moment, I see only two alternatives:
1. The sup tells the student how to ‘interpret’ the material — ‘correctly;’ or
2. The sup offers the sup’s personal opinion.
Seems like both have serious failure modes.
Certainly, IF the sup is able to help the student find their own way to comprehending the material, still seems to me like that would be the better outcome.
Note 1: back when I was taking Scientology courses, the sup did not necessarily have any personal understanding (or opinion) on the content of the course. The idea was that any trained sup could supervise any course. And that, of course, suggests that there was no concerted effort, per policy, by the sup, to insure that the student parroted the official line.
Note 2: There was at least one instance where the course materials had been, literally, mis-duplicated. That is, when being retyped locally, on the re-mimeo line, the ‘source’ materials were reproduced incorrectly — leaving out a paragraph or page entirely, or a word altered or misspelled, emphasis altered, etc. That might hurt the stats hard for a time!
G.
Gary,
I think “what do you consider that means” to be very valid and usable tech – the student is having some trouble and the sup helps him along by having him explain it in his own words. Nothing wrong with that.
It’s right there in the bulletins and tapes in Hubbard’s own words but it gets so seldom used, hidden in plain sight. The automatic response throughtout official Scientology is that by clearing all the words, the meaning magically appears and understanding occurs.
Adding that the M4 tech makes it clear that if there is any disagreement in the materials there is a misunderstood there. Period.
So: Disagreement <- Misunderstood
Geir: “Adding that the M4 tech makes it clear that if there is any disagreement in the materials there is a misunderstood there. Period. So: Disagreement <- Misunderstood""
From HCOB "Word Clearing Method 4" 22 Feb 72RA:
“All the tools of Study Tech and Word Clearing are at the Word Clearer’s disposal to take the word to F/N. The Word Clearer does not stop at one misunderstood but makes sure all are cleared.”
It says ALL the tools of Stud Tech and Word Clearing. There may be a skipped gradient, or false data, or lack of mass – whatever. Sometimes there aren't any MU's found at all – some other piece of study tech was needed to handle the student's difficulty.
All the tools of Study Tech and Word Clearing are at the Word Clearer’s disposal to take the word to F/N. The Word Clearer does not stop at one misunderstood but makes sure all are cleared.
This quote isn’t helping because it clearly states “to take the WORD to F/N. And to clear ALL the MUs. If you’re going to quote Hubbard to dispute you need to chose quotes that actually back you up.
Yes and that’s the chuckle that Hubbard must have gotten when he wrote the “Hidden Data Line.” All of it, the whole of it was hiding in plain sight. When Hubbard derides the literacy of people he use the nuclear bomb example saying that the secrecy surrounding it was unnecessary as the entire thing was there to be found by simply going to the Library of Congress but people couldn’t because they were too illiterate. Then he publishes books with all the OT materials in them free for the pickings and must have had a good knee slap at that one as well. Hubbard was a true OT when it came to hubris–no doubt about that.
Alan, I think the piece of tech you’re talking about is worded “How is it that way?” / “How isn’t it that way?”. It’s from the study tape “Studying – Data Assimilation” 9 Jul 64.:
—————————————-
“The other ten percent of the time you just can’t see how that works that way. Go back and check your nomenclature, check what the thing was that you’re not believing, and so forth. Get down to this other thing, you still can’t see how it’s that way – set yourself up some examples of how it’s not that way and how it is that way.
[…]
“And you’ll start looking at it and you’ll find out that the reason it wouldn’t go that way is normally a button got in its road or something like that. You know, you didn’t dare believe that it was this way; something like that – just an examination of it, trying to, ‘How does it apply to me? How does it apply to life? Has it ever applied to life? Did anybody ever see this thing?’, you see, and ‘Do I know of any incident or anything of the sort which would exemplify this thing?’ Why, the other ten percent that I’ve been talking about here, that will tend to evaporate, too and you’ll say, ‘Ah, yes, now we got it.’
“Now, this procedure followed actually gives you a terribly firm grip on what you know.”
—————————————-
That was in 1964. Then in 1978 the false data stripping bulletin came out and FDS’ing basically superseded that earlier tech of “How is it that way” / “How it isn’t that way” – and made the handling much more precise and efficient.
Hubbard: “Now, this procedure followed actually gives you a terribly firm grip on what you know.”
Chris: Following this procedure gives you a terribly firm grip on what Hubbard wants you to know.
Chris, that seems glib so I am assuming you mean it as a joke.
For example, back in the early 1980s I knew a guy from Iran who was a graduate student in Physics at the local University. Her also did the Purif and the Student Hat course here. He got straight As in all his courses save one subject area of Physics.
After applying what he learned on the Student Hat, his weak area became his strongest area and he in fact went on to make it his major focus and graduated at the top of his class in that subject.
Obviously StudyTech etc is not just for studying “what Hubbard wants you to know”.
Are you in some competition with Alanzo for who can come up with the most “zingers”? If you are, I think you are doing your own cause a disservice. Al had no credibility with me for several years precisely because of his constant compulsion to be “cute” like that.
I notice that he has mostly stopped doing it.
Valkov: Obviously StudyTech etc is not just for studying “what Hubbard wants you to know”.
Chris: Technically per Hubbard, Study Tech was developed by him precisely to get you to be able to learn what he wants you to know. And then ABLE was developed to get study tech into education so he could get young kids to know what he wanted them to know. But the anecdote about the Iranian student is a nice touch. Zingers like Alanzo? Oh my gosh!
Well Chris, that maybe how you were indoctrinated into the purpose of Study Tech so I will call bullshit on it right now and say, that was not how I got it back in the day. Of course Hubbard wanted people to understand Scientology more quickly and accurately, but it was clear to us out in the field that it could be applied to learning any subject, even by people who had never heard of Hubbard or Scientology. The Physics student is one example, deny it all you want buddy, if it makes you sleep better at night…..
I still don’t understand why you feel you don’t belong on ESMB? You would seem to me to fit right in there. Or on Tony Ortega’s blog. I think you would find lots of “homeys” on either site.
Val, not just those of you out in the field. In any mission or org I was ever public or staff at, it was always clear that study tech was for use on any subject.
+1 Yes.. that was the way we have learned at the Vancouver mission.
. . . and at Flag, the Mecca of Technical Perfection?
Right. wink wink. This is another example of how disingenuous the religion of Scientology. Sparkling generalities about how Scientology is for use across all of life but then one is cinched down bit by bit and their world shrunken down to the little clinker of a soul that is Scientology. Frying other fish much? Better not be!
It’s on the Study Tapes.
Chris,
What’s on the Study Tapes? Hubbard saying the Study Tech is only for studying Scientology and is not applicable to any other subject? I surely doubt that big-time!
Every course pack for decades now has had this caveat right up front:
“The only reason a person gives up a study or becomes confused or unable to learn……etc”
It doesn’t say “gives up a study OF SCIENTOLOGY…” specifically. It says gives up a study, A STUDY, not any specific study, any study. Those little words like “a” will kill ya if you don’t watch out!
Right! hahaha Anyways, on one of the old man’s rants about how he always erred on the side of thinking his PCs case states were higher and he always had to undercut and then undercut some more in order to get his sparkling life saving technology into people, he had to also invent study technology so that people would then be able to learn Scientology.
In the spirit of this thread and in light of the ongoing expose’ of the reason and purpose of Scientology, it seems clear that since he said it then it must be true or false or er uh . . . aw you get what I mean. He said that he invented study tech so people could learn Scientology. That he then pretends to pretend it’s for everyone whether they are paying customers or not is bunk. I’m voting that it is part and parcel of getting people under control. On the other hand, studying as much as I did, I did develop quite a focus and stamina for sitting and studying that I didn’t have as a youth. The first barrier to study is studying without a purpose. True enough. But that’s no news and Hubbard didn’t invent it. But that lays in the conditioning that one needs to be properly conditioned. You kind of see that or you don’t.
Valkov: I still don’t understand why you feel you don’t belong on ESMB? You would seem to me to fit right in there. Or on Tony Ortega’s blog. I think you would find lots of “homeys” on either site.
Chris: Nice.
Yeah, come to think of it, Al got out years before you did, so it is not surprising you are going through that “zinger” phase of decompression a few years behind him.
Funny but not as funny as Alanzo. Keep trying.
Chris, that’s where you’re mistaken. You’re the one trying to be funny, not me.
I meant exactly what I posted. Al got out years before you did, so he is farther along in his “decompression” than you are. You are still in total revulsion at what was done to you, he is past that stage.
And where are you at?
I am you guys before you had any great involvement with Scientology.I was public back in the 1970s and very early 1980s. I never joined staff nor “went up the Bridge”, which incidentally, was not originally called the Bridge to “Total Freedom”,,it was the Bridge to a New Civilization. Since I was not intensively indoctrinated, I don’t have nearly as much to “decompress” from as people who made Scientology their life. I perhaps instinctively stayed away.
You seem to me to be a defender of a technology you do not avail yourself of, then…?
You miss the point when you describe or characterize me as a “defender”. It implies you are attacking and possibly haven’t really understood what I have written. Are you a “defender” when you post that you had benefit of doing the Bridge?
Let me rephrase; You seem to quite often defend a technology that you do not avail yourself of. Why?
I avail myself of as much of it as I know/understand how to use. Do you do more?
And, I “defend” only those parts of Scientology tech I have personally experienced, or have heard about directlyfrom someone who did. I do not “defend” anything else except what I have experienced and thought about, reflected on… If you think I do, that is your generalization about me. Truthfully, I do not feel my personal experience needs defending, because no-one else knows what it is until I communicate it.
For example, I knew, experienced, a foreign student in Physics who improved his knowledge and understanding of a subject area he had been doing poorly in, by applying StudyTech. I don’t really give shit about “theories”, as splog might think. To me, that I knew someone who did that, falsifies any theory that does not account for it.
At this point there are so many posts on this thread I am having trouble finding the ones I want to reply to, in the notifications, plus it’s past 4 AM here so I may not reply much more tonight.
Since you seem to defend so many parts of Scientology in the many discussions I have seen you participate in, it is odd to me that you don’t traverse that Bridge since that is indeed what all the technology is for. Why?
I for once will complete the Ls and the old OT levels.
Perhaps some day I will. Right now I am pushing 69 years old and have had medical problems for the past 3 years that have largely prevented me from working. I use much of a rather small Social Security check to pay off debts I have, which at the current rate will be paid off in 3 more years. No, the debts are not from making donations to the CoS. If I am still alive then, I may well look at getting some kind of “auditing”. Should I be buying lottery tickets?
Would you like to know about my sex life, too?
If it helps you.
I just find it odd that the most ardent defenders of Scientology on this blog aren’t eager to get auditing, while I am. I would like to see a staunch defender here that actually DO audit or DO get auditing.
LOL, I audit and I solo but I am not so staunch a defender.
For me the tech is very very simple. TROM covers it in about 100 pages. You should give Level 4 & 5 of TROM a run Geir – you might find it to be quite beneficial. It’s pure solo and free! 🙂
What do I/have I “defended”? You talk about “Scientology” as though it represents one word, one concept. Yet if I characterized “Norwegians” or “Norway” in that way, how would you respond? Do you defend Norway? I really think this type of discussion is absurdly non productive, not to mention illogical.
And did I say I did not want to get some auditing? I think I said quite the opposite in my last post.
I have seen you defend many things Scientology during the past 3.5 years. That is what I base my query on.
Then, why have you not done much auditing in all those years since you got in?
“You talk about “Scientology” as though it represents one word, one concept.”
Right, Val. Some people don’t know there is a lot more to it than just auditing. or that free individuals are free to use from it what they wish.
“I really think this type of discussion is absurdly non productive, not to mention illogical.”
+1
Valkov: Would you like to know about my sex life, too?
Chris: OK. Now that is funny! But you are bringing up an excellent point about us old timers, old and getting older. There doesn’t exist any way, co-auditing, etc., I’ll say charity in a cheerful way to help disadvantaged people. Scientology has always triaged toward those it can fleece. To make the able more able and the proof of your deserving help is to lay down all you have and all your ever expect to have before being allowed to partake of the sacrament of auditing.
That does not have to be that way and any number of us would begin to roll that ball, even as freebeing offered Marildi yesterday. If we are serious about counselling one another, the money cannot be the problem. It isn’t the problem because this could be set up on a barter. But there has to be some will toward desiring to help and be helped in this way. Valkov is an excellent example of someone who, in my opinion, knows the tech quite well enough to contribute and to receive from such a network. It could be done over the internet, or in person for those who live closeby…
iamvalkov: “For example, I knew, experienced, a foreign student in Physics who improved his knowledge and understanding of a subject area he had been doing poorly in, by applying StudyTech. I don’t really give shit about “theories”, as splog might think. To me, that I knew someone who did that, falsifies any theory that does not account for it.”
Me: I think you have it backwards, your example proves very little.
Doing the process once and getting the expected result only shows that the process might be onto something. Do it 1000s of times consistently and get the same results consistent with what the Tech predicts you’ll get – now you’ve really shown something and might even have a workable theory.
But to falsify it, you only need to do the process once fully and completely and NOT get the result consistent with predictions, then you’ve shown that the theory is at minimal incomplete. You claim the opposite.
This is basic scientific method at work.
I am really curious about that. Wondering if two roads diverged in a wood and I went right and you went left. We should have a coffee over that one. Hey, two of my boys are in Michigan this week by Kalamazoo for piano camp. . . Sherman Lake. Is that close to you?
One isolated example of a Physics student does not a full theory make.
The problem with studying Scn was the assumption that everything Hubbard wrote was true. Let’s take a nice Hubbard datum:
“People leave because of their own overts and withholds. That is the factual fact and the hard-bound rule. A man with a clean heart can’t be hurt. The man or woman who must, must, must become a victim and depart is departing because of his or her own overts and withholds. It doesn’t matter whether the person is departing from a town or a job. The cause is the same.”
Just try and disagree with that datum while on course. I dare ya!
That’s entirely irrelevant to my point about a graduate student in Physics using study tech to master a subject area he was weak in to start with.
And then did the lame walk and the blind see? You gotta get real Valkov. These old anecdotes are fun to listen to at Church but wear a little bit thin since Scientology has been shown to be false and manipulative at its Source.
freebeeing, here’s more of that HCOB “Blow Offs”:
“Almost anyone, no matter his position, can remedy a situation no matter what’s wrong if he or she really wants to. When the person no longer wants to remedy it his own overt acts and withholds against the others involved in the situation have lowered his own ability to be responsible for it. Therefore he or she does not remedy the situation. Departure is the only answer. To justify the departure the person blowing off dreams up things done to him, in an effort to minimize the overt by degrading those it was done to. The mechanics involved are quite simple.”
Note that there is the qualifier of “ALMOST anyone…”. And there are other references that state a ‘blow’ can be precipitated by other things, such as out-int, suppressive injustices (an SP blowing off good staff), to name a couple I can think of.
There’s no getting around it. One has to have a pretty full knowledge and conceptual understanding of the whole of tech and I’ll grant you that isn’t easy. And supervisors often misapply study tech by not applying all of it. But the well-trained in course rooms or HGC’s, and even in the Ethics Section, have been known to do it. So I believe it can be done.
Hubbard: Departure is the only answer. To justify the departure the person blowing off dreams up things done to him, in an effort to minimize the overt by degrading those it was done to. The mechanics involved are quite simple.”
Chris: I like this one. Enough said.
Hubbard: There’s no getting around it. One has to have a pretty full knowledge and conceptual understanding of the whole of tech and I’ll grant you that isn’t easy.
Chris: But it is easy. A few dozen hours makes a clear… nothing to it.
Hubbard: And supervisors often misapply study tech by not applying all of it.
Chris: See? The problems with student points and completions are supervisors. Not the tech. Not even the study tech. The supervisors and then the students. After that go looking for SPs in the Ethics section, and on goes the merry go round. It’s a morass of conflicting jumbled ideology where the guy trying doesn’t stand a chance except to be blamed for his failure to make Scientology work. Nuts.
Hubbard: Almost anyone, no matter his position, can remedy a situation no matter what’s wrong if he or she really wants to.
Chris: So any failure anywhere is because someone doesn’t want to be a team player and is frying other fish and doesn’t really want to make things go right. This was the lesson that Dave Miscavige learned at the knee of LRH and the result of that was The Hole among other atrocities.
Marildi: Note that there is the qualifier of “ALMOST anyone …
I fail to see how that helps your case. I’m sure I don’t need to remind you of Hubbard’s talk with Bill Franks and David Mayo on-board the ship regarding his complete understanding of the fact that ARC breaks will cause a person to blow but that they should not dare mention a word to anyone because it would damage the ability to control the flock? Hmmm? And seriously, are you going to insist that ARCXs are not the major reason for the vast majority of blows, both staff and public from Scientology? Don’t try to faub it off as SP activity. It’s plain and simple UPSET as the source.
This is why you get so much heat Marildi. You refuse to see what is quite plain and instead dive back into your Hubbard repository for data to refute – per Hubbard you are guilty of suppressive reasonableness.
What do you disagree with Hubbard on?
freebeing: What do you disagree with Hubbard on?
Marildi: Nada.
Chris: No, really. There must be something.
Marildi: Nada.
I’m sure that’s not true Chris. Let Marildi speak for herself.
HCOPL 7 Dec 1969 Issue II THE ETHICS OFFICER HIS CHARACTER
Reasonableness is suppressive since it lets oppression continue without action being taken. Suppressive reasonableness is a common trait. It comes from THE INABILITY TO CONFRONT EVIL. Evil takes a bit of confronting. People who want desperately to “have no trouble” often won’t confront and handle trouble…
There be evil in thar woods. Gird thy loins and screw up yer courage. Plunge ahead and do not be hoisted by one’s own petard. All is not well in Oz Dorothy. The emperor is missing some garments.
freebeing: “This is why you get so much heat Marildi. You refuse to see what is quite plain and instead dive back into your Hubbard repository for data to refute – per Hubbard you are guilty of suppressive reasonableness. ”
Me: Good luck trying to pull that string until you reach the other end. I have tried for three years. Let’s see how much stamina you have.
freebeeing, the point of quoting the part about “ALMOST anyone” as well as giving the other references was to demonstrate that the part you quoted wasn’t as absolute as you were making it.
And let’s not go off into the Red Herring of what I disagree with. I’ve already been hit plenty with that one and have even dredged up comments I’ve made to answer the question – which are conveniently forgotten. I’m not here to prove something about myself anyway, or to be badgered, so please don’t join the ranks of those who want to hang on to their fixed ideas about me and put me down personally at every opportunity. You usually aren’t that way.
Today I have been trying to have civil discussions with several people here on specific points, including you, and I’m willing to have it be a 2-way comm – if that’s possible. I quote Hubbard because THAT’S what were discussing – what HE wrote, not someone’s interpretation of what he wrote which is still the whole substance of a lot of the comments
To say that almost anyone can do something about a situation is a pretty strong statement – implying in fact that you’re a wuss if you don’t remedy the matter. So I fail to see the wiggle room you’d like to see there and in fact as that tech has been applied there has never been any wiggle room afforded to my knowledge. How about you? You ever here of anyone blowing and some other reason was bought by HCO? Hell you can get declared for blowing staff.
The point is that you defend this HCOB rather than say yeah, I can see how he was wrong about what he said there.
freebeeing: “The point is that you defend this HCOB rather than say yeah, I can see how he was wrong about what he said there.”
Obviously, I did see what is wrong with the HCOB, or at least the part you quoted, or I wouldn’t have quoted the mitigating part – AS WELL as the other references, which you conveniently left out.
I’m the one that gets accused of tying to win a contest, yet I have a hard time trying to have a discussion with anyone who really wants to stick to the subject rather than start digging in on me personally. It’s wrong on several levels.
freebeings post to you was not at you. That’s not correct to cry foul when there isn’t one.
Marildi: And let’s not go off into the Red Herring of what I disagree with
Chris: It’s not a red herring to ask you to explain your own comments. The red herring is there, right there in your own words.
Marildi: I’ve already been hit plenty with that one and have even dredged up comments I’ve made to answer the question – which are conveniently forgotten
Chris: Evasions without an answer. That is straw.
Marildi: I’m not here to prove something about myself anyway, or to be badgered, so please don’t join the ranks of those who want to hang on to their fixed ideas about me and put me down personally at every opportunity. You usually aren’t that way.
Chris: Even I don’t put you down. Never. I insist that you discuss fairly your comments. You don’t avail yourself of the supreme sacrament of auditing, say you don’t feel the need for it. You have said that auditor training doesn’t need to produce auditors but is alright in its own right. This is an off-beat squirrel use of Scientology.
Marildi: Today I have been trying to have civil discussions with several people here on specific points, including you, and I’m willing to have it be a 2-way comm – if that’s possible.
Chris: Your use of 2WC is to argue without letup save when agreed with. That is satisfactory. But there is no query, only a beating of the drum for your religion. No True Scotsman is on the tip of every exchange ready to be used to explain every flaw and you’ve conveniently but illogically parsed the Church forever away from the Religion.
Marildi: THAT’S what were discussing – what HE wrote, not someone’s interpretation of what he wrote which is still the whole substance of a lot of the comments
Chris: Then we do not need this forum, we need only a courseroom with you as it’s sup, wc’er, and qual. This comment locates your attitude and bent perfectly. I’m here on this particular thread to discuss what I think about what he wrote.
freebeing: “Just try and disagree with that datum while on course. I dare ya!”
me: Hubbard himself disagreed with it, and told Bill Franks and David Mayo so. He told them that blows always come from ARCX
He then also told them to keep it to themselves as if the word got out, Hubbard would lose control of the orgs
Hubbard: “And you’ll start looking at it and you’ll find out that the reason it wouldn’t go that way is normally a button got in its road or something like that. You know, you didn’t dare believe that it was this way; something like that – just an examination of it, trying to, ‘How does it apply to me? How does it apply to life? Has it ever applied to life? Did anybody ever see this thing?’, you see, and ‘Do I know of any incident or anything of the sort which would exemplify this thing?’ Why, the other ten percent that I’ve been talking about here, that will tend to evaporate, too and you’ll say, ‘Ah, yes, now we got it.’
Chris: This is a good example of how a person is coached to consider whether there is any possibility anywhere in any universe ever that this indoctrination could possibly be true and to accept any datum no matter how thin. Once I got into that mindset, it was all downhill to becoming an adamant true believer in this religion.
Hubbard: “The other ten percent of the time you just can’t see how that works that way. Go back and check your nomenclature, check what the thing was that you’re not believing, and so forth. Get down to this other thing, you still can’t see how it’s that way – set yourself up some examples of how it’s not that way and how it is that way.
Chris: And in this way anything at all can become that way. I love these Hubbard quotes as they show a benign activity like studying can be turned into solo-indoctrination activity that is as intense as the one soloing cares to make it. I know, I was quite the efficient student!
Chris: And in this way anything at all can become that way.
Me: He presumes that Scientology is 100% correct and any lack of understanding must mean the student is wrong. The idea that Hubbard could be wrong never enters the picture.
I like these discussions, it’s fascinating watching Hubbard’s modus operandi unravel like a ball of string once the smart folks here start to pick it apart 🙂
Al, It’s disconcerting to unravel a ball of considerations that wasn’t an issue a short time ago. Then it’s marvelous to look some more and realize the entire mind is like that. — Still sometimes disconcerting, though.
Marildi: “That was in 1964. Then in 1978 the false data stripping bulletin came out and FDS’ing basically superseded that earlier tech of “How is it that way” / “How it isn’t that way” – and made the handling much more precise and efficient.”
Me: Yes, that’s the one. The first example that came to mind was the wording in The Basic Study Manual, but it’s the same tech. As a piece of tech, it’s not too bad.
Now, consider this: FDS done properly and completely could easily result in someone concluding that the bulk of Scientology is unworkable. How many times did you ever observe someone be allowed to reach that conclusion of even to be permitted to go anywhere near it?
Alan: “FDS done properly and completely could easily result in someone concluding that the bulk of Scientology is unworkable.”
I’ve done a ton of FDS’ing and never saw anything remotely resembling such a result. How do you figure a person could “easily” come to that conclusion? Make it more real to me as to what you’re looking at.
Marildi: How do you figure a person could “easily” come to that conclusion?
Chris: Marildi’s right Al, it wasn’t that easy for me. In reality, FDS’ing was hard while my fixed ideas about Scientology were square in the middle of my road.
Marildi: How do you figure a person could “easily” come to that conclusion?
Chris: Marildi’s right Al, it wasn’t that easy for me. In reality, FDS’ing was hard while my fixed ideas about Scientology were square in the middle of my road.
Me: I made a botch job of explaining myself. It looks like I implied it could and did happen often.
But all three of us had similar indoctrination so we know it didn’t. What I really meant was that in the absence of CoS techniques, a properly done FDS session could, in theory, result in someone cogniting Scientology contains wrongnesses.
That is unlikely within CoS though as THAT conclusion is not permitted.
I think we’re all on the same page about this.
I am.
marildi: “I’ve done a ton of FDS’ing and never saw anything remotely resembling such a result. How do you figure a person could “easily” come to that conclusion? Make it more real to me as to what you’re looking at.”
me: You just proved my entire point in a much more eloquent way than I could ever have done, thank you for that. Let me explain:
FDSing strips off false data, right? By asking someone to look and find areas that don’t quite gel or don’t quite make sense you locate the thing that is causing the confusion. Then using a checklist, run down a list of common causes why people accept false data (given verbally, the person believed some authority, etc etc etc). The stated intent is that the person will find for himself which datum or data is false and then presumably replace the false data with true data, not so?
I use this technique myself frequently in the area of computing. You will not believe how much false data is out there on the internet about how to make computers work…. So I consider the general process, at least for my uses, to be workable.
Now, consider how much FDSing people are doing right here on this blog, and at Marty and Mike’s blogs, and Steve’s, and a whole host of other places – all these blogs are highly effective at FDSing off the meter! If it happens on blogs so frequently and so effe4ctively then why could it not happen in an official FDS session? There’s no plausible technical reason why not, you just have to expand the scope of what is being examined broadly enough.
If that scenario played out in CoS, what would happen? Would the person be allowed to have his cognition? Or would the EO arrive to helpfully point out how the person and the FDSer were mistaken?
Okay, I mostly think of Scientology as the core philosophy and tech and you mostly have in mind the CoS. Now I see what you’re saying.
marildi: “Okay, I mostly think of Scientology as the core philosophy and tech and you mostly have in mind the CoS. Now I see what you’re saying.”
Me: No, they are the same thing. I used to think they were different somehow and I clung to that idea for a very long time. But they are not different, they are the same.
CoS is the almost inevitable result of applying Scientology correctly. I don’t mean selectively extracting workable bits (this is what Marty does and why he correctly no longer identifies himself as a Scientologist), and this result is inherent in the design of the complete subject.
The “core philosophy” does not produce what it advertises it produces – that is a shore story. The core philosophy produces CoS and 1000s of destroyed lives and it has done it rather consistently for 63 years now. Your, mine and Geir’s anecdotal evidence about how we benefitted from isolated bits and had our own wins doesn’t change anything – the tech produces what it produces and that is CoS, and CoS does EXACTLY what Hubbard intended them to do. Our personal experiences are merely the taste of the honey that traps the bees, it seems we were lucky enough to not fall into the vinegar in the jar below. And the vinegar is the whole point of the exercise.
Hubbard told you to look, not listen. That’s good advice. Look at what Hubbard did, don’t listen to what Hubbard said he did.
Me: “Okay, I mostly think of Scientology as the core philosophy and tech and you mostly have in mind the CoS. Now I see what you’re saying.”
Alan: “No, they are the same thing. I used to think they were different somehow and I clung to that idea for a very long time. But they are not different, they are the same.”
This is where we part company. Have a good one.
Yes.
I don’t think it is possible to find any other example in history where a group has so diligently and perfectionistically tried to implement a methodology to such an extreme extent as we see with the CoS and Scientology. All the fuss about not applying policy or altered or lost tech is knit-picking to the extreme. Such account for a fraction of a percentage of what the CoS has implemented to the letter of what LRH prescribed. The CoS IS the result of Scientology.
Geir: “I don’t think it is possible to find any other example in history where a group has so diligently and perfectionistically tried to implement a methodology to such an extreme extent as we see with the CoS and Scientology. All the fuss about not applying policy or altered or lost tech is knit-picking to the extreme. Such account for a fraction of a percentage of what the CoS has implemented to the letter of what LRH prescribed. The CoS IS the result of Scientology.”
Me: I confess, I take no slightest joy in having realised that. I thought I would at least feel some relief at spotting truth.
But I don’t. All I feel is sadness. Sad for all the 1000s of people with shattered dreams and who were sold a piece of blue sky (thanks, Jon).
When Marty quoted Sarge saying LRH felt at the end that he had failed, I wonder if it’s due to this same thing
splog, your post reads, to me, like a complete misrepresentation of what I understand Geir’s experience going “up the Bridge” to have been. Beyond straw man.
According to his public posts on this blog, he got something positive and beneficial from every step he did “on the Bridge”.
NOT from “isolated bits and pieces”, as you falsely posted. That may be your slant and you’re welcome to it, but foisting it off on the public as “truth” is, well, B.S.
Additionally he just posted to me yesterday, that he is looking forward to more auditing.
You might try going back and reading more of this blog. At the very least you can avoid posting off-the-wall stuff that is proven untrue right here on this blog.
Valkov… thank you, well said…. many of the bloggers who comment here, don’t have enough experience being audited or have done solo auditing.. or just claim they have but not, one blogger who posts here claims that has experiences as a solo auditor.. never have. These persons have no reality what is scientology– the Tech is about, one has to be on auditor to have insight what auditing can accomplish!
Learned concepts without experience will remain just that.. concepts–will dry up, will be blown away of the passing of the time …. 🙂 in other words: newly created reality will be piled up an that learned what ever and be buried-forgotten.
Valkov,
I have no idea where you are coming from with this. If you don’t like what I write, ignore it.
You expect a free pass no matter what you post? Do you give me one?
Valkov: “You expect a free pass no matter what you post? Do you give me one?”
Me: If you want a response, post something I can respond to, not non-sequiter rants. I don’t know where that “free pass” idea comes from, but it’s your idea not mine, and I feel no need to rise to the bait.
Well I guess you just did rise to the bait, just as Al often does. OK. Let’s try this, then:
“That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”
Wadda ya think?
Valkov: “That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others.”
Wadda ya think?
Me: Sane rational men have held that essential idea as true for hundreds of years, and I agree with it.
But where’s this going Valkov? You seem to be setting up a dick waving contest where you attack me personally, not what I say.
Now, boys. 😕
splog, I just spent a long time searching the string of posts, because apparently my reply to your comment did not post under your comment as it should have.
I was responding to something you actually posted, the content of your post, nothing else.
Your post was the one in which you said,among other things, that: “Your, mine and Geir’s anecdotal evidence about how we benefitted from isolated bits and had our own wins doesn’t change anything – ”
My obkection was and is your characterization of the beneficial in Scientology as consisting of (small) “isolated bits”. This I take as a false characterization, in the face of the experiences of Geir and others I have known who stated their benefit from each and every step they took on the Bridge. That is a lot of steps, a lot of processes run, a lot of F/Ns called, a lot of cognitions achieved…….
To characterize the entire Bridge as an “isolated bit” of the beneficial in Scientology seems like…. what to you? Truth? That’s what I called bullshit on. The content of that post of yours.
valkov: “Your post was the one in which you said,among other things, that: “Your, mine and Geir’s anecdotal evidence about how we benefitted from isolated bits and had our own wins doesn’t change anything – ” ”
Me: So you are offended on someone else’s behalf by what I said? I note you didn’t include yourself in the group of persons who experienced gains and wins.
Come on, you can do better than that.
Ya know splog, my post was intended to be conciliatory as you kept saying you didn’t get where I was coming from, and apparently felt my comment was an attack on you personally. So I was trying to point out the specific content one of your posts that I was commenting on.
Beyond that, I have nothing to say about it. You will now either respond to the content of my post or you won’t. Or you will respond non-seq like you just did, with an adhom.
Veiled adhom through a straw man doesn’t cut it for me. I was not being offended on someone’s behalf, I was commenting on your characterization of the entire Bridge as an “isolated bit” of Scientology that may have been beneficial to someone.
On second thought, maybe I should credit you with validating the entire Bridge by your post?
splog: Me: “No, they are the same thing. I used to think they were different somehow and I clung to that idea for a very long time. But they are not different, they are the same.”
So by analogy, Roman Catholicism is the same thing as Christianity? Or Eastern Orthodoxy is? etc
Christianity never encompassed everything from Ethics, Tech, Admin, Study Tech, car washing (OK no cars then), plant watering, RPF, OT 8, patter drills, clay table auditing, etc., etc. We simply haven’t had anything that attempts to dictate every iota of Mans actions to the degree that Scientology tries to. Your example is apples and aliens.
Geir, I would have to think you are not really very familiar with Roman Catholicism to say that.
I think you didn’t get my point. Christianity, the BIBLE does not dictate the minute details of operation and tech and ethics. Scientology does. Whatever the Roman Catholic Church created as a sum of many peoples aggregated details is another matter entirely.
In the spirit of precise and concise and also of distilled understanding, I like to try to distill possibly complicated subjects into 25 words or less.
Valkov: “So by analogy, Roman Catholicism is the same thing as Christianity? Or Eastern Orthodoxy is? etc”
Me: No.
Valkov: So by analogy, Roman Catholicism is the same thing as Christianity? Or Eastern Orthodoxy is? etc
Chris: You mean by the Blood of Christ? Yes. That’s why Mormonism is not Christianity as it dropped the Blood of Christ as the core doctrine, the way Marildi has dropped auditing as the core doctrine from Scientology.
I agree that this piece of tech is valuable. The FDS is good and the rest of the Product Debug tech – if and only if – one adds that the materials themselves can indeed be the source of the trouble (which in Scientology it can never be allowed to be).
freebeing: “For me the tech is very very simple. TROM covers it in about 100 pages. You should give Level 4 & 5 of TROM a run Geir – you might find it to be quite beneficial. It’s pure solo and free! :)”
I may very well do that – after having done L10 & 12 & old OT 4-7
Cool, it just sounded like it was going to be a while before you did those. Give you something to do in your off time 😀
Valkov: “My obkection was and is your characterization of the beneficial in Scientology as consisting of (small) “isolated bits”. This I take as a false characterization, in the face of the experiences of Geir and others I have known who stated their benefit from each and every step they took on the Bridge. ”
In the whole picture, I am certainly one bit of anecdotal evidence for the Bridge working. As far as I know, I am the only one who have done all the auditing side and said I had gains on every action. So splog is right to call me on bit (or piece).
I too only done the auditing side ALL THE WAY and had immense gains.
If any one care to read it go to my blog and start with the:
“”To walk the walk of the Solo Auditor: the Path of Enlightenment, The self-discovery.” than read the rest of the posts which contain about 200 basic..basic cognitions. You will not read those in any of the blogs on the internet: information of the universe.. how one solo auditor walks that PATH.
You are also one bit of anecdotal evidence for the workability of the tech of “looking on the sunny side of life.” Maybe you live on the sunny side of the ocean too, so this favorite of mine is dedicated to you… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYDrkG2EGwg
Strong.
What I’m saying is not really an answer. Just some extra info, that although I may be in agreement with most materials I’ve read, I’ve had very basic disagreements concerning the materials with hardcore pro-SCNists –at least ‘pro’ in terms of what they claimed to be. The hardest-core SCNists I ever met had no to little idea about red tech, instead had read much ethics and admin. Their ideas had nothing to do with mine.
What I nean by ‘hardcore pro-SCNists –at least ‘pro’ in terms of what they claimed to be’, is that a group member that harms other group members (tries -systematically- to dominate them and such) is not actually ‘pro’ at all, despite his claims. But if the majority agrees with that…I never was a SCNist myself.
Geir wrote:
Now, how likely is it that someone who was fully pro-scientology that starts to scrutinize the subject and ends up criticizing basic tech all of a sudden has acquired misunderstoods about those basics? How does that work exactly?
Here’s how it works: The ideology must always be true, even when it’s not.
Therefore, if you find something in the ideology that is not true, then you have misunderstood the ideology.
This is not just the case with Scientology, but with all ideologies and all ideologues.
Scrutinizing the subject and ending up criticizing it is the process of graduating from it.
Alanzo
Geir: “Now, how likely is it that someone who was fully pro-scientology that starts to scrutinize the subject and ends up criticizing basic tech all of a sudden has acquired misunderstoods about those basics?”
Me: Before I reply to that, let me first say that like most folks here I too like Marildi a lot – I’ve never met her in real life, never seen a photo of her and don’t even know if Marildi is her real name….. but I get warm and fuzzies from the person at the other end of the keyboard, someone who likes to communicate, and that’s good enough for me.
As for Geir’s question, well obviously it doesn’t work lke that at all. It’s just confirmation bias – if you and I agree that something is awesome, and I feel I understand that thing, that I will assume you too understand that thing we agree on. This is simple human interaction. If you move away from that agreement, then I have a reality break. Or to use the correct non-Scn term, I now have cognitive dissonance to deal with.
The Scientologist will usually try to apply ARC formulae to this, and conclude that it is your understanding that is faulty (just follow ARC=U to it’s logical conclusion to see this), and lack of understanding always comes from misunderstoods, right? Voila. Ivory tower says Geir has MUs. The possibility that the fault may actually be with the thing we disagree about is not entertained due to indoctrination.
Sometimes the best way to resolve a disagreement is to just leave it alone and let people communicate on their own terms, even if that means they go away for a bit for some chill-out time.
Alan
Good comment.
Geir: “Now, if I agree completely with something, it follows that I also understand it completely?”
Me: No, not at all. It’s ridiculously easy to dismantle that one. Agreement is agreement, it is not understanding. They are two different things entirely regardless of what Scientology says. You can be in complete agreement with something you know little about, you can even be in agreement with a lie whilst not knowing it is a lie – that would be the biggest misunderstanding of all 🙂
🙂
I know you would say that. But I put that sentence here in error. It was an answer to Gary, not you and so I deleted it and moved it to under Gary’s post – but you were quick on your feet and answered it here while I was busy moving it.
Geir: “I know you would say that.”
Me; No worries 🙂
Nonetheless it’s an excellent question, one that everyone can benefit from answering for themselves. It’s up there with
Does natter always come from OWs?
Can a person blow from an ARC break alone?
Is the comm formula complete?
Is pain an emotion? Is love not an emotion?
Do the tone levels -40 to +40 always follow that exact sequence?
Are the eight dynamics a valid model of life?
Alan, I get warm and fuzzies from you too.
Even though you’re WRONG. 😀
Kidding! But seriously, what I get is that ARC=U simply means that the communication that was impelled has been duplicated (i.e. there has been an agreement/correspondence between what was emanated and what was received) and with that duplication (together with intention on both sides) comes Understanding. Now, the Understanding that resulted doesn’t necessarily mean an agreement in the other sense of the word – “concurrence of opinion”.
Have I duplicated and understood your comment? And have you done the same for mine – plus agree with it? LOL 🙂
Marildi: “Have I duplicated and understood your comment? And have you done the same for mine – plus agree with it? LOL :)”
Me: I think we understand each other just fine 🙂
One of the problems with blogs is that comm is so fast and there’s so much of it, it’s hard to really get the point across in a limited space. 50 years ago we’d be writing 20-page letters to each other or penning articles in journals. Now we have to try and do the same in a few paragraphs…
I don’t fundamentally disagree with ARC, it does have workability and the three components do tend to rise and fall in sympathy as Ron describes. The problem, as with virtually everything else he writes about, is that he’s just plain sloppy. A big, boisterous, over the top hail-fellow-well-met lecture is no substitute for a well-thought out description.
The workability of ARC is on the same level as “if you want to get along with people, then talk to them nicely as few people will recognise the genius in someone who just insulted them”. In other words, it’s common sense. Hubbard dresses it up in sophisticated language but it’s really nothing more than that, just like your mother taught you when you were small.
One thing ARC is not, is some kind of precision mathematical relationship, and mathematics definitely does not derive from ARC=U
Agreed. Fully.
The operative word is “tend”. The three corners tend to rise and fall as the others rise and fall.
“tend”
Yes, indeed. It’s also a poorly understood concept – it’s entirely possible for one corner to go down and the others not to, regardless of the general tendency. It’s not a rule, just a trend.
Funny! I totally understand your comment regardless of my lack of agreement with it.
Splog,
Ha! Someone else with ‘confirmation bias’ in their toolbox. Considered mentioning that with regard to another’s comment then decided, “Nah. Too much work.” 🙂
G.
Confirmation bias is not necessarily a bad thing. Biologically speaking, without it we would not have survived at all to get to this point – the lions and tigers would have eaten all of us long ago.
But that’s tooth-and-claw survival, and it’s valid there. Not so much when trying to discern truth through careful observation and rational discussion.
Disentangling from Scn is a process. I see that Geir has swung more and more heavily to the critical side over the past few years. I too have had my own swings through this process. We are always changing. It takes time to settle, to sift through the beliefs we hold is not always easy, many never do question what they believe, it is too painful. We like being right.
As to violence – that too is based on beliefs. Cultural beliefs learned very early in life mold one’s behavior. Exposure to different ideas is a very god thing. Many are not so fortunate to have the opportunity to range beyond the culture they find themselves enmeshed in. Scn is a culture. A culture that tells you there is only one path. A very narrow path at that. A path that holds the entire future of the world at stake. This idea did not begin with KSW#1, it began with Book#1 – the threat of atomic destruction, it’s cause – man’s insanity. Thus we must solve that or perish.
There is still truth in that. Man faces great challenges today even more so than during the cold-war era. I hope that love and understanding will prevail in making a better world for all.
Excellent comment, freebeeing.
B… Path is how one see’s it, what one experiencing while one walks on that self created Path…. there is no other Path in the Universe ….even when you see others walking on their very own path and what you see is still only yours experience and belief since you will never know what is their experience while walking..
We cant think for others, we cant see what they see…. we have that idiotic notion that we know what they think… nah…that is pure guessing..
Another excellent comment and food for thought.
Well said!!
🙂 🙂 🙂 I take that you are well! I am in Coquitlam now..
+1
I sometimes see this point about “pendulum swings” being brought up in various ways in various contexts. But it is a false metaphor in many cases. Like the nazi concentration camp soldier who was firmly on the side of Hitler happily gassing jews who then sees he was very wrong and starts criticizing the Nazi regime and effusively so. Would one think of that as a “pendulum swing” and expect it somehow to “swing back” in the future or maybe “land in the middle, harmoniously limp and neutral” as the person was now “OK” with jews being gassed? I only bring up an extreme to show the obvious weakness in such metaphors and sayings.
When you are a Scientologist, you are operating on a lot of lies and there is a lot of information which is being withheld from you.
As you gain more experience in Scientology, and see more things, and you begin to spot the lies and the missing data. It is NOT some kind of PTS pendulum swing to begin to realize that the group you joined was not the one you thought you were joining.
The ideals and values that I had which were used to recruit me into Scientology were the same ideals and values that I had when I left.
The only change was the fact that I finally got enough experience and information to realize that Scientology never agreed with my own ideals and values – they only pretended to agree with them in order to recruit me.
There is no “pendulum swing”. You finally get the information through the wall of secrets and lies which prove to you that Scientology is not the group it says it is.
When you find that out, you leave.
Some people warn others so that they can not be tricked, too.
That is all.
Alanzo
Having been a denizen of ESMB since late 2007 I have seen many that swing to wild extremes against the subject, decrying it all as complete utter crap. To my observation this is a failure to fully observe, just as observation was faulty when enthralled with the subject. I’m not saying that you Geir are one of these people. But as we disentangle we are sometimes prone to still having an incomplete assimilation of our experience which can lead to grabbing onto concepts, like duplication, and saying “that’s it!” when further exploration may uncover other factors and lead one to change one’s opinion. I certainly don’t expect anyone to wind up in a neutral limp position about Scn given its history. Just that one’s opinions can shift was the sorting process progresses.
as – not – was. Gee I wish one could edit one’s posts
No worries freebeing, this is just blogging and no one’s taking this very seriously! hahahaha
Many of the comments talking about Reality are using it in a sense that doesn’t fit the definition LRH gave – and we are talking about HIS theory. Reality, as related to ARC and a cycle of communication, has nothing to do with agreement in the meaning “to have the same views”. It means duplication, as in duplicating (copying) the communcation being sent. Below is the reference from Dn 55. Btw, it also includes the explanation for why the comm cyles going about about this are not ending up well, ironically.
“Now there is another factor which is very important. This is the factor of duplication. We could express this as Reality, or we could express it as Agreement. The degree of Agreement reached between „a“ and „b“ in this communication cycle becomes their Reality, and this is accomplished mechanically by Duplication. In other words, the degree of Reality reached in this communication cycle depends upon the amount of duplication. „B,“ as Effect, must to some degree duplicate what emanated from „a,“ now as Effect, in order for the first part of the cycle to take effect, and then „a,“ now as Effect, must duplicate what emanated from „b“ for the communication to be concluded. If this is done there is no aberrative consequence. If this duplication does not take place at „b“ and then at „a“ we get what amounts to an unfinished cycle of action. If, for instance, „b“ did not vaguely duplicate what emanated from „a“ the first part of the cycle of communication was not achieved, and a great deal of randomity, argument, explanation, might result. Then if „a“ did not duplicate what emanated from „b“ when „b“ was cause on the second cycle, again an uncompleted cycle of communication occurred with consequent unreality. Now naturally, if we cut down Reality, we will cut down Affinity, so w here duplication is absent Affinity is seen to drop. A complete cycle of communication will result in high Affinity and will, in effect, erase itself. If we disarrange any of these factors we get an incomplete cycle on communication and we have either „a“ or „b“ or both waiting for the end of cycle. In such a wise the communication becomes aberrative.”
Correction: Last sentence in first paragraph should read “Btw, it also includes the explanation for why the comm cyles going ON about this are not ending up well, ironically.”
“A complete cycle of communication will result in high Affinity and will, in effect, erase itself. If we disarrange any of these factors we get an incomplete cycle on communication and we have either „a“ or „b“ or both waiting for the end of cycle. In such a wise the communication becomes aberrative”
This is not true. I’ll give you 1 example.
Joe: I hate your guts Bill, I’d like to kill you and feed your dead ass to the wolves.
Bill: I totally got that Joe. Wow, I’m VVGI’s! My affinity is so very high now tat I totally duplicated you!
Seriously Marildi?
Marildi…. one cannot duplicate what do not see in the other persons-what they think-see. We only agree to our own reality what we are guess and that is only guessing in our part what we are agreeing tooo!
and that is what creates the ARCB’s for self and the problems also for self.. than we blame…. Yes we have agreed but we did not really to what was there.
Your example is unreal and a belligerent approach to a discussion.
If Joe said “I hate your guts”, obviously at a low level of ARC, and Bill totally got that he would have the same low level of ARC as Joe. Your MUs are showing. Read that paragraph again and this time be sincere like you preach to me to be.
It’s not belligerent. It’s to make a point.
You said: Reality, as related to ARC and a cycle of communication, has nothing to do with agreement in the meaning “to have the same views”. It means duplication, as in duplicating (copying) the communcation being sent.
You quoted Hubbard to back this up: ” this is accomplished mechanically by Duplication. In other words, the degree of Reality reached in this communication cycle depends upon the amount of duplication.”
Bill totally duplicated the comm coming from Joe. It was quite real to him what Joe was stating. So per his statement Affinity would not drop as a duplication did take place.
There does’t have to be any prior contact between Bill & Joe. Bill could be of a class of person that Joe felt this way about (just to cut out some preceding disagreement between them)
Are you going to claim that duplication did not occur, that poor Bill is going to be in a quandary as to why Joe is spewing hate his way? Does this mean he didn’t duplicate and understand what was communicated?
If you’re walking down the street and a german shepard runs up to you growling and barking are you failing to duplicate and understand the comm he’s giving you?
You’d likely feel fear. Not high affinity. I’m just taking what Hubbard has said right there in your quote about communication and reality. He doesn’t mention affinity in there. He’s talking about communication not ARC.
“A complete cycle of communication will result in high Affinity and will, in effect, erase itself.”
These are examples of complete cycles of communication with duplication. They do not result in high Affinity.
So a complete cycle of communication does not necessarily result in high affinity. Nor would I imagine that these kind of complete comm cycles erase themselves.
Perhaps there was not a duplication then?
Your comm is being duplicated Marildi. That is not the issue. The issue is that there is not agreement. You can’t blame our lack of duplication of Hubbard for all this back and forth. Well you can, but I don’t think you’d be correct in your assumption.
“You can’t blame our lack of duplication of Hubbard for all this back and forth.”
I think I can. I’ve written 3 or 4 posts trying to get across the actual definition of Reality and no one even seems interested. They continue to use it in the way that makes the materials wrong. It seems there’s no desire to accept anything that might make sense.
Come on, freebeeing, can’t I have a true discussion with you either?
marildi: “I think I can. I’ve written 3 or 4 posts trying to get across the actual definition of Reality and no one even seems interested. They continue to use it in the way that makes the materials wrong. It seems there’s no desire to accept anything that might make sense.”
Me: Is it real to you that the people you are communicating with perhaps consider that the materials don’t make sense?
One of the problems trying to understand Hubbard’s writings is that he so often uses words in different ways that he’s has conveniently defined himself, and swaps back and forth between which ever definition suits? I’m looking in my Tech Dicitionary, I see 4 definitions for Agreement, 11 for Reality, 10 for Communication and 3 for Understanding.
Many of these are not the same thing expressed in different ways. Many of them are quite different – not as different as homonyms but different enough. Which raises the same problem every time – which definition applies at any given time? Do we pick and choose the one that best fits and upholds our own bias? The one that reinforces what we want to be true?
One can always DoubleSpeak Hubbard’s written word to make it fit circumstance, but to use his terminology that is a not-isness. Just the fact that we are all arguing back and forth about this shows that this is indeed happening. He also claims that ARCU is universally true and applicable and moreover than it forms the basis of all mathematics. But freebeing just took Hubbard’s literal word and completely demolished the universality of it with one simple example of a dog.
Few here would argue that ARC is universally wrong, because quite obviously we’ve all found cases where it helped and was useful. Hubbard’s error seems to be that he over-generalized and insisted it was universally true (but he left no research notes so we have no idea what his initial observations were), then insisted that ARCU always applies. We, all of us, bought into that to some degree and to maintain that stance we’d have to do one of two things. Either doublespeak what it means, or indulge in some form of One True Scotsman – the classic case of that would be “well, you must have MUs”.
A third option is to concede that Hubbard is wrong in his conclusion.
splog, please go find yourself a spot in that Hall of Fame.
Damn good comment.
is it OK with you if instead I take a seat on the big bench where lots of clever folk are already sitting? It’s quite crowded there already, I’m hoping there’s space for one more 🙂
Room? That HOF and Bench are both your size.
I relate this abstractions and considerations about the ARC-U to this articles:
1- http://goo.gl/VeMlYE
Quote:
The “R” of the ARC triangle stands for reality. But there are two sorts of “reality.” One is duplication. In that sort of reality a person duplicates the viewpoint of another person and they share reality by having the same points of view. Another sort of reality is agreement. Agreement consists of holding the same anchor points in space as another, but holding them from a different location (i.e. not being at those locations). Taking that last statement out of the level of theta perception and bringing it down to MEST brass tacks, agreement consists seeing things through another’s eyes without really seeing it that way.
Let me give examples of these. If I write a book on spiritual knowledge and then teach a course using the book as a text I can do it two ways. In the first instance you can read what I wrote and then tell me what it means to you. Then I can tell you how your perception looks to me in return. As we two way comm back and forth, eventually we come to see one another’s viewpoints on the subject. We BOTH learn from the experience.
In the second instance, I insist that you read the text and tell me exactly what it says. If you tell me anything different than what’s in the text, I correct you by showing you what’s in the book again and again until you parrot back my words. I never see your viewpoint on the subject. You now only see mine BY FORCE, but it isn’t yours either because you can’t have something that’s being forced onto you, so you haven’t duplicated anything. No learning has taken place.
In the first example, I am teaching with affinity. Your views are important to me. So we communicate freely and achieve mutual duplication.
In the second example, I have no affinity for your ideas on the subject. The communication is one direction, which violates one of the most fundamental laws of theta.
2- http://goo.gl/jbcXgh
Quote:
Communication of one person’s complete reality to another person is impossible, except in terms of “bits and pieces” approximations. Every single perception experienced by a being is prioritised before it even enters the awareness of the being. The disempowerment versus empowerment GPM process has already begun its ARC versus ARC break work. The being is unconscious (unaware at any conscious level) that this is happening.
It is the process of communication itself that continuously generates the same GPM (goals problems mass) that Scientologists have been trained to regard as their worst enemy. It is in fact, a most valuable mechanism, a misunderstood pearl which is the foundation of each persons creation of their own reality. Only by understanding and duplicating this ongoing, low intensity, individuality and gpm generation mechanism will it be mastered.
All communications are incomplete, because all that is ever received by the recipient is a superficial awareness of source, distance, effect, attention, intention and duplication, with imagined but rarely anything like complete understanding at the receipt point, of that which originated at the source point.
GPM division is “built into the system” in order to facilitate the development of individuality. All of the apparent ill effects of GPM division may be overcome and converted into eventual unity in diversity.
For example: In the case of an observably incomplete verbal communication, the intended recipient may either feel and think pleasurably “Thank goodness they have shut up” or resentfully feel and think “Why don’t they finish what they were going to say” Its the recipient’s GPM reinforced desire or resistance to each communication with self or others that determines the nature and the existence of the consequently experienced charge.
The recipient of such a verbal communication could just as easily recognise that the communicator had decided not to complete the communication and prefer to leave it at that. Provided that the recipient had no prior GPM and individuality pressurising beliefs and attitudes insisting that they get an answer or insisting that they get the other person to shut up, there would only be a marginal preference for hearing the whole of a message rather than half of it.
***
This blog, as Marty and Ortega, are full of examples of missuse of the ARC by scientologists commenters that react to “flows interpretations” rather than duplicating fair enough to the source, and they align to their own resistance. It’s not hard to see this (if you duplicate the links given above).
The Observer Monitor
You got my mouth open and my heart expand. The links you provided are fascinating, started to read the rest…me is wordless here. Thank you. I am putting here a glossary, which I have found just recently. You may find some parts of it useful.
http://www.glossary.shambhala.org/
An insight on the writing ‘Islands in the sea of being’
‘ I can be forced to submit by force, or the threat of force but I would regard any beingness which did so to be a tyrant and an enemy’.
‘Regard’ is the consideration and ‘tyrant and enemy’ are the evaluations. ‘Force’ is force, it can be faced, used or not used at will. Preferably just faced comfortably.
It is the unwillingness to give a beingness to force (much like to thought) that results in fuelling force by one’s own resistance to it that makes one the effect of it.
One is doing that because one also used force before, as without that one wouldn’t know what it is. As there is one Source-God, it could be that this resistance is there as long as one considers oneself a separate being, a ‘me’. When there is no consideration of a me, there is no other either, in which case any force used in a one flow direction will fall, much like in a one-way com. What remains is a white line on which communication can now go back and forth with affinity. Or, no com at all, as what can the one God say to oneself?
An insight on the writing of ‘Equality’
That there are more ‘bodies’ on Earth today than in the past and as the writing says there are ‘lesser’ spirits, it may, I say may, as I don’t know, what Ron said that there is this chance now to wake up is true. As the lessons one can learn about oneself on Earth are tremendously helpful. Helpful, as ‘lesser’ spirits may need the ‘mass’ kind of ‘demo’ to get back to subtler parts of being a spirit.
An insight on the writing ‘Languages and your mind’
Body language. I find the body a precious tool, also a kind of ‘truth meter’. ‘Body language is at the level of emotion and therefore is wave’. I find it true. That is why I posted on kinesiology and reiki. Both can help dissolve stuck energy in the ‘body’, helping it flow, thus become a wave. May not be a final help, as the reason also must be found but given more flow, the mind can function better and thus see the reason clearer too.
‘Words are mostly particles’. I am not sure about it. I see them now as packages of
waves. They may be able to get emotional or rational reactions as such. So we get to the analytical use of them, also, as they are compounds of sounds, to art (poetry).
The Observer Monitor
I will read on the articles of the link you shared but I stop here commenting on them.
If other readers are also interested in them and share their insights and experiences, it can be our co-benefit. Thank you for putting it here.
The Observer Monitor
Yes…..
http://www.freezoneearth.org/ghostdanse/venice.html
The Observer Monitor
An insight on As-is-ness and beingness
YES! I was playing with viewing simultaneously the overt-motivator tech, also the BPC data based on the paragraph beginning as ‘Ever wonder why?’….well………
Cosmic joke in the best sense….also, affinity on its top! Also, absolute impersonal free will…
Love all the writings so far!
Yes, Observer Monitor. Duplicating into the source of ‘all of us’…love the research in the link…thank you.
Namaste
http://www.adyashanti.org/index.php?file=writings_inner&writingid=49
OK, I had to go back and review because I lost track of what the hell we’ve all been yapping about! OMG!
OK, so the real mismash came when Marildi tried to define reality in the sense of duplication happening at the end of the comm line – i.e. a faithful reproduction of cause was received at effect. Then all sorts of bruhaha ensued.
Here’s the thing, Hubbard defined reality as that which is agreed upon. The key to sorting some of this out is to understand that this is subjective reality. It may or may not have anything to do with actuality. The definition you provided for agree shows clearly that it is a matter of opinion.
ARC does have something to do with U. However it does not equate to U. Understanding is very closely related to a person’s subjective reality.
Are you saying that the R in ARC is not subjective reality, not we hold the same view but rather the degree of mechanical duplication that has been achieved?
It seemed to me you were using 2 different meanings for reality, 1 meaning in association with duplication and another for the R in ARC.
In the PDC it was mentioned that the tone level of MEST is apathy and the more one agreed with it, the lower down the tone scale he went, and that an uptone person actually disagreed with MEST. So the R for an uptone person would be the R that he creates with others, instead of passively duplicating what he receives from MEST.
NAILED IT! should be in caps, forty feet high:
Read it over very carefully, then consider anew Brendan’s comments about repetition and duplication and the subsequent discussion.
I just did that and I cannot easily articulate the realization and its domino effect throughout my matrixes of reality.
🙂 …thanx… yes, I think I got what Brendan meant
Hubbard also said that before you can successfully disagree with mest, you have to go into total agreement with it. If he would have spent time blogging with us instead of faking the mission into time, we could have helped straighten him out.
Chris, there’s vast difference between being able to agree with something and obsessively agreeing with it. Most people don’t like losing their MEST, nor to have it forcefed on them either. And the basic of the objectives is that if you can have it, you can also waste it.
What mission into time?
The book.
Oh K, haven’t read it. But I think that wasn’t why he was missing, as he had written much stuff while associated with SCN. If I was put the blame for what 1000s of SCNists were doing to each other and then I was also put the blame for policying them so as not to do it, I might want to quit at some point. Nevertheless, one can try to reach him, if he doesn’t mind him his not possesing the LRH body anymore 😛
Freebeeing, thanks for your willingness and efforts to understand.
Okay, I’m not saying that the R in ARC isn’t subjective – of course it is. Let me start over. What I’m saying is that, as per the comm formula, there needs to be the intention – on both sides – for the one communicating to bring about in the other person “duplication WITH understanding”. In that sense, a Communication, which has a particular Affinity, results in Reality with Understanding – and that is why ARC = U.
Also, as per the above quote from Dn 55, “The degree of Agreement reached between „a“ and „b“ in this communication cycle becomes their Reality”. Note that in the quote it’s “THEIR reality in THIS communication cycle”. IMO, THAT is key to a lot of the confusion about the ARC triangle.
In other words, as I see it (1) there is an ARC triangle in effect as regards any given comm cycle, which has its own specific R, and (2) there is also an ARC triangle related to the overall ARC between any two people, and (3) there is a person’s own ARC as an individual, from which we often get the expression “MY Reality” – which may relate to any given subject, narrow or broad, and isn’t necessarily based on any single comm cycle.
I think the confusion comes in because two people might have relative agreement with respect to a particular comm cycle and thus have relatively the same R where that comm cycle is concerned, whereas they might not agree in other comm cycles or in general.
I hope I’ve stated my thoughts more clearly now!
Marildi,
Thanks! I have no disagreement with that. 🙂
G.
Your arguing is evidence of misunderstood weird on the part of others? I understand what you write but don’t agree to your conclusion.
I’d like to think that you can have a true discussion with me. I’m not trying to yank your chain for kicks & giggles M.
It seems that either way you try to define reality it doesn’t quite work.
Gadfly on ESMB wrote quite a brilliant post on ARC. I’ll try and find it and post it here. Not that you’ll like it much. 😦
freebeing: I’d like to think that you can have a true discussion with me.
Chris: Well, if you truly mean this, then you better get to agreeing! hahaha
Splog: https://isene.me/2013/06/30/accomplice/#comment-43171
I used to differentiate between the Scientology philosophy and the Church of Scientology for a short while during my transition period going from a true believer back to my label-free me.
When one snap out of the reminding Cult Think one can see that Scientology = CoS. I no longer differentiate those two terms either.
A little music, my new favourite, I found it yesterday. Thought to share it.