Miscavige, Hubbard, Jesus and The Golden Age of Tech

While the world of Scientology is buzzing with excitement over the new monumentalt milestone releases that is bound to shake the very foundations of this universe, the outside world runs its course unaffected.

Photo by Anette

Most people will never know about “Super Power” or “The Golden Age of Tech, phase II”. But some are negatively excited and are abuzz with carping criticism of Miscavige and his church. And I managed to muster some interest resulting in a few reflections.

Photo by Mike Rinder

Most have long since discovered that Scientology is far from the world’s fastest growing religion, perhaps it’s even the fastest shrinking religion. If you still believe that Scientology truly is the Only Hope of Mankind, then the only logical target for why the world is not embracing the subject is its leader, David Miscavige. True believers would never question Hubbard or Scientology itself, and instead focus almost exclusively on Miscavige as the True Culprit. He must be a power-hungry, greedy and evil psychopath to be able to halt the obvious expansion and Scientology’s natural take-over as the world’s One True Philosophy. If you don’t believe that Scientology is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then there is less reason to blame only him. Perhaps he is just faced with an impossible task of making a flawed philosophy right by any and all means.

Earlier, I reflected on the creative genius of David Miscavige. I also said I think he is a true believer. I see him being on a relentless quest of making Scientology right. He turns every stone, tries fixing every minor crease and splits every possible hair in order to ensure that Scientology may eventually deliver what Hubbard promised. But what if it never can? I don’t think Miscavige would ever openly utter such a doubt. But I think that his quest does reflect such an inner doubt in himself. Just like I think Hubbard devised Scientology to fix himself, I think Miscavige is working hard to fix his own deeper doubt. Just like Jesus may have tried to sell the world on concepts that he himself finally admitted he doubted at the end.

Maybe most peddlers of philosophy try their best to fix themselves and often attempts to convince others in order to fix their own doubts. Maybe. And the followers are eager buyers as they would want their doubts handled as well. Most people like certainty and are willing takers of anything that can fix their fear, uncertainty or doubt.

It seems ironic that Scientologists outside of the church spend time and effort to justify or make Hubbard’s philosophy right, all the while they criticize Miscavige so harshly – a man that are even more adamant in trying his best to fix the subject. But because he is more intensely active and has set himself up as the sole power, the dictator of Scientology, his mistakes are far better scrutinized.

Regardless of the transient buzz and hoopla – when the dust settles and the lack of OT powers and expansion is again starting to show, I think Miscavige is out of stuff to fix – and the naked emperor will be clearly on display. And then the implosion will become a spectacle to behold. And some will regret they didn’t get busy making a better bridge. But fear not, the evolution of Mankind will find increasingly more effective answers to whatever. As long as we help nudge it ever so slightly in the right direction.

Artwork by me

155 thoughts on “Miscavige, Hubbard, Jesus and The Golden Age of Tech

  1. Mike Rinder and Mike Bennitt pulled off a brilliant stunt. They flew overhead the Grand opening of the *Super Power Building.*
    David Miscavige, the *POPE* of Scientology acts and behaves like he is Head of State. He hires ex Secret Service, Ex-police officers and surrounds himself like he is the ultimate in importance. Oh Oh ~~ all that promotion of 10,000 attending has now been called on the carpet. Much analysis will be done on attendees. 1500 are the local staff. Perhaps another 1000 were locals…..A Gotcha moment was posted in an image on Tony’s blog “Extras parking” EXTRAS were hired to inflate the numbers.

  2. Miscavige may be a true believer as you say, but because he is also a textbook sociopath he 1. sees himself as the center of the universe, and 2. has no tolerance for others actually becoming stronger or more able. Looked at from that angle, all of his marketing screwups, altered tech etc. are part of a purposeful, coherent pattern and not from incompetence or lack of opportunity.

    1. The amount of “screw-up” and altered tech is incredibly small in relation to all the tech he has handled. The vast majority of leaders would alter much, much more than he has done. I think this blaming and damning of Miscavige is a symptom of a need to blame.

      1. Geir, I can’t speak for anyone else regarding the “need to blame” and you could be right about that. However, I’m not aware of a single action by Miscavige, ever, that has actually facilitated his followers’ case gain or the flourishing of Scientology itself, but many, many that are quite the opposite. Since he appears otherwise to be an intelligent and strong personality, I conclude that his consistent negative results are quite deliberate.

        1. I think it is common practice in polarized subjects such as Scientology to fall prey to serious confirmation bias. Just like people inside will praise him as the second coming, people on the outside will see him as Satan incarnated. But – as most people, he is a mixed bag. And quite understandable according to my views. But to write him off as a textbook sociopath is way too simplistic – and label everything he has done as bad or wrong is… well, wrong. Like his initiative toward the IRS that led to tax exemption, or fix faulty LRH texts – from commas to removing the insane Satanic issue from OT 8. He has done plenty to support the view that he is a true believer struggling with a faulty philosophy and trying to rectify it by any and all means.

      2. I agree the blaming is indeed the effect of the intention to blame. I just don’t agree that the alteration of tech is small. I think the word ‘alteration’ doesn’t quite depict the situation. Although text alterations and hiding of materials has existed, I would say ‘mockery’, instead of alteration. If ‘you’ (not you in specific) bit your preclear, student, junior, friend, wife, whomever… because ‘only tigers survive’, it wouldn’t be because the KSW 1 HCOPL has been altered text wise, but rather because you yourself mocked it meaning-wise. That’s an example I have by experience. Indeed, the cause shouldn’t be assigned to Dave nor to others you saw biting others as well, but to yourself.

      3. I think that GAT was a principal alteration of the study tech (though it was even before far from perfect) with far-reaching consequences. I think that that was wrong of DM as well as of others who just followed the crap like sheep although they should have known better. Now shoot me as a big blamer 😉

  3. “Just like Jesus may have tried to sell the world on concepts that he himself finally admitted he doubted at the end.”
    It’s not exactly clear: who’s doubted at the end? Jesus? No way! The only one who doubted about his faith in the Bible was St.Peter, who rejected Jesus 3 times, but he was forgiven. Not even a second Jesus Christ doubted about His mission on this world.
    About Miscavige…c’mon…it is a joke to level him up on such higher standards…:)

  4. Geir, in your view, which ones are those concepts that Jesus tried to sell to the world and he himself finally admited ” he doubted at the end ” . Not all of them, just the key ones 🙂 .
    About Hubbard and Miscavige, I guess that every minute a gullible person is born to replace the gone one, this phenomena doesn´t make them any important.

      1. After leaving Sci Church, how can you describe yourself from the religion point of view? Protestant (as many Norwegians are), Catholic, Atheist? Non-religious? Do you feel or believe that is a power up there who’s guiding your life?

          1. Hello Chris! 🙂 I see…I’m Christian Orthodox (you can say Greek or Eastern Orthodox). But for me it’s different. I was born Orthodox, never changed my religion. That’s why I asked Geir, what exactly replaced Scientology in his mind and soul.

            1. May I ask the same question in the opposite way? What was it before Scientology? Were you atheist? Did religion had a place in your life?

            2. Geir

              ‘Scientology almost replaced an inquiring mind. That mind is now back’.
              I don’t understand. Isn’t all processing about inquiring and observing?

      2. ‘The concept of God with a personality’. In my view now God is Trinity. Father (creation), Son (human being with body and mind) and Holy Spirit (pure life force).
        Jesus embodied this Trinity, what he taught was love and compassion, the crucifixion symbolizes that one is not the body and the resurrection symbolizes that
        Creation and Life are eternal and a human being is the embodiment of Trinity.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

  5. The concept of God that Jesus had was that of a person able to experience the whole band of any dichotomy, included that of having a personality or not at wish. That is why he is God and we are not. BTW I guess it could lead to a very effective array of releasing processes.

      1. Worship, subordination along with love, care and empathy is something all of us would like to have from our loved ones, this is not new. The social handling tools used by Jesus in the semitic lands ( like the perception of God as a individual and the worship package ) just shows that his genius was out of the average.

      2. I would change ‘subordination’ for humility. Playing with the word individual a little.
        The divine is in one and one is in the divine = dual and ONE in its duality.
        Matters most how much it is the experience of a person.

        Worship is related to revere and respect. Re-spect. Looking back at.

  6. Geir

    1. That it is ‘shrinking’ may be due to the acceleration of MEST and people’s excessive agreement to using technical devices more and more compulsively
    (mental, emotional, physical laziness) instead of using half or long forgotten natural ways and being more creative in their use.

    That is, the number of aware and able pure beings who can live like that is still relatively fewer as would be needed for a visible fast change in human life.

    2. I am not invalidating the existence of true ‘OT’ (spiritual) abilities as those who
    have them also have the ethics of not ‘demonstrating’ them for the simple reason
    that they would confuse others in several ways (fear, expectation to have them etc.). Also, that you (I don’t know) and I don’t have them does not mean that they
    do not exist – it’s about being aware of them, isn’t it? That is first stopping creating the counter-intention, counter-postulates and counter-emotions for LIFE’S ABILITIES. I do not view them as ‘personal’ ability-powers but rather of Life itself.
    So, once and for all the concept of the individual ‘me’ should be seen through first.

    It cannot be ‘measured’ what true ‘OTs’ or ‘aware and realized, enlightened’ beings
    do for the ‘betterment’ of human life. Those who are aware may know that but I do not think they have any inclination to measure what they are aware of. I mean, ‘aliveness’ cannot be measured, only its result in a visible way like more motion, more precise work and products etc.

    1. 3. ‘to fix himself’…whoever may it be. Why is it bad if one wants to fix oneself? That is basically know/see/experience whatever one is and one can be?

      1. 3. That is not at all Bad. What is bad is trying to sell one’s own fix as a “one-size-fits-all” solution for the rest of Mankind or the Universe At Large.

    2. 1. People are lazy. They want to get to the goal as fast as possible. If Scientology could deliver a better solution to what Man considers important, then it would have expanded. That Scientology has been out-competed by technical gadgets is rather telling.

      2. I am not saying that OT powers do not exist. But I doubt that Scientology can deliver them – at least consistently.

      1. Ok but what are the roots of laziness (and comfort)? When a child is born, it is active and energetic. The focuses of the family and the culture (the human environment) slowly shape the child’s mind and body. What Man considers important is the outcome of a situation where Man is continuously influenced to
        agree. Agree and agree to ‘fit’…some creativity is allowed, like in technology but
        then it again will become the source of agreement (like computer technology).
        That scientology ‘has been out-competed’ by technical gadgets, which may be true
        for other pure spiritual practices as well, to me only shows that the ‘spirit’ as such, also the ‘pure energy of Life’ are devaluated. That there are technical innovations will not by itself ‘save’ humanity if those who are the innovators, also who are working with them or use these innovations are not of high awareness themselves. I still find raising awareness the shortest ‘path’, especially in case of
        children, which can be done by communication alone.

  7. I guess It’s kinda hard to keep from getting polarised when it comes to groups that have been used to control people (check out political parties –‘if you’re not a capitalist, it means you’re a communist’ etc). I myself have said here various time that SCN is not the only possible way, and that it isn’t truth and that case does not have to exist etc, and on the same time I have tried to separate my own personal perception of SCN, from the ‘reality’ of SCN, and point out that for me alone it doesn’t have to be something bad, and it can be used for good. And I get bricks thrown at me no matter what I say by either one always-right party or the other (the pros and the antis). If I say anything that appears to be against SCN (according to that reality) then ohh I’m a sinner, traitor, SP, LRH hates me… (You sure you’re into SCN and not some other religion? I’m not quite convinced about it.) As result, I have gotten mad a few times too, at this. But generaly, I think that what matters the most is not SCN nor some other set of techniques, but rather the people that use it –their intentions. I could make another feel better with no technique, or as a psychologist too (no, I’m not), if I so wanted. Or I could manage to mess another up badly with SCN or anything else. I shouldn’t had focused on tech alterations as much, although I have noticed them. People>techniques. Intentions>techniques. I wouldn’t attribute the results of SCNs practitioners to Hubbard himself.

    1. Oh yeah I forgot to mention the other camp: I support Hubbard because I BELIEVE IN him, as I know that if I say good things and I’m always nice and agreeable I will go to theta heaven. Because I know Hubbard wanted me to always agree with him, in order to be saved. That’s why I like him.

    1. The second, yes. But anyway, I think nobody’s helped by my messages. In a war, in the end, somebody has to win, be right etc and the other wrong. It doesn’t feel good to do it. I should better be at home and play my own flute. Yesterday, I was browsing through some links Geir posted on this OP, and saw some Church members being glad about that building etc. So, they’re glad about it. Is it right or wrong? They’re just glad about it. I’m glad that they’re glad. If I start thinking of all the reasons they shoudn’t be glad, I wont be glad. But why invade their space? They can do what they please. Me too.

      1. By the way, if many people are really into changing the Church, we could organise a pan-independent-Scientologists-and-others meeting, go outside the Churches and give them pamphlets that show we are actually not going to harm them, and that we care etc (which would mean not making them wrong, guilty etc) and then if we got inside the Church, we would have to be dealing with the press and other angry people for the next 200 years. And then we might as well become a sect too in the end, to avoid getting trolled at, all day long :mrgreen:

  8. Miscavige is probably a sociopath. But Hubbard was most probably a sociopath. And scientology is a creation of this narcissistic, egomaniac individual who once or twice asserted that, in order to become a millionaire, one has to start a religion.

    That’s why I see little to no point in criticizing Miscavige and blaming him for actual scientology’s decay.

    I mean, scientology controls, manipulates, lies, alienates people from friends and families, treats critics as criminals, infiltrates governments, keeps ill people from seeking real help, bans freedom of speech, etcetera, and has done all this for decades, almost since the beginning. And when we ask what’s wrong with scientology, we still say it’s Miscavige’s fault.

    As I said in another reply, are we failing to see the elephant in the room here?

          1. Oh, and I totally forgot: Some time ago IFA was renamed to APIS. And I can’t find neither IFAchat nor any other APIS’s discussion group. Not quite sure why, but I quit many years ago anyway after their attempts to apply some of their crazy restrictions on me. It was a good bargain: I haven’t missed them ever since and they haven’t missed me.

  9. Watch out, Geir – now the Christians may very well take offence! They are going to understand what it means when, for example, someone emphasizes certain despicable parts of their history (and those parts may be even worse than the history of Scientology!). Or when certain scriptures are emphasized rather than the invaluable truths in Christianity.

    Consider the criticisms of Scn as regards the importance of family, or policy on disconnection, as another example. Bad as all that may be, here are some very similar ideas from the Bible:

    Mathew 10:35 – For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

    Micah 7:6 – For the son dishonoureth the father, the daughter riseth up against her mother, the daughter in law against her mother in law; a man’s enemies [are] the men of his own house

    Luke 12:52 – For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three.

    http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Family-Divided/

    1. Which is why such thought-stoppers (read: religion) have worn out its historical usefulness (of supplying hope, structure and ethics) in many modern societies.

      1. They are metaphors for releasing thoughts, considerations, that is help disconnect from the conceptual reality of being a family member and see the SAME DIVINE in
        all these forms in which case the divine will truely embody all these relationships.

          1. Yes. When employed but when one understands them, they cannot be ’employed’ against one. Yes, the ‘spoon’ directly observed is not a spoon and neither are bodies. Which goes right into what marildi posted about ‘transparency’.

      2. I’m saying that the useful aspects have not been worn out and should be recognized. Even the Dali Lama stated that Christianity is a valid path.

        1. The useful parts should be extracted into the common pool of ever increasing human knowledge and taken apart from the less useful or negative aspects that not only poisons the useful parts and suppresses it but also serves to suppress people. As is evident in great historical events and in the history and world of Scientology.

          1. With one’s ability to duplicate whatever comes one’s way cannot poison or suppress, as it results in understanding and basically truth itself, the same truth in dual forms first but then as One.

          2. No disagreement about the useful parts vs the negative. You wrote in another comment that “Any model is a substitute for direct observation.” The problem is that most people need a model to guide them to the point where they are capable of direct observation. And the “pool of ever-increasing human knowledge” would itself act as yet another model. Maybe even a better one – for some people. But it doesn’t mean other models can’t get you there – and, for some people, get them there better.

            (Gotta go. Talk to y’all tomorrow.)

            1. Agreed. And furthermore – a model must evolve to accommodate for the evolution in the individual or in Man. Thus the model cannot remain fixed if it is to remain useful. It must be ever-morphing. Like the pool of human knowledge. And so KSW and any such must be invalidated ruthlessly (to borrow a term from Hubbard’s “Supervisor’s Code”).

            1. I got that, Marianne. And the comment of mine that you were replying to was meant for Geir. Anyway, you are making some good comments. I’ll be back to review them again later. 😉

  10. Miscavige is the most on Source Scientologist there is. He’s read all of Hubbard’s writings, listened to all of Hubbard’s audio recordings – including confidential and very confidential Hubbard material.

    There was a point when Miscavige realized that Hubbard screwed him and all Scientologists, when he saw that there were no more OT levels, and he must have realized that other of Hubbard’s “tech” is more hype than truth.

    But that’s all he has. That’s the cult he inherited.

    And he likes being “king.”

    Be glad that Miscavige does not have more imagination and charm or he could be *really* dangerous with the monster created by Hubbard.

  11. Harmony in a relationship is the ability to be on any wavelength without agreeing to any thought form which arises during the communication. When one agrees to, the persons can get ‘trapped’ in that thought, that is their perception is less to that degree. Agreeing to results in duality, e.g. us and them. It is comfortable, can give one pleasure, can boost one’s ability to play games but not above that wavelength
    where the agreement is made.

    1. Marianne, thanks for posting this comment. If I’ve understood you, it gives one of the best descriptions of what you’ve been communicating about in general.

      I think it may also describe auditor beingness – or perhaps simply OT TR 0. But, as you basically indicate, one can knowingly and causatively decide to “Q&A” with the game one wants to play, at the chosen wavelength. Pretty neat and simple. 🙂

  12. Hi Geir, for the very first time! I have been following your blog and watched many of your videos with fascination! I really dig your great TR’s visible in those videos, btw,
    and see that you are indeed relaxing to be with. All great traits, in my book, Geir!

    Now commenting on your views on Miscavige and those of others, I have one key question to ask. This has a bearing on the relative success of L Ron Hubbard, especially during the “explosive growth” *(relative term that!) of the 70’s Btw, I joined up in South Africa in 1971. Declared myself Independent on Marty’s Blog on 12 May 2012 (Mothers Day) 1/2 way down the page!)

    Back to the question>>> Where are all the frigg’n Auditors, that COULD have been made, if Miscavige had been focused on the primary LRH goal (training Auditors!)

    30 YEARS of opportunity, Geir! with Transparency, honesty and enthusiasm, Saint Hill’s should have flourished all over the planet by now. Then there WOULD have been fully trained Class VI Auditors and C/S’s by the hundred’s of thousands. THAT would surely have made a slight dent in planetary aberration ?

    Sorry, Geir. I know you have stated you have had mostly good experiences, at Flag and that is to your credit. But just supposing DM had somehow actually managed to get his own ethics in, or had himself cleaned up as to ACTUAL intentions aligning with the stated Aims of Scientology, we may have seen a totally different Scientology landscape today, instead of the embarrassing total rip-off it has become.

    The site — ‘Friends of L. Ron Hubbard’ — lays it all out quite adequately, and the stats are verifiable, with a little homework.

    Anyhow, nice to be able to connect up at last, and I really wish you and yours every success in the future.

    Kind regards,
    Calvin.

    1. Hello – and welcome 😀

      My view: There was never an explosive expansion in the history of Scientology. Sure, there was growth, but nothing like the explosion we can see in most any are of society. Like in the music industry (Google “What does the fox say?”), the movie industry (The Matrix), the information industry (The Internet, Wikipedia), the software industry (Linux), the search industry (Google), the retail industry (Zappos), the car industry (Tesla, T-Ford), the oil industry (Exxon), hundred of political factions, hundreds of charities and lots of other religions (Falun Gong, All World Gayatri Pariwar), etc, etc, etc. Scientology had explosive expansion only seen by Scientologists, and they were never many.

      Like LRH, Miscavige kept “undercutting” to be able to make auditors – issuing KTL/LOC, improving training tech (GAT), improving e-meters, improving basics and so on.

      I believe there are basic flaws in the foundations of Scientology that has set it up for a Fail no matter what Miscavige had done – because KSW acts as a straight jacket to any future leader of this religion.

      1. Geir

        Have those explosions raised the awareness of the majority of mankind in a way that that awareness stayed in the long run? Have they resulted in better-being, more selfless creativity, more happiness? Have they changed one’s well-intent and
        care for one’s fellow-men? Can any growth in the diversity of products, even if they are good quality and joy to play with give one happiness?
        The ‘undercutting’ of auditors to me shows that the motivation of truely experiencing
        what one is, what Life-source is (in conscious experience) , what one’s fellowmen is has been overcome more and more by the avalanche of ‘consume this info’, get this product, so to train one is getting harder and harder.
        Though there is not a ‘visible’ growth, look at that aspect of how many did some basic courses, studied some books, or use their TRs in thousands of life situations, at work etc. in life by which they keep up the ‘aliveness’…..that is, there can be an ‘invisible’ growth….

        1. MT: “Have those explosions raised the awareness of the majority of mankind in a way that that awareness stayed in the long run? Have they resulted in better-being, more selfless creativity, more happiness? Have they changed one’s well-intent and
          care for one’s fellow-men? Can any growth in the diversity of products, even if they are good quality and joy to play with give one happiness?”

          Me: Yes to all of the above.

          1. Yes, you are partly right. Thanks. I get the viewpoint that once those products are OUT, they pull people’s attention outwards. A kind of Objective processing. Coupled with the right education, they can result in handling Mest better. If…only if it
            is followed by well-organized companies where the managment is competent and is working for the interest of each in the staff, also for people’s needs in the market, it
            can work out in a constructive way.
            To the last question my answer is: no. Will you explain why you said yes?

          1. If you want to keep to ‘there is no spoon’, it is your right. Which is also the truth…well, time for ‘me’ to leave your blog to be truthful to truth?

      2. Well thanks for that, Geir. And nice that we have our first conversation!

        I agree too on your view about the growth. This, to be fair, needs to be seen against the technology available at the time, and yes, against the “constraints” such as the much maligned KSW principles, that were merely accepted as a needed discipline, back in the day. Like the medico’s and legal profession had to have a thorough
        knowledge of Latin, for full comprehension and competence in their respective fields, until quite recently.

        Like you have said, there indeed ARE basic flaws there. However, having the tech based on a multitude of astute observations, that ended up as axioms, means that an entire universe has/had opened up, where previously there was nothing of comparison! Simply, the miracle of the auditing comm cycle, based on Scn axiom 28
        allows another being to view, for the first time ever, a situation “as-is” and thus end “persistence” of that particular item “across time.” Poof! Erased!

        The Axioms of Duplication, are another stroke of genius, with exceptionally far reaching potential for the broadest possible understanding of life, especially when looked at in terms of present time scientific breakthroughs.

        I have read your assertion that you would have your Scientology experience all over again, and I suspect this has a lot to do with the obvious gains you had during your
        own cognitive growth stages. resulting primarily from the experiences themselves.

        You have grown enormously, that is very plain to see. A little appreciation to those who help us to do that “growing” is the very least that we owe, don’t you think?

        Great Blog, BTW!

        1. Calvin, your post was very well received! You wrote about the things that, no matter what outnesses occurred as time went on, my knowingness about basic Scientology has remained intact.

          What always looms up in my mind, in spite of any and all criticism of Scn and LRH, is exactly what you wrote about: the miracle of the auditing comm cycle that allows a being to “view, for the first time ever, a situation ‘as-is’ and thus end ‘persistence’ of that particular item ‘across time'” – and on top of that, the principles that allow for an understanding of life. And yes, science itself has been proving the things that LRH stated decades ago, which is also quite significant and telling.

          Would you elaborate on what you meant by “there indeed ARE basic flaws there.”

        2. Oh, I have posted many times my gratefulness to both the parts of the tech that helped and also those amazing people that contributed to my epiphanies. My book details this quote extensively. But as I see Scientology largely as a failed endeavor, my current interest is in siding out why that is more than a repeating defense of the good or workable therein.

          1. Geir, The “endeavor” may be seen as an “activity,” whereas Scientology has also been likened to a :”toolbox,” or even, “a library. “The point being, that viewed as such, you merely take out the tool/s you need, to fix something, in the first instance, or take out the book/s that interest you, personally, in the second! The rest you can leave in the toolbox/ on the shelves, respectively! In both cases, a need is served for the individual. Couched in those terms, perhaps it IS a success? (1/2 full, vs. 1/2 empty evaluation applied here.)

            Perhaps a 1/2 full glass will “never” quench the thirst of the eternally “thirsty?”
            Or more saliently, the eternally restless enquirer? BTW, I do definitely get, though, that it is preferable to be so, in terms of progress, intellectual growth, etc, etc.
            and yes indeed, that even applies to tools and books, no question!

            But dammit, Geir, I still don’t see the need to dispense with the old, independent, proven, “paper-clip!”…or ARC, KRC, or the truth of Scn Axiom 28, or the workability of the Auditors Code. Do you?

            Kahlil Gibran makes some thought provoking observations in his “The Prophet.”
            which beautifully articulate our various positions discussed here.
            Interesting, to me though, is that the “ultimate” truth, has been described as a “static.” and fully defined in Scn AXIOM 35.

            Wow, Geir, don’t you think it’s just amazing, to discover that some go on searching forever, (for the ultimate truth,) only to eventually find that “they” are “it??”

            The rest, (of course!) is all just MEST…… I jest ….. as a “test” 🙂

            1. Yes, Scientology is a toolbox – which is why it should be taken apart, tested and only those tools therein that factually works should find its way into the library called Human Knowledge. No need at all to compartment it as “Scientology”, no need to trademark, copyright or segregate it as a complete toolbox. It isn’t. And the tools that does work does not necessarily stand out beyond other impressive tools in the Library of Human Knowledge.

              And so, defending Scientology is to me something very strange.

            2. “Scientology is a toolbox – which is why it should be taken apart, tested and only those tools therein that factually works should find its way into the library called Human Knowledge”.
              What about Anette and others like her? After so many traumatically experiences I’m not sure they can specifically nominate those tools who deserve to be found in the Human Knowledge.
              Human Knowledge in this case is just for theoreticians. For escapees like Anette and many others, there are only scars.
              And I cannot blame her at all.

    2. Good post Calvin. Under LRH thousands of auditors were made without any particular attention placed on Co-auditing, the one thing that would ever or will ever push forward the ostensible Scientology goal of clearing the planet. What do you suppose occurred before Dave Miscavige to thwart the goal of clearing the planet?

      1. I could elaborate but I think you all know what I’m intending. My one word is GO/OSA. I was on board as others were till they used us for ridding enemies that were really not. I lost the bridge for helping others by agreeing to help the 4th dynamic through those GO/OSA lines. How many good people were lost that way, forever? Also how it came back at ’em and the public rebelled when exposed on the internet. I don’t think it was from a MU but from extreme paranoia by the leader and he must have had one. either that or O/W’s

        1. ‘OSA’ is a ‘hot’ issue for some people. As such. it may be really time to clear it for
          once and ever. As I have never had any direct experience with it (except for two occassions when I saw it in operation), I can only give some viewpoints which might help clear it in the minds of the persons for whom it is still an issue. Once it is clear in the individual mind, it automatically frees other minds and beings as well.This last sentence I find the key. For me ‘OSA’ as such is of INDIVIDUALS, who get into communication with other individuals, where the quality of the communication depends on the awareness of the two individuals involved. To get progress, to get the free flow back, one starts with oneself….

          1. ‘on board’
          For me it is on post. On post is perfect, natural TRs (which is flawless com from one life unit with another life unit). Also, being able to do the responsibilities of the post. IN the instant, wherever one is. Being aware, decisive and responsively active IN the instant. What is is the NOW. The now is Awareness. Peace.

          2. the 4th dynamic
          For me it is the absence of ‘enemy’ and ‘evil’, viewing another as basically the same
          creative source of life. For me this is the EP of the PTS/SP course.

          I was never staff, looking at it from the viewpoint of the individual who was/is, to be
          ‘used’ for ridding ‘enemies’ is the lack of proper training of 1 and 2. Which the individual is also responsible for not having done up to the EPs. The courses are tools for clearing the irresponsibilities the individual was/is still creating in present time which date back to earlier misperceptions whose result is/was irresponsive communication and action.

          As there might be some truth in what I am writing above can be supported by what
          you write : ‘the public rebelled’. Which goes right into the other ‘hot issue’, that is
          KSW1. There are complaints only where there are no results….1 and 2 IN, there is
          a less chance of a complaint.

          1. To illustrate what I mean, I write down my two direct experiences with ‘OSA’. The first one happened many years ago. I was in the mission’s hall, studying a material in my fee time. There was peace and silence, when two guys violently opened the door, kind of rushed in, they were a little angry. I asked them if I could do something for them. They told me that they wanted to speak to some staff there. As the people they wanted to talk to were not there, they got a bit angrier. Not with me but
            about the situation. We were communicating a little, they calmed down and said they would come back. When a staff arrived, I told the staff about what had happened. She asked me to write it down. I did so. She told me that they were from
            ‘OSA’. Ok. Then, and also now, I see them as individuals, who did not have their TRs in then. The ‘third particle’ was their minds. Some thoughts which they were creating which first did not allow them to see the ‘now’ but after some com, they did so. So, there was peace.

            The other one was when I finished studying and auditing. After some time another called me up. As I had left with complete harmony with what I had studied and audited, when he started to ask me questions, I heard them in ‘present time’. So
            much, that I could even help him in the com….in the end he told me that he
            was from OSA. I said Ok. The key was that I was talking to the individual. I even directed his attention to some ‘out-point-com-particles’. I had done so with some others on other posts (not from OSA) as well.

            The two courses I mentioned were completely effective in my case to handle not
            only these situations but situations as such as well. Since the ‘awakening’ they look
            to be even more precious ‘tools’ than when they looked then.

        2. deElizabethan

          In my view the ‘Bridge’ is about the ‘ME’ in the ever-present-now. You cannot lose it.
          ‘I lost the Bridge’ is a consideration. Find the ME by disconnecting from this consideration. ‘Helping others by agreeing to help the 4th dynamic’ is also a consideration as the 4th dynamic is the ‘ME’. Every human being is the manifestation of this ‘ME’. Disconnect from the consideration and find the Source of all human life in yourself. When you find it, the dichotomy of me helping a you is gone. In my view, there can be no conflict between two people when there is no consideration in between.
          I understand your experience. You are one of the warmest commentors on this blog.
          Always like reading what you write. Please, do not take it as an advice what I write.
          I am writing from my own experience. I am putting here a link. You may read the articles in it if you like (by Per, Class 9). There is an exercise in article 4. Very effective.

          http://www.ivymag.org/WebIVy/PerSchioettz.htm

          1. I wasn’t talking about an individual who wants and believes the organization is helpful and sorry if you took it personally. I’m talking about what is one of their biggest downfalls. In having a tech and not being able to change it, stagnates the whole organization and believe me they use it today just as in older years. Sad, yes! There is plenty to read about the GO and OSA and it may help you understand better. Here’s a simple one for you if you haven’t read it or if you’re interested. I will look at what you suggest, thanks. 🙂
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Affairs

            1. Just looked at Per’s site. It has nothing to do with OSA and don’t need anymore data on PTS.
              You may enjoy Mike Rinders blog very much as it has lots of current things you could relate too. Even as I, not an indie still enjoy watching the growth and change while understanding where they are coming from. It still interests me as an ex since I once did believe and love the group. Now I still love the peoples not the organization.

            2. Dear, lovely deElizabethan
              I did not take it ‘personally’, I am looking at it with responsibility, to the extent I can.
              My viewpoint is this: no matter what one did, if the person stops creating the past, then it has an effect on the people IN PRESENT TIME. Also, when one stops believing in a thought that it is true, stops telling oneself that it is true, disconnects from it seeing that it is not who s/he is, then the person is free TO do what his/her heart/intuition guides to do. This freedom also goes through, that is it has an effect on others’ mood, actions….When one, who did something against a ‘public’ is creating that deed over and over in one’s mind, accompanied by feelings of shame, blame….it is going through at a subtle level in consciousness and the person on the other end of this subconscious com line is under its effect at that very subtle level. When one is invalidating oneself, one is invalidating the ONE SELF also. I find it true that when I take responsibility for what I am creating, I am taking responsibility for humanity.

              I put there Per’s link not because of OSA, but because there what SP/PTS means in every day life is explained in a simple way and there is also an exercise what one
              can do. Very simple, very effective which anyone can try and do. As we, human beings are connected by consciousness, when one person stops blaming, resenting, it goes through…frees others as well because it is ONE SELF. The other is ‘released’ from the role s/he was playing up to then. One can observe it for oneself in life.

              One of the films I love is the Last Samurai. It shows an example how one can get disconnected from one’s ‘terrible’ past and get into present time. Nathan did so. So, from then on he was able to follow his heart, not what his thoughts dictated to do.

              Thank you for your answer and thanks for the link! I am glad to read your other comments too! It looks that you are cheerful and happy and doing your life fine!

      2. Chris. Here is a little more on my direct answer to your question:

        Chris:.”What do you suppose occurred before Dave Miscavige to thwart the goal of clearing the planet?”

        Calvin: “Hi Chris. In one word? Misduplication! ”

        What follows here, is another plug for this concept called “Duplication”. (Btw, this is not in any shape or form, suggesting that ‘clearing the planet’, is/was even remotely possible or do-able. Still, it was held out as a ‘nice’ thing to do/have. It Certainly had the backing of anyone who agreed that ‘aberration’ stood in the way of sane conduct among our/other species of Earth’s inhabitants.

        Here are TWO relevant grand epiphanies that occurred with me, which have remained consistent up to present time!

        In 1965, some years before even hearing the word ‘scientology’, I was sitting in a a friend’s house with a bunch of pals, sharing jokes and experiences.

        EPIPHANY ONE: Suddenly, without any lead up, or sense of anticipation, I suddenly felt myself, totally “centered”, FULLY in present time, and immediately possessed of what seemed like’perfect recall’.

        This unprecedented shift of unbounded awareness, brought to mind, a simple concept! — “CLEAR!” I was in complete awe of this state, and realized there and then, that THIS was the state that I was hoping to experience, all of my conscious life — but never able to articulate, or knowing how to achieve it. (Of course, today, this realization would (no doubt), be seen by a few, as merely a key out. Hah!) Nevertheless, for me, it was a turning point of what WAS possible, given the “means.”

        Fast track up to 2006, (having entered scn in ’71, being active for twenty plus years), reconnected to scn via my wife Dorothy, (Class V NED Auditor) agreeing to become a Criminon counselor, which she did for over six years, becoming one of the top producing counselors on the planet, with over 700 prisoners, assisted to better their lives.(both in and if/when, released from jail) (Kudos to you, Dot, my sweetheart XXXOO)

        EPIPHANY TWO: Around 2009, I purchase the LRH “Clearing Congress” DVD’s. Not having had much auditing personally, beyond the Primary rundown and Life Repair. There was this amazing little piece in “The Fact Of Clearing” DVD.

        The Ol’ Man; (p.13 – transcript) — “Quite amusing. It’s quite amusing to look over– look over the number of struggles we have had to find out the few things we have to know: But I suppose when your climbing over barricades, why you’re liable to get your clothes covered with creosote now and then. And when you’re smashing down jungle plants you’re certainly going to get splattered with a little chlorophyll.
        And you carry it along for a little while until you take a bath and then you say; “What do you know, all the way through this jungle and THERE’S JUST THIS ONE LITTLE PIECE OF STUFF HERE. (my caps) “That’s the only piece of stuff. And we went through eight miles of jungle and swamp and so forth and we found out, well, there’s a little piece of stuff – duplication. DUPLICATION. Gee, You know?”

        — THERE it is Chris! — The proverbial ‘nucleus’ around which every thing else revolves, — OR comes apart! So friggn’ innocuous, hey? Till you question it’s relevance to success or failure in ANYTHING!!.

        — Duh?? (hope it can/does/did/will hit you, as it did me, brother!) 🙂

        — Calvin.

  13. I must say thanks! Thanks to Geir, Chris, Marildi, Marianne, deElizabethan. Honestly sharing your views, has been both refreshing and enlightening to me as a first time participant. It has, like other blogs, helped to broaden my own duplication, and therefore understanding, of exactly why LRH blazed the particular trail which he did, for all the faults, warts, & idiosyncrasies, we have come to know about. Had LRH not been so viciously attacked, from those with less than savory ideals and intentions, perhaps we may not have seen the formation and actions of a GO/OSA, which has drawn so much attention away from the altruistic “Aims of Scientology.”

    Put in a similar situation, assuming YOU had found yourself under attack, from the vested interests of a growing, sinister, new world ” Order “, would you have done anything differently? Remember, one did NOT have the wonderful new technical breakthroughs, such as cellphones, internet, downloads, CGI and instant data transmission and permanent preservation, we take completely for granted today.

    Back in the LRH era, life was much more labor intensive, for sure, (even more so, under DM. Forced labour, that is!) but the one thing that has changed dramatically under the COB influence, is the staff have NOT been afforded the spiritual growth and ARC “possible” under the leadership of LRH.

    No doubt about it, it has been documented that LRH COULD be suppressive , on occasions, but did that make him the classic SP? WE each have to answer that for ourselves, when comparing the two leaders. From my view? Absurd notion indeed!

    LRH was a social personality, caught up in a war of attrition, by a situation he himself had brought about! –The onslaught of vested interests, who thrived in an environment of chaos, desperation, and slavery. To put it mildly, he was not exactly a welcome member to “that” particular club, by virtue of his offering of Dianetics, and Scientology! I mean … duh?

    In retrospect, I think we all benefit from the advantage of now having been freed to LOOK for ourselves, beyond the confines of “Mein Kampf uf der Fuehrer und der CO$ Final $olution!”

    1. Calvin: Had LRH not been so viciously attacked, from those with less than savory ideals and intentions, perhaps we may not have seen the formation and actions of a GO/OSA, which has drawn so much attention away from the altruistic “Aims of Scientology.”

      Chris: That is one way of looking at it Calvin. Another way of looking at it is that forming the GO was the antithesis of the “Aims of Scientology.” If we think about it, would the British been expelled by Gandhi if he had formed the GO in India?

      1. Yes, it is another way, Chris. Still another, is how susceptible one is to simple expediency. LRH, himself, is recorded as having made direct offerings to the then, Rhodesia/s, (now Zimbabwe) by way of political solutions, favoring a strong right wing regime solution. Perhaps Gandi’s approach of passive resistance would not have been open to this more forceful MO? The floor is yours, Chris. Go for it!

        1. As LRH travelled about, he was sneaky never being quite being truthful or outright lying about himself and his intentions, and leaving trails of debts and angry people wherever he went. He was viewed as a subversive in Rhodesia and he was. I cannot understand your point about Rhodesia. LRH was fortunate to have been operating before the information age as he would been caught out rapidly had he began his cult and told his lies today.

          How do you think Gandi might have done a better job of creating political change in India? Do you think a GO would have been useful to him?

          1. Well, Chris, as I’m sure you would agree, to successfully set up Scn in the former British protectorates, LRH obviously had to offer something in return! What better way than the “sneaking” you mention — by way of siding with the incumbents and punting some of the tech on 3pty, SP, offered solutions, etc.as to possible usefulness? At least that seemed to be the ploy, while admitting privately, that using 1.1 tone was necessary, to accomplish his ends.

            As for your repeated questions on Gandi, now I’m failing to understand the relevance. This doesn’t seem to fit with the MO of the man, somehow.

            Hey Chris… BTW, this is all really old speculative archives material now! Do we still really need our attention there ? 🙂

            1. I thought I was following your lead on Rhodesia and the GO. My point was that the Scientology Guardians Office did not proof Scientology against its enemies, ostensible or otherwise, and by acting insanely, declaring war on the government, and behaving criminally was antipathetic to a world without insanity without criminals and without war.

      2. “If we think about it, would the British been expelled by Gandhi if he had formed the GO in India?”

        To summarize the following video: There’s a time and a place for everything, as the saying goes. In about the first 10 minutes of the video, Tom Campbell talks about why sometimes the right thing to do is to “knock some heads together” in order to stop some kind of bad action. On the other hand, there are times when turning the other cheek is the right thing to do. The point is to not be hamstrung by any particular belief – which doesn’t fit every situation.

        Rather, the key is to have an understanding of the nature of reality, and to know what’s important and what your purposes are – and from there you’ll know when it’s time to turn the other cheek and when it’s time to resist, to push back and say “no.” It’s all based on INTENT – i.e. doing it for the right reason and for “the greatest good” (Tom’s words). There are times to impose you will and times you shouldn’t…

        1. It strikes me as ironic that you would put the responsibility for the downfall of Scientology on someone else than LRH – on his adversaries – given that Scientology promotes ultimate responsibility of Self. Why would we do LRH the disservice of shifting the responsibility away from him? It’s almost like saying that Scientology doesn’t work.

          1. Geir, what made you think I was putting “the responsibility for the downfall of Scientology on someone else than LRH – on his adversaries”?

    2. Calvin: “LRH was a social personality, caught up in a war of attrition…”

      Just to possibly add some further substance to that, in about the first 20 minutes of the Tom Campbell video posted above he paints a picture that may sound familiar. Here is my summary of it:

      Religions usually start out with prophets who have “the bigger picture.” The problem, though, is that you can’t build organizations on bigger pictures. And, unfortunately, you do have to have organizations in order to have enough power in numbers that others (the less altruistic of the world) can’t run all over you – because those others DO have power.

      Furthermore, you can’t build organizations without appealing to people’s egos and their fears, since that’s how most people are – spiritually, that’s the level where most of the world exists. All too soon, however, an organization starts to be more about “how do you maintain and grow the organization” rather than about what the original spiritual message was. So what happens is that you start changing the message to suit your organizational and political needs. And you even start talking about “magic and miracles” because that’s what draws people in – that’s what they like to hear.

      IMHO, Ron was between the devil and the deep blue sea. In order to keep Scientology from being forcefully wiped out, he had to make a judgment call as to how much force was needed in return – the correct estimation of effort. In the end, he apparently stated that he had failed, according to his long-time friend Sarge. But let’s give him his due for what he was up against – the FOIA records clearly show that he had incredibly powerful agencies he had to contend with – according to their own, now public, records.

      1. Exactly, Marildi. It’s amazing how much compromising of one’s own ideals and intentions one has to make, to fit in with the “group” MO! … when in Rome…..
        ….That is, unless one forms one’s own!!!

    3. Thanks Calvin.
      Communications is powerful and isn’t it a universal solvent. Those that use it are much better off then those that don’t. Also ARC. It’s one thing to write about things, but another to use them.

      1. You got it dE! After all is said & done, we know where we’d BE.. without ARC 🙂
        (Clue: look at the number of empty parking spaces next to His Loftiness!)

      1. In a way you are right as they can do that by themselves, also, do that at the same time at a distance. On the other hand, the ‘body’ is ‘solid’ with human perception. With theta perception the case is different…so being with another, one can get a subtler and subtler perception of it. Also, without one’s personal universe, one can experience the Universe easier in the presence of another than by oneself. Easier.
        It does not mean one cannot do it alone.
        (in the presence of an enlightened one, also in some practices like reiki, chakra meditation, group meditation…basically ‘confronting’ less and less solidity and experiencing subtler and subtler ‘manifestations’…..).
        Ron wrote about the 3 universes (one’s, another’s, the physical). I do not know how an OT8 perceives. My experience (glimpses) is that there is more to experience when there are no ‘personal’ universes…so, can be the case that ‘be there comfortably with the whole universe’….can be the case….

  14. Hey Geir! Kudos on a very robust blog you have here! The one thing I find especially attractive, is there is no observable sulking going on 🙂

    1. Further, Geir, the sword “fencing” that goes on, replete with all styles and fashions of “gear” as befits the wearer, makes for refreshing “jousting,” Hopefully, without too many serious “injuries,” that can’t be patched up with a band-aid and Mommy’s (or Daddy’s) kiss, to make it all better! I don’t see you as the type to send one to “the Hole,” somehow! 🙂

  15. Geir: “You have said many times that LRH was justified in his actions due to the opposition he faced. No?”

    Yes, but being justified doesn’t mean not being ultimately responsible. Then too, he wasn’t the only one who was responsible, as I’ve also said. And by that, I wasn’t just talking about his enemies – I would include some of his friends as well, the ones who had enough Knowledge to be able to take Responsibility and thus Control the situation, i.e. those who had enough KRC.

    The specific thing that I personally find hard to reconcile (the conundrum we have been discussing) is that here was a man whose intuitive genius I don’t think even you would deny – including, to be fair, his ability to recognize and utilize the strokes of genius of others. Just think back to your blog thread where posters named quite a few amazing breakthroughs accomplished by LRH.

    So, back to the conundrum: What happened that he apparently lost sight of the truths that he had previously had the wisdom to perceive, and the dedication to develop into a body of tech which – WHEN USED PROPERLY – has no comparison? (At least, I don’t know of any, do you?)

    Various people who were close to LRH have come up with what they observed as the turning points in his attitude and methods – from Phil Spickler, who saw a distinct change in the late ’50’s, to Marty in his last book, where he told about a betrayal in the 60’s that brought about what was actually a “reversal” in policy from that point on.

    Based on all such data, the only thing I can surmise THAT MAKES ANY SENSE is that LRH basically succumbed under the extreme pressure he was under – in other words, it was too much even for LRH. And it broke him.

    To be a bit more specific, in dealing with his enemies, what started out as an application of his own principle, the one regarding a balance of force with intelligence, was sabotaged – whether by his own flaws or by the concerted efforts or betrayal of others, or a combination. Nonetheless, a lesser man would not even have persevered all those decades, let alone kept Scientology from being wiped out entirely.

    That’s the best I can do to reconcile the conundrum at this point. How do you do so?

    1. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Scientology never could deliver on its promised gains. Hubbard over-selled and under-delivered. THAT was the pressure he succumbed to.

      1. There again is the implied question, what were his intentions? As misguided as he might have been in going about achieving his aims, the motive I see to be basic had to have been to help. Otherwise, we essentially have the same conundrum.

          1. However, the proclaiming of results had everything to do with intention and can’t be separated from it IF an understanding is to come about. As a summary of what happened not only to Scientology but other such movements, let me reiterate what I wrote in a previous comment :

            Religions usually start out with prophets who have “the bigger picture.” The problem, though, is that you can’t build organizations on bigger pictures. And, unfortunately, you do have to have organizations in order to have enough power in numbers that others (the less altruistic of the world) can’t run all over you – because those others DO have power.

            Furthermore, you can’t build organizations without appealing to people’s egos and their fears, since that’s how most people are – spiritually, that’s the level where most of the world exists. All too soon, however, an organization starts to be more about “how do you maintain and grow the organization” rather than about what the original spiritual message was. So what happens is that you start changing the message to suit your organizational and political needs. And you even start talking about “magic and miracles” because that’s what draws people in – that’s what they like to hear.

            1. If anything, the incredible claims of results and ensuing lack of delivery does not spell good intentions for Mr. Hubbard IMO. Also the fact that he lied about the results in DMSMH makes for less-than-good intentions. The picture you paint here isn’t good unfortunately.

            2. I guess you didn’t get the point in my summary as to why someone would “lie” – assuming that was the case (which, from the actual history I’ve read, I don’t believe was a deliberate and knowing lie).

            3. I think we are beyond the point of doubting that Hubbard was a pathological liar from the get-go (war history, college history, DMSMH “research”, etc.) No, if we are to discuss his original intentions (which I really don’t like to do), then it smells really foul.

            4. That just puts us back to the original conundrum, i.e. that he had discovered basic truths about how an individual effects his own demise – only to later violate those very truths he knew? Again, that makes no sense.

            5. It makes sense if he actually did not solve the reasons for an individual’s demise. That would in fact also explain the lack of results, don’t you think?

            6. Okay, then what is the basis of that claim?

              Btw, “even if you would hate to admit it” is leaning a bit in the direction of a subtle Ad Hom – don’t know if that was intentional or not. 😉

            7. It was more a general comment to anyone, including me, that one may find oneself in a position where logic wins out against one’s hopes or desires for another outcome.

              The “claim” is not really a claim. It is the conjecture that maybe Hubbard failed to explain the reasons for Man’s demise, his inner workings or how to really fulfill his dreams. If he indeed failed to explain this but at the same time managed to convince me and you that he did, then the conundrum we discuss here is no longer an enigma. It explains it all. The opposing argument (that he did manage to explain the mysteries of life) leads to the enigma of why on Earth he could fail. The answer that leads to no conundrum seems more plausible – as it is backed up by the glaring failure to deliver the goods.

            8. However, that conjecture seems little more to me than a placeholder. Usually, paradoxes eventually do have explanations that aren’t so simplistic.

              Thanks for the explanation about the general comment. Now, that has substance! 🙂

            9. As I said – if Scientology does not explain the mysteries of life, then there is no wonder why it fails to deliver. Conundrum solved. That Hubbard was an excellent salesman convincing you and me that he had in fact solved Life, only makes for people like you and me searching for “other answers” why it fails so massively. And all those answers are less simple than the premises for Scientology being off the mark. This is Occam’s Razor proper. Actually, it would serve as one of the best examples of Occam’s Razor.

            10. “…if Scientology does not explain the mysteries of life, then there is no wonder why it fails to deliver. Conundrum solved.”

              Circular argument.

            11. “If Scientology does not explain the mysteries of life, then there is no wonder why it fails to deliver” is just a shorter way of saying “If Scientology does not explain the mysteries of life, then there is no wonder why it fails to deliver…which would obviously be because it doesn’t explain the mysteries of life.”

            12. No, it is akin to “No wonder you are unable to fix that car, you are using the wrong tools”. Simple as that.

              But, let’s leave this. You will remain with your belief that basic Scientology is the Truth, and there is no fact or discussions that I can muster that will ever change that. And it is your prerogative to keep your belief. I respect that. So, let’s leave it at that.

            13. Marildi: Again, that makes no sense.

              chris: You’ve got a paradox. What can be done with these two datums which are so savagely inconsistent with one another?

Have your say

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s