Scientology pros and cons

With all the oh-so-polarized discussions on Scientology rampant on the Net, I got the idea of balancing it off with this:

Anyone that wants to participate on the discussion on this very blog post must, as their opening comment, list their 5 main pros and 5 main cons regarding Scientology. Five real gems and five real disasters. Five good things and five bad. Unconditional good and unconditional bad. Not bad things that could be interpreted as good, or good stuff that could be taken to mean something bad. And no qualifiers such as “while Scientology is a complete and utter scam, there is one thing that could seem good…” or “while the core of Scientology is workable, there is one aspect that may be seen as flawed…”. Just simple statements that stand on their own; 5 real plus points and 5 real minus points. Let’s see if this can be done.

pros_cons

To be fair, and to be allowed to participate in this discussion on my own blog, I’ll go first.

My five main positives about Scientology:

  • The communication drills: I have seen these do wonders in me and others to help the person be more open and clearer in his or her communication
  • The importance of helping a person really be Here and Now: Auditing that helps a person be more in Present Time is very valuable
  • The auditing principles of not invalidating or evaluating for the person is a real gem
  • The auditing processes that help a person sort out the dichotomies in life is something I have seen help people to be more harmonious and relaxed in life
  • The research into the nature of a being, the nature of the life force, the “theta” is something I have learned a lot from

My five main negatives about Scientology:

  • The notion that Scientology is The Only Way – that it is complete and consistent, that it represents a one-size-fits-all
  • The worshipping of the super-human, of Homo Novis, of OT powers and every aspect of personal power is despicable
  • The total absence of openness and transparency in research (or the lack thereof)
  • The branding/trademarking/copyrighting of Scientology and the attempt to compartment Scientology as “a body of knowledge” or something special instead of contributing knowledge freely to the mainstream human pool of knowledge
  • The focus on enemies, war, battle and the attacking of anything critical or tangential to Scientology (disconnection and the lack of love come under this heading)

Want to pitch in and discuss? Start by posting your 5+ and 5- aspects of Scientology 🙂

710 thoughts on “Scientology pros and cons

  1. Your idea is excellent, but some people who want to participate at this test can found themselves locked in your “pros and cons” rule. What if some of them simply cannot point 5 pros AND 5 cons? What if there are people who want to point JUST 5 pros or just 5 cons? What if they strongly believe in their pros and cons? What if some brilliant ideas, theorems or relevant opinions will be lost because of this obligation to point both pros and cons?
    I’m neutral as always, but as a reader I’m delighted to see an explosion of brainstorm, filled with arguments, fun, quotes, videos, etc.
    I have a feeling that the obligation of 5 pros and 5 cons will diminish the entire show 🙂

    1. What? No pros and cons? Move to the back of the class! 😉

      I hope this will be one and only comment on this one blog post that does not abide by the rules of THIS ONE post. There are thousands, if not millions of other venues where people can discuss whatever aspect to their heart’s content. But this ONE blog post have this as it’s ground rule. The rest of my blog is fair game as usual. So pros and cons it is 😀

      1. 🙂 What if Chris, Dee, marildi or other qualified veterans will have just pros, or just cons? This is what I’ve meant.
        But it’s fine, you’re the boss 🙂 I was on the back of the class from the very beginning.

        1. If they can’t – from the millions of words in Scientology not pick out a measly 5 pros and 5 cons, then they will find other posts on this blog where they are welcome to post as usual 😉

      2. Great topic of conversation! PROS (1) Scientology applied properly does deliver spiritual freedom and real solutions that have been a detriment to the mental condition of individuals – from personal experience I am completely different pre and post auditing, counseling and training and much to the betterment and I looked everywhere else for that answer to no avail. SCN is primo in this category (2) Scientologists in general (not all of course) communicate more and of substance than non-SCNs (not all of course) (3) Great, strong friendships and bonds within the group and high ARC, probably one of the top reasons individuals do not want to leave the Church even though they see many outpoints (4) Incredible subject (spirituality) that is rarely spoken of outside the church, a focus on spirituality and freedom rather than who has the best and most MEST or greatest body – yuk (5) Excitement in new learning new data CONS (1) suppression of communication if anything is said from a negative viewpoint (2) threat of spiritual freedom and knowledge to be withheld if compliance in anyway is not met (3) hardcore no sympathy individuals who are willing to crush and destroy other SCN’s financially just to meet their Thursday stats (4) threat overhanging that a KR will be written up over anything, which is also another type of suppression to Be Do and Have or even to KNOW ABOUT when it comes to being an individual with different likes, dislikes and viewpoints or ways of living – I was threatened to have a KR written on me just because I said I had LRH’s death certificate and had questions about it and this was by my so called ‘best friend’ wow. (5) Being controlled and spoken down to, loss of respect and privacy that adults are due, once the person becomes a staff member or even as a public when the person becomes more involved. I was in total shock when I got yelled at thoroughly because I told the course sup I was available a certain number of days/nights, but not on the days/nights when he felt I should be there. Totally entheta and unacceptable behavior – definitely bad manners for sure! CRUSH. Had I not been a long time SCN I would NEVER have come back. Ever.

        1. Barney

          Like your comment. I am sharing some of my present views on what you write.

          The CONS you write about in my reality are due to: 1. case on Post. 2. lack of sufficient training.

          1. a viewpoint is neither positive, nor negative. It is a viewing-point. A judging thought is necessary for evaluating it to be whatever.
          2. when one is free of evaluation and invalidation, the notion of ‘compliance’ is
          gone from one’s mind. It has to do with the ability of handling force.
          3. survive as an individual is stronger than survive as a group which may result
          in the succumb of the group and eventually that of the individual as well.
          4. the misunderstanding of what the function of a KR is. In my reality, it clears
          whatever there is in opposition in the mind of the individual first,
          by which the clearing of what was opposed has already started ‘out there’.
          5. lack of mastering the TR-s on both sides.

          1. Any religion that keeps your individuality surpressed is called a cult anything that is under the control of one being which had the power to turn your closest loved ones from you is called a cult and i have first hand experience i just hope that you see the shameful error in your waits instead of defending a religion that promotes freedom but beats you down in to thinking one and only one way. Its sad that i had to lose my kids to see that. Its discraceful and an abomination to the world

      3. I seem to have missed this thread, but after the fact I’d like to share that I really like the idea of it, because it invites us to make distinctions and differentiate between specific elements under the umbrella catch-all term “Scientology”, which, while it has always been presented as one entire integrated subject from a single source, is actually a collection of principles and techniques from many different sources and conduits.

        What comes to mind for me are the contrasting elements therein:

        My 5 pros:

        (1) The beautiful spiritual principle of “abandon the use of force”, as articulated in The Phoenix Lectures.

        (2) The principle and approach of “Paralleling the mind” and “auditing the PC in front of you”- addressing the specific relevant material manifesting for each client.

        (3) The earliest magical moment(s) of Scientology processing, where something completely unexpected and wonderful happens at or near the beginning of one’s Scientology continuum.

        (4) The joy and fulfillment of the first experience(s) of successfully helping another to have a really good moment of release and enlightenment as a “co-auditor”, on some basic introductory service.

        (5) The comradery, the pleasure of being part of a group of friendly and spirited people enjoying a shared interest and purpose, and appreciation of each other, of finding people who understand and agree with your interests.

        My 5 cons:

        (1) The increasing experiencing, as one’s involvement continues and deepens, of militaristic enforcement of behaviors and attitudes and threats and intimidation to suppress unfiltered observation and expression.

        (2) The imposing of a uniform and standard sequence of processing techniques on all, regardless of one’s individual interests and reasons for seeking processing, and the labeling and blaming of clients as “resistive cases with hidden standards” when they express how that uniform approach’s failure to do what they were lead to expect is frustrating and disappointing them.

        (3) The unpleasant feeling many have when they conclude that they’ve reached the end of the road of going along with all the expenses and demands that have progressively increased over time as the positive effects of the experience have dwindled and been overshadowed by the unpleasant protocols of the organization.

        (4) The setting in of the overall attitude of “you are out-tech”, “the materials you trained on were compromised and tainted by suppressives on the line, and you now have to retrain at your own expense”, the constant labeling of auditors as “suppressive squirrels”, bringing about the condition of feeling at risk when submitting the session records to the “case supervisor”.

        (5) The disruptions and individuations of trusted and liked people being declared “suppressive persons” and enforced disconnections from them, the encouraged practice of writing reports on each other, the casual breaking of bonds between people as ordered and the casualness with which well-known people go from being regarded from being as exemplary models of “a good Scientologist” to being regarded as “a lying, destructive psychopath who was pulling the wool over our eyes”.

        Love, Dex

        1. Nice summary! Free knowledge becoming bound and corrupted by Hubbard and the Church he created.

          ________________________________

    2. haha Dragos, no need to worry! It is a simple exercise for the mind. I can think of 5 pros and 5 cons of anything, for example: “Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany” and also for eternal bliss of “Heaven.” Why would Scientology be hard to do this with? What I see is that those who can think for themselves will be able to do this and those who are ruled by their ideologies will not.

  2. PROS:

    1. The NOTION of a lay therapy and mentoring organization.
    2. The NOTION of science-based therapy/spirituality that allows for mythology in the proper light.
    3. The NOTION of promising specific and measurable outputs and abilities one can count on and measure by.
    4. The NOTION of “What is true for you is true for you” and that YOU hold the keys to your own discovery of reality via personal integrity.
    5. The NOTION of helping people be their best selves for a better world.

    CONS

    1. The REALITY of a lay therapy and mentoring organization being used to enslave people by design.
    2. The REALITY of claiming that something is scientific and historically accurate when it is not, and insisting that the resulting mythology (composed of the founder, his myths, and his methods) be taken as fact.
    3.The REALITY of not delivering promised, measurable outputs and demonstrable abilities and instead bait-and-switching subjects to subjective results that aren’t what was originally promised.
    4. Twisting people’s REALITY of what is true for them into the organization’s dogmas through repetitive, hypnotic acts toward pre-determined, experiential “end phenomena.”
    5. The REALITY of socially engineering a segment of people into willingly bankrupting their lives, losing those they love, and facing severe shunning and abuse for the wealth, power and immunity of one human being.

    1. Chris, quoting you:

      What I see is that those who can think for themselves will be able to do this and those who are ruled by their ideologies will not.

      That’s pretty good Chris.

      Dio

      1. Thank you Dio! Say, what’s gotten in to you lately? You’ve written like a dozen posts in a row where you are just discussing stuff like one of the gang without the rant. So easy to like! Hahaha

        1. Chris,

          I have always been that way. It is just that you guys are catching on and catching up. I was actually auditing you guys all the while and all the fleck, all the enthata was blowing off. Now most of it is gone. And you see a bit of the light.

          Dio

            1. Chris,

              It is therapy for my soul to have been able to help someone, and it warms my heart too.

              Dio

    2. William ….” The NOTION of “What is true for you is true for you” and that YOU hold the keys to your own discovery of reality via personal integrity.””” That is a good one and it is true that one have to discover what is in that self created universe…otherwise one do not know what is a entity, but what personal integrity has to do with discovering self-discovery—realization of what made one believe what one beliefs in? and how integrity fits into “”NOW””? You might have numbered your points but they flow into each other..

    3. katageek you have forgotten to add to your post that you never been in scientology and you are ZEN and you totally fallow the rules-regulations-belief and conduct your self accordingly with those agreements you have agreed to in order to belong into that group.
      Now I ask what make you judge so what you never experienced?
      ZEN it self is a box and while in that SELF CREATED BOX =beliefs those who are in it cant really see anything else outside of their own viewpoint which are the teaching of ZEN how to be.. how to think. how to behave…. yes.. Zen members gain the freedom within the rules of Zen and locked in tightly.

        1. 🙂 I love that realization….Thank you… I will be here waiting for the next one….in that you will tell me that there is no ”me” but you will tell me how you have come to that conclusion.
          I hope the weather will not cause hardship… Much love to you dear William.

            1. Fantastic, I have not heard that viewpoint before I really like it.. Thanks. Now care to tell how would you describe ”me” without that scientific explanation?

            2. I find the none verbal communication very intriguing, it has more meaning than mere written words ..
              You see to every question an answer is given in that instant when the question was received… it is up the ability of the communicator [if has it developed or not] to understand that silent answer.

  3. Great post. I’ll throw in a couple:

    Pros – i agree with yours. I’d add improved literacy. Confession done freely with compassion can be very helpful (like they do in AA). Freedom of communication (although this is taken away quickly). Some assists can help. Getting a better sense of yourself (although this is taken away quickly).

    Cons – The outrageous prices. Not allowed to not like any aspect of anything – don’t you dare say you think something didn’t work or you didn’t benefit. Intentional, forced shut down of critical thinking. “Processes” that can cause psychotic break or psychological damage. People becoming personality-less: loss of normal human emotion, a passionless, interest-less life, constantly stressed about pressure from the cult.

  4. Pros: 1. What is true for you is what you yourself have observed to be true.
    2. Ethics as a self-determined evaluation of optimum survival across the dynamics.
    3. A form of counseling with no eval or inval.
    4. Assessment and running of only those items that read.
    5. Training as half of the potential gain.

    Cons: 1. Ethics as an action enforced by the group or by your senior.
    2. Ethics condition determined solely by stats, which must always go up.
    3. Everyone runs the same OT case. Violates Pro #4.
    4. Scientology encompasses all 8 dynamics and therefore trumps everything else in your life.
    5. Scientology presented as the Only Hope for Man, in all the broad universe.

    1. I’m not sure your Con#4 is quite accurate. Scientology divides life into 8 dynamics, that’s right; but I read several times in their materials that it handles only 7 dynamics and 8th one is on the individual him/her-self.
      But of course, someone trying to enforce your wrongness could have said that; I experienced several times of being told something contrary to the written police when I was tried to be proven wrong.

      1. Vitek… 8th dynamic is not self– the individual. it can not be. when one advances on the Path individuality falls away. Self, I… me.. do not exist on that level… not even being-ness since that indicates being something . infinite-intangible is entity. entity only has one ability to experience the faction of a moment which could be called NOW.

    2. Aeolus; “”Scientology presented as the Only Hope for Man, in all the broad universe.”” HE WAS TALKING ABOUT MANKIND… and mankind is who are in meet body,believe that they are bodies, and they can be born have a life than die vanish when that body is no more and humankind are those who agreed an beliefs-behavior in the same manner and walk a very narrow path of beliefs. Being Human is nothing more than what he beliefs in.

  5. Pro: I found friends for life
    Con: I lost friends due to disconnection policy

    Pro: After learning study tech I could study better and faster
    Con: To extreme fixation on words instead of concepts with all this checkouts often on small common words etc.

    Pro: I found out about past lifes
    Con: I got evaluated by LRH with the “ot data” and “history of man” what my past should be as being …

    Pro: I had fun in the game of creating with friends a better world
    Con: It was not possible and is not possible to create a better world with the system of Scientology and a lot injustices occured in the name of it.

    Pro: I liked the excitement of the believe that I could be a REAL OT as a being, that I could basically created miracles in helping people, making them healthy again, making the blind to see again etc.., that I could perform magic like Harry Potter 😀
    Con: It was a lie that it could be done with the ot levels 😦

    1. Eddie…””Con: It was a lie that it could be done with the ot levels 😦
      Why give in why give up? you have the skills why not continue with solo auditor and find out for self that you really can do all what you can ”imagine”, you see, you could not imagine anything if it would not exist already. You know your dreams, go for it.. no one stopping you but self.

    2. Elizabeth, I’m not sure which hair you are splitting here. What I consider as a CON is Scientology presenting itself as the Only Path that can help. No other science, mental or spiritual practice will do; it’s either Scientology or doom. Of course out of the other side of his mouth LRH admits that education, nutrition and just peace and quiet are all valid therapies.

  6. +

    * That -in theory- all problems are created by oneself and thus can be resolved.
    * It has attracted some very good people.
    * It exposed some brainwashers.
    * Granting beingness (when it’s done)
    * Being static/being the dynamics.

    * Too much focusing on case –evaluating/invalidating thetans against the tone scale, their ‘upstatness’, their position on the Bridge etc
    * Mandatorily a group activity –you don’t do it by yourself.
    * This Bridge doesn’t bring about all the results that one would expect by studying Scientology’s theory. As a result some people think that there can be no more than the Bridge has to offer.
    * Scientology’s authorities –people that supposedly know better than others and impose themselves on others.
    * Scientology’s culture. I don’t like that it has become a way of living instead of being free to live how you yourself determine, based on your own ethics, likes/dislikes etc

    Cheers

  7. Pros:
    1. Communication as a focus to resolving problems, be it to yourself, to others, etc. This one factor alone probably gets more people involved in Scn than any other. It gets the most gain, and garners the most results (even in non-scientology environments, being outgoing and communicative make you “alpha”).
    2. The basic concept that, before the point where things went wrong, there is something not grasped or that you made a decision there which is causing problems now. This introspection is much more positive than “talk to me about your problems”, and is self-applicable.
    3. The Data Series as a technology. Statistics also play into this, but need to be taken with a grain of salt (not all downstats can be attributed to “suppressives”, nor is the fact sales are down because of no product a “reasonableness”). It’s gotten a bad rap since DM started spouting stuff about dogs leading the blind or whatever, but honestly, it is a great body of data to use to analyze a problem, from the simple (why won’t my computer turn on?) to the complex (software logging analysis indicates the issue stems from an include, but no includes are used in this function; yet still it returns a value).
    4. Auditors. I’ve had some awesome ones, and really, I think this is the cause of many gains; someone who cares enough to help you through whatever crosswise thinking in order to see you become more stable. They are rare, but a great auditor… they could run do birds fly and bring you good gains.
    5. The (admittedly buried) concept that you are a being of limitless powers, beholden to no one, and cannot be the adverse effect of anything unless you yourself desire it. This may not be accurate, or even true, but it sure gets you off your ass and at least dealing with a situation rather than rolling over and taking it, or begging to some force for guidance or a golden ticket.

    Cons:
    1. Doubletalk. One tape says “what’s true is true for you”, another policy states “anything other than Standard Tech, everything applied, 100% will see you burn in an afterlife that makes Hell pleasant by comparison”. The writings of Ron were rife with contradictions. Sadly, I spent a lot of time “correlating that part to every other part” so students would “understand” these contradictions. Even the “he changed his mind after further research” wears thin after the second major datum.
    2. Suppressives and PTS technology. As far as I can see, this whole body of knowledge contradicts everything else in Scn. It’s almost as if a different person wrote all these issues. This body of technology (along with justice measures to “handle SPs”). And the worst part about it: It only rarely works. I’ve handled, witnessed or FESed thousands of PTS-tech cycles. I’ve witnessed one work definitely, and that was on a clay table process.
    3. The idea that the organizational structure for the Church works for anything but The Church: And honestly, the jury is still out it working for the Church, either. Seriously,, I’ve never once seen a company stay solvent that used the org board. The one exception to this is a criminal organization that actually lives off of the Church. All the others decline and fall. The ones that had Scn owners that I did see succeed, never used WISE, admin tech, or even statistics. One is a great company and is still expanding. They don’t even have “hatting”, but use OJT.
    4. The idea that ethics needs to be “gotten in”. Ethics is a personal matter, but for some reason, Scientologists feel the need to “get everyone’s ethics in” or “that their ethics are out”. The data isn’t 100% clearly presented on ethics and Justice, so I blame the vague writing as well as the people implementing it.
    5. Not sure if this is “Scientology”, because this is mostly the practice of Scientologists altering what the data says to do. Evaluating for something, having the tools to handle it, and not handling it with the tools. Everytime I hear a Scn say “He has withholds”, I just want to tell them “well, apply the data you know to resolve it, then, because you not applying says (per the data) you’re reasonable and therefore have WHs too.”
    WHs are a bad example, since that’s been bastardized to the point of unworkability in the Church currently, but it’s the easiest one to make.
    It seems like “Scn tech” is used put a label on people (and this fits in with the whole “OT as status” or “Patron Sanctimonious” phenomenon), rather than to identify an issue to handle in their case.
    Which makes them technically no better than psychiatrists.
    Actually, worse, because drugs at least suppress the mental issues, not exacerbate them.

    1. Can I just give a “me too” to DAoT’s 5 pros and leave out the cons (I’ve beaten those to death here so many times already…) I’ve tried for a fortnight to get 5 pros and failed. All I can come up with is “I learned how to talk to people by just talking to people and the place just happened to be in an org, but really, it could have been anywhere”.

      Basically, I’m asking for a free pass just because I’m a real cool guy and I have an awesome nic 🙂

  8. The comm drills, the study tech (parts of it ), control drills ( upper indoc ), purif auditing ( great 🙂 ), confessional auditing , repair auditing ( asses, listing, nulling, etc. ), ups !!! these are not 5.
    The scientology mendacity to sell the OT powers, to rip off staff and public, from their vital resources.; The scientology lack of care for their priesthood ; The scientology assumption that anything goes if it seems to aid the optimal solution formula.; the total lack of interest in scientology on the subject of the real value of the condition of person.;The scientology lack of honesty to publish all the LRH materials.

  9. Pros:
    1. The affirmation that each of us is a timeless, self-created spirit, not a mere mortal body produced by evolution or god. Even dropping everything else, this one datum could start a new civilisation if it became a consensus throughout society.
    2. The clear distinction between the mind and the brain. As Dennis Stephens wrote, LRH “took psychology out of the brain and gave it back to the people”.
    3. The concept of a life static, with essential abilities to create and to know. And that this static can be anything on the eight dynamics.
    4. The experimental approach that LRH used to develop processes in the 1950s, with a willingness to abandon lines of research that were not fruitful and to integrate the observations of other scientologists and dianeticists.
    5. The importance of confront and communication in resolving problems; this became a workable therapy in dianetics and scientology, but it’s a principle of much wider application.

    Cons:
    1. Lack of respect for other branches of science and a refusal to communicate with workers in those disciplines or even read the current scientific literature. This was shown by LRH’s many solecisms such as ‘LSD is made from wheat rust’ or ‘radioactivity is soluble in water’.
    2. The dogma that LRH is the one source of scientology, when the contributions of Horner, Sharpe, Walters, Mayo and so many others are well documented. All other sciences have been developed by many generations of workers after (sometimes) one initial founder: we don’t say that genetics was Mendel’s exclusive property and call later geneticists ‘squirrels’.
    3. The insistence on a “patient/therapist” model for the application of scientology tech to individuals instead of developing more solo techniques for positive gain. The first auditing I had from a professional literally saved my life; but I quickly outgrew the need for an auditor. I suspect this is a general experience, with diminishing returns from being audited after a preclear becomes stronger than their own aberrations.
    4. Paramilitary ranks and discipline in the Sea Org, with all the bullying and degradation that are inseparable from military groups.
    5. The practice of enforced disconnection from anyone labelled as suppressive. This has become a more general cutting of communication lines for church members who are afraid to read or view anything that might be labelled entheta.

  10. PROS:

    1. The insistence to clear words when studying the subject has improved my vocabulary beyond what I probably would have accomplished by myself.

    2. TR 0-4, and the comm formula. I derived a great benefit from them and this continues for me to this day.

    3. A culture that frowned on recreational drug use, that was very effective, in my experience, despite the overall trend in society to increase the use of drugs.

    4. The attempt to merge science with philosophy. The accuracy and /or success or lack of it will be debated for years, but I think it was a noteable effort and was perhaps an early step in Integration.

    5. L11. This was life-changing for me. One of the few specific promised or promoted results that I achieved by doing this action.

    CONS:

    1. Lack of transparency in the organization, general lack of accountability, lying and general corruption and malfeasance high up in the organization, and down through the entire hierarchy now.

    2. A culture within the church that subordinates and suppresses the individual’s self-determinism to the interests of the church.

    3. Extremely high costs to do services or even to remain “in good standing”.

    4. General overhyped promises that do not and CANNOT meet pumped up expectations.

    5. Nearly all dedicated adherents are in a severely crippled state in their ability to think. This can often take years to undo.

  11. Well, this may be a cop-out but these are so exactly what I think too. How can I alter? I’ll try. Don’t forget to laugh at my lazy ways!

    My five main positives about Scientology:

    * The communication drills: I have seen these do wonders in me and had a good results in looking at another person.
    * The importance of helping a person really be Here and Now:
    * The auditing principles of not invalidating or evaluating for the person is a real gem.
    * The auditing processes that help a person sort out why he turned to drugs, therefor able to leave them.
    * Having new friends with like minds.

    My five main negatives about Scientology:

    * The notion that Scientology is The Only Way – that it is complete and consistent, that it represents a one-size-fits-all.
    * The worshipping of the super-human, of Homo Novis, of OT powers.
    * The total absence of openness and transparency in research (or the lack thereof). Forbidding the looking in other areas for truths.
    * The branding/trademarking/copyrighting of Scientology and the attempt to compartment Scientology as “a body of knowledge” or something special.
    * The focus on enemies, war, battle and the attacking of anything critical or tangential to Scientology (disconnection and the lack of love come under this heading). OSA’s complete control by insidious means and destroying any good that was available.

  12. 1…Since my first encounter was with a Field Auditor in 73 who’s incredible skills: knowing how to handle a shy, introverted person and through the 3 intensive basic auditing he delivered my life has taken 180degree direction for the better.
    2…Communication Course was the second step after the Intensives and that Course has again brought transformation by restoring some of the confidence: I have realised that an withdrawn shy person can be different.
    3.. The basic Courses, The Study tech helped me how to learn English and again the courses opened up doors to different viewpoints which brought great changes again for the healthier-open inter action with others.
    4… for the first time because of auditing and the courses I have taken I have seen I could change the direction of my life and I had..
    5….I had hope.. gained purpose, direction, realised I can do!!!!
    6…It has given me a immensely valuable lesson: what is CONFRONT and what one can accomplish by having that ability in facing the challenges of daily life.
    7… solo auditing skills by using that has given me back the healthy whole body after being in a major car accident: I was told that the spine will collapse within few years and I will be in a wheelchair as I will lose the movement of the limbs.
    8..The IQ reading was a measurement if auditing works or not: it was greatly affected by gaining different realities over the years, it was 184 before the car accident-head an collision in which I have lost the ability to understand the meaning of others speech and I could not read and hardly walk , new test was done after the accident in 1 ½ year[8 hours of it] at the University of Washington and after the evaluation by the staff I was informed that the IQ have changed dramatically now cannot be measured it has become so high on the spiritual artistic side. So I don’t have one… Free entities don’t need instrumental assessments to indicate where they are at.
    9…. scientology viewpoint and courses-auditing and solo auditing are only tools and they only have valuable if they are used and I have, not only has changed the life I have now being anchored to his body but the use of the skills as a solo auditor taken me well beyond the barriers complications of beliefs that one has only one life that, we born-live but for a few years and we die and that is the end of our existence in this Universe. Use of the tools has erased the narrow viewpoints of a human being and from there I could become the citizen of the Universe and further progress allowed me to enter into the Universe where beingness do not exist. Entity simply is.
    I could give dozens of more viewpoints which are on the positive side.
    Oh.. so many bad things.. hundreds of them.
    1…The Bridge as it is laid out… should never have been laid out: there are NO LEVELS EXISTING ON THE PATH OF ENLIGHTENMENT!
    Same goes for what will be the END phenomenon that to was very wrong, since each person’s reality is different. That indicates that LRH did not have a clue what he was talking about when talking spirituality.
    2… ethic handling.. imposing heavy rule should never happen.
    3… having SO… organizations, army –ranks of uniformed staff are not an Path of Enlightenment.
    4… LRH’s and scientology its viewpoints about what is spiritual not represented accurately.
    5… interfering- controlling dictating lives is not on the Path of Enlightenment.
    6… over charging for services, demanding money, giving favours for money, giving ranks out, signalling out those who donate as better-valuable members all that is not on the Path of Enlightenment.
    6.. misinforming for monetary gains!!! That is a crime itself.
    7… their laws, their demands, their reality how they view the public, how they treat the members and how the members allow to be treated them self by agreeing with the conditions is the indicator where the church.
    8… Secrecy: demanding silence on material… was not OK.. but he used secrecy as a bait to sell, also locking up documents-briefcases is used to make that material important valuable and that too is a selling point.
    The church-scientology does not give one spiritual freedom, do not give abilities, one buys a package and it is up to the person what will do with that information and the church do not change people, one has the freedom to do that for self.. that is not the churches responsibility how one handles-creates one own life.
    Books, and hundreds of negative viewpoints are all on the internet.. But the positive is there and negative only can exist if there is positive.. that is the law of the MEST Universe..

    Positive are the outcome of COGNITIONS and they are which have not only changed the persons reality but effected the Planet and the BILLIONS OF SPIRITUAL ENTITIES who had sessions and cognitions because they too has sessions from solo auditors.. great amount of new reality come into existence because of cognitions and that changes the UNIVERSE IT SELF.
    Elizabeth Hamre.

  13. It’s all hogwash to me.

    It’s common knowledge that LRH’s “teachings” are basically things he recycled from other people. As such, the eventual “gains” cannot be contributed to Scientology, but to the original inventor of the technique applied. Overall, Scientology is much more damaging to people than it is positive, and glorifying it as a religion is just a big fat joke.

      1. I don’t play by the rules, baby 😉

        Is it possible for me to read the two articles mentioned on page 160 (I think it was) in your book ‘Nittenåttifire’?

        1. I didn’t expect you to play by the rules… and only because of your coolness, I will let you off without a warning 😉

          I will check the book to see what you are referring to (tomorrow).

  14. PROS:
    1. Emphasizes communication to resolve human problems.
    2. Auditor’s Code which is generally practiced for real, plus many platitudes such as “The Aims of Scientology; Creed of the Church; What is Greatness,” and others. Many beautiful bits of prose scattered throughout.
    3. Promotion of healthy drug-free lifestyles to improve physical and mental well being.
    4. Study and word clearing as a basic resolution to one’s selfish and exploitative baser instincts and fixed conditions.
    5. Use of administrative scales (programming) to align one’s purposes for the execution of tasks or of short, medium and long term goals.
    6. Emphasis on “directed looking” (auditing) for the resolution of one’s mental problems.

    CONS:
    1. LYING by using public relations, “shore stories,” willingly overtly and covertly lying to cover its actual activities, size, statistics, membership, scientific method, and effectiveness. Elaborate lying using PR (public relations technology) and insincerely “positioning” next to laudable activities such as disaster relief. Perpetual river of lying from Hubbard about his background, qualifications, and education. An imaginative storyteller and grifter at heart, it seems that Hubbard was both a congenital and pathological liar. A true anti-social personality who threw everyone who ever tried to be a help, support, or friend to him under any convenient bus including his long-suffering wife, Mary Sue Whipp.
    2. Exaltation of the individual, promising god-like powers under the name of operating thetan and thus creating the individuation which it alternately harps against. This is technically for me the wrong goal of auditing.
    3. Physical and mental abuse of Sea Org such as poor or little food rations, devoid of physical exercise, bullying of seniors toward juniors and tattle-tale environment of peer to peer.
    4. Management failure with attitudes of rank makes right, that Scientology is right when it is wrong, that evil purposes are the source of Scientology’s problems rather than that they are created by the absolute dismal failure and enemies lines drawn by Scientology Administration Technology.
    5. Standard religious poppycock metaphors about the history of man.

  15. Positives:

    1. Auditing and the Bridge as a (or one) means to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics.
    2. The principles of communication and TRs (for use in both auditing and in life).
    3. The ethics tech as it was originally laid out, i.e. as a personal thing based on rationality towards the optimum solution along the 8 dynamics.
    4. Study tech and word-clearing tech
    5. Delineation of the basic laws of existence: all the various axioms (including The Logics, etc.), the scales, the charts, The Factors, and the ARC and KRC triangles

    Negatives:
    1. Not placing what should have been great emphasis on training and/or co-auditing. (In the early years “Scientologist” meant being an auditor, by definition.)
    2. Not encouraging a choice of paths for individuals, while maintaining The Bridge for those who chose to follow that route.
    3. Forbidding Scientologists to discuss Scientology – or, as a general rule, any other restrictions of thought and speech.
    4. Placing too extreme an importance on Scientology as an organization, thus violating the premises of the subject itself.
    5. Last but not least: the lack of attention to the importance of ADMIRATION and the omission of a specific tech for its practice, even though LRH did state that it had the highest value of anything in the universe. Currently, I see Admiration as the Scientology equivalent of what other great wisdoms call Love, Unconditional love, Universal Love, Christ Consciousness, Enlightenment , Transcendence, etc.

      1. Thanks, Chris. About the only thing I haven’t expressed before is the point at the end about admiration so that’s what I’m thinking you’re referring to, and I am pleased that you may see truth in it too. (We can practice on each other 😉 ) Anyway, thanks for the ack, also from my heart.

          1. Hey, thanks for that. You at your best are also very enjoyable! Now if we can just keep our best selves going… (that’s a positive postulate 🙂 ).

      2. marildi
        ‘admiration is the highest value in this universe’ yes…IN this universe. Who is it generated by towards whom or what? Can you see the duality here? Can you see that as long as there is value, there is validation and with that appears, however slightly its opposite, invalidation?

        1. Marianne, I don’t think it can be put into words any better than that – because when you use words, there can always be a duality seen as expressed. Even with “love” or “awakening” or “enlightenment.”

  16. Hey Geir and All,
    Wow, what a cool idea to titillate the completeness of being, doing, & having, hey?
    So, okay then, here goes:
    1) The first time (via TR-O) being introduced to an indestructable, immortal being, with no fixed position in space or time….. me.
    2) The Factors, Logics, Dn &Scn AXIOMS, and Scales adequately explaining our existence and that of the universe.
    3) Actual two – way comm with the genius who uncovered the above, for all to benefit from….. The man whom I came to love and admire… as the father I never had.
    4) The miracle of the Auditing Technology, ARC, and thus the unlocking and fulfillment of ourselves and potential.
    5) Meeting so many like minded travelers along the journey of self discovery.
    —————-
    1) The unbalanced dedication and devotion required by The Bridge “system” at the expense of necessary quality time required for a balanced family life.
    2) Ridiculous pricing when required for a family of modest means.
    3) Cold chrome steel robotism, regg’ing, and ‘the group is all,” mentality of staff.
    4) The “find out for yourself,” of the lower levels, being substituted on the “upper levels” by “what to audit” and “pre-ordained” incidents, the substance of which could/has be described as hallucinatory and / or the product of a really vivid imagination.
    5)The lie, (IMHO) that one is “at risk” upon attaining “clear” until audited up to OT3.

      1. Thanks for the comments, Geir. If truth be told, I would have just copied your 5+5!
        That’s how close i felt to your views. 🙂 BTW, now this is a blog, where any roving thetan, who might have wondered “off course, while at sea,” could happily touch down on your heli-pad, and be assured of a nice hot cuppa theta, to warm his / her chilly ‘bones.’ 🙂

    1. Hey “racing”. JFYI here’s a paragraph from a confidential bulletin that might explain why LRH thought Clears were at risk:

      “A Clear can go into the valence of, and see pictures of BTs and clusters; makes the mistake of thinking they’re his incidents and pictures, and down he goes. This doesn’t necessarily affect the person himself, but it does affect the body – severely. Most of these BTs are dormant, dead, way below unconsciousness. There are lower states of nonexistence that these BTs are in. Their mass and density are great, and they are packed in on the body. When activated these impinge on the body as they are physically attached to it, and via the body are connected to the being, resulting in illness, possibly worse – the pc can be severely incapacitated. If he’s a Dn or Scn Clear and not up to OT III, he’s at risk. All you can do is get him up to OT III so it can be handled. Clears should be told they’re at risk until OT III, and shouldn’t stay in the Non-Interference Zone. After OT III they can be handled on NED for OTs. And you don’t run Power, R6EW or the Clearing Course on a Dianetic Clear. They go straight onto OT I, then OT II, then OT III. (They’ll need to learn to solo audit on the Solo Auditor Course first of course.)” (HCOB 15 Sep78 II)

      1. After having done it all up and including OT 8, I now see the above as LRH’s somewhat convoluted True Scotsman Fallacy. You see what I mean?

        1. I think I do, Geir.The incredible thing for me, not having done ANY at all, is that I am today bereft of THAT “mandatory” paradigm viewing lens, that so many seem to think is essential equipment. It’s just sooooo much easier, to just simply look, and see what’s there, without all the frigg’n additives, like tinting, rose-colored, mirror finish, BT detection sensors, brightness inhibitors, etcetera…. Have I gone too far here?

          1. Not at all, my friend. Just giving a fuck is enormously liberating. That is my plateau where leaving this life some day will be just fine.

            1. Yeah, your right Geir! If the earth leakage unit works on cue, it’ll lose me2 🙂

            2. ‘giving a fuck is liberating’ what has happened to the ‘not’? Or I have misunderstood something so far? fucking is actually giving life…at whatever
              level of life-consciousness

              a ‘plateau’ is motionless in my view….the other side is the fire…actually the two together is life for me….

              ‘leaving this life some day will be just fine’ oh yes…but I feel a slight arrogance in it….have you experienced it in its totallity so that you can be sure of what you say?

            3. I shard that with some friends. We all can use a good f**king laugh, thanks 🙂

        2. True Scotsman? You talking about a man wearing a kilt without any undergarments? 😀

          Kidding aside, no, I don’t see it as a True Scotsman. The description LRH gave may not be the isness, but I didn’t see it as a logical fallacy because it wasn’t an attempt “to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws of an argument” (per the definition) – it was simply an explanation, valid or not, of how Clears are at risk. Basically, the idea I got was that a Clear can mis-own various phenomena and that is what puts him at risk – the mis-ownership.

          I’m still “in the middle” on this whole question. Your viewpoint seems just a plausible to me as the viewpoint of others – who feel quite certain that what is handled on NOTs are actual beings as they consider they are able to recognize beings as quite different from mental mock-ups.

            1. I suppose, if I were to view it as a counter-argument. But couldn’t the same be said, then, of your own paradigm for NOTs phenomena?

            2. “A Clear is a Homo Novis with total recall, no colds, fully rational”

              “We have produced many Clears”

              “Oh, the test failed? We simply move the goal post. A Clear doesn’t have total recall anymore.”

              “We have produced Clears!”

              “Failed the test again. We move the goal post again”

              “And again. And again”

              “At least the Clear doesn’t have his own reactive mind, his own unconscious mental pictures.”

              “Oh, you still have pictures?”

              “Well, they are not REALLY yours… [ponder, ponder, imagine, invent]… BTs!”

              “We’ll just let the ‘Clears’ chase BTs until hell freezes over, or until they think they can’t find any more and let them attest to… OT 7”

              “If they still have trouble, we’ll just tell them they have more BTs to chase – as in ‘No True Scotsman'”

              “Voilá Hamster Wheel! Cult mechanics upheld”

            3. Okay, I get what you had in mind now. And I have to admire the creative way you laid it out (yes, practicing my new philosophy, but I do mean it 😉 ). However, I have a question related to what you wrote here:

              “Well, they are not REALLY yours… [ponder, ponder, imagine, invent]… BTs!”

              Would you not agree that the “entities” (whatever they are) that are addressed on OT levels are in fact a different area or type of case than what gets addressed on the lower parts of the Bridge, and that it requires different procedures to handle?

              Because if you do agree with that, then I don’t think LRH was just “imagining” or ”inventing” something in order to cover up that “Clears” had not actually achieved “life-changing gains” and “something profound” (quoting you from the previous blog post) – in spite of the fact that he had to keep changing the definition as research continued. It seems to me, from the data I have, that in his research he factually did discover a type of case barrier that was different from what he had previously known about, and that it required a new handling.

              Your thoughts?

            4. Marildi: “Would you not agree that the “entities” (whatever they are) that are addressed on OT levels are in fact a different area or type of case than what gets addressed on the lower parts of the Bridge, and that it requires different procedures to handle?”

              Me: No, I do not agree with that. I think one could handle most types of case with a technique similar to the NOTs Valence Technique. I think the digging into past is a complete via.

            5. Do you think that most pcs would be able to even spot those “areas” around or near the body that is required with NOTs procedures? And, from what I understand, it also needs to be pretty precise or else a lot of complexity and difficulty will result.

              This is apparently based on the experience of more than a few pcs and is a matter of research record. Do you know of research that came up with different results?

            6. I think anyone could run any problem by addressing the problem exactly as it is until the person stops creating it. The exact procedure on NOTs is also a via to that extent.

              Research; People have now run NOTs as though they are not addressing entities but in fact addressing what they address as their own creations. And one person in particular (an extremely highly trained person – thrown in to ensure you are not waving it off) reported much more gain when run this way.

            7. Thanks. That’s the kind of data I’m interested in.

              However, it sounds like that person is still using the same NOTs method of spotting and using telepathy – and that s/he is someone who has already made great gains and is already a higher level pc. So I’m still interested in your answer to my question.

            8. No, that person is using the technique of spotting a problem and asking What/Who with the realization of “Me” on the Who-step being his cognition that he is indeed creating that problem/issue (no entity in sight).

            9. I did get that the person isn’t considering that it is entities being audited. But is the “spotting a problem” a matter of spotting the location of a mass? That’s the part that I am questioning whether a lower level pc could do, which you apparently are assuming is possible with at least most of them. Has there been any research on that?

            10. Per the materials, spotting “issues” would not be running NOTs. It wouldn’t be a NOTs process if it didn’t entail spotting masses – in, on or near the body – and focusing the auditing command into a particular mass having a precise size, shape and location. I get that it’s like the TR-8Q drill (which I’ve done), where you drill putting a thought into large or small spots, narrow or wide, and of whatever shape.

            11. I would but you don’t exactly qualify as a lower-level pc. Sorry, you’re overqualified. 😛

            12. Marildi: “But couldn’t the same be said, then, of your own paradigm for NOTs phenomena?”

              Me: Same old, same old. The proof of the burden lies with the person claiming the existence of something. Occam’s Razor defaults to No BTs. Just like No Faeries. No Santa Clause. No Easter Bunny. The invention of BTs to justify why the Bridge to Clear couldn’t produce Clears is a contrived justification for failure IMO.

            13. Geir: “Same old, same old.”

              Well, firstly, as I indicated in the above comment, I hadn’t understood where you were coming from. But more to the point – my intention in giving that LRH quote about Clears being susceptible to the effects of “entities” wasn’t just to repeat some “same old, same old” but to perhaps have a new discussion about whether or not the gains in awareness that Clears experience might in fact (as LRH inferred) relate to making them more susceptible to this other area of case. From what you wrote, I take it your answer is that you don’t agree with that.

            14. I thought you had already agreed that it isn’t the case that there was no “lack of results” where you stated:

              “At the same time I have talked to many who have done the Clearing Course, and most have had great, even life-changing gains from doing that step on the Bridge. So clearly it does Something profound.”

              And yes, we’ve already agreed that the definition itself kept changing.

            15. Aha! Eureka! That’s it— just feed ’em spin, spin, spin– until you get ’em to spin, spin, spin, spin! Then just tumble and hang out to dry! THEN repeat, but this time, add in wash, drain, wash, drain, wash, drain, then spin, tumble, & hang out to dry. Now, using the heavy (su)press machine in your ‘iron-like’ grip, press out any unwanted (resisting) ‘wrinkles’, and fold neatly into the shapes required. Finally, stack away, into regimented piles according to quality,($$$) service capacity (exploitability), and rags and off-cuts! (use to wipe spilled blood off floors with!)

              Och, whit’s this all abooot nooo, Angus? Ye not making any sense at all! Ay explaiiined tooo the young lassie, that therrre’s absoloootly nothin’ worrrn under mi’ kilt! It’s all in perrrrfect worrrrking ORDERRRR! Bletthherring Sassenacchh!

            16. Whoa, more creativity! You are pretty good at satire, and now parody. Make that “racy parody.” We should call you Racy Racing. 😀

              (Hey, but what happened to the erstwhile loyal laddie?)

            17. Brilliant analysis on the cult dynamics of Scientology, these are notions I hadn’t thought of before on Scientology’s use of the True Scotsman Fallacy.

              Logical Fallacies as CULT DYNAMICS? I should have seen that coming. How evasive the obvious sometimes is …

              Tony Ortega has a great article by Jeff Hawkins about how the notion of PTS uses social engineering to create a submissive human. He doesn’t call it social engineering, but that is what it is.

              http://tonyortega.org/2013/12/06/how-does-scientology-take-over-a-mind-jefferson-hawkins-tells-us-about-pts/

              Suggested Post for You: “How to you educate children to be able to spot and obviate social engineering.”

            18. Yes – that post on Ortega’s is brilliant.

              It would be good to create a course in critical thinking for children to proof them against cult dynamics of different kinds – from religious to political to other social venues.

            19. Geir, didn’t you spot the misstatement that Hawkins made? It’s on a very basic piece of PTS tech!

              Seriously, I’m going to be disappointed in you if you can’t spot it. 🙂

            20. Geir
              You earlier gave an excellent example when your son was sad and you asked him
              who held the key to his emotions. He answered that he did. Right that instant he cheered up. The same can be done with a ‘negative’ thought against another, that is being critical. The thought confronted, negativity, criticism is gone. Also ‘SP’ and
              ‘PTS’. A ‘course’ like that would help children to be progressively aware of what thoughts they ‘connect to’ and/or resist and from that plateau of awareness a willful
              exchange would be possible which, in my present view, is the source-potential of
              creative innovations.

      2. Marildi –

        Why is a clear all of a sudden at risk of “misownership” of the cases of his BTs, when before he was clear he wasn’t?

        Can you tell me why this is not just a cruel and introverting trick that LRH played on Scientologists to get them to believe they were in danger so they would have a reason to pay him more money after they reached their goal of “Clear” in Scientology?

        You have not gotten sick or died from dealing in these confidential materials, when LRH told you that you would – as another one of his cruel tricks on Scientologists – so why are you presenting this information from him about “misownership” as if you believe him and do not see the outpoints all over the pace here?

        Alanzo

  17. Pros:

    It is unlikely I would be alive today if I did not see a Dianetics commercial on TV and then get the book and read It.

    Long story short:
    I was contemplating suicide about 15 minutes before I saw the commercial, on TV.

    1. I read about close to half of the book and contacted the cos and arranged for a demo. The auditor was a true pro. I had a key out for a few hours after. It was amazing. I felt like I was pulled out from under a rock pile (due to 40 yrs of abuse and suppression and living on false and limiting operating data- being PTS).

    2. Again long story short, I did the Personal values and Integrity course and the Ups and downs course (in the cos) and that was an eye opener too.

    I was only in the cos for a few days before getting declared for asking the qual why he was still coo coo after being in the cos for 19 yrs, if scn is so good?

    Because I had incredible life saving wins within a few days. I could not understand why he was in the cos for 19 yrs and still coo coo. It looked like he had no wins. He was still a sorry mess.

    3. Many yrs later I realized that a person is successful in life inversely proportional to the number of assholes (SPs) in his life. That is very valuable knowledge.

    Then I did the science of survival home study course. Again one of the most valuable things I have ever done. I use it all the time,

    And the PTS / SP home study course.

    Five months after being declared someone told me about the fz and then I acquired all the scn text books and subscribed to the Free Spirit Journal Magazine ( editor Hank Levin) and IVy international, (Editor Ant Philips). These publications were a life line to sanity for me. I could never wait to get the next issue in the mail.

    Then I read all the texts which gave me a lot of stable data, and since then I got about 400 hrs of auditing and learned to solo audit.

    These courses and auditing are an integral part of my stable operating data. It is part of what I am today and the reason I am still here and getting better and better everyday.

    Along with the books and a few tapes, the fz publications were basically most of my makeshift bridge. I added other non scn stuff to complete it as best I could.

    Cons:

    Well, all I can say is that the cons are that scn is such a complicated mixed blessing. Swine will always trample pearls in their manure. Prostitutes will defile holy stuff.

    I was not in the cos for long, so I have not experienced much of the insanity that went on in the cos, like those who were in the cos for long periods of time.

    I wised up to what was going on in the cos very quickly and questioned it, which got me declared. It was not funny then, but today it is funny.

    Before I knew who DM was, as part of my security check and pre declare process by management, I was shown a video of DM speaking and asked what I thought of him? I said there appears to be something wrong with him. That did not go over well with them.

    Then there is the bad side of Hubbard.

    For yrs I wondered why and how anyone can make such a mess of such a good thing?

    Today after 16 yrs it is my evaluation and experience that the reason scn went so wrong, is that it is basically missing the Jesus factor. Plus a few more lessor factors.

    The wise will figure that out and make scn work the way it is supposed to, that is give them wisdom, knowledge and understanding and ultimately increasingly mastery of life.

    Fools will get caught in the trap or be left out in the cold spinning and confused and lost.

    I think it is safe to speculate that, that might just be the way it was meant to be.

    It is a screening process to separate the wise from the fools.

    Many are called and few are chosen.

    And……………

    We learn much more from adversity, mistakes and failures than successes.

    Bill Gates, said success is a lousy teacher. It makes intelligent people think they cannot fail.

    So always be thankful for all your failures, mistakes, conflicts, and adversities.

    Having an open mind, a sense for detecting truth, and a positive optimistic attitude, and attitude of a spirit of play and being thankful for crap has a magical tendency to turn failure, mistakes and adversity into wins, in often a very short time.

    Calm seas do not a good sailor make.

    This world will screw you, punish you and make you suffer until you smarten up and do things right.

    The way to the kingdom of heaven is straight and narrow.

    And no one enters it unless through me. Jesus>

    Dio

  18. Geir, you asked for 5-5 points and I am offering here 1-1 which sum up the essence of what I see. I may though come up with a longer answer, as the topic
    is worth it.
    Pro
    To the length I studied the data (auditing tech, ethics, admin) and to the length I gave and got auditing, all the data Ron researched and put for observation can be observed in life, can be as-is-ed, thus result in Life’s aliveness and knowingness.

    I see your listed 5 pros the way you do, so I won’t repeat them here.

    Con
    It requires from each staff member and also from the person that whatever course
    or auditing action there is, it is completed fully so that the awareness of the person
    in that topic/area would be pure awareness thus get the result of Life’s clear observing ability and also its knowingness how to act in that topic. When it happens
    so, it is becoming a pro, when it doesn’t, it becomes the source of complaints.

          1. I am even a less rule follower than you are and if you sincerely say that it is all
            ‘placebo’ (pleasing) then you will please me by not asking that please.

  19. Geir
    From the experience I have when I was the auditor, the person loves digging into the past up to the point when he sees that he can create whatever from then on.
    Or not create. That is can or cannot have any havingness on will. Can be fine with no havingness also.
    It alligns with what you say about auditing valences.

    1. Wow! I just see it that it can also be true for a ‘Clear’ or an ‘OT8’ – lack of havingness, when being ‘no-thing’ is not tolerated, can be the source of a ‘cold’, ‘illness’…coupled with a sense of ‘duality’, that is the ability of ‘duplication’ is not yet perfect, both can be prone to a little bit of a future ‘case’….

      and yes, marildi…I see some persons who are aware, yet unable to be aware of what is surrounding their bodies, thus cannot as-is that…not to mention real, effortless confront…..what you posted about a ‘Clear’ being in danger makes perfect sense for me…even perceive that

      1. Geir

        An ‘entity’ can be an emotion, a thought, a sensation….all originate from Life. So,
        the meaning of ‘me’ is Life….further and further in its totality. The non-dual Buddha perception is also this. There is only the me=life=seeing=itself=in=all.

      2. Thanks, Marianne! Your direct perceptions are a source of valuable data and very helpful!

  20. marildi
    You are right. A lower ‘case’ cannot see that mass/energy you are writing about above.
    The first time, many years ago when I finished a co-audit of Self-Analysis, there were some people in another room. I perceived very clearly the ‘bank’ through which they were communicating. Also, the sorrounding energies. That was the first time I saw it. ‘Meditation’, if not ‘True’ meditation cannot as-is that, which I mention
    because I also see that in case of some persons. There is no substitute, in my reality, for being awareness + self inquiry by which whatever additive can dissolve.
    It can happen also in ‘no time’, that is there are sudden ‘shifts’, without even viewing.

  21. Thanks again for expressing your awarenesses! Can you please say more about “True” meditation?

    1. One may start with this. At a point one will stand up from ‘sitting’ as there is enough
      awareness wherever one is to be, perceive and act. One may also sit down from time to time.

      1. You will find the second part on You Tube. This is the practical part. Quite effective
        in handling ‘masses, energies’, spotting, clearing thoughts….life-awareness, that is,
        which each of us is basically…
        When I was doing it after ‘awakening’ for a couple of months, it resulted in a much more alive body and higher and higher awareness….also, a smoother and smoother flow of love embracing life….

  22. Five Real Gems of Scientology

    1. Joining with other people who are deep-thinking non-conformists and rebels who do not obey the milquetoast version of middle class existence that other religions attract.

    2. Having a place to go where you work out moral dilemmas and ethical problems that you face in life, where they actually have jobs like “Course Supervisor”, “Ethics Officer” and “Chaplain” whose full time job it is to help you do that.

    3. Having answers that are as simple as you want them to be that will address virtually anything in life that you want them to address for you.

    4. A deep emotional satisfaction that life is simple and easily encapsulated within a single philosophy, and with the right reference, you can fully resolve anything.

    5. Real insight that comes from being asked auditing questions that are compiled to get you to examine all aspects of your existence – especially aspects that never would have occurred to you on your own.

    Five Real Disasters of Scientology

    1. Earnestly and energetically following a set of morals that were created to protect and to enrich the Scientology organization and its Founder, at the expense of yourself and sucking your own self interests dry.

    2. Being socially coerced with Skinner box operand conditioning techniques to damage your own relationships, financial interests, and goals in life for the good of Scientology, while you abandoned the things you most wanted to achieve in life using it.

    3. Smothering your own thinking, spiritual creativity, and infinite genius with a fixed ideology that belittles and demonizes your life as a human being, and makes you degrade yourself until you detest your existence and convince yourself that you are trapped on a prison planet, and only The Smotherer – Scientology – can ever free you again.

    4. Realizing that you have allowed yourself to be emotionally manipulated and socially coerced into derailing your own life and aspirations for the grubby material gain of others.

    5. Waking up to the fact that you have sold your soul to a cartoon caricature of a philosophy, and wondering how the fuck you ever let that happen.

    There.

    I did it.

    Can I participate in the discussion now?

    Alanzo

      1. Chris, you too – see my question to Alanzo below and tell me if you can answer it. Let’s see you if you guys can do any better than Jeff Hawkins…

        1. Marildi: Chris, you too – see my question to Alanzo below and tell me if you can answer it. Let’s see you if you guys can do any better than Jeff Hawkins…

          CT: That you cannot see that a person could do this exercise without being passive-aggressive is telling. I was certainly surprised that you cannot fathom Alanzo being sincere in his Pro-Scientology remarks. They were pro-Scientology and not sarcastic. One thing about discussions with people who adhere to fixed ideas is that if one does not agree, then one can never convince them that one knows what they are talking about.

          I’m not going to do an open-ended homework reading assignment for you, but if you have a question or want me to remark about something, then if you will say it or ask it, I will answer back.

    1. Hi Al, 🙂

      Long time no see. Maybe Valkov will show up now and we can have a good old Val & Al Show!

      Hey, since you’ve bemoaned the PTS tech in your post, I’ll challenge you to the same test I challenged Geir with (which he hasn’t responded to so I guess he’s stumped). You’ve probably read Ortega’s interview with Jeff Hawkins on the PTS tech, but I’ll post the link below in case.

      The challenge is – can you spot the gross mis-statement Hawkins made about the PTS tech? It’s really basic too – what an MU!

      http://tonyortega.org/2013/12/06/how-does-scientology-take-over-a-mind-jefferson-hawkins-tells-us-about-pts/

      1. p.s. Oops, I must have been thinking of someone else’s post. I guess you didn’t mention PTS tech. But I still challenge you on the above.

        Btw, I don’t know if Geir should allow you to participate in the thread or not. Your “Real Gems of Scientology” were dripping with sarcasm. I mean dripping! Can’t you come up with 5 sincere positives about Scientology?

        1. Marildi, Al slips through, since he’s coated himself with that slippery sauce of insouciance, that defies becoming effect of ‘hhrrummmph’ retorts & reactions! 🙂

          1. race: Marildi, Al slips through, since he’s coated himself with that slippery sauce of insouciance, that defies becoming effect of ‘hhrrummmph’ retorts & reactions! 🙂

            chris: I don’t understand your post. Taking it two ways youre saying Alanzo doesn’t care which isn’t true. Another way that he doesn’t change course due to nonsense and quibbling over nothing, I get that.

            1. Chris, do you get that this is maybe all just insouciance? 🙂

            2. If you say so, I will take it that way. I am only just beginning to get any feel for your writing as you are new. As we go along, I will infer better.

        2. Marildi: Btw, I don’t know if Geir should allow you to participate in the thread or not. Your “Real Gems of Scientology” were dripping with sarcasm.

          KG: The first five benefits Alanzo listed didn’t seem sarcastic to me. What they seem to do is allude to innocence and the comfort one receives from experiencing a deep belonging and acceptance of a people (and an ideology) that one deems trustworthy.

          I found them different than the rest, hauntingly honest, vulnerable to attack and given in a spirit of a practiced bravery.

          1. KG, you are right in part. If he had just toned it down a bit, though, it might have come across less strained. Al has a wonderful dramatic flair but, to my taste, sometimes leans too much in the direction of MELOdramatic. But there’s no disputing people’s tastes!

            1. Marildi: KG, you are right in part. If he had just toned it down a bit, though, it might have come across less strained. Al has a wonderful dramatic flair but, to my taste, sometimes leans too much in the direction of MELOdramatic. But there’s no disputing people’s tastes!

              Chris: You didn’t read Alanzo’s post, did you?

          2. KG: I found them different than the rest, hauntingly honest, vulnerable to attack and given in a spirit of a practiced bravery.

            CT: +1. I would’ve written that if I had seen Marildi’s nonsense first. I do not see how she could gotten sarcasm from Alanzo’s sincere commentary and pro remarks.

          3. I agree with Katageek.

            I personally experienced this: What they seem to do is allude to innocence and the comfort one receives from experiencing a deep belonging and acceptance of a people (and an ideology) that one deems trustworthy.`

            And so far it is only Alanzo that has recognized the power of that naivety, the glamor and genuine excitement of being swept up in the grand crusade to save the very fabric of the universe through space opera, magic, countless lifetimes. It was grand, invigorating, exciting to belong to something so powerful and so benevolent. It felt great. It felt so great that it may even be true, but sadly, as Alanzo has pointed out, it was disastrously and horribly mixed with the awful list of cons he chronicled.

            I well remember the sickening feeling of understanding the depth of betrayal of Scientology as it took full advantage of my goodwill and earnestness. I don`t think I have ever hurt so badly in my life as the day the full impact of the betrayal sunk in.

            I know that I am supposed to list 5 pros, 5 cons to participate.

            I can`t. Alanzo has already done that for me.

            1. I realize that it has become harder to pitch in with an original 5+/5- list – but as long as you make the case for why not, like you just did, you’re good to go.

              Hello Maria 🙂

            2. I see that Alanzo is so drunk with hate that his comments have become a joke, an activity he is good at. Scientology is a raw meat in my opinion and as such needs to be properly cooked. Not LRH and nor DM completly realized what they had on their hands. The so called scientology tech is a compound or cluster of beneficial scientific mind tools, but as any tool, it needs to be used properly to cause improvement and not the oposite. Scientology is a scientific advance of many well intentioned persons with a very effective guidance of LRH but unfortunately used by the old man as a source of money in his last days and currently as a source of a good standard of living by very few. Scientology has very real mind discoveries that should be preserved and used, but outside the religious field. These discoveries and tools are a humanity heritage and as such should be used by the scientific community to achieve higher standards of living.
              And remember, exteriorization is a matter of viewpoint, not of spiritual release.

            3. The religious cloaking was a huge mistake. The one-man-showmanship just the same. Openness, transparency, publishing of raw research data, peer review, proper testing should have been on Hubbard’s mind from the outset. But, looking at his Affirmations, it was clearly other things on his mind. I would have liked to give him a good spanking in the good ‘ol days to see if that could have gotten him off himself and let the knowledge freely flow.

            4. RE: Religious cloaking:

              I would say it was the choice of least evil for Hubbard, to avoid persecution and prosecution by the psych assoc and the AMA and other legal enemies. Then the avoiding of income tax became a very valuable benefit. Then power and money snow balled into a tangled mess.

              I can’t see how any or much tech or enough of the tech and philosophy would of survived if he did not go the religion route.

              And myself and countless others would not be alive today.

              I am in agreement with Rafael’s very intelligent and objective and honest and well reasoned viewpoint.

              It is the same as mine. Scn is a trap for fools and a power and freedom for the wise and intelligent.

              If you did your homework you would of read and understood “How to study a science” and applied it and then be able to see the two sides or two parts to scn, the good and bad and hang on the good and chuck the bad.

              Hubbard’s article “how to study a science” makes any complaint less than moot.

              Dio

            5. Rafael and Dio. If you want to win people to your point of view DEMONSTRATE.

              You know the clear abilities listed by LRH. You know the OT abilities.

              DO THEM ON YOUTUBE. Easy-peasy.

              DON’T WRITE A LONG POST! NO! NO! NO LONG INSULTING POST. PLEASE! NO “REASONS” WHY IT WORKS. JUST A DEMO. THAT IS ALL.”

              Just demonstrate ABILITIES. A five minute demo titled “Clear Abilities Exist With Rafael and Dio” would be nice. Do some mental math and perfect recall demonstrations. Add some good transitions. iMovie does those keen.

              (Psst, just between us guys, I know you can’t do this. But you are Standard Tech Scientologists, so just FAKE THE VIDEO. It will still work on suckers. Call it a shore story! Remember, shore stories are standard tech!)

            6. And Raf and Dio, when I used the term “suckers” above I was talking also of MYSELF.

              I never believed in Xenu … OH NO!

              I believed in the Zombie Jesus.

              With NO years of preparation to believe in the Zombie Jesus either. I believed it right out of the box: MY RISEN LORD AND SAVIOR!

              So, obviously, you guys are way smarter than I. And that is no joke. Xenu makes a LOT more sense than the zombie Jesus.

            7. For Maria,

              Brene Brown quoted Teddy Roosevelt in one of her talks. zenpencils.com illustrated that quote in one of his brilliant cartoons. But THEN he ADDED Brene’ Brown’s quote to the end using a cell phone as a plot device to cross the two story lines.

              Enjoy.

              You’ll figure out who the little girl is. . . And the arena is a LOT less Blood and Gutty after the chick showed up. In fact, it could use some throw pillows. . .

              http://zenpencils.com/comic/139-brene-brown-the-woman-in-the-arena/

            8. Anyway, part one of that cartoon is for your life in Scientology. In spite of your leaving, you were one of its champions. One of its best. I know that by how people treat you here.

              New. Arena. Same. Heart.

              And great hearts are powerful. They mend and embrace vulnerability.

            9. Hi Geir! Hi Chris! Love you guys! 😀

              Katageek – thank you so much for the link to the zen pencils. You are right. I was a champion. Wounded and stricken, I bled out for a while, its true, but it was cleansing and as the poisons left my system, there was more than ample room for even greater insight, love, and a vast universe to explore and champion – the world of you and me, of sunshine and trees, of virtues and creativity. It is awesome. Thank you for caring to honor my pain and for wanting help me to feel proud and clean again. Much appreciated. Much appreciated.

              😀 Maria

            10. The research into and the description of the ServFac, the emotional curve, the sympathy exciter (just to mention some), also the tech to get aware of them, observe and as-is them to me is a proof of not only of a highly aware but of
              a humble and very skillful soul.

            11. This very same soul who said that the only sin in this universe was to be here and
              communicate and as a twist he also said that communication was a universal solvent was someone who was able to get one to become aware of a harmony
              which is behind these seemingly opposing statements both of which, with a closer
              look, are right and not opposing at all. Yes. Communication can resolve THIS universe which would be hardly tolerated by the players who want to play their
              games in it based on long-lasting agreements to its rules. One of them is making
              another wrong when the person communicates something. This, when the person
              buys into it, can lead to even suicidal thoughts. It may be true for all four flows.
              I put here a video about the importance of communication, the importance of
              not invalidating and not evaluating for another from a different source, Adya.
              A simple way, that is validating what is true for the person can be true for him
              or her, that is the person can be right and not be made wrong. In this way we can
              get a communication in which no particle can stand in between the two persons,
              so we get full responsibility on both sides. As such, lives can be saved by life itself.
              An example of the application of the ARC triangle when getting into com with one’s
              reality and facing no opposition (no counter-postulate) can raise the affinity as well.
              I wonder how you see it if any of you watches it. A little hard stuff.

            12. Geir and Alanzo – It is a really good feeling to know that there are those who have your back, who wish only the best for you, and who will stand up for you and with you. What a long strange trip its been! You are my champions too you know!

            13. Maria: What a long strange trip its been!

              Chris: And you have a tremendous skill to organize and narrate that trip in a way that is easy to understand. I’ve learned a lot from your writings. Please continue.

            14. Maria
              ‘who wish the best for you’ not only wish but express that as well. You remember,
              a couple of months ago you said that you felt that understanding and love were
              expanding. Yes. For me it is that matters. You contribute to it a lot when you post.
              You have a fine feminine energy which is radiating through whatever you write, kind of embracing…caring.
              Your insights have been missing on the blog since you almost stopped posting. As Chris asked you, I am also asking you to come to the blog more frequently. Please share what interests you these days if I may ask you to do that.
              Love
              marianne

        3. Wow Marildi. Instant attack tech right here on Geir’s blog!

          “All right, there’s an all-too-typical example. The Instructor should have done Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten. This would have begun this way. Auditor B: “That Process X didn’t work.” Instructor A; “What exactly did you do wrong?” Instant attack. “Where’s your Auditor’s Report for the session? Good. Look here, you were getting a lot of TA when you stopped Process X, What did you do?” Then the pc wouldn’t have come close to a spin and all four of these would have retained their certainty.”

          But.. Bu…I.. I..have no auditor’s report for the session!

          I didn’t even know I had to have one!

          I didn’t even know I was a Scientologist any more! It’s like showing up at grammar school and it’s late at night, and you don’t have your homework, and you look down and you don’t have any pants on!

          Yikes!

          What a nightmare!!

          Alanzo (:>

          1. Alanzo, hey man, your double edged sword scintillates in the bright overhead LED spotlites illuminating this discussion!
            Three quick questions for you: 1) When did you first enter Scn?
            2) Auditor training level, if any?
            3) Any other Scn bridge/training you briefly care to share?
            (Straight answers will definitely be appreciated) 🙂

            Thanks, Calvin B. Duffield Declaration 12 may 2012 Mother’s Day– Marty’s blog, 1/2 way down page.

            1. Ha! Took me a minute but I got it.

              It’s also kinda cool to have fun with words. Here ya go ==> 😎

            2. Hi Calvin –

              I’ve been on the Internet a long time. I got out of Scientology after 16 years, 7.5 as a staff member in missions in the US. Here’s the first thing I wrote under my own name, after I’d been out for a few years, and had gotten my sea legs:

              http://alley.ethercat.com/cgi-bin/door/door.cgi?33

              If you do a Google search for “Alanzo Scientology”, you’ll find a lot more stuff – if you’re really interested in a straight answer.

              When Scientologists first left the Church in the late 90’s, they were fair-gamed just for discussing Scientology on the Internet. At that time, OSA got me fired from my job, they followed me with PIs and Scn volunteers, they threatened my family and tried to get them to disconnect from me. And they tried to get my 83 year old father to believe that I was a criminal on the run from the law just before he died.

              Things have changed a lot for Scientologists since that time, and through it all, no one has ever been able to shut me up.

              Not one person.

              You could say that I used to be at war with Scientology. I used to have a blog and everything.

              Not so much any more. Scientology has been fully exposed, discredited, de-fanged, and pretty much put to bed at this point. They can’t do any of the things that they used to do to people who spoke out about them. And it looks like the guys who were doing all that fair-gaming to people who spoke out back then are the main guys who are finally going to put the final nails in the coffin for Scientology – Marty and Mike.

              There’s a certain symmetry in that, don’t you think?

              I’m real grateful to them for what they are now doing.

              They’ve kinda given me a nice retirement.

              Alanzo

            3. Hi Alanzo! first up — sincere thanks for sharing just a smattering of your journey. it really helps to” tell it like it is.” Something you have undoubtedly realized, each time you recount a little more of the “insanity,’ you encounter/ed along the way!

              I am genuinely interested in people, such as yourself, who have been through ‘the mill,’ and survive to share their ordeal, and how that shapes their outlook today.

              Of course, I’m only speaking for myself, but I see an encouraging rebirth of that one, irrepressible human quality, care-free “insouciance,” that enables us to drop the pretense, fear, and stuck thinking, that kept us trapped for sooooo long, and just come out and communicate! Fuck the consequences!

              Thanks again man!

              — Calvin.

            4. Hi Alanzo,

              We have never been talking much since I started blogging as we have different viewpoints of many things. One may be common/close though, buddhism…meditation. How are you with them these days? One more thing…I have
              always enjoyed and learnt from your comments which were more like about you or a topic that interests you. Do you feel like sharing with us that part of Alanzo,
              which I, personally, like very-very much. As I wrote to Maria that I like her caring personality, I like your humour, intelligence and witty comments. Your genuinely
              ‘Alanzo’ face, that is. Last time you said that you were working a lot. Me too. If you
              still drop here something ‘Alanzo-style’, I would love to read it.

            5. Hi Marianne –

              I am presently studying Mahamudra, The Abhidharma, and a book by Jeffrey Hopkins called “Meditation on Emptiness”.

              Having lots of wins and many cognitions about what really is cause and effect, vs. things that exist only as a dependent arising and a consequence of many other conditions, and are not necessarily caused by any one of them.

              I am learning that I have had a very simplistic view of cause and effect, and was missing many other coincidences which also contribute to the existence of things.

              Alanzo

            6. Thanks Al! This side of yours is…a smooth flow, this is the experience here. You write that you experience cause and effect differently than before and you also
              mention coincidences. Would you write about it in a bit more detailed way to the
              extent it can be expressed by words?

          2. It’s a dark and stormy night. With Dearth-Vader-esque seriousness, a cry reminiscent of Kirk’s “Khan!” and Vaders awful “No!” roars forth in fist-clenching, B-Movie awesomeness-ity of awesomeness-tion-ment.

            XENU: “Alan-Z-O-o-O-o-O-o-O-o-O-o-O!”

            And the lifted, royalty-stiffed comic book character dies dead.

      2. You may have noticed that I am only semi-active every second week here, coinciding with my three boys living with me every other week. I don’t have time to re-read articles and scout for quiz-points. But I will settle for the PTS-tech being perhaps the worst production in Hubbard’s history. It is almost uniformly UNworkable (as reported by our resident PTS-tech specialist) – regardless of any mis-statement by Jeff.

        1. Geir, 3 boys? Well then, you have a reason for a 5 minute blog break!!

          Guys, yes, he’s amazing as a dad too!! So have fun with him OK? 🙂

            1. Absolutely agree, Geir! Learn from them well! (Btw, I’m down the line now, with two daughters, two grand daughters and a grandson!) The big realizations that eventually take place, (some ‘get it’ quicker than others,) includes that we all happen to learn from each other. Guess it comes back to ‘being there, comfortably in front of another and just observing/perceiving’ – hey?
              BTW, love that little piece by the ol’ man; …. “What you can do, depends on how few considerations you have, appended to what you think you can do”….. (LRH)
              — Calvin.

          1. I only did the Ups and Downs course, and the home study PTS/ SP course.

            I understand that there are higher level PTS courses, but did not do them.

            I don’t really use the SP handling data taught in the courses I took, because I tried it and could not make it work for me.

            Nor do I agree that the stated “traits” a person must have to be called a SP, as the only ones.

            There are more than that.

            But the PTS/SP knowledge was a life saver for me.

            It helped me tremendously to understand myself and the people around me.

            I took the basic knowledge and made my own SP ( asshole) handling methods.

            Usually it is just disconnect.

            Dio

            1. Dio: I took the basic knowledge and made my own SP ( asshole) handling methods. Usually it is just disconnect.

              CT: Fortunately for your blogging here, we do not apply this.

        2. Geir, I did notice your semi-activity every other week – and guessed rightly as to why. No doubt in my mind that you’re a good dad. 😉

          I agree with you that the later configurations of the PTS tech were misguided and unworkable but the error Jeff made was very basic, and I’m surprised that none of you guys noticed it – without having to re-read. Btw, who’s the resident PTS-tech specialist?

          1. Marildi wrote:

            Btw, who’s the resident PTS-tech specialist?

            But of course you are, aren’t you?

            As an SP of the first order, I was not able to see Jeff’s mistake through all my seething OWs, EvPurps, and crashing misunderstoods on Scientology.

            Would you like to go ahead and fill us in?

            What, exactly, did Jefferson Hawkins get wrong about L Ron Hubbard’s PTS technology which works 100% of the time when correctly applied?

            Alanzo

            1. Can you just give me a simple, direct answer to my question? I’ll look for it tomorrow.

              Have a good day. 🙂

            2. I agree with DAoT – I have not really seen the PTS/SP tech work. Can’t come up with a single example where the tech itself worked, no. An example may pop up later, but now as I scan dozens of handlings I have seen up close, I cannot see any working.

            3. marildi
              ‘and it also becomes obvious that “handle” means only one thing – get them to stop
              being critical of scientology’

              Right in this sentence is the MU, ‘handle’. Also, to understand why a nice letter can work as a first step, one needs to understand ARC, the Factors and the Axioms, dichotomies….just to mention some. Well, the best is factually experience them….

            4. “… to understand why a nice letter can work as a first step, one needs to understand ARC, the Factors and the Axioms, dichotomies….just to mention some.”

              Marianne, thanks for your thoughts. As for the above quote, I think I’ve said something similar in expressing my view that what is required is a conceptual understanding of the whole.

              You added: “Well, the best is to factually experience them….”

              Agreed, and I believe that’s precisely what auditing is about – from both sides of the e-meter. It’s a direct experience of the underlying principles and the tech.

            5. Hi Geir, interesting comments around this topic, (the handling of sp’s and pts tech!)
              My extremely limited ‘technical expertise’ here, invites a related question”

              What other (legal) ‘tech’ has been set up / is on offer, to handle such elements causing havoc amongst us? That anti-social elements are at work against ‘society,’ is hardly in dispute. As in, sociopaths, psychopaths, and those of observable criminal intent and destruction of others, for material gain.

              I am just a simple, practical guy, with a background as a design draftsman, commercial artist, inventor, practical trouble shooter, and a lifelong practical pursuit of staying strong and healthy, via being a commercial gym owner, and training others to do the same.

              The ready reference to LRH tech, by so many on your blog, and that seen, and verified by those commenting on other blogs, says one thing to me.

              Simple “TOOLS,” which work in the hands of those, ‘expertly trained’ in the use of those tools.

              Arguing about the results of said use of such tools, per se, is futile, with those who have a cynical view of such use!…. “Nah, I never go to quacks, dentists, chiropractors, surgeons, lawyers, mechanics, plumbers, etcetera, etcetera, since all they want is your money!” “They just rip you off, and see you as easy prey!”

              Clearly, such a view, HAS had trouble with earlier disappointments and betrayals!

              Does this mean that ALL the above professionals deserve blanket condemnation?
              Of course not. Your OP, here proves, beyond a shadow of doubt, that there are indeed Pros & Cons or Gems & Disasters, among any sampling of human interactions. Absolutes? Unobtainable! Excellence, on the other hand, definitely attainable! (thank Gawd!) 🙂

              – Calvin.

            6. racing: That anti-social elements are at work against ‘society,’ is hardly in dispute. As in, sociopaths, psychopaths, and those of observable criminal intent and destruction of others, for material gain.

              chris: I dispute this. I don’t agree with the demarcations (I don’t see a clear line), and I don’t agree with the convenient categorization or name calling. This is an excuse for injustices with which I do not agree. Politically, capitalism is not generally so bad or good as the socialist writes, neither is the socialist so altruistic. Hubbard fits perfectly in the anti-social category yet I do not think his every thought or intention was “working against society.” This entire subject of PTS/SP seems to be the slipperiest of slippery slopes.

            7. This is for Chris’s comment 2013-12-11 @15.57.
              Please tell me Chris, just how on earth you manage to DO this???? I mean, I need an interpreter, man! Please, if you know anything about auditing at all, then at LEAST, be willing to duplicate, what I actually posted. Aka as get it? You know?

            8. Calvin,

              Quoting you: This is for Chris’s comment 2013-12-11 @15.57.
              Please tell me Chris, just how on earth you manage to DO this???? I mean, I need an interpreter, man! Please, if you know anything about auditing at all, then at LEAST, be willing to duplicate, what I actually posted. Aka as get it? You know?

              Me: I am with you brother. You put words to something I couldn’t.

              Chris is seldom qualified to talk about anything.

              Same goes for Geir.

              They seldom make any sense.

              They are far from the only ones too.

              For one thing, they think the truth is determined by their opinion.

              Not so.

              Dio

            9. I am glad you got that withhold off your chest.

              And happy for you that you feel better.

              But………..

              Just because you disagree with me, does not mean you are right.

              If I agreed with you, then we would both be wrong.

              Dio

            10. I am so very happy that I generally do not agree with your points of view. Because then I would also struggle in my social relations.

            11. Geir,

              A whole bunch of wrongs do not make a right either.

              Thanks to rockmystar, for inadvertently putting much needed and very appropriate and timely succinct words of great wisdom in my mouth.

              One of the most destructive ways to go for humans is through their need for compare.

              I was taught early to never follow the crowd.

              Dio

            12. Racing wrote:

              That anti-social elements are at work against ‘society,’ is hardly in dispute. As in, sociopaths, psychopaths, and those of observable criminal intent and destruction of others, for material gain.

              This is totally in dispute.

              There are as many reasons that people take actions that others see as “anti-social” as there are people who take them. To label all the different people who took those specific actions as “anti-social elements” is to oversimplify the completely divergent issues and situations that actually exist.

              Your oversimplification here is the problem.

              Life, and other people, are simply not like that.

              There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
              Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

              – Hamlet (1.5.166-7), Hamlet to Horatio

              This is the problem with using an ideology like Scientology to think. Pretty soon, the Jews are the whole problem and we’ll need ovens big enough to hold all of them.

              Sorry to compare Scientology to Nazism again, but this kind of over-simplistic thinking is a common characteristic of all ideological thinking. And it gets dangerous the higher it rises in a society.

              You have to drop the ideology, Racing. Only then are you going to be able to see the outpoints in the things that you are assuming are true.

              I know that Hubbard told you it was “Q & A”, but have you ever examined your own assumptions before? Have you ever examined the reasoning you use, and the evidence upon which your reasoning is based, to see exactly how you came to the conclusions you have based your life upon?

              Because your assumption “That anti-social elements are at work against ‘society,’ is hardly in dispute. As in, sociopaths, psychopaths, and those of observable criminal intent and destruction of others, for material gain.” needs to be examined.

              It is an over-simplistic view of the world and of other people, and it is probably harming you more than you are aware of right now.

              Alanzo

            13. Wow, Alanzo, this is akin to being a ball on a roullette table, instead of simple 2-way comm. Sorry, I’m not into abberated wonderings,( ‘imagining what I see.’) Time for a quick reality check in with me, ( in my line of work,) which currently necessitates keeping tabs on local gang activity, while interfacing with undercover cops. Needing to stay fully aware and in PT, I don’t have the luxury, or “opportunity” for such bullshit! You appear to have little experience operating under the pressure of actual death threats, in your line of work?? Pity we can’t have you come along for a day ‘in paradise!’ — (amidst a gangland, in Durban, South Africa) This blog (for me, at any rate), is more like ‘paradise!’ Time to destim from being constantly reminded how cheap life is to some, who would stab you to death just for the shoes you are wearing, after first gouging your eyes out with a broken beer bottle! Anyhow, Alanzo, thanks for your comments and my invitation to you, stands…….. Ps. “Tools” was my topic, T-O-O-L-S, not ‘mind -fuck’ games.
              Peace, bro. 🙂

            14. OK Racing, but how is a blanket generalization like “anti-social elements” going to help you to make your environment safer?

              “Anti-social” suggests that they do not want a society. Being basically social, no human being who has ever lived has not wanted a society. It’s why we create them wherever we go.

              The TOOL that I am talking about is not thinking with generalities like “anti-social elements”, and other fixed ideas from stale ideologies that alienate you from reality.

              Scientology has been in South Africa since when? The early 1960’s?

              And look at what you’ve got there.

              Despite all the justifications and excuses, Scientology didn’t work in South Africa, obviously.

              Time to dump Scientology and try something more effective, I’d say.

              Wouldn’t you?

              Alanzo

            15. Alanzo, yes, you often make some sharp observations, and well, don’t mind me, if I purport to do the same! Vis a vis I read your ‘interview’ letter posted with your link. What I did observe, was that your outlook on life, appeared to diminish in ‘tone,’ post your earlier fun times, to then disillusionment, and finally exit, from your former ‘Scn life.’ It seems, to me, purely through your writings, that in the process,you may have lost any apparent enthusiasm for life, that is,during the period of the interview, up till present day. Is that true?

              Hey, man, so then, has the (value of the) Tone Scale been relegated into the realm of ‘Hubbard propaganda scrapheap’ too?

              Geez, man, this may be difficult to swallow, but sometimes, you learn to appreciate the really simple things in life, like having gratitude, real ARC, with good people, the pleasure of interacting, and just being with another, without being compromised by negative, cynical thoughts, that discredit and make a mockery of high affinity relationships and existence. I learned the accuracy of using the chart of attitudes and human eval. saved a lot of guesswork, in pinpointing who to trust, and who to avoid.( simply by putting it to the test by prediction, only to find it panned out!)

              But, surprise, surprise, I also use a disparate source of other reference material, to understand my bro’s & sis’s, and what makes ’em tick.

              Probably a top lesson ( no Hubbardism, btw,) has been this little gem, ……………. “Whether you think you can, or whether you think you can’t—– you’re right!”

              Oh, Alanzo, sorry to disappoint, but I don’t get any satisfaction in destroying another’s beliefs, or stable data, to create effects in life. I’m very comfortable with genuinely helping others to feel better about themselves. I grant them the right to arrive at their own understanding, of what does, or doesn’t work. Scientology, just happens to be ONE of the tools I use, for that purpose.

              Like I shared in the post above, life is short, so why not spend it doing things, with people you love and care for? That said, you gotta do, what you gotta do, to bring home and preserve the ‘bacon.’ Not so?

            16. Calvin, just wanted to tell you that I’m really enjoying your posts! You have a great approach and a style all your own, which we could all stand to learn from. Keep that “breezy air” going! 🙂

            17. Aye lassie! Och, weyyyl, ye knoooo, at’s def’ntlay moooore daf’cult ta seee wha’r ye go’in, an e’ reeeeally brrrreeeezie deyyye, ye kennnn? Ehh, eye meeean, furrr’ gooooddnesss seyyykes, lasssie, Hooo cann ye seee , whin’ yerrr killtt as’ blooo’in up in yerrr feyyce al’ th’ wheyyll ???? 🙂

            18. Aye, laddie, I ken. The moral of the story is to keep own kilt from blowing in your face and preventing you from “seeing where you’re going.”

              Yerrr a trrrruly philll’soph’callll trrrrue Scotsmannnn. 😉

            19. Nooooow thaaaat, w’id be tellll’n a clow’sly guarrrrded sec’rrret!

            20. Racing wrote:

              Oh, Alanzo, sorry to disappoint, but I don’t get any satisfaction in destroying another’s beliefs, or stable data, to create effects in life. I’m very comfortable with genuinely helping others to feel better about themselves. I grant them the right to arrive at their own understanding, of what does, or doesn’t work. Scientology, just happens to be ONE of the tools I use, for that purpose.

              So in your breezy, insouciant kind of way, aren’t you basically saying that I have gone down tone since I left Scientology and that applying my stable datum from Socrates of “the unexamined life is not worth living” that I’m trying to destroy others’ beliefs, or stable data, to create effects in life?

              Did I miss read you there?

              If so, aren’t you just trying to do the same thing to me, but more covertly?

              LOL!!!

              Sorry! I’ve run into a lot of Scientologists over the years, Racing, and there is a very predictable pattern that so many apply to me when they first encounter me on the Internet.

              It is basically to tell me that I am low-toned and suppressive.

              If they survive for more than a few postings with me, they begin to see that this mental filter that they are trying to apply to me does not necessarily fit. And then they start to see me as I really am. Or as close as that is possible from how I appear to be on the Internet.

              So for now, how about if you drop the “Tone Scale” and the subtle evals and invals and just deal with me without any of those Scn “tools” for handling others. See if you can do that.

              I’m extending an invitation to you to look at me in a completely original way, without the comfortable habits of any of the cognitive apparati of the past.

              And I’ll do the same with you.

              You don’t suggest to me that I am low on the tone scale, and quite possibly an SP, and I won’t suggest to you that you’re are brainwashed.

              Deal?

              Alanzo (:>

            21. Wow! Okay Alanzo! Seeing you put it that way: ” Grrrrrr…..SNAP!..SNARL!” You got me cornered! Here…nice doggie!!! (pat,pat!) Tell you what, (tremble!).. Deal! 🙂

      3. I think you are reading sarcasm into Al’s post – I think you are doing yourself the disservice of confirmation bias’ing what he writes. I take his comment as least as sincere as yours with at least as “unmixed” good/bad.

        1. Well, it seems to me the confirmation bias’ing was on the part of those who viewed it as “the way it is.” Just based on the meaning of the term. 😉

          1. I read Alanzo’s opinions – fair and square. You, on the other hand read stuff into it that prompted you to instantly attack. A shame, I might add.

            1. I have an intense aversion for SPs and I am very tempted to attack Alonzo too, but I am going to read a good book.

              Miraldi, go sic em!

              Dio

            2. (sigh)

              I guess I’m a slow learner. But getting hit on the head so many times, I may not only bow out but willingly so. LIfe is indeed a process.

            3. “Shedding an ideology that does the thinking for you may do wonders in the learning speed.”

              Shedding fixed ideas about others also does wonders. Just sayin’

            4. There is so much talk amongst so many of you, about scn being a cult or ideology that does the thinking for you.

              When you talk like that or think that way, I can easily see that you flunked Scientology.

              You did not do your homework.

              You were a D and E student at best.

              You were a speople.

              You did not think a bit for your self and were taken to the cleaners or worse to slaughter.

              You followed a carrot on a stick that was tied to your own back.

              Now you bitch and complain that Hubbard was such an ogre, such a merciless cult leader.

              If you were diligent, and intelligent and wise you would of did your homework and did it properly, you would of read ( carefully read) New Slant on life: How to study a science (or scientology).

              This short article gives a person the keys to the way out of the trap, the way out of the idiotology, the cult.

              When you read that article, understand it, and apply it, you cannot get caught in any trap, or let the cult or idiotology do the thinking for you.

              Hubbard left the keys to way out of the trap ( for the wise) hanging in plain sight on the wall.

              Hubbard was much smarter than any of you whiners and bitchers and complainers can imagine.

              You have to blame your selves and kick your your own behinds for being so stupid.

              Hubbard left the keys to way out of the trap (for the wise for the intelligent) hanging in plain sight on the wall.

              (Or the directions ( the map) to the way out of the trap)

              Why else would he write such an article?

              Hubbard is off the hook.

              Dio

            5. Marildi: Shedding fixed ideas about others also does wonders. Just sayin’

              Chris: It’s not enough to just say back what was said. That is not an effective retort. “I know you are, but what am I ?” dies out around the third grade.

            6. It actually made me aware of how useless ‘thinking’ is, helped me take apart a lot
              of ‘conditioned=agreed to’ stuff, giving way to new ideas and actions.

      4. marildi
        Yes….hm. more than yes. Reading this exchange I have got the viewpoint that one cause of scientology shrinking is the misunderstanding of the PTS/SP tech. I see it
        so clearly that I also see it that any real exchange of ideas may result in failure in the long run with those who studied it and did not completely get it. This is the tech
        of clear mind, life force reaching and being active for the advance of all.

        Misunderstandings can strengthen agreements based on old thoughts and thought patterns thus help the illusion of falsely connecting to another while real connection
        is the soul to soul connection out of which new creations can arise by means of
        communication.

        I noticed it at the beginning of my studies that the outcome of doing a course can
        be of two kind:
        1. higher awareness, higher ability and skill in an area that is reaching and living
        better in that area
        .2. which was misunderstood in the course may be the basis of more justifications
        of why one is not able and willing to do something…when it is voiced and gets the
        agreement of others, the misunderstood data will function like the ‘third party’.
        Because that data was seen to have just been encountered in the course material,
        it can give the illusion that ‘scientology’ (at least that part of it) is the ‘problem’.
        No. Never. It is misduplication which gives rise to the two terminal universe where
        a word not cleared to its source will be, when connected to a thought, the basis
        of all, whatever, human games, pleasures, sufferings….that is, illusions.
        This is my present view…

        1. Yes indeed Marianne! And if I may chip in here, since I feel we’re mostly on the same page?…. It’s just as important, to step into the shoes of Marildi. The big picture would suggest that the multiple p/o/view accommodates ALL, for the broadest possible satisfaction. Describing a coin, for example, could be argued about interminably, if one refused to look at the ‘other’ side. As you alluded to with ‘duplication,’ this indispensable tool of observation, really does ‘conquer’ or serve to ‘as-is’ practically any/all arguments/problems, if honestly/sincerely addressed, with this tool of choice. However, many difficulties are often encountered, under the following scenario,

          Q. What should happen when ‘intent’ of a communication is hidden/falsified?
          A. Duplicate (or at least, recognize) THAT.

          explanation; — ‘Intention’ — is a definite component of communication, all as covered in Scn AXIOM 28. As such, it (intention) should always be ‘duplicated’ if possible, or otherwise, noted, and responded to ‘accordingly.’

          A closing datum from LRH; “Sanity, the ability to evaluate importances in life.” 🙂

          1. racing
            Yes, I duplicate ‘THAT’. I haven’t yet answered to one of your questions.
            Here it goes: If I see you ‘hang-gliding’, I am going to wave to you a heartfelt hello
            which you will get on the purest theta line!

            1. Well thanks, Marianne! I’m sure you are more than able to ascend into the place where eagles fly, if only in mock-up form. In reality you show that you actually ascend to a far higher plane of perception, that many of us can only marvel at. 🙂

            2. Whatever one can see, one can be. Whatever one can perceive in another, one is also creating that. The plane of perception one can marvel, one is already AT that.

        2. Wow, you two (Marianne and Racing) have left me speechless because you have so well duplicated – and as-is’d – the whole scenario. Kudos!

          1. Marildi, I hope you ‘duplicate’ my intended ‘intentions,’ that skidded slightly off course, here. 🙂 Never mind Kat, I like you too! 🙂

            1. I do! I have an advantage, perhaps, being half Scot by heritage – there may be even less than “six degrees of separation” between us 🙂 xoxoxo

            2. Aye Lassie! Let’s rooond it af’ with a weee shot’ af Scotland’s feinnnnest malted whisky, than, shall we? Begorrragggh! Therrrre’s nooooo betterrrr weyyy ta’ gi’t
              a gooood neighhht’s sleeeep!! Afterrr the gooood stuf’ as attended ta’ firrrrst & forrremost, Soooo thannn — heeerre’s ta yoooo, Marildi! (clink, clink!)

            3. Yes, Laddie, let’s! (clink!) Nice meetin’ ya, Laddie – comin’ thrrrru the rrrrrye 🙂

              (Not rye whisky, though – Scotch!)

      5. Marildi –

        The challenge is – can you spot the gross mis-statement Hawkins made about the PTS tech? It’s really basic too – what an MU!

        You know me, Marildi: I would be horrified if I had a basic MU on Scientology. How could I possibly apply it correctly if I had a basic MU?

        My God. As you know, Scientology only works 100% of the time IF it is correctly applied. Whenever it hasn’t worked in all the 63 years it’s been applied is because it was not applied correctly, and it was NEVER because Scientology itself – straight, standard Scientology in any of its versions – didn’t work. It’s ALWAYS because the Scientologist didn’t do it right!

        So please, don’t condemn me to lifetimes of pain and excoriating horrors TELL ME WHAT JEFF’S MU IS SO I CAN KNOW WHAT MY MU IS!

        Alanzo

        1. First, Al, let me just say that my use of the word “sarcasm” to describe your Scientology pros did not equate to “insincere.” Obviously, you were presenting a picture of your personal experiences – and just as obviously you would not recommend those to others as being “positives”. In fact, you’ve been doing just the opposite for years now, repeatedly warning people to stay away from Scientology.

          I think Calvin came the closest to duplicating my intention when he said that “it’s ALL insouciance.” I was basically just razzing you, like old times, but in a lighthearted way – which old “enemies” from old “wars” often come around to doing ;). And I have a hunch that you probably understood where I was coming from better than anybody.

          My comment was actually meant as a challenge to you to now list out some things you think are truly positive about Scientology – not just seemingly so and eventually ending in disaster. I’m not sure you believe there are 5 pros, since you’ve even criticized TRs as being brainwashing.

          So how about answering my question first?

          1. But the 5 pros that I wrote are actually 5 pros that I sincerely believe are pros of Scientology.

            So I do not know what you want me to do – list out SEVEN pros when everyone else had to list out only 5?

            Is it like a liability “effective blow” step you want me to apply so I can be accepted back into the group again?

            Is this some radical new therapy?

            Alanzo

            1. Yeah G, I think we are “cleaning a clean” here.

              Maybe if she could see me as a slightly retarded, drooling man-child who can not grasp the fantastic wonders of Scientology at the level that she can grasp them, then maybe that would resolve the impasse.

              Because I really need to know Jefferson Hawkins’ MU on Scientology. We’re not playing some minor game here. The fate of every man woman and child depends upon it.

              Alanzo

            2. Alonzo: Because I really need to know Jefferson Hawkins’ MU on Scientology. We’re not playing some minor game here. The fate of every man woman and child depends upon it.

              Chris: damn! Alanzo! you are killin’ me! (Hearty LOL)

            3. Are you saying that it’s a positive thing for a person to be utterly deceived and temporarily jubilant and exalted, only to eventually be utterly disillusioned? And if you are saying that it’s positive, why aren’t you recommending it to others?

            4. Marildi wrote:

              Are you saying that it’s a positive thing for a person to be utterly deceived and temporarily jubilant and exalted, only to eventually be utterly disillusioned? And if you are saying that it’s positive, why aren’t you recommending it to others?

              The time I spent on staff in Scientology was some of the most purpose filled and exhilarating times in my life. Suping a course room ALWAYS made me feel fantastic no matter what was going on in my life.

              I believed that I was saving the whole planet at that time. And that belief gave me the feeling of exhilaration that I described.

              I can’t help it that it turned out to be untrue. That is not my fault, nor my cause.

              It was a positive of Scientology though, as I understand it.

              And who says I have to recommend Scn to others – the “cons” are just as true as the pros.

              THEY ARE BOTH TRUE, each at the same time.

              Can you see that?

              Alanzo

            5. Oh, I totally got that you felt absolutely exhilarated. But your stance makes me think of a heroin user, for example, who finally sees how it’s destroying his life and decides to kick the habit. The experiences he had may have truly been the highest highs ever – but in hindsight he would never recommend it to any one because the highs didn’t match up to the devastating lows.

              And what I see in your answer to my question is that you are equivocating and hedging. 😉

            6. Does Alanzo need to conclude that he would be recommending Scientology for you to accept his answer? Should the opposite be demanded of you – that you wouldn’t ever recommend Scientology – for another to accept your answer?

            7. No, he can have his viewpoint about what he is calling “positive.” I am just stating my own view – which is that these “positives” aren’t directly answering the question. And I was wondering if he could and would do so from the angle of a more basic look at the subject.

            8. You really seem to be of the opinion here that if he cannot recommend Scientology, then you would not accept his answer. Review your comments above to see what I mean.

            9. Perhaps I made it too complicated. My basic question to Alanzo is whether there are any “pros” in Scientology that he would recommend to people.

              Alanzo?

            10. This is actually a very interesting area of thought, Marildi.

              It can happen that something is BOTH pro and con at the same time. It can even be entirely true that something is both true and false at the same time.

              But we humans tend to look away from that because there is no resolution there, and no comfortable way to “settle” it in our minds.

              Scientology is both good and bad, true and false, pro and con – at the same time.

              And that is the truth about Scientology.

              Alanzo

            11. I’ll just repeat this statement to you, Marildi, because there is nothing more I can say, in all truthfulness:

              I believed that I was saving the whole planet at that time. And that belief gave me the feeling of exhilaration that I described.

              Alanzo

            12. And I really got it, Al. No problem.

              But I am still curious as to whether or not there is anything in Scientology that you would recommend to people. Yes or no? And if yes, please say what.

            13. I’ll take that as a compliment, dragos. Especially since it’s coming from you. 🙂

            14. Whoa, I like that! “My faiblesse.” That puts the cherry on top of my day. 😉

              xoxox marildi

            15. Marildi

              There is nothing that I can recommend in Scientology, ethically and in good conscience, because in my experience anything good in Scientology is connected to something bad, and that bad is hidden from any new person who is deceived about it as part of the structure of the subject itself.

              Scientology was fundamentally created, developed, and maintained as a spiritual deception by L Ron Hubbard, and there is no way that I can recommend something like that, no matter how much good is used to recruit and hook people on it in the beginning stages.

              Sorry.

              Does that disqualify me from participating in the discussion here?

              Alanzo

            16. No! It doesn’t disqualify you! In my book, it makes you even more qualified – because you followed through with me and we had an actual discussion (and they said it couldn’t be done! LOL). That was actually the more basic question I had in mind, believe it or not. 😛

            17. Wow. I can see that you have become so much more easy to please over the years!

              Or maybe your standards have crashed as to what constitutes a “discussion”. (:>

              But anyway, do tell us about Jeff Hawkins!

              I have actually re-read the text, and I can’t see anything!

              Alanzo

            18. As I basically indicated, to me a real discussion isn’t much more than the intention to DISCUSS and to simply follow through, no matter what might intermittently get in the way. That intention or lack of it does come across.

              And I think we’ve all improved. Even the notorious Alanzo. 🙂

              Okay, I’ll find that part of Jeff’s interview and reply under your original question above.

            19. I can answer this recommendation question – I would not recommend anything that is found in Scientology AS Scientology or as offered BY Scientology or used on the basis of needing to perform mental gymnastics to justify questionable, dishonest or destructive materials. I might recommend very SPECIFIC processes, BUT only if they can be lifted intact and in a working form out of the body of work labeled Scientology.

              Of course, there is now the question whether that would still be Scientology or a squirreled derivative. But, given LRHs penchant for deriving from other sources and NOT mentioning the source of the derivation, the question becomes – derivative of what? For the most part, he buried, obscured and defamed his sources.

              Then there is the problem that there is just way too much spin & hype incorporated into the body of materials that is even sometimes strewn throughout the basic technical materials.

              KG once pointed out the great power of myth, our need to be heroic. I have given a great deal of thought to what he has said about that and he is right – it is powerful, so powerful that it can take a sad little girl and make her feel like a hero and champion. AND SHE IS. But to tie that power and glory to one small organization with a very nasty habit of attacking its past heroes – not so much.

        2. Okay, Al. Jeff’s MU – his alteration of the data, to be exact – is in the following section of the interview. See if you can now spot it with this big hint I’m giving you:

          ———————————-
          JEFFERSON: Now we get into the “handle or disconnect” section. The person is told that they must either handle the SP or disconnect from them.
          Hubbard gives various steps one can do to “handle.” The first step “…may consist of requiring him to actually answer his mail or write the person a pleasant good roads, good weather note or to realistically look at how he estranged them.”
          Then: “Fill in any vacuum of missing data with factual data about Scientology and to prove any lies, rumors and false data encountered to be false.”

          THE BUNKER: There’s a real oddity with this “handling” step. As we saw last week, Hubbard described an SP as a totally evil individual who hates and attacks any effort to help mankind, who cannot be helped or improved, and who hates the thought of anyone getting better. So how would writing pleasant letters or educating them on Scientology handle an SP?

          JEFFERSON: Exactly. Something doesn’t add up with this proposed handling. It becomes obvious, as you read this section, that he is NOT in fact talking about some irredeemably evil, antisocial being who is out to destroy all mankind, as he earlier described. He is talking about the Scientologist’s friends and family who may be antagonistic or critical towards Scientology. He advises Scientologists “Don’t create antagonism.” Well, that would be a stupid statement to make regarding an SP — the SP is already as antagonistic as he’s going to get — if you go by Hubbard’s definition.
          ———————————

          1. Okay, well, right off the bat – the “fill in the vacuum” reference is from the “Black Propaganda” HCOPL – part of the PR Series – and is not part of the PTS materials that were being quoted from earlier.

            The PTS material being quoted from earlier was from “Handling the PTS Individual” in the section – iirc – “Handling Antagonism”.

            So the “then” step Jeff quoted came from the PR series, and not from the PTS/SP tech as it was written and compiled when I was in Scientology 13 years ago.

            Am I getting warm?

            Alanzo

          2. Oh! Oh! Oh!

            Also another thing: There is a definition of SP in the Tech dic that says a Suppressive Person can be someone one simply opposed the pc at one time – in the PTS Handling tech, the person being handled is not always assumed to be a suppressive person (a person with a majority of anti-social traits).

            So Jefferson’s handling of Tony’s question was not fully accurate in that he left out that definition and context for PTS Handlings.

            I can see why misrepresenting the tech would in this way would be upsetting to a Scientologist. It’s bad enough having to defend the tech as it actually exists. But to have to also defend the tech as it doesn’t actually exist, too, would be EXHAUSTING! (:>

            Believe me, I know both sides of this debate. I “disseminated” as a Scientologist for many years with a computer – even before the Internet.

            So how are you going to hammer out of existence this incorrect technology on Tony’s blog now, correct Jeff’s MU, and get the correct tech applied?

            Alanzo

            1. You got it, Al. Pass! 🙂

              It’s pretty ridiculous where Jeff says, “Something doesn’t add up with this proposed handling” and goes on to explain what he means by saying how obvious it is that certain people are not actual SP’s – which is exactly what LRH stated in the issue! That was the whole point of this particular PTS handling.

              So it wasn’t that Jeff simply had a missing definition – he didn’t duplicate the PL. And his misunderstanding was insidiously passed on to thousands of people.

              Last I saw there were over 1,300 comments on that interview, and I bet not one of them pointed this out. Why? Because virtually all of the posters there, including those trained on PTS tech, are only looking for the negative – and therefore that is all they can see.

            2. There is a fundamental issue with the PTS/SP tech that makes for great confusion – and that is the tech itself. Since it is really a mess of inconsistencies when it comes to the definition of an SP (I have covered this before), it becomes awkward to accuse people that haven’t studied it in great detail to pick up the mixing of a policy into the tech that shouldn’t be there.

            3. You notice that I didn’t take up the point or agree with Al regarding the mixing of a policy into the tech. That wasn’t what I had a problem with. It was the fact that a very basic issue all of itself wasn’t understood and was completely misrepresented.

              But I do agree with you about the later use the term SP for “administrative” reasons, thus giving it an entirely different definition than the original technical one. That one I believe had truth to it, and most experts on psychopaths nowadays give a virtually identical list of characteristics.

            4. Dr. Robert Hare is considered the world’s leading authority on the subject of psychopaths. This is his checklist. You can recognize characteristics from both “Science of Survival” and “The Antisocial Personality” bulletin, among other writings and lectures:

              – glib and superficial charm
              – grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
              – need for stimulation
              – pathological lying
              – cunning and manipulativeness
              – lack of remorse or guilt
              – shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
              – callousness and lack of empathy
              – parasitic lifestyle
              – poor behavioral controls
              – sexual promiscuity
              – early behavior problems
              – lack of realistic long-term goals
              – impulsivity
              – irresponsibility
              – failure to accept responsibility for own actions
              – many short-term marital relationships
              – juvenile delinquency
              – revocation of conditional release
              – criminal versatility

              http://www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html

            5. You can recognize… but the lists are far from identical. Also, the list Hubbard compiled can be recognized from earlier work in psychology. But unlike Hubbard, who did not do real research into this, the link below represents millions of hours of research into this area. And the conclusion is that Hubbard also exaggerated the numbers by 250%.

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

              See also: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/july-2012/focus-on-psychopathy

            6. It is not only the matter of the administrative use of the SP label. It is also a number of inconsistencies regarding the use of “real SPs” vs. “someone acting to suppress the PC” in the basic tech itself. It is so confusing in fact that high level auditors regularly had to resort to obscure tapes to justify some view on this.

            7. “It is so confusing in fact that high level auditors regularly had to resort to obscure tapes to justify some view on this.”

              Please provide the dox for that statement.

            8. It is my own experience with the following:

              Shane Brockdorf (spelling?) – Snr C/S at AOSH ANZO (Class XI and the most tech savvy person I have ever met).

              3 or 4 auditors at Flag (all Class IXs)

              Half a dozen or so supervisors – 3 or 4 being highly trained auditors as well.

            9. And you are saying that all these people were so confused that they “REGULARLY had to resort to obscure tapes to justify some view on this”?

            10. I am saying that they REGULARLY made use of obscure tapes (and tidbits from material not on the PTS/SP course) to make sense of the inconcistencies in the tech – showing how they managed to wade through double-think on the subject. I do believe they had long since settled the confusion by mental gymnastics serving to artificially hold their belief in that tech in place.

            11. Okay, got it. The ultimate question, then. is – did they get good results in applying the tech?

            12. I agree with DAoT – I have not really seen the PTS/SP tech work. Can’t come up with a single example where the tech itself worked, no. An example may pop up later, but now as I scan dozens of handlings I have seen up close, I cannot see any working.

            13. Marildi: But I do agree with you about the later use the term SP for “administrative” reasons, thus giving it an entirely different definition than the original technical one.

              Chris: Were 52 of the first 100 Certified Scientology Clears technically or administratively suppressive?

            14. You probably have a point there, Marildi.

              No one there wants to come to Scientology’s defense, even where it is possible to defend it.

              Why? Because it is not worth it.

              It is like coming to the defense of National Socialism in Germany when someone says “And the trains never ran on time!”

              It would be intellectually honest for someone to poke their hand up and say, “I’m sorry, but that’s not true. Hitler did ensure that the trains ran on time in Nazi Germany, including the regular passenger trains – and not just the ones carrying Jews and others to the extermination camps!”

              I’m not comparing Scientology to Nazi Germany because Scientology has never had a chance to take over a country and run it.

              But that’s kinda the point.

              Very very few people want to stand up for Scientology because too many people know what the consequences would be if Scientology did take over a country – as it was made to do by LRH.

              “In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints.”
              – L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, 1989 Ed., p. 145

              “There are only two answers for the handling of people from 2.0 down on the Tone Scale, neither one of which has anything to do with reasoning with them or listening to their justification of their acts. The first is to raise them on the Tone Scale by un-enturbulating some of their theta by any one of the three valid processes. The other is to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow.”
              – L. Ron Hubbard, SCIENCE OF SURVIVAL, p. 170

              These types of writings by LRH discredit the subject completely when you think of the nightmare of Scientology being allowed to prosper in a society.

              For these reasons, no one who confronts Hubbard’s writings without dubbing in their own more reasonable versions of them just can’t defend it.

              So you should get on their and write this. If you really believe that a world run by Scientology would be a better one than this one, it is your duty to get on there and make sure people know the truth.

              So why aren’t you?

              Alanzo

            15. People like Marildi, who wouldn’t naturally abuse another person, would tend to ignore applying the harshest of PTS/SP Tech and might possibly assume that others would too. I don’t think Marildi would ever disconnect or insist that families be torn apart. As an ethics officer, Marildi might induce suicide in a person through badgering (humor) but she would never disconnect!

            16. Right, Chris.

              But all you have to do is look at the “Ministry of Truth” in Saudi Arabia who are religious police, and see how they study the words of the prophet and walk around in the streets and enforce them on others.

              Or see the Taliban operate in a society once they got into power.

              References by LRH are to be word cleared and taken LITERALLY, after clay demos and false data stripping and everything else.

              Can you imagine a Scientology society enforcing the LRH quote I gave about no civil rights of any kind for anyone lower than 2.0 on the tone scale?

              We would have “Tone Scale Police” and “Tone Scale Courts” where the accused could not ever speak up for himself because listening to low toned people was a waste of time, as LRH wrote.

              A Scientology society would be the Dark Ages, revisited. And probably even worse than that.

              This is the fundamental reason why a slight misunderstanding of PTS Tech on Tony’s blog is not going to be defended by anyone who understands what Scientology is actually about.

              Sorry, Marildi. But this is the bottom line. Like Chris says, a “Marildi Scientology” would be very different from a standard LRH Scientology.

              But a Marildi Scientology would be very quickly overthrown by a standard LRH Scientology, and the reasonableness and humanity that you brought to it would be “hammered out of existence” per KSW.

              Scientology is not something you should be supporting, but I understand why you do. You do it out of your own humanity and your own caring for others. But your dub in of LRH’s writings will never survive in the real world when you give political power to Scientology.

              LRH made sure of that.

              Alanzo

            17. Using reasonable and unreasonable proponents of religion is a good example and the results between these factions can be seen all over the world — perpetual in-fighting and warfare.

              And the other salient point is that Clearing doesn’t produce a high functioning population who would modify the difference. Scientology doesn’t produce free-thinkers who do not need close monitoring by the ethics section, because when Scientology produces its ideal citizens, they are rigid conformists, and that would be the end of any type of renaissance for man.

            18. Chris wrote:

              Scientology doesn’t produce free-thinkers who do not need close monitoring by the ethics section, because when Scientology produces its ideal citizens, they are rigid conformists, and that would be the end of any type of renaissance for man.

              63 years of Scientology production of “Clears” is certainly enough evidence to prove conclusively that this is the case.

              If after 63 years we had a Nobel Prize winner, or a NASA Engineer who broke through significant barriers, or even a Hollywood Star that wasn’t either a sex maniac or a pinheaded fanatic, then we could say “now hold up here, maybe, just maybe, there is something to this Hubbard thing.”

              But we don’t. What we do have is exactly what you describe above.

              Scientology Experiment over. Let’s stop the damage it has caused before too many others are harmed.

              That is the conclusion of the thousands and thousands of people who have enough direct experience with Scientology and its products over the last 63 years.

              Alanzo

            19. Alanzo commented:

              “But a Marildi Scientology would be very quickly overthrown by a standard LRH Scientology, and the reasonableness and humanity that you brought to it would be “hammered out of existence” per KSW.

              Scientology is not something you should be supporting, but I understand why you do. You do it out of your own humanity and your own caring for others. But your dub in of LRH’s writings will never survive in the real world when you give political power to Scientology.

              LRH made sure of that.”

              Alanzo, it is not “would.” This is exactly what happened in 1981/82 – the direct consequence of LRH policies being forced into use across the Mission networks starting in about 1975/76.

            20. Yes Maria, this already has historical precedent which the present day Church itself (the very storm troopers who pogrom-ed the mission holders back then) do not allow present day Scientologists to know.

              Scientology creates a nightmare society. The evidence is everywhere for everyone to see – unless you are a Scientologist.

              Alanzo

            21. Hmm… evidence, Scientology.

              It dawns on me that these two words are almost antonyms. Where in Scientology are there any evidence? Evidence of Clear? Evidence of enhanced abilities? Evidence of OT powers? Evidence in research? Evidence of research? What evidence?

              Anecdotal. Success stories. That’s about it. No evidence that I can see. Except the so called “self evident”. But evidence? Nah. I’d go so far as to say that “Scientology evidence” is the new oxymoron.

    2. Alanzo, you amaze me brother.

      I recently realized the curve Hubbard introduced in the section “Individuality versus Identity” of Scn 8-8008.

      Individuality is not something different from identity.
      Individuality is an aspect of identity.
      Anything that creates a unit
      Is part of the identity of that unit.
      If thetan is an awareness of awareness unit,
      Then it is a bundled up awareness.
      That bundled up awareness is an identity.
      Thetan itself is an identity..

      1. Vinaire: I recently realized the curve Hubbard introduced in the section “Individuality versus Identity” of Scn 8-8008.

        Chris: And neither is individuation different than individuality and identity. This is a tremendous inconsistency in the subject of Scientology that it exalts the individual while abhorring individuation. I have been working with this for a couple years now and do not see that this can be reconciled. I see it as a fundamental flaw in the vector of Scientology and western religion in general.

  23. Wow, this is almost like being a billiard ball among others on a snooker table.
    Hey, I’m liking it, getting bounced around (figuratively) as a result of some prrrettty sharp shooting! Taking a “cue” from Geir, I’ll take a shot at the Jefferson ball. I aim to sink him in the “hater” pocket…….. “Pock!” (rolls silently, gently, glances off the felted siding, nudging off two more obstacles, and finally )) ) ) ) ) ) sunk him!!
    Hey, This is the place where we can learn to “Like” ANYTHING, right?? So I’m gonna just “like” a hater too ! In fact, Jefferson, c’mon over man, join the love “like” fest!

    Message to Marildi: The “erstwhile loyal laddie” keeps himself preoccupied with the logical fallacies of a “Trrrrrue Scotsman” —- “therrrre’ss nooo betterrr soooond ferr sooooothin’ a trrrroubled meiiinnd, thannn th’ buuootiful strrrraiiins af’ an’ earrrlly morrrn’in waaaak’in fru’m th’ sweeet sooooonds uf’ bagpaaayps, raaisinnnnn ‘fru’m th’ glennnn! …. weeeeee! docc- jweee, joc jweeee, blip! (you getting this, Marildi?)
    ( and yes, believe me, there really is NOTHING “worn,” under a Scotsman’s kilt.) 🙂

    1. How do I know this? Well, i’m a second generation Seth Effrikan, of Australian / Irish decent, married into a Scottish family. Collectively, we ‘know’ EVERYthing!!! 🙂

    2. Aye, lad. I’m getting it. Some of it I don’t dare touch, however 😀

      But I do love your Scottish brogue! Not to mention the breezy way you have. (I suppose it’s the influence of the kilt 🙂 )

      1. Yes lassie, just rrrememberrr ta looookk th’ otherrr weyy onn thos’ deyyys, whan at’s bloooowin’ up a wee bit mooorrre than a’ brrreeez, will ye?? At’s no’ gooood fa yrrr ayyesaaiiight, ye kennn?

        1. Wow, racing! I get only part of what you mean but its flow is invigorating ! I love intense weather, high speed….also complete stillness. It looks you master both…

          1. Doing what you love, Marianne! 🙂 What greater satisfaction can there be in life? 🙂

  24. Marildi –

    A word about crusades:

    The best crusades are completely impossible. But that’s exactly why they have to be fought – because they are impossible and that’s what makes them so important and the best crusades. And this is why they have to be fought.

    Because they are impossible, and so vitally important.

    Because they are the best crusades.

    But they’re impossible, which is why it so vitally important to fight them.

    The best crusades.

    Alanzo

  25. Maria, Geir, and Chris, thank you for your kind words in this thread and others. It is nice to hang here again.

    I Hope You Have a Super Saturnalia this Dec. 17th!

    SUPER SATURNALIA!

    WIKIPEDIA: “Saturn is a complex figure because of his multiple associations and long history. He was the first god of the Capitol, known since the most ancient times as Saturnius Mons, and was seen as a god of generation, dissolution, plenty, wealth, agriculture, periodical renewal and liberation. In later developments he came to be also as GOD OF TIME.”

  26. Geir, below is another listing out of the positives and negatives of Scientology. It’s an open letter that a friend got and forwarded to me. As a little added tidbit, it tells who it was that first said, “If it’s not fun, it’s not Scientology.” I never knew where that came from!
    ——————————————

    Hello Everyone,

    I am Doug Davidson taking this opportunity to introduce myself and our newly formed delivery group, Observation Mountain Academy.

    If you live or have lived in British Columbia chances are you’ve been in session with me or have friends or have family whom I have audited.

    I was formally on staff at the Vancouver Org from 1973 to 1986. I worked as a case cracking auditor at AOLA and ASHO in 1981. I audited for New York org in 1986.

    When I returned to Vancouver in 1987 I continued to audit and C/S for the Org, field auditors and the Victoria, B.C. Mission until 1996. During that time, in 1994, I again audited for AOLA and ASHO as a case cracker. In 1996 I left Vancouver to live in Las Vegas where I audited at the Las Vegas Org for six months. I also audited for the Las Vegas Celebrity Center till 1999.

    In around 1985 or so my wife and I calculated that I had audited over 25,000 hours to that date. I have lost track since but it’s been several thousand more hours.

    During much of my time on staff in the early years I was the only auditor. The reason for this was that in around 1973-74 Hilary Rockl comm eved the Tech divisions and the two Class VIII C/Ses left. Other auditors left as their contracts ran out. Another Class VIII came over from the Mission in the middle ‘70s. Within a couple of years she was removed by the GO. Auditors and C/Ses came and left.

    I was the last auditor standing much of the time. Mostly because I was young, green, naive and extremely dedicated. Being a football player I was used to pain and rigor and just “forged ahead – no matter what.” If you’ve worked with me you know that I have been “a work horse” auditor and C/S. In the early 1980s another auditor, Diane Froese, trained and managed to stay on in spite of enormous hardships. Diane was a trooper.

    I did GAT I Levels in 2004. In 2011 the sups on the Briefing Course told me they were surprised at the ease with which I picked up the drills. They said most auditors who came to the BC after not auditing were a mess.

    Well, they had no idea of the circumstances of being the only auditor in a decimated org run by the GO in the city of the world headquarters of the World Federation for Mental Health.

    I worked long hours at the org and tried to maintain a family. My family made many sacrifices so I could continue to audit and C/S. My wife was also a staff member working in the Public Divisions and raising two children. It was not an easy life but we were dedicated to the mission.

    In around 1981 the ethics missions started coming and kept coming. The financial police showed up. Staff members were moved from one post to another post with Urgent Directives.

    In the early ’80s when the GO had been disbanded Hilary Rockl came back to be the ED of Van Day, while her husband Ray became ED of Van Fdn. Hilary, again, had the whole Tech division on Day Org comm eved. Why – Because one of crew of five auditors that we’d managed to put together refused to give her “due respect”. I, as the C/S and my Tech Sec were put in a condition of Treason and the HGC broke apart. That was the last straw. I finished my contract and left for New York in the summer of 1986.

    Why did we put up with the hardship? The tech works. It’s that simple. Every session brought relief from travail, joy, ability gained to another person. I had to do it. There was no other choice. Every auditor knows this. That is why we fight to stay on the job in thankless circumstances.

    In 2011 after my wife, Annette, received 200 hours of suppressive auditing at AOLA and I got into an altercation with the ASHO BC sups over the “three swing” F/N, and some other very bizarre incidents occurred in LA, we could no longer deny that the tech was being used to suppress and subjugate pcs.

    Now that we are free from AVU (Authorization and Verification Unit) and can express ourselves without having to approach the powers that be on bended knee to practice the technology, five of us, all veteran Scientologists, have come together to once more audit pcs, and perhaps more importantly create new auditors.

    Dave Soroka is a stellar supervisor. He put the Van Fdn Academy into Power and the ASHO Internship into Affluence. His course rooms fill up and auditors are made.

    He is tough and uncompromising with boatloads of ARC and doesn’t compromise with the tech. He debugs his students just by using the standard axioms of Scientology and the supervisor tech just as LRH wrote it.

    He does not resort to unusual practices or ever “push” a student through a course. He doesn’t have to. The students love being in the course room and make good progress on their check sheets.

    Dave is the heart of our org. The supervisor makes the auditors. No supervisor, no auditors. He’s the one that cracks the back of bad studenting before they can cause “untold upset”. LRH’s words were
    prophetic as I’m sure that everyone who has studied KSW after leaving the Church has realized. Dave is the sentinel of the tech and we’re very proud to have him on board.

    We are all here to provide service, auditing and training, and a terrific ethics program. If you just want to talk and tell us what you’re doing or what happened to you we want to hear from you and if you can, come for visit.

    Dianna Hubbard once said, “If it’s not fun it’s not Scientology.” We think so, too. We’re finally having fun with the tech.

    Here is our website: http://observationmountainacademy.com/ and you can reach me at inquires@observationmountainacademy.com.

    No regrets and creating a great future,
    Doug Davidson

  27. Alanzo wrote @ 2013-12-11 @ 16:17): “…no one who confronts Hubbard’s writings without dubbing in their own more reasonable versions of them just can’t defend it.”

    Al, you apparently are still missing the point in that PTS reference. It’s quite simple – people often antagonize others and don’t see how they themselves are the cause of the other person’s alienation. Or else they don’t confront and take up the other person’s considerations, which could be based on misinformation. These kinds of things are actually common sources of difficulty for which LRH gave a precisely laid-out solution – i.e. effective communication with the use of TRs and ARC.

    And Jeff Hawkins managed to twist that brilliant simplicity of tech into something insane and evil.

    You asked, “If you really believe that a world run by Scientology would be a better one than this one, it is your duty to get on there and make sure people know the truth. So why aren’t you?”

    I think I’ve already answered that where I wrote that when people are intent on looking for evil, that is all they will be able to grasp. And as much as I like the basic Alanzo, you are an example of this.

    I read the interview answers you gave in 2002, which you posted the link for in an earlier comment on this thread. More than a decade later, you’re still expressing all those same viewpoints without variation. Katageek called it your “practiced bravery”; I would call it your “practiced rhetoric.”

    The interesting thing is that others here have repeatedly accused me of “same old, same old” and insisted that I have made “no change” – but never mention the fact that YOU not only haven’t changed in your views in any respect. but are so extreme in them that there is NOTHING in Scientology that you would recommend.

    What do you think would have occurred if I had made a similar statement and said that there is nothing in Scientology that I would consider negative?! I would have been piled on like nobody’s business.

    And neither is there any recognition acknowledgement given to the fact that my statements of the cons of Scientology are far different from the viewpoint I had when I first started posting here when I was still of the mindset that LRH and Scientology were practically perfect.

    See what I mean? There’s no getting around a fixed viewpoint – whether it’s the intention to only see errors and evil in LRH’s words, or not being able to duplicate the words of a person who sees those works differently.

    Such a person gets dismissed as merely “thinking with the ideology of Scientology.” And the opposite is never recognized – which is that there exists a “thinking with the ideology of anti-Scientology.”

    Btw, I agree with Marianne’s comment regarding how you come across when you talk about other subjects, such as Buddhism – that’s where I came to know the basic Alanzo. 🙂

  28. I noticed the same thing you noticed about that 11 year old website posting I linked to.

    It’s astounding to me how I knew everything I needed to know about Scientology within about 2 years after getting out, and I had never recognized those things while I was a Scientologist.

    I’d studied Maoist reconditioning when I was in college, before getting into Scientology. But when I was a Scientololgist, I was sent to SMI as a staff member and placed in a room and told to write up my OW’s to the “tech”, by people who represented the purity of the ideology in military uniforms and never once noticed that this is what the Maoist’s did with people when they put them into the camps.

    I didn’t notice the anti-democratic demands for ideological purity that is all throughout KSW, which the Leninists and Stalinists called for as an excuse to exterminate others in Communist Russia.

    I didn’t notice any of these things even though George Orwell was my hero since I was a kid.

    How do you think it is that I could not see these things as a Scientologist?

    Is it because they actually weren’t there?

    You don’t believe that, do you?

    Or you do see it in the Church now because you can blame it on DM (Emmanuel Goldstein), but before you had DM to blame, it was right there in front of you too and you didn’t see it then, either, right?

    So what do you think it is that blinds a Scientologist from seeing the problematic totalitarian society that Scientology creates where ever it controls an area?

    I’m curious.

    What do you think it is?

    Alanzo

    1. It remains a mystery to me, too – how I didn’t notice even when a Sea Org member screamed at me and started spitting me in the face. I came in in 1984. And 1984 was one of my favorite books. The ideology did blind me.

      1. I came in in 1984, too.

        My exact date is July 4, 1984, which even at the time I thought was a totally ironic date to start in Scientology. (July 4th being American Independence Day, a day I used to associate with the opposite of totalitarianism – which I’m not so sure about any more)

        Anyway, the flyer that was placed in the hallway at my college, coming up to the July 4th holiday, was titled “FREEDOM AND DIANETICS“. That was my TOTAL BUTTON. It very much attracted my attention.

        I walk in to the mission and they have a Creed that reads like the Declaration of Independence, and a Bridge to TOTAL FREEDOM, and so I thought, “Hey! These guys are all about FREEDOM!”

        I read the books, which all had ideals of freedom all over them, and then went into orgs and then SO orgs, with people in military uniforms all over the place and I never saw any of it.

        Oh! Just remembered something: Not exactly true.

        I was sent to Flag soon after joining staff to do the Staff Status II course. And as I was studying in the course room, the word clearer noticed some kind of BI’s or something and he pulled me up and put me on a meter.

        He had me look over the page of text on “STRATEGIC PLANNING” and it has BATTLE PLANS and all kind of military terms on it. And I sat there and said, “I had no idea Scientology was all so militaristic. And so we looked up the word “strategic” and I had a BIG WIN on that, and promptly FORGOT about all the bad feelings and misgivings I had about all the militarism I was seeing every where at Flag.

        I do think that wins tend to distract you from your own feelings. I could explain the bad feelings away by saying “I just had an MU”.

        But it wasn’t an MU, it was ME, screaming “GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE! THEY ARE A PARAMILITARY BRANCH OF A TOTALITARIAN CULT!”

        Alanzo

        1. Alanzo said: “And so we looked up the word “strategic” and I had a BIG WIN on that, and promptly FORGOT about all the bad feelings and misgivings I had about all the militarism I was seeing every where at Flag.”

          That is operant conditioning. You didn’t forget. The association was shifted. The objective is simply to associate pleasurable / desirable and wanted feelings with something. Once fully associated by numerous passes,, it will trigger those same feelings. It is seen then as the source of those feelings.

          You see it in marriages. After numerous arguments and upsets, the husband is no longer associated with good feelings. He IS the trigger for feeling bad. The fix is to have the wife do things with the husband that produce happy/good feelings until he is no longer associated with bad feelings, and only triggers positive and happy feelings. She will not leave him so long as that association is in place. Weirdly, narcissistic people seem to have a genius for using this method of re-framing experience.

          Remember the sequence in the movie Century of Self where women smoking in parades was associated with freedom? Same thing. Cigarettes = freedom.

          This has been what I have been looking into for the last several months. Fascinating stuff.

          1. No. Associative logic is based on evaluation. A pure mind does not evaluate. It
            perceives what there is as it is. That shift you write about is clearing conditioning.
            That one is asked to go on studying or auditing after the shift has exactly that purpose that one would not get stuck even in a win. My experience.

    2. Sorry, Al, but this is yet again the “same old same old”. I’ve already acknowledged, multiple times, the gross outpoints where Scientology reversed itself. But as I say, you along with others are apparently “blind” to any comments I’ve made along those lines.

      And the really dumbfounding thing is that NO ONE is denying such things, other than CoS members – and not even all of those, since some of them are simply keeping quiet because of the danger they would place themselves and their friends in.

      In addition – as evidenced by your own statements – you are blind to the potential good in Scientology that has always been there, in spite of it having been corrupted – whether by LRH or DM or whoever. But you certainly aren’t the only one, There are many others who are either blind to the good things or reluctantly admit to them – but with qualifications

      1. Although I do not share Alanzo’s very black viewpoint on Scientology, I think you fail to get Alanzo’s point. It is not that Scientology was corrupted along the way – it is that it was INTENDED as a trap (bolstered by LRH’s affirmations). [Alanzo – correct me if I am wrong]

        1. “It is not that Scientology was corrupted along the way – it is that it was INTENDED as a trap…”

          That is a pretty black viewpoint, Geir.

          The workability of Scientology was demonstrated in the early years and is still being demonstrated by Independent Scientologists who reject LRH’s later violations of his own principles. There are other very plausible explanations for that besides assuming that those violations reflected his basic intentions.

          Personally, I don’t think that LRH could ever have recognized the truth about beings that he did, or developed the tech that he did, if his basic intentions were not to free them. That sums up my intuitive sense of it even though I can’t prove it. But neither can the black viewpoint be proven.

          1. That was not MY viewpoint, Marildi – that is Alanzo’s viewpoint – and you did not duplicate him. There are thousands of people holding that viewpoint. Much like there are millions of people holding that viewpoint on Nazism. The workability of Nazism is also evident in its early years. As Alanzo pointed out, the trains were on time. But more – much infrastructure was built and the economy was saved. Great results.

            1. I was referring to your own viewpoint, which I quoted: “It is not that Scientology was corrupted along the way – it is that it was INTENDED as a trap…”

              Also, what did you see in my comment that made you think I didn’t duplicate Alanzo?

            2. That quote was me interpreting Alanzo’s viewpoint. That was not my viewpoint.

              You didn’t seem to duplicate Alanzo’s viewpoint because a) you think the viewpoint above was mine, not Alanzo’s and b) you responded to hi, with all sorts of “it was corrupted along the way, etc” which was irrelevant regarding his viewpoint.

            3. So you don’t agree with Al that Scientology was “intended as a trap”?

            4. I think that the way Scientology is offered to new people is like a man or a woman who seduces a wealthy partner. The “honeymoon” period is awesome, deliberately awesome. And it is very, very real for the recipient. And desirable. And addictive. And important. And valuable. The feelings are real, the responses are genuine, there is no doubt that there is an enormous effect on the individual being wined and dined. (F/Ning, right?) And then the vows are made, the papers are signed and there’s no further need of being seductive, or wonderful or amazing – threats of withdrawal of affection are effective because the individual is hooked, line and sinker. So what is that called?

              Its not really a “con” per se, “con” is a confidence game – I see a watered down version of it when I date – some of the men are genius at dating, very attentive, romantic, even amazing – but the more they get to know me, the less they do that because they believe they don’t need to do these wonderful behaviors any more to keep me interested and involved. They begin to use the threat of withdrawal of affection to get their way. And interestingly, their way often includes violating boundaries and acting in disrespectful and demanding ways. But having been around the block in the worst possible way with Scientology, the only effect is has on me now is to put my back up and send them packing.

              Are these men deliberately conning me during the honeymoon period? No one would call this a con, especially if the objective is to “capture” your heart and marry you, have kids with you and settle down and “relax” now that we’re married.

              This happens a LOT in human relationships.

              If you want to be a great date and have all kinds of people in hot pursuit, just make sure that every date ends on an F/;N, as ecstatically as possible. Trust me, you will have many suitors and many offers of marriage and you can pretty much get away with murder.

        2. By the way, Marildi, I do acknowledge that you have opened up the number of things that you are willing to confront about Scientology.

          And you may never ever agree that Scientology, with its meters and sec checks and RPFs and anti-democratic, anti-rights fascist dictatorship power structure, you would never agree that it would create the techno robot society that I believe it will create.

          That’s totally fine.

          Where we disagree is in the worth of Scientology.

          I just do not think it is as valuable as you think it is.

          You find it desirable and I find it undesirable.

          Alanzo

          1. Once again you are talking about a corrupted Scientology – ignoring once again that I just stated my disagreement with that version of it.

            But like I say – some things just won’t go in because of fixed ideas by those who would accuse others of… fixed ideas.

            1. I don’t see it as a corrupted Scientology.

              The quotes I gave earlier in this blog post about “no civil rights of any kind” for anyone whose tone scale is below 2.0 is from Science of Survival, 1951.

              I read that book in 1984, when I first got in.

              What did you think when you first read those quotes by LRH?

              Did you dub something in that was more reasonable, like “Oh he’s just joking about taking someone’s civil rights away for being low in the tone scale”. Or what?

              It’s not corrupted, or something that was changed later.

              It is straight, standard Scientology from L Ron Hubbard. From The Basics, written in 1951.

              So I have to ask you again: How is that quote from SOS a corrupted version of Scientology?

              Alanzo

            1. Wow Marianne. You have no idea how distasteful that comment is.

              I know that you did not mean to be distasteful, but really – think about it.

              Alanzo

            2. Al
              Yes, I get it that it can be felt distasteful. You are right that there was no intention
              here to sound and be felt like that. In your previous comment you wrote about what
              interested you – it arrived here on a smooth, peaceful, caring and loving flow. That
              was its effect here. That for me is the ‘core being’ of you, Al. Also, the wide spectrum of energy-flows you are able to put into your comments. I am writing
              about it because for some time the ‘being-livingness’ here is mostly peace….and this I happen to see in all beings around me as their core. Also, the different types
              of energies they are emanating. With this I mean to say that I cannot be ‘taken in’ by whatever you put here which would divert my perception of your core beingness – which is peace, care and love. The others are ‘additives’ that you know
              the reasons for, why you like displaying them, which are equally fine with me.

            3. To be very concrete about the research Ron did. It has been amazing for me to see more and more examples of the depth of Ron’s research into human conciousness and the qualities and abilities of Life Source. As I haven’t been studying or auditing for years now and by the simple viewing I am living, there are numerous cases when observation and intuitive knowingness kind of matches data Ron researched.
              Also, as my consciousness is expanding, sources of comparable magnitude also
              support that Ron was right in the observations I am familiar with.
              You said that you meditated. The no technique of meditation for me is basically
              observing and perceiving. This happens to be the core of auditing too. So, what
              I meant was that through meditation you may get aware of some manifestations about which Ron wrote. May, as I don’t know.

            4. Yes. Some: with the technique of Book One auditing present and past life incidents
              can be recalled, seen and as-is-ed. Thus there is more free theta in the body and
              mind. Just one example: it was scarry to experince that a past death can have an
              effect on present body’s aliveness. Going through it there was a felt more aliveness.
              I have absolute certainty of (like you also experienced it) that exteriorization with full
              perception is possible. That I cannot do it on will I do not know the reasons of (yet).
              But I see that it is possible, I am just recalling three examples of it in case of three
              OT-s…who did not want to prove to me anything but from the data, the situations
              and coms I know that this was the case. The existence of blocks in coms like fast moving particles, ‘walls’, screens especially in case of com lags. I could see it in a theta way. Postulates and reverse postulates like moving particles (I saw them some
              years ago before reading about them, then I read the references…this happened many times to me that I experienced something and then I read from Ron
              about them). The Admin scale and the Ethics Conditions are valid, I used them in
              my business and got it into Normal, touching Affluence a couple of years ago in my
              private business. Is this the type of ‘evidence’ you asked for or you thought of something else?

            5. Yes. What I had in mind is factual proof that Hubbard did research. Because I have not seen much of that. What is the research that proves his theories? As of now much of his work remains as “interesting theories”, “uninteresting theories”, “religious work”, “fiction” or “speculation”.

            6. As of now much of his work remains as “interesting theories”, “uninteresting theories”, “religious work”, “fiction” or “speculation”.

              . . . and allegations.

            7. Thanks, Geir. Now that I am more and more aware and conscious, also that I have
              new and new experiences, also that I see people and situations clearer and clearer
              by observing, occasionally meditating (sitting) and that I know some persons of high awareness, it happens that I either recall data that I read but did not fully observe then or I take one of the basic books and read there what Ron wrote
              that prove that Ron’s observations were correct. I always put here to the limit I
              know the materials as I fully understand that there can be / may be some I haven’t
              read where the data cannot be observed/proved fully as written. So, can be the basis of further research. I feel I can separate the tech, its workability and when it is not applied as it was meant to be. With this alone I could spot on many occasions an auditor or ethics outpoint. Admin not so much as I studied only some
              small parts of it. In life also, through coms.

      2. Hitler made the trains run on time, too. And that is a fact.

        Germans were starving before Hitler. Walking around pushing wheelbarrows filled with cash just to go to the grocery store, Hitler saved them from all that.

        Those are the good things in national socialism, too.

        I guess I shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater of Nazism, either, right Marildi?

        Sorry, Marildi, if there really was something more important than this to learn about Scientology, then I swear I would learn it.

        But the most important thing to learn about Scientology is that it will lead to a nightmare dark ages society that none of us – including you – would ever want.

        That’s the most important thing to know about Scientology.

        Alanzo

  29. Alanzo @ 2013-12-12 @ 00:14: “The quotes I gave earlier in this blog post about “no civil rights of any kind” for anyone whose tone scale is below 2.0 is from Science of Survival, 1951. It’s not corrupted, or something that was changed later…It is straight, standard Scientology from L Ron Hubbard. From The Basics, written in 1951. So I have to ask you again: How is that quote from SOS a corrupted version of Scientology?

    It’s not – and I never said it was. Again you have not duplicated my comments.I specifically referred to the “administrative” re-definition that came later as being a corruption.

    Marty Rathbun studied a number of books about psychopaths/sociopaths (SP’s/suppressives) and wrote about this subject in his book “What is Wrong with Scientology?” The following is an excerpt (Geir this is also in reply to the incomplete exchange we were having yesterday):

    “To pretend or argue that Hubbard was not fairly accurate when it came to describing the modus operandi and the behavioral characteristics of the anti-social personality or suppressive person is tantamount to denying the work that several mental health disciplines have carried out on the subject for several decades since. Psychiatrists and psychologists refer to the ant-social type suppressors of life by the terms ‘psychopath’ and ‘sociopath.’

    “The world’s leading authority on the subject is Dr Robert Hare. The checklist characteristics of the psychopath developed by Hare [which I posted in the exchange with Geir], and more fully described in his several books on the subject, could have been compiled nearly verbatim from the works of L. Ron Hubbard between 1951 [the year ‘Science of Survival’ was published] and 1967.

    “Probably the most readable and interesting description of how Hare’s criteria manifest appears in Martha Stout’s 2011 book ‘The Sociopath Next Door.’ Stout is particularly credible, since her observations and summations are based on more than two decades of specializing in the healing of the victims of sociopaths. Another more entertaining account of the checklist was written by Welsh journalist Jon Ronson in ‘The Psychopath Test. Both [books], ‘Sociopath’ and ‘Psychopath’ are recommended to Scientologists, former Scientologists, critics and anyone else affected by or interested in Hubbard’s work on the subject. If one engaging in this study hasn’t already done so, he also ought to read Hubbard’s ‘Science of Survival.’

    “In the mid-‘60’s, Hubbard suggested that approximately 2 ½ percent of the general population were of the anti-social variety. The Hare school of psychopathy puts the current percentage at 4. That is remarkably consistent, when one considers the latter is proffered nearly 50 years after Hubbard’s guess, and when considering that the Hare school posits that our consumerist/capitalist society rewards and thus breeds an increase in occurrence of psychopathy, Stout’s ‘Sociopath’ and writings of Hare himself, contend that sociopathy may well be the number-one unsolved problem threatening our civilization. Hubbard asserted the same 45 years ago.

    “‘Science of Survival’ has received extensive criticism for its assertion that ant-social personalities ought not to be afforded civil rights, but instead ought to be quarantined in order to protect potential victims from their evil doings. Mental health professionals have led that critical chorus for the past six decades. Hubbard wrote that passage after concluding that the anti-social personality was incapable of cure, since the anti-social personality was certain there was nothing wrong with himself, and that in fact it was “everybody else” who was insane and in need of extermination. Ironically, 60 years after ‘Science of Survival,’ mental health professionals find themselves coming to the same conclusion, and struggling to put it in more socially acceptable, politically correct terms.

    “Ultimately, as ‘Psychopath’ makes clear, the mental health profession has, for six decades – and continues to this day – done precisely as Hubbard recommended in 1951. They commit sociopaths to institutions, and they go to great lengths to justify keeping them held against their constitutional and civil rights, indefinitely. Sure, they have attempted cures (from the benign to psycho-surgery, to electro-convulsive shock therapy, to even putting psychopaths on huge doses of LSD). But at the end of the day, in the year 2012, they have concluded they cannot cure a psychopath, and quarantine is the only answer.”

    “Hubbard has been criticized roundly for noting that when a person is determined, beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a vampire-personality sociopathy, ruining the life of another individual, the latter had better disconnect from the former if he or she is interested in surviving and flourishing in life…”

    1. Marty is remarkably off the mark here. Do you know the reference from Hubbard on what percentage is below 2.0 on the tone scale, Marildi?

      1. Exactly, we are talking about people who are below 2.0 on the tone scale, not anti-social personalities.

        The horrifying thing here and that Marty and Marildi are both missing is that they are defending locking people up, not for what they have done, but for who they are – “psychopaths”, “sociopaths” and people “below 2.0 on the tone scale”.

        These labels are completely unprovable. To somehow link taking away someone’s liberty if you can label someone one of these labels, rather than convict them of a specific crime, is chillingly totalitarian.

        On Marty and Marildi’s part, I suspect it is a lack of critical thinking skills.

        On Hubbard’s part, I believe that he was an anti-democratic fascist and it was out-pr to come right out and say he was.

        Alanzo

        1. I agree that it is outright horrendous to advocate or defend the removal of someone’s civil rights based on the judging of their character. And then Minority Report pops to mind. Chilling.

        2. Alanzo: On Hubbard’s part, I believe that he was an anti-democratic fascist and it was out-pr to come right out and say he was.

          Chris: And on the tape “Org Board and Livingness” and “Organization” Hubbard crowed about how his favorite form of government was “benign dictatorship” with guess who as the benign dictator?

      2. I believe that at the time, 1951, LRH thought the average tone level was 2.8. However, as regards those below 2.0, in SOS LRH also made it clear that quarantining them, as had been done throughout history, was no longer necessary in that processing them was the much simpler and far preferable way to handle them. (I’ve quoted the excerpts on that for Alanzo but he always leaves that part out.)

        Also, LRH had not yet isolated the true antisocial personality, and even in the later issues on the subject the percentage was 20%, although only 2 1/2 percent were true SPs and the remainder were PTS.

        However, you seem to be ignoring the other points in the excerpt, which were that LRH’s description of the characteristics of true SPs/psychopaths very closely matches the research of leading experts today, and they apparently also agree with him that the handling for psychopaths is to quarantine them.

        You and Alanzo are not basing your opinions on any kind of research, just specious arguments.

        1. I will leave you with this:

          THE DIANETIC AUDITOR’S BULLETIN
          Volume 2, No. 6, December, 1951
          “Human relations are often worked out in this society on a 2.0 basis; worked out almost exclusively on a MEST basis with little attention to theta.”

          SOS, p 76
          “At 1.1 on the tone scale we enter the area of the most vicious reversal of the second dynamic. Here we have promiscuity, perversion, sadism, and irregular practices. We have no enjoyment of the sex act but a hectic anxiety about it. The sex act cannot truly be enjoyed whether performed regularly or irregularly. Here is Free Love, easy marriage and quick divorce, and general sexual disaster. People at this level on the second dynamic are intensely dangerous in the society, since aberration is contagious. A society which reaches this level is on its way out of history, as went the Greeks, as went the Romans, as goes modern European and American culture.”

          Do you think Hubbard talked about a select few, the rare instances when he lecture on about “below 2.0 on the Tone Scale”?

          No, he is advocation the removal of civil rights from a huge portion of the people of Earth.

          And regarding the quarantining of psychopaths; That is only because they tend to DO crime. As in the FBI article I quoted (ca 1% being psychopaths, but 10%-15% of the criminals are). That some would currently advocate quarantining of people based on character judgment serves in no case to defend the insane measures proposed by Hubbard. It serves only to color those with the same brown color as we know from the German Nazis. Only they advocated a much smaller portion of society to be quarantined or “done away with silently and without sorrow”. My straight question to you, Marildi; Do you agree with Hubbard that those below 2.0 on the Tone Scale should not have any civil rights? Yes? No?

          1. For anyone interested, a simple cursory look around the internet will pull up many references to Dr. Hare, his ideas of psychopathy, comparisons to Scientology and the like. So I will leave it with this: No matter who thinks that I should be locked up, I am probably not going to agree. And for sure, I am not going to agree with being quietly disposed of.

          2. Geir: “My straight question to you, Marildi; Do you agree with Hubbard that those below 2.0 on the Tone Scale should not have any civil rights? Yes? No?”

            Not everything is black and white or a matter of yes or no. There are nuances in the context of that quote. Also bear in mind that LRH had not yet worked out the characteristics of a truly antisocial/psychopathic personality. Here’s the relevant passage:

            ———————————–
            “Criminals lie in the band from 2.0 down the scale, as a generality; but most criminals are found from about 1.3 downward. There is nothing very glamorous about the criminal, the breaker of his pledge, the betrayer of his friend or group. Such people are simply psychotic. This does not say that individuals who lie potentially along tone bands from 2.0 down are actively criminal, chronically, or that they are actively unethical, chronically; but it does say that during periods of enturbulence they are unethical and immoral, and refrain from being so only in ratio to the amount of free theta they still have available. They normally enturbulate easily and often, however, and while for days and weeks together they may appear to be rational, insofar as the current normal is concerned, they are a serious liability to any employer, mate, family, or group.

            “Here again we have the condition of the acute psychotic state as opposed to the chronic psychotic state; in the acute psychotic state the person becomes temporarily insane for short periods; in the chronic state, he remains insane. If a person can enturbulate easily down to a level below 2.0, and has not enough free theta to refrain from aberrated action, he should not be given more freedom in the society than the chronic psychotic, since he is as thoroughly psychotic in his acute state of enturbulence as any constantly insane individual.

            “Society, recognizing that the greatest danger from an individual lies in the band from anger down to 1.1, has sought to safeguard itself by suppressing these people permanently into an apathy level; this control mechanism, however, is as unworkable as it is widespread, since individuals in the apathy strata can rebound sporadically up into the active strata and so are still thoroughly dangerous. The only answers WOULD SEEM TO BE the permanent quarantine of such persons from society to avoid the contagion of their insanities and the general turbulence which they bring into any order, thus forcing it lower on the scale, OR PROCESSEING such person until they have attained a level on the tone scale which gives them value.

            “In any event, any person from 2.0 down on the tone scale should not have, in any thinking society, any civil rights of any kind, because by abusing those rights he brings into being arduous and strenuous laws which are oppressive to those who need no such restraints. And particularly, none below 2.0, chronically or acutely, should be used as witnesses or jurors in courts of law, since their position in regard to ethics is such as to nullify the validity of any testimony they might essay or any verdict they might offer.

            “This does not propose that depriving such persons of their civil rights should obtain any longer than is necessary to bring them up the tone scale to a point where their ethics render them fit company for their fellows. This, however, would be a necessary step for any society seeking to raise itself on the tone scale as a social order. A fundamental of law already provides for this step, since sanity, in law, is defined as the ability to tell right from wrong. The rational, and therefore, the ethical state of persons acutely or chronically below the point of 2.0 is such that it is impossible for them to judge right from wrong. Thus, by bringing forward a simple definition not only of right and wrong but of ethics, the existing fundamental can be put into effect, should it happen, by chance, that anyone care whither our social order is drifting. It is simpler to do psychometry on one-hundred and fifty million people than to bury a culture for which we and our fathers have striven these past hundred and seventy-five years.” (Science of Survival)
            ————————————-

        2. Marildi on Hubbard: SOS LRH also made it clear that quarantining them, as had been done throughout history, was no longer necessary in that processing them was the much simpler and far preferable way to handle them. (I’ve quoted the excerpts on that for Alanzo but he always leaves that part out.)

          Chris: But in 1951, Dianetics could clear people and make a world of which we could be proud. Then Hubbard gradually and directly “declared suppressive” 52 of the first 100 Clearing Course Clears. I am going out on a limb here and declaring those suppressive person declares to be both invalid and incorrect. Incorrect because I cannot believe that an “anti-social” personality could successfully pass through the processing requirements including the Clearing Course and fool everyone around including Hubbard, that is unless SP is senior to OT. “Invalid” because I am just important enough to do that.

          So Hubbard discovered that people could easily be processed through and certified as Clear and yet retain their anti-social personality. Then he began quarantining his very own Sea Org members. Do you suppose that trend would not continue? And if Hubbard actually gained control of a larger area of real estate than his cult holdings that he would have become more benign? To me it seems that this trend would continue and I would add, worsen.

          1. The simple fact is that there are two uses of the term “Suppressive Person.” One is a technical definition and has to do with a specific type of case – very specific. And the other use is administrative and political. And I don’t know of any instance where LRH claimed the latter use had the technical meaning. Even A to E steps, as one indication of this, don’t include auditing for a true SP, so that alone gives the simple answer to your questions.

            1. Marildi wrote

              The simple fact is that there are two uses of the term “Suppressive Person.” One is a technical definition and has to do with a specific type of case – very specific. And the other use is administrative and political. And I don’t know of any instance where LRH claimed the latter use had the technical meaning. Even A to E steps, as one indication of this, don’t include auditing for a true SP, so that alone gives the simple answer to your questions.

              Did LRH ever make this distinction between a “technical” SP and an “administrative” SP?

              Why did he use the same term for all these kinds of people and situations?

              1. A person who once opposed the pc in a pts handling
              2. A “2.5%er” on the order of Hitler and “Christie”
              3. A person who needed to be fired from the organization after decades of loyal service.
              4. People who criticize or expose anything in Scientology.

              Knowing what Hubbard knew about semantics, do you believe that he knew what he was doing when he deliberately used the same word for each of these very different people?

              Is it possible that Hubbard refused to differentiate between these types of very different people and situations hoping the condemnations he created on his “scientific” writings of his “discovery” of the suppressive person would bleed over into any pronouncement he made to label someone SP politically?

              This is at least irresponsible of him, don’t you think?

              Of those people, in especially category 3 above, what do you think he was trying to accomplish. Don’t you think it was a little heartless and cruel of him?

              Just a little?

              It is not justified by the latest Indie justification, currently in vogue, that the greatest SPs on the planet were after him, and trying to stop his development of Scientology. That he used his knowledge of semantics in this way is NOT justified, for any reason. It is bad technology, and he could thoroughly defend himself against the greatest SPs on the planet without throwing Scientologists themselves under the bus as this practice most definitely does.

              You are trying to think within the tight little box of the Scientology mindset again, Marildi, and your excuses and justifications for LRH’s outright subterfuge and manipulations are painful to watch.

              Your mind is larger than the Scientology box within which you have imprisoned your reasoning.

              Your thinking is going around and around like it’s stuck on a Hamster Wheel.

              You would NEVER let me get away with such duplicity as LRH displays here.

              Why do you justify for Ron, or look away entirely, when he does it?

              I would never treat another human being like this, and neither would you.

              Whip out the Big Critical Thinking Guns, Marildi, and turn them on LRH.

              Question these manipulations by LRH and use outside sources – not just to validate or confirm your existing religious beliefs – but to coldly examine these ideas with a light that is as objective as you can make it.

              If it is true, it will stand. Let it stand.

              If it is false, it will fall. Let it fall.

              That is my Christmas Wish for you, Marildi: I wish you the intellectual and spiritual freedom to step outside the Scientology Hamster Wheel, and the courage to think fully and uniquely on your own.

              Alanzo

            2. Al: “You are trying to think within the tight little box of the Scientology mindset again, Marildi, and your excuses and justifications for LRH’s outright subterfuge and manipulations are painful to watch…I wish you the intellectual and spiritual freedom to step outside the Scientology Hamster Wheel, and the courage to think fully and uniquely on your own.”

              In reply, I’ll quote what you just wrote to Calvin:

              “I’m extending an invitation to you to look at me in a completely original way, without the comfortable habits of any of the cognitive apparati of the past.

              “And I’ll do the same with you.”

            3. I am cleaning out a whole room in the Hall of Fame wing dedicated for Al. His writing is epic – regardless of whether one agrees with him or not.

            4. I am cleaning out a whole room in the Hall of Fame wing dedicated for Al. His writing is epic.
              🙂 🙂

            5. Tricky, Marildi.

              I see what you did there. You took a post I wrote to someone else entirely on a completely different subject and you blew me off with it.

              You never addressed the very clear manipulation that LRH created by labeling all those different types of people the same word “SP”, despite his knowledge of semantics.

              I wonder why you avoided that?

              Alanzo

            6. Marildi, sweet thang, if the stress of all this, gets to you, then you can always handle it like a beagle! …… just piss on it and walk away!

            7. “Marildi, sweet thang…”

              Calvin honey, you’re as charming with the American twang as you are with the Scottish brogue. 🙂

              (And you can be sure I understood what you meant for me to “piss on,” although it may not have passed through some other people’s filtered thinking 😉 )

            8. ‘I wonder why you avoided that’
              Because of using/having used the Study Tech. That one calls as ‘label’ is eventually
              a word, a concept. When the word/concept remains unclear, one gets ‘thinkingness’
              with that and not direct perception. A cleared word is cleared, that is not even the concept is there any more. A written text is a tool of communication. The trick in the
              PTS/SP course is that one confronts and duplicates the descriptions of the manifestations one may not have been aware of in life up to that point. When one
              makes the demos on the course, the charge, the so far misperceptions are gone.
              So one can see from then on persons and situations as they are and act accordingly.

            9. Marianne wrote:

              ‘I wonder why you avoided that’
              Because of using/having used the Study Tech. That one calls as ‘label’ is eventually
              a word, a concept. When the word/concept remains unclear, one gets ‘thinkingness’
              with that and not direct perception. A cleared word is cleared, that is not even the concept is there any more. A written text is a tool of communication. The trick in the
              PTS/SP course is that one confronts and duplicates the descriptions of the manifestations one may not have been aware of in life up to that point. When one
              makes the demos on the course, the charge, the so far misperceptions are gone.
              So one can see from then on persons and situations as they are and act accordingly.

              I copied your whole justification for LRH’s propaganda ploy through the use of the label “SP” because I want you to compare what you wrote, Marianne, to what LRH himself said about this technique.

              “’Psychiatry’ and ‘psychiatrist’ are easily redefined to mean ‘an anti-social enemy of the people‘. This takes the kill crazy psychiatrist off the preferred list of professions…The redefinition of words is done by associating different emotions and symbols with the word than were intended…Scientologists are redefining ‘doctor‘, ‘Psychiatry’ and ‘psychology’ to mean ‘undesirable antisocial elements‘…The way to redefine a word is to get the new definition repeated as often as possible. Thus it is necessary to redefine medicine, psychiatry and psychology downward and define Dianetics and Scientology upwards. This, so far as words are concerned, is the public opinion battle for belief in your definitions, and not those of the opposition. A consistent, repeated effort is the key to any success with this technique of propaganda.”
              – L. Ron Hubbard, Hubbard Communications Office Policy Letter, 5 October 1971, PR Series 12, “Propaganda by Redefinition of Words”

              LRH himself admits of his use of this propaganda ploy with the words ‘doctor‘, ‘Psychiatry’, ‘psychology’ and “medicine”.

              Can you see that he also did it with the term “SP” in the way that I pointed out, Marianne?

              It worked on Scientologists without regard to their use of Study Tech. Study Tech does not guard against this manipulation by LRH, as is seen clearly by his control of them by disconnection (where they ruin their own families) and fair game (where they try to ruin the lives of others) on anyone so labeled “SP”, whether “administratively” used, or “technically” used, or not.

              Please look at how LRH’s manipulates the minds of Scientologists here.

              Do not be distracted by “study tech”. It is not any kind of guard against this technique that he used on you.

              And remember what LRH said about “thinkingness”, which was supposed to be so low down and dirty:

              WHAT DO I THINK OF AUDITORS?

              “Every now and again somebody tries to get me to say what I think of auditors. They want me to become hypercritical, I guess, so as to match the asker’s tone. Well, I better make a public utterance after all this time.

              “I think of auditors in a rather intense way. As I know more auditors than anybody else and have a better basis for judgment, on this subject I can be for once an authority.

              “My opinion of auditors in general is fairly well known to several people.

              “I think of an Auditor as a person with enough guts to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. This quality is rare and this quality is courageous in the extreme.

              “It is my opinion and knowledge that auditors are amongst the upper tenth of the upper twentieth of intelligent human beings. Their will to do, their motives, their ability to grasp and to use are superior to that of any other profession. I think of an auditor as having INITIATIVE. He is able to grasp or make a mockup and put it into action.

              “Auditors survive better than other people.

              “If this world has any faintest chance of surviving it will be not because I write, but because auditors can and will think and do.

              “I think our auditors came from beings lately arrived on Earth who, seeing where it was going, decided to band together to send it elsewhere.”

              L Ron Hubbard

              Lot of thinkingness going on there, don’t you think, Marianne?

              So is thinkingness really so low down and dirty as LRH told you (elsewhere) that it was?

              Can you see the contradiction he used on you here?

              Alanzo

            10. Al
              You have been working a lot for me, thank you for that.

              Think OF is not thinkingness…it means ‘characterizing, giving its qualities, regarding as’ in this context. About the rest you wrote a bit later as I am off to do
              some jobs now.

            11. Al
              The HCOPL you quoted from does not make any sense to me. It may be because of
              the omission as you used ‘…….’, or the context, or false data. No idea. Perhaps
              marildi can make a head and tail out of it.

              In the other one, as I said, think OF and the use of ‘think’ (consider) have nothing to do with thinkingness which, in my present understanding, is a repetitive or circular logical or illogical pattern/process in the mind mostly based on not being fully in the here-now and instead figuring and figuring it out (beautiful English words…HaHa….the value of demo-ing/doing instead of figuring out..).

            12. “…figuring and figuring it out”

              Marianne, I think you’ve got it right. This is from the Phoenix Lectures:
              —————————
              “Thinkingness comes in down the scale [Know to Mystery] at the level below Effort. And it comes in as figure-figure-figure-figure-figure. Now a person can postulate without thinking about it, and if that’s what we mean by thought, that’s fine. But usually what people mean by thought is figure-figure.

              “‘I’ll just figure this out and I’ll get a computation and a calculation and I’ll add it up to… now let me see… can you go to the movies? I don’t know’ – the kind of answer a little kid gets. ‘Now let me see. I’ll have to think it over. Give me a couple of days.’

              “We don’t know how all of this mechanic got into a postulate, but they’ve let it get in there. So that’s the level, Thinkingness.”
              ————————-

              There’s also this other definition:

              THOUGHT, 1. the perception of the present and the comparison of it to the perceptions and conclusions of the past in order to direct action in the immediate or distant future. (Scn 0-8)

        3. MARILDI: “You and Alanzo are not basing your opinions on any kind of research, just specious arguments.”

          That is funny since you, Dio, Rafael and Valkov will work relentlessly to avoid a real demonstration of Clear abilities. Since you guys failed to do my last request for a demo, here is a NEW way to demo abilities of a clear!:

          Go somewhere and force an incident that needs auditing in a place with thousands of details in the scenery. Blow it up and make it real. Have a non-scientologist photographer take detailed pictures and film of the incident and then retain them for you. in a week have your auditor audit that incident and record it. Make a written transcript of the session from the recording and have another third party COMPARE how accurate the real scene is compared to the one you described. List items, colors, numbers of objects, and other details in your auditing that can only come from that scene. Tell events in the exact order they occurred. List out the dialogue perfectly.

          If you have perfect recall, it can be demonstrated.

          STOP PUTTING THE ONUS FOR YOUR CLAIMS ONTO OTHERS. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE TO PROVE YOUR CLAIMS.

            1. LOL. I’m glad I wasn’t drinking anything otherwise- wet computer screen.

              The contest is AMAZING. This scene is actually at the end after their brains are totally fried.

              They have to memorize a 50 line poem verbatim. There is also a speed card deck memorization, right now the record for memorizing a deck of cards I think is under two and a half minutes.

              Right now, the Germans, the most “suppressive country” on the planet are kicking the world’s ass in mental athletics.

              In another event people get up and talk about themselves and gives out personal information. The contestant has to memorize everything in real time and then answer questions afterward about the people who they listened to.

              Then there is the names and faces event where people have to memorize names and faces from pages and pages of photos and then recall them later.

            2. It is so obvious. We exercise our bodies but not our minds? I make my kids practice musical instruments but not practice memorizing? I haul them in a car to soccer practice but not to memorizing practice – Wow. This is simply good practice for looking, watching, listening, staying in the present… WHY OH WHY DON’T I DO THIS?

            3. LOL Chris!

              What a great thread, so very interesting, funny and valuable. Thanks to all. 🙂

            4. @deE, Isn’t it? Lots of interest in this one. I am so intrigued by the way we model or lives after the metaphors that we choose. If we don’t know or are unaware that we do this we can get very stiff and serious about things!

          1. KG, I’m afraid you are missing data. The definition and abilities of Clear that LRH claimed were possible in the beginning, he later revised with additional research.
            And mental gymnastics were never the actual goal or purpose of auditing to Clear.

            1. KG, you have to realize that a Clear has NO abilities that can, under any circumstance be demonstrated. What he had is purely subjective. It has nothing to do with any abilities described in The Chart of Human Evaluation of any other potentially demonstrable ability. Ever. So stop demanding of people that they cough up any proof or evidence for their religious beliefs.

            2. I guess I just misunderstood Clear then.

              In that case, I’m not interested. If I can’t be a superhuman FUCK IT!

              Superman is the shit. Therefore, I am not the shit.

              Shit.

        4. Marildi: You and Alanzo are not basing your opinions on any kind of research, just specious arguments.

          Chris: It seems that you are fighting heroically, flailing away, caught up in the fight but it is not a battle to be won but a reckoning of the pros and cons of Scientology. I already applauded your listing of 5+,5-‘s. That chalk is on your side, though you wrote it didn’t happen. But specious arguments? No. I don’t see how complaining against the easily understandable black and white printing of Science of Survival and decades of fakery and false statistics is specious.

          1. That reference can be looked at with “black and white” thinking and a literal point of view. Or the nuances in it can be duplicated – that is, if one wants to see them.

            1. Fair enough. And we’ve come full circle – one sees errors if one is looking for them, and just the opposite as well.

              Some great thinker said that the universe a person perceives is the one he’s putting there. That’s badly paraphrased, and I don’t recall who said it or where I read it, but I think there is truth to it.

            2. Now this is where evidence and irrefutable proof enters the picture. To complete the circle; The burden of proof must lie with the one that claims something is true or that something exists. And so the burden of proof for the workability of Scientology or the existence of Clear lies with Hubbard. And since he died without ever managing to prove these, then the defendants of his theories carries that burden now.

            3. I got to thinking about that, Geir, and realized this is one of the most basic differences in worldviews among people. To me, it comes down to a difference in emphasis on MEST vs. Theta. Not everyone considers that objective proof is necessarily the best or that it is even needed – or even possible in all cases. But I do agree with you on the point you’ve made in the past – which is that such proof would get the attention of a lot of people, probably even the majority of them.

              On a personal level, though, I find it enough to have my own subjective and/or intuitive reality. And the views of people like Marianne and others whose direct perception I trust are, to me, at least as impressive as the most solid scientific evidence. In a comment today, Marianne wrote that “there are numerous cases when observation and intuitive knowingness kind of matches data Ron researched. Also, as my consciousness is expanding, sources of comparable magnitude also support that Ron was right in the observations I am familiar with.”

              Can you truly say that you would rather have science tell you what is true as opposed to having your own knowingness?

            4. That is not really the point – because those are two entirely different realms. I prefer my own knowingness for myself. But if I am to communicate to others, I have to rely on common grounds – a common language, a common set of rules, etc. This is what constitute objectivity. And to help another, I have to convince that other that what I do can and does help. That boils down to evidence. To proof. And if you don’t have that, then Scientology comes squarely in the same category as all other beliefs – like Islam, Christianity, Satanism and the Jedi’s.

            5. Then it seems we are in agreement in both realms.

              Based on your own personal knowingness, would you say that if Scientology were to be tested scientifically, it would be proven as valid?

            6. So is the reason you are pushing for it to be tested that you want Scientology proven to be mostly invalid?

            7. No. I want everything tested for validity. My purpose is knowledge. Pure and simple. I have no agenda to discredit or to vindicate Scientology one way or the other. Do you?

            8. I have no agenda either – that would be stupid.

              However, in the “Bait and Switch” thread, you wrote:

              “But unlike science, there was never any peer review or real cooperation in research. It was a one man show.”

              I thought Valkov gave a pretty good reply to that, but you never responded to his post. The points he made I’ve seen stated elsewhere too. Here they are again:
              ——————————-

              2013-11-28 @ 21:02
              “The reality I see is quite the reverse of what you claim here. There is plenty of evidence in the form of first-person accounts that in the early days there were a lot of people involved in R&D, and that various parts of the ‘tech’ were researched and developed by other individuals. There are plenty of detailed accounts on ESMB, and in other places, about this.

              “In the 1950s the various ‘routes’ as delineated in CoHA for example, were arrived at by polling existing auditors who had been applying various processes and were polled as to which processes were most effective and which were not so effective. That was the basis of the codification of those ‘Routes.’. That is peer review right there…
              —————————-

            9. That is nowhere near any real research with open records for peer review and reproduction of any results. LRH never released any real research data to my knowledge – at least nothing that would stand any scrutiny from a scientific community. Yes, he ripped off many and hardly ever gave due credit (and retracted any he may have given) – but that doesn’t make it any more of a science. Therefore, Scientology remains a set of “interesting theories”, “uninteresting theories”, “pure speculation” and/or “fiction”. Evidence, proof or peer review? Nope. Religion? You bet.

              I am coming to grips with handling scientologists as religious devotees and the discussions that ensue as theological debates.

            10. “I am coming to grips with handling scientologists as religious devotees and the discussions that ensue as theological debates.”

              Maybe that’s why these discussions never really go anywhere. You and others have a conviction that “Scientologists” base their views on blind faith. Whereas, at least some of us see Scientology as essentially a matter of personal knowingness.

              I guess what I’m coming to grips with is the fact that some people place more value and emphasis on the objective world, while others do so on the subjective. That seems to be the most basic disagreement.

            11. Calling your Straw Man here, Marildi: I never said anything about BLIND faith here. Twisting it to suit your argument 😉

              Now as we seem to agree that Scientology, for the lack of real evidence or proof, really does boil down to belief or faith (not blind), then who is right – the Muslim who has his faith in the Koran and Muhammed and Allah or the Scientologist who has her faith in Hubbard and his writings?

            12. Maybe I don’t know how you are differentiating “faith” from “blind faith.” To me, that’s like saying there’s a difference between “The SNOW covered the ground” and “The WHITE SNOW covered the ground.”

              And if you are going to use the word “belief” in your answer, please define how you’re using that too.

            13. I don’t consider that Scientology tech is the only way of achieving knowingness. If a Muslim, as an example, has gained knowingness via the Koran, I would say there is no difference.

            14. Thank you.

              And this places Scientology squarely and fairly in the realm of religion and certainly not in the realm of science.

              I think Hubbard’s decision to move Scientology from a pseudo-science and in to a religion is one of the most honest moves he did regarding the subject.

            15. Is there a definition of religion that says anything about knowingness, or direct knowledge or anything along those lines?

            16. What do you mean by “direct knowledge”? Do you mean like the person who knows he talks to God every night before going to bed? Or the the person who knows he has faeries in his back yard?

            17. I would say that some people do have a direct connection with what they call “God” and others call “consciousness” or “higher consciousness” or “oneness”, etc. As for fairies, if they exist I suppose it is possible to directly perceive them.

              This is not the same as having belief/confidence in something based on indirect knowledge no matter how “substantial.”

            18. As there are no absolutes attainable, there are degrees of personal knowledge or belief. This is the traditional realm of religion. Objective proof or evidence is the realm of science. And so far, Scientology is more a religion than most others I have had experience with IMO.

            19. When you say “As for fairies, if they exist…” If they exist? Like “if they objectively exist”? But didn’t we conclude that this is not a matter of objectivity at all? It is only about the subjective and personal knowingness or belief. Whether faeries exist or not is wholly irrelevant here. The fact that some hold it as religious belief is the whole point. And that should be respected. Regardless of others’ belief in faeries or not.

            20. “…Whether faeries exist or not is wholly irrelevant here. The fact that some hold it as religious belief is the whole point. And that should be respected. Regardless of others’ belief in faeries or not.”

              Again, I’m not talking about “beliefs” or “faith.” I consider that there are things that are ACTUAL which don’t come under the heading of “objective.” The reason i say this is that I see in many different philosophies what seem to me to be merely different ways of expressing the same actualities. So if fairies are actual, they can probably be perceived but probably not in an objective, physical universe way.

            21. Marildi: Again, I’m not talking about “beliefs” or “faith.” I consider that there are things that are ACTUAL which don’t come under the heading of “objective.”

              Chris: Yes, this is what religion is. be·lief

              biˈlēf/

              noun

              1.

              an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. “his belief in the value of hard work”

              2.

              trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something. “a belief in democratic politics”

              synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence

              and

              faith

              fāTH/

              noun

              1.

              complete trust or confidence in someone or something. “this restores one’s faith in politicians”

              synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More

              2.

              strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

              synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion,(religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine

              Marildi, “Knowingness” fits nicely together with “spiritual apprehension.”

            22. Marildi: This is not the same as having belief/confidence in something based on indirect knowledge no matter how “substantial.”

              Chris: You are right, semantically you created a slight difference and that is all. If you know, that you know, that you know, that you know, then you know. Beyond that, pick your metaphor and have a nice life, and I mean that sincerely, not snidely.

            23. Okay, then you seem to be talking about religious practice but I’m talking about religious philosophy:

              RELIGIOUS PRACTICE implies ritual, faith-in, doctrine based on a catechism and a creed. (HCOB 18 Apr 67)

              RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY implies study of spiritual manifestations; research on the nature of the spirit and study on the relationship of the spirit to the body; exercises devoted to the rehabilitation of abilities in a spirit. (HCOB 18 Apr 67)

              For me, Scientology is more not a religion per the definitions I’ve seen. But in the sense that it is a philosophy of the spirit, it is a RELIGIOUS philosophy.

            24. The definition says: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

              The first two elements of the definition covers what you aim for above. The last part covers training, auditing, ethics.

              Let’s keep to the commonly agreed-upon dictionary definitions and not Hubbard’s definitions, OK?

            25. Marildi: RELIGIOUS PHILOSOPHY implies study of spiritual manifestations; research on the nature of the spirit and study on the relationship of the spirit to the body; exercises devoted to the rehabilitation of abilities in a spirit. (HCOB 18 Apr 67)

              Chris: I used to use that semantical argument as well until I could see how condescending the Hubbardian valence is toward other religions. He calls shouting at an ashtray an exercise to rehab the abilities of the spirit but not devout and serious prayer or the saying of a rosary or the lighting of a candle. He calls repeating “do birds fly” a rehabilitation of abilities in a spirit but NOT the yoga of Brian Culkin. “Religious practice vs religious philosophy” is a very bad argument. It does not hold up and is very very bad manners.

            26. Marildi: For me, Scientology is more not a religion per the definitions I’ve seen. But in the sense that it is a philosophy of the spirit, it is a RELIGIOUS philosophy.

              Chris: Marildi, why is “This definition should cover Scientology, Christianity and Islam equally well: 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. From:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/religion” not a good definition of Scientology?

            27. Marildi: I don’t consider that Scientology tech is the only way of achieving knowingness. If a Muslim, as an example, has gained knowingness via the Koran, I would say there is no difference.

              Chris: Not the point. The point is that all members of every faith have achieved “knowingness” that their faith is true. Do you consider that their “knowingness” is rightfully as true as your own “knowingness.”

            28. Marildi: Whereas, at least some of us see Scientology as essentially a matter of personal knowingness.

              Chris: Taking this view and applying it to other religions, do you feel that personal knowingness validates other religions as much as it does yours? In other words, are other religions as valid as Scientology?

            29. Sure. I just haven’t personally seen or heard of any that are comparable to Scientology in terms of speed and efficacy.

            30. Marildi: Sure. I just haven’t personally seen or heard of any that are comparable to Scientology in terms of speed and efficacy.

              Chris: You’ve studied Christianity. Its speed and efficacy is instantaneous. You only need to pray this prayer, “I believe in you Lord and believe that Jesus your Son was sent to save sinners. I accept Jesus as my Lord and Savior and I accept the Gift of eternal salvation.” Now if you pray that prayer, it is fundamental Christian doctrine that you are now washed of your sins and saved for eternal life and safe from Hell. Does this not match with your idea of religious philosophy and practice? Is this not quick and sure? Do you know any true Christians who are not Clearly saved?

            31. Marildi: I guess what I’m coming to grips with is the fact that some people place more value and emphasis on the objective world, while others do so on the subjective. That seems to be the most basic disagreement.

              Chris: I’ve been looking at this too and I feel that one’s own fixation on themselves is the root source of disagreement in the world.

            32. That’s seems right to me too.

              Got to go away from the computer for a while. Catch you later.

            33. Marildi: To me, it comes down to a difference in emphasis on MEST vs. Theta.

              Chris: This works within the confines of the game of Scientology which is like saying that a theory of existence works within the game of Dungeons and Dragons. The major premise is false and has no basis in the greater world.

            34. Marildi: Not everyone considers that objective proof is necessarily the best or that it is even needed – or even possible in all cases.

              Chris: Fine, then play the game that way and stop arguing that there are empirical reasons to believe in the religion of Scientology. If Scientology is your metaphor of choice, then live it and know what you are doing.

            35. And if you are relating your remark to me, then it’s a Straw Man. 😉

            36. Marildi: On a personal level, though, I find it enough to have my own subjective and/or intuitive reality.

              Chris: Of course, we all have this. But the “subjective intuition” that you are expressing has been conditioned by years of indoctrination and years of real personal investment on your part. You are one of the best experts on Scientology on this blog, congratulations but don’t stop there. Either move forward and do Scientology or move forward and do beyond Scientology, but move forward. I’ve been thinking about a comment that someone made earlier today that it was an aberration to “compare.” I don’t agree with this at all but think the most aberrated thing that one can get involved in is attempting to hold the status quo in every sense of the term. Trying to “hold one’s position in space” drives a person mad as it cannot be done at all that I know of in this universe. This is an extremely basic mistake regarding the Nature of things by Hubbard.

            37. Marildi: Can you truly say that you would rather have science tell you what is true as opposed to having your own knowingness?

              Chris: I count 6 red herrings in these comments of yours. Basically each thing you brought up minus your statement, “But I do agree with you on the point you’ve made in the past – which is that such proof would get the attention of a lot of people, probably even the majority of them.”

            38. Geir, Marildi never answered me on this issue until now. Neither did Dio or Rafael.

              YOU replied. But I wasn’t talking to you.

              NOW I am talking to YOU via electronic typing technology at the speed of light. What should I say to Geir Isene on the other side of the world and his readers? Hmm …

              Here we go …

              “There is no place like home.” – Dorothy

            39. Well, you certainly have a fan in me Geir. Your productivity in life is inspiriting.

              You’ve got that CEO arrogance thing, but that is the benefit of being a CEO! I hope you enjoy that. You’ve earned it. It’s a useful tool to cut through bullshit.

              Marildi, my faceless friend whose only image I know is a blue crab with pinchers and hig red LRH-esque lips. . .

              I hope you love your own mythology as you live it. For me, my mythology is ANYTHING but bullshit. It is my story. The one my ego-paradox creates. I guess you could say that I’m … mocking it up.

              Neuroscientists tell us that our memories become mostly mythology over time, so I might as well enjoy the stories and false memories I create.

              My lone regret is that I wish I journaled better when I was younger …

              : – )

              Merry Christmas!

            40. You call me your faceless friend and I call you my cheeky friend. 😀

              Which is just one of the things I like about you!

              MERRY CHRISTMAS, KG!

            41. Marildi quoted Valkov as writing:

              “In the 1950s the various ‘routes’ as delineated in CoHA for example, were arrived at by polling existing auditors who had been applying various processes and were polled as to which processes were most effective and which were not so effective. That was the basis of the codification of those ‘Routes.’. That is peer review right there…

              So did Valkov ever provide or even see any of this “polling” that was supposed to have occurred?

              I knew and worked with George Seidler for over 5 years. His first cert, as Hubbard Dianetics Auditor, was dated June of 1950 and signed personally by LRH. George never stopped auditing and was one of the first “research” auditors who worked with Ron. He was on the BC in the early 60’s at Saint Hill as well.

              He had LOTS of stories.

              He never said anything about any “polling”.

              So where is the actual evidence for this? Shouldn’t there be some kind of evidence for this somewhere?

              Alanzo

        5. Marildi: However, you seem to be ignoring the other points in the excerpt, which were that LRH’s description of the characteristics of true SPs/psychopaths very closely matches the research of leading experts today, and they apparently also agree with him that the handling for psychopaths is to quarantine them.

          Chris: Do you suppose that your Dr. Richard Hare would write a positive recommendation and clean bill of health for L. Ron Hubbard? Seriously. Dr. Hare is precisely the kind of man that LRH would have railed against. Dr. Hare estimates that 1% of the population are psychopathic. This is 60% fewer than LRH estimated and LRH condemned to hell 52 of the first 100 Clearing Course Clears, 52 times the number of psychopaths estimated by Dr. Richard Hare. Will you believe Dr. Hare if we quote him and if he disagrees with you and LRH or only if he confirms your bias?

          1. “Dr. Hare estimates that 1% of the population are psychopathic. This is 60% fewer than LRH estimated…”

            I believe he later revised it to 4%.

  30. Geir
    Science. Proof. Subjective, objective or both.
    I am putting here another example which I experienced subjectively during my Book One auditing, perhaps in the fifth or sixth sessions. I had never read-heard about it
    before, it was a completely first hand experience.
    It is the ‘sperm-dream’. It came up as this: ‘I’ (awareness) was witnessing the sperm,
    the ovum creating the zygote. Also, ‘I’ could go into being the sperm and being the
    ovum…merging into the zygote. Both looked-felt like forms of light. So, eventually
    I could witness and also experience the conception of my present body. That my
    body is here is the scientific proof of theta’s abilities to observe and create matter one part of which that I could observe is light. Science also proved that matter can
    be created from light. So here is one subjective-objective example for the Factors
    being a right observation.

    http://www.slashgear.com/scientists-create-matter-from-light-give-hope-for-a-future-with-lightsabers-15305644/

  31. Personal: since that no-time instant when with the guidance of an enlightened person some 17 years ago through chakra breathing I could see the universe as it
    is, also the no-thing nature of who we are in continuous communication to create what we experience here as the ‘physical’, my interest has been to experience whatever can be experienced while living this present life. As the wise say: through experience comes first-hand knowingness of what things are, how they come about and function, wisdom is when someone applies that knowingness in life. So, we get applied philosophy. Applied. The study-experience of the mind is part of it. Dianetics and Scientology techniques helped me in differentiating spirit, mind and body and how these three can affect one another.
    In that very first instant I was not mature enough to appreciate what I saw. I had ‘ego’, also lots of evaluating thoughts. No matter that the basis of me living this present life has been Love since birth, no matter some true meditative practices, it
    was in Dianetics when the first separation of body, mind, spirit occured. Also,
    it was at the end of Self-Analysis when I saw that what sorrounds the Bridge is much
    more powerful-alive than the Bridge. I have been exploring that part since then.
    As it looks, that part is able to be aware of and understand when some question, data from scientology comes up. That ‘awareness’, that ‘viewing’, that ‘aliveness’
    which came about with ‘awakening’ makes it possible for me not to defend or criticize scientology but see whatever comes up as-it-is and love it. When I recall something or somebody from my past scientology experiences, I feel understanding
    and love. Also, when I meet somebody or someone calls me up. Also, when I pick
    up a reference to read. I can feel the intent in it which is helping a human being to
    get aware of one’s core beingness and how infinite that beingness can be….also the source-potential of all beingnesses. With this I mean to say to Ron now wherever he is that I duplicated that intent and my heartfelt appreciation and thank you for all I could experience on my dianetics-scientology experience.

  32. Geir, you wrote: “The definition [of religion] says: A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. The first two elements of the definition covers what you aim for above. The last part covers training, auditing, ethics.”

    I’ll try again to make my viewpoint clear. Firstly, my main disagreement with the above definition is the word “beliefs,” since one of the most basic tenets of Scientology is what Dio keeps reminding us of – the principle in “How to Study Scientology,” which comes down to finding out for oneself what is true in the subject.

    The other problem with the definition is the use of the word “practices,” which lumps together some very different types of “practice.” Take Christianity, for example. For some Christians (usually those who have been raised in a Christian family) the tenets are purely a matter of accepted, personally unexpected belief – i.e. faith or blind faith. They may even practice those tenets, by following the Ten Commandments and so forth. And it may very well be that in so doing they are guided towards being very decent people. Nothing wrong with any of that – it’s all to the good. I imagine there are many Christians who fit this description and most of them may even pray – but only as a ritual, without any sense of spirituality or personal knowingness involved.

    On the other hand, for some Christians I believe there is a spiritual knowingness connected to prayer, and to the various Christian tenets they consider to be true, and they try to abide by those tenets. For example, they understand (or KNOW) the truth in the words “Love thy neighbor as thyself” (i.e. it’s not just a rule to follow because their religion says to do so and for that reason only they follow it unquestioningly and mechanically). This second “category” of Christians may also feel that they have perceived, or connected with, the Holy Spirit, Christ consciousness or however they would phrase it.

    The above is the kind of thing I mean when I say that Scientology is a practice involving knowingness in relation to the many different datums and principles it contains, as well as the tech. In other words, it’s not just a matter of “belief in Scientology” as a generality. As I said in an earlier discussion, the EPs of auditing are a matter of knowingness for the pc – after having LOOKED for himself. One simply KNOWS, for example, that he can “communicate with anyone on any subject.” Actually, knowingness is of comparable magnitude to intuition, which is another thing science has no proof or explanation for.

    Besides auditing EP’s, there is also the knowingness gained from study of the principles and seeing their truth in life. (Btw, Marianne is the best example I know of someone who has looked [deeply] at the basics of Scientology and the tech and seen the truth of these things for herself, which she has given many examples of in her posts on this thread.)

    The above is why I don’t consider that Scientology (that is, the subject in the original writings) fits any definition of religion that I’ve seen.

    1. Marildi: ” . . . Take Christianity, for example. For some Christians (usually those who have been raised in a Christian family) the tenets are purely a matter of accepted, personally unexpected belief – i.e. faith or blind faith. . . . ”

      Chris: This statement is patently false. (Also I think you wrote unexpected when you meant uninspected.) Most of the people that I know and interact with are Christian though of various sects. One common trait that they seem to possess is a hunger to know the Will of God for their lives. Another is a desire to be close to God. This is a weird allegation which does not contribute to the discussion of, “Whose ‘knowingness’ of God is more true?” Like fanatics of religions with which I am familar, Scientologists have the hubris of condescension of other faiths in common.

      1. Yes, I did mean “uninspected,” rather than “unexpected.” (Wrong typing circuit.)

        My words were that “SOME Christians” accept tenets without personal inspection. It isn’t to say that some Scientologists don’t also accept tenets without having personally inspected them – many, if not most of them, do just that. And I could just as well have used Buddhists as an example of the point I was making. In fact, according to a Buddhist friend, for MOST of the Buddhists in the world, Buddhism is more a cultural lifestyle than anything, and they don’t even meditate.

        Again, my post had nothing to do with the blind faith of others as compared to Scientologists. Can you please drop out what you THINK I consider (which you seem to feel you know better than I do) and just read my PT posts in PT?

          1. Your comment extended well beyond the quote. And it did include assumptions that were not in my post. I think if you ou posts over again, you’ll see that.

            1. Typo: Last sentence should say “I think if you look our posts over again, you’ll see that.”

            2. Marildi, Or you could address your notion that Scientology “knowingness” is senior to what other faiths enjoy, and physically different from “believing.” I’m saying that it’s not and that it cannot be shown to be superior and in application the only difference is semantical. Then I will go one more and say that the semantical difference is knowing and deliberate fraud on the part if Hubbard in order to sell this religion to you and me. To pump us up and make us feel we were superior beings for swallowing his bait hook, line, and sinker. No wonder we fight to hold fast to the party line. We invested too much. I didn’t enjoy discovering that my problems with Scientology went way deeper than an upset with the Church either.

            3. “Or you could address your notion that Scientology “knowingness” is senior to what other faiths enjoy, and physically different from “believing.”

              At the risk of sounding like a broken record – what did I write that says the above is my notion?

              If you don’t come up with an answer to all these challenges to your allegations pretty soon, it’s gonna look like some kind of weird game you’re playing.

      2. As for this point of “whose knowingness of God is more true,” that again seems to be what you read into my comment based on what you THINK I consider, rather than what I actually wrote. It’s the kind of reply that doesn’t show the intention to have a real discussion and is the reason I usually don’t respond to such comments. JFYI.

        1. Marildi, Again without responding to my post you simply say I don’t understand you, etc. Your statement that people have beliefs while you and Scientologists have something superior is false. Believe what you want, but your knowingness is not modifying the world more than, or even as much as the belief systems of anyone else. You’re wandering in the maundering of Hubbard, and he has let you down. I get where you are coming from with this, but the sooner you grant that others beliefs are the equivalent of your own, the sooner this mêlée is going to make sense and we can both have a good laugh.

          1. “Your statement that people have beliefs while you and Scientologists have something superior is false.”

            Where did I make such a statement?

    2. Marildi: I imagine there are many Christians who fit this description and most of them may even pray – but only as a ritual, without any sense of spirituality or personal knowingness involved.

      Chris: I take back my earlier statement that you have studied Christianity. That was an irresponsible assumption on my part. Your words read like someone who was taught Christianity by Hubbard’s Minister’s Course. He gave the post of Minister such importance that he made his ministers read a very short paperback, THE GREAT RELIGIONS BY WHICH MEN LIVE before bestowing them their minister’s collar. Hubbard described Jesus Christ as a sexual predator and a pedophile. Is this where you are going with this?

      1. Are you saying that you haven’t seen this type of “Christian”? Come on, let’s get real.

        1. Marildi, Are you saying that you haven’t seen this type of “Christian”? Come on, let’s get real.:

          Chris: Let’s don’t obfuscate the question which is whether your superior Scientology knowingness works better, is more effective than regular humanoid belief systems?

          1. Another Straw Man. Amazing how a normally bright guy like you can be so dense when it comes to duplicating my comments. Try some mindfulness on this.

    3. Marildi: One simply KNOWS, for example, that he can “communicate with anyone on any subject.”

      Chris: It is a simple matter to be rigidly certain and a different matter to demonstrate competence with regards to that certainty.

      1. In training, demonstrating competence is required. But with auditing, maybe from the standpoint of YOUR BELIEFS, “demonstrating” should be required, but from the pc’s perspective it isn’t necessary – which is all I’m saying.

          1. Geir,

            The benefits of processing and scn philosophy do not have to be proven to anyone other than the PC.

            If the PC has wins, and experiences he knows has benefited him, that helped him understand himself better, makes him feel better about himself and others around him, and handle life better, than that is all that is necessary.

            No scientific proof is necessary. And it may not even be possible.

          2. Do you feel that it’s any different with you and you non-belief in Scientology – in other words, why is there a need to criticize it?

            1. Marildi, Another obvious strawman. We’re not criticizing Scientology. In this discussion we’re talking about whether your knowingness is superior to other’s beliefs. I say it’s not, and you say it’s different and better, more true. I say Scientology is standard religion with a new twist (Scientific auditing)on the old bait (prosperity and eternal life) with the perpetual switch of back peddling away from and redefining the promised super powers.

            2. “In this discussion we’re talking about whether your knowingness is superior to other’s beliefs.”

              Exactly where is that being discussed?

              I see you are continuing to avoid replying to the last several posts I’ve made asking you to point out where I stated what you say I did. And this is yet another one. Why don’t you complete any of those comm cycles? What is your intention?

            3. Do you feel that I am pushing my beliefs about the benefits of Scientology on others? And if you do, am I doing so any more than you are pushing your criticisms (not of me and what you may consider my “pushing,” but of LRH and Scientology)?

            4. I wasn’t necessarily talking about YOU here.

              But to talk about you – then this: You have been defending Scientology a Lot on my blog and you have been claiming it is superior to other paths and you have defended it many times against objective claims without proof. But as you now see it as subjective, I rest my case.

              But for any argument for objective results in Scientology, I will continue to push for proof. You may see that as criticism, and that is fine.

            5. In a previous comment, you wrote: “Let’s settle this really easily; Marildi, do you agreed that the Scientology belief system is not in any way superior to other religions, not more effective nor more valid?”

              I thought I replied to that but now I can’t see that it got posted, so I’ll try posting it again.

              Firstly, I partially answered your question earlier, when Chris asked: “In other words, are other religions as valid as Scientology?”

              This was my reply to him @ 2013-12-13 @ 03:46: Sure. I just haven’t personally seen or heard of any that are comparable to Scientology in terms of speed and efficacy.

              I should clarify what I am referring to with respect to speed and efficacy – I mean the processes and principles that give people relatively immediate freedom from some of their biggest barriers in life. And as I said, I don’t know of any other system/religion that is comparable to that kind of fast and significant benefit. However, I will add that when it comes to the highest levels of knowingness, my answer is that other systems/religions may very well be just as good or superior.

              Btw, the reason I still don’t see that Scientology (in its basic form) is a religion is that it requires no belief that isn’t true for the individual and which he hasn’t observed for himself.

              In any case, I hope that at long last I have made my viewpoint of Scientology clear.

            6. Marildi: “Btw, the reason I still don’t see that Scientology (in its basic form) is a religion is that it requires no belief that isn’t true for the individual and which he hasn’t observed for himself.”

              Me: What makes you think that the other religions requires you to believe something that isn’t true for you more than Scientology does?

            7. That’s a fair question. I’ll have to think about it and get back to you. It’s about time for you to go horizontal anyway. And for me to get “on the wagon” and get back to work for now 😉

            8. “What makes you think that the other religions requires you to believe something that isn’t true for you more than Scientology does.”

              I found a sentence in the article on “Faith” in Wikipedia which sums up the impression I have about religion: “In religion, faith often involves ACCEPTING CLAIMS [my caps] about the character of a deity, nature, or the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith

              “Accepting claims” is the opposite of the following:

              “Personal Integrity:
              “What is true for you is what you have observed yourself, and when you lose that you have lost everything…
              “Nothing in Dianetics and Scientology is true for you unless you have observed it.
              “And it is true according to your observation.
              “That is all.”

              However, the sentence from WKP does modify “accepting claims” with “often involves,” so it may very well be that there are religions which do not require belief in anything that you haven’t observed for yourself.

              In any case, the main reason I don’t agree with the use of the word “religion” to describe Scientology is that the definitions generally include the word “beliefs” and in context that is taken by people to mean “accepting claims” without having personally observed their validity for oneself.

              The other problem with calling Scientology a “religion” is that it is often done to infer that Scn involves nothing more than unquestioning acceptance of the ideas of LRH – and also to imply that those ideas have no validity. This has truth to it as regards the actual history, but it doesn’t describe the basic philosophy.

            9. Marildi: In any case, the main reason I don’t agree with the use of the word “religion” to describe Scientology is that the definitions generally include the word “beliefs” and in context that is taken by people to mean “accepting claims” without having personally observed their validity for oneself.

              Chris: Full circle.

            10. Marildi: The other problem with calling Scientology a “religion” is that it is often done to infer that Scn involves nothing more than unquestioning acceptance of the ideas of LRH – and also to imply that those ideas have no validity. This has truth to it as regards the actual history, but it doesn’t describe the basic philosophy.

              Chris: Scientology does require the unquestioning acceptance of the ideas of LRH. Believing that LRH’s ideas are true for you is one of LRH’s ideas. Justifying LRH’s ideas can be similar to a game of Whack-A-Mole for when you handle one inconsistency and get it under control, another inconsistency pops up, and so forth. This runs full circle until one is handling once again the first inconsistency which came up. It is quite the treadmill.

            11. Marildi: In any case, the main reason I don’t agree with the use of the word “religion” to describe Scientology is that the definitions generally include the word “beliefs” and in context that is taken by people to mean “accepting claims” without having personally observed their validity for oneself.

              Chris: Again with the degradation of other’s beliefs.

            12. I do not see other religions relying on more blind faith than Scientology. In fact my own observation tells me that Scientologists rely as much on blind faith than any other religion I have seen – since very few other religions have such an elaborate and forceful built-in system for enforcing agreement. From the M4 word clearing methodology to Ethics and the PTS/SP tech to the attestation line to various methods of qual to hard sell, sec checking, fair gaming, disconnection etc etc etc. It matters not that LRH this to soften the blow by that quote or by the article “How to study Scientology” as that only adds to the mass of inconsistencies. No, Scientology stands out as one of the most obedience-demanding religions ever crafted.

            13. Marildi: This was my reply to him @ 2013-12-13 @ 03:46: Sure. I just haven’t personally seen or heard of any that are comparable to Scientology in terms of speed and efficacy.

              Chris: This is an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Plus, it is not true. I already told you that getting saved in Christianity is faster and more certain than going Clear so you have heard of a religion which is comparable to Scientology in terms of speed and efficacy.

            14. “Getting saved” was never the topic of any of MY discussions.

              ‘Nite, Chris.

            15. Yes, but it was of mine. I told you Christianity works as well as Scientology and better based on public opinion, but you are ignoring that and saying Scientology is the best you have heard of.

            16. Marildi: Btw, the reason I still don’t see that Scientology (in its basic form) is a religion is that it requires no belief that isn’t true for the individual and which he hasn’t observed for himself.

              Chris: Where do you suppose the religion in Scientology begins? Or is Scientology not a religion?

            17. Marildi, I am not in this part of the discussion criticizing Scientology. I am challenging your assertions that one belief is superior to and more effective than another. That Scientology, as a belief system, does this without evidence is not my point. My point is that you are doing it so I am challenging that.

            18. Okay. But I didn’t actually make a general statement that Scn Is “superior to and more effective than another.” I made a specific statement about its speed and efficacy in handling people’s biggest barriers in life as compared to what other systems can do, and even added – that I know of. This is my personal observation, that’s all.

            19. Marildi: This is my personal observation, that’s all.

              Chris: No, that is a red herring that makes me want to infer that you’ve examined and measured other beliefs and compared them to Scientology which hasn’t actually happened. You’ve not experienced being saved in the Christian church and felt the power and the majesty and the glory of being close to Jesus. So it is not a personal observation.

            20. And unless one has actually tried being Saved by Jesus, then how could one be qualified to say that this path is in any way less efficient or in any other way inferior to the path of Scientology. Marildi, you seem to have demanded hefty qualifications for people to comment on the efficacy of Scientology whereas you brush of one of the great religions without any quals to do so.

            21. Geir: Scientology whereas you brush of one of the great religions without any quals to do so.

              Chris: The American Southern Baptist is fond of saying, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” This seems to be the position of Scientologists with regard to Hubbard except for the caveat that he has proofed them to deny that their opinions are equivalent to his assertions and to say that their beliefs are the results of their own “observations,” and not beliefs at all.

            22. Geir: “…whereas you brush off one of the great religions without any quals to do so.”

              Brush off? Not at all. As regards Christianity or any other religion, I’ll repeat just one of my comments: “…when it comes to the highest levels of knowingness, my answer is that other systems/religions may very well be just as good or superior.”

              As for my quals, I’m well aware of not knowing enough about other practices to criticize any one of them, and I haven’t. Besides words like “may very well.” as in the above, my comments have included things like “that I know of.”

            23. Marildi: I made a specific statement about its speed and efficacy in handling people’s biggest barriers in life as compared to what other systems can do, and even added – that I know of.

              Chris: You are an expert on Scientology, granted. In which other religions are you expert?

            24. p.s. Now that I think of it, Geir said pretty much the same thing when he said “It’s the best we have.”

            25. Marildi: p.s. Now that I think of it, Geir said pretty much the same thing when he said “It’s the best we have.”

              Chris: That appeal to authority won’t even wash with Geir.

            26. Also, when someone tires to pass off their beliefs as superior or proven, even scientifically proven, then proofs or evidence should be required. If evidence proves a belief or a theory, then it passes as truth or closer to truth. If not, then it remains as belief.

            27. Geir wrote:

              Also, when someone tires to pass off their beliefs as superior or proven, even scientifically proven, then proofs or evidence should be required. If evidence proves a belief or a theory, then it passes as truth or closer to truth. If not, then it remains as belief.

              This is a total smackdown by Geir.

              Marild – Geir has proven, and you have agreed, that your thoughts from Scientology are beliefs.

              Once you have recognized and re-binned Scientology – thoughts which are based on the clearly unscientific teachings of L Ron Hubbard are beliefs – then as beliefs, their logical confirmation falls under the category of belief.

              Which category is now a whole different thing than science.

              So okay!

              This is a re-categorization which is much more useful and pragmatic for anybody.

              Science can not provide meaning to humans – it is not capable of that.

              Belief is the majority of any human beings’ thoughts. (As we have discussed: Even the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief, and not a fact.)

              So much more of life than LRH allowed was belief, and never certainty, or science.

              So I congratulate you on re-categorizing Scientology.

              Fricking well done, and welcome.

              Belief is good.

              Alanzo

            28. “Geir has proven, and you have agreed, that your thoughts from Scientology are beliefs.”

              To be exact, what I agreed to was his description of the meaning of “beliefs” – which, from my perspective, comes down to knowingness based on either objective or subjective perception. And you seem to agree with me that even the objective findings of science are beliefs, where you wrote:

              “Belief is the majority of any human beings’ thoughts. (As we have discussed: Even the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief, and not a fact.)”

              As I see it, on the subject of beliefs the basic disagreement among people seems to be that some consider objective belief/knowingness more valid than the subjective. To me – in terms of the individual himself – it’s just the opposite. And that is the value of Scientology – I believe 😉

            29. Marildi wrote:

              And you seem to agree with me that even the objective findings of science are beliefs, where you wrote:

              “Belief is the majority of any human beings’ thoughts. (As we have discussed: Even the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief, and not a fact.)”

              No.

              There is a very important distinction here which you are not making.

              Science is extremely limited.

              Those limitations make science totally finite, and unable to intrude into most of human experience.

              Beliefs are different from science, and they include things like extrapolations that “because the sun rose this morning, it will rise tomorrow, too.”

              That kind of essential reasoning, or speculation, is not science. But our whole lives as human beings are made up of that kind of reasoning and speculation. We need this belief to survive in all the senses of the word that LRH used for SURVIVE!”.

              But a LOT of things are not science.

              Scientology is just one of them.

              Only someone who did not understand the limits of science would ever consider Scientology as science. Scientology never taught the limits of science, or anything else about science.

              Someone who understands the limits of science would realize that Scientology was belief, and be perfectly okay with that.

              That’s really what I have been saying Marildi – in many different ways for so many years.

              Scientology is not science.

              Scientology is belief.

              And since Scientology is belief, it can give meaning to human beings and all kinds of other things that science can not give, but what each of us as human beings need.

              However, Scientology is not objective.

              Science is objective.

              Anything which is “true for you according to your observations, that is all” is never science.

              That is only Scientology.

              Alanzo

            30. Okay, Al, that clarifies what you meant in the sentence I quoted. Got it.

              I see your general viewpoint clearer now too, and I would agree with it except for the possibility that you are lumping things like “belief that there is green cheese on the moon” together with “belief (obtained through auditing Grade 0) that one can communicate with anyone on any subject.”

              As I described in a previous post, the latter is based on direct perception – in this case, perception of one’s own universe. And such perceptions have been observed by the individual to continue to hold true and be manifested in his life. Even others are able to perceive such gains in the individual (at least frequently so), unlike green cheese on the moon.

              And along this same line of thought, I’ll repeat another point of view of mine, which I also wrote in a previous comment:

              “…I see the line between belief/subjective and real/objective becoming thinner and thinner, as science itself is gradually discovering, and that the day will come when physics meets metaphysics.”

            31. Marildi –

              Science itself is not capable of discovering metaphysics.

              Metaphysics is everything that exists above or beyond physics.

              Science can only test physics, never metaphysics.

              Metaphysics is fully outside the limits of science, and will never be discovered by science.

              Ever.

              Alanzo

            32. Marildi: I see your general viewpoint clearer now too, and I would agree with it except for the possibility that you are lumping things like “belief that there is green cheese on the moon” together with “belief (obtained through auditing Grade 0) that one can communicate with anyone on any subject.”

              Chris: This did not occur.

            33. Marildi: “…I see the line between belief/subjective and real/objective becoming thinner and thinner, as science itself is gradually discovering, and that the day will come when physics meets metaphysics.”

              Chris: This line of thinking is bifurcation and not the only choices available.

            34. Marildi: To be exact, what I agreed to was his description of the meaning of “beliefs” – which, from my perspective, comes down to knowingness based on either objective or subjective perception. And you seem to agree with me that even the objective findings of science are beliefs, where you wrote:

              Alanzo: “Belief is the majority of any human beings’ thoughts.

              Marildi: (As we have discussed: Even the idea that the sun will rise tomorrow is a belief, and not a fact.)”

              Chris: Alanzo, your assertion about Marildi’s change in attitude toward Scientology’s premise (science or belief) was courageous if premature. Now, Scientology is a belief system but so is science. I am trying to keep up with her mental gymnastic on this. So what it seems to me is that “Scientology is superior to other ideologies” is a fact and “knowingness” of this is superior to believing this. So if believing that “the sun will rise tomorrow” (which will be demonstrated or not in a few hours from now) as a belief is equivalent to the belief that one will get super powers because they study in a building named the Super Power Building (which is not going to be demonstrated), then I may have to go back to believing in Hubbard’s reactive mind with its A=A=A.

            35. The line between subjective and objective does not follow the line between science and belief. They are two very different lines.

              Science can explain both the subjective and the objective. For science, no line exists between these two.

              The line science can not cross is the line between what is measurable, or falsifiable, and what is not.

              That is the line which anyone who is scientifically literate understands. Some atheistic materialists, as well as some staunch Christians and Scientologists, do not understand this line. And they think their beliefs are capable of being judged by science.

              But their beliefs are not capable of being judged by science.

              Our present society is dominated by a misunderstanding of the limits of science. Hubbard used that misunderstanding to convince you that Scientology was capable of being judged by science, and that science proved Scientology.

              Either Hubbard did not understand science, or he lied.

              It really is either one of those, and not anything else.

              Alanzo

            36. Al: “The line science cannot cross is the line between what is measurable, or falsifiable, and what is not.”

              That’s my understanding too. Here’s a paragraph from my post @ 2013-12-15 @ 02:30:

              “Much, if not all, of what is now considered subjective (including not just Scientology) is likely to one day come into the realm of the objective – and science has already made progress in that direction. For example, it has been ‘discovered’ (long after LRH did so) that different emotions have different wavelengths or frequencies (i.e. they are actual energy, and thus are potentially MEASURABLE).

              Basically, what I’m saying is that much of what is now considered to be META-physics – meaning, as you know, beyond physics – may very well one day be seen as NOT beyond the field of physics.

              Specifically, “mental matter” consists of energy no different from physical energy in that it can be perceived and MEASURED. That isn’t to say that the SOURCE of energy, whether mental or physical, is perceivable and measurable, so the source would be the one thing not included in the realm of physics.

              This is how I currently see it.

            37. Chris wrote:

              Chris: Alanzo, your assertion about Marildi’s change in attitude toward Scientology’s premise (science or belief) was courageous if premature. Now, Scientology is a belief system but so is science. I am trying to keep up with her mental gymnastic on this.

              I see what you are saying.

              Science is not a belief system, but many people – Atheists, Scientologists, followers of Quantum Woo, often believe that science validates their beliefs.

              The trick is in being able to tell when you are looking at a fact and when you are looking at a belief.

              Most humans aren’t very good at that. But they can get better.

              I am sure that Marildi can, too.

              She really does seem to me to be improving. For instance, she hardly ever chews the rug any more. Have you noticed that?

              Alanzo

            38. Al,

              You: She really does seem to me to be improving. For instance, she hardly ever chews the rug any more. Have you noticed that?

              Me: OMG …………ROTFLMAO.

              Dio

            39. Dio, it would have been nice if Al had actually replied to the comment I made in response to his. Apparently, he had nothing to say in direct response to the points I made, so he just chimed in with Chris’ lack of any true intent to discuss.

            40. Miraldi

              You: Dio, it would have been nice if Al had actually replied to the comment I made in response to his. Apparently, he had nothing to say in direct response to the points I made, so he just chimed in with Chris’ lack of any true intent to discuss.

              Me: I was not following the comm cycle. So I do not have any idea of what was being said. I was very busy with other matters, and only checking in from time to time to see if there was anything of interest to me, when I needed a break, and I just happened to read Al’s post. And I had still not hit ground level from the previous laugh cycle and Al’s sarcasm (or what ever it could be called) was just there at the right time to push my laugh button again. I never heard that kind of remark before.

              I will remember that one for the next time I feel like putting someone down or have to put someone in their place, or just need to entertain myself.

              Thanks Al.

              Dio

            41. Dio, thank you so much for telling me that. It makes a big difference. 🙂

            42. You are welcome Miraldi,

              I realized later, that I did not state the exact first or most right “why” I check or checked the blog. As I was operating on several reasons for checking the blog. I would say that at that time, the most right “why” is that I was checking to see if anyone was replying to my comments or posts or talking about me or using my name in vain.

              Another reason is to see if there is anyone’s cage that I could find some reason to rattle.

              Dio

            43. Miraldi,

              You: Dio, thank you so much for telling me that. It makes a big difference. 🙂

              Me: I just had another viewpoint on this:

              In any event these jousting and sparring events are a good opportunity to practice TRs and run out case.

              Dio

            44. Right you are, Dio. I’ve been saying for a long time that there are personal gains to be had from “blogging.” And what Al said about me hardly ever chewing the rug (getting upset) any more, was actually a compliment (inadvertent or not!).

              Btw, I’ve noticed your improvement too. Basic personality is showing through more 😉

            45. Miraldi,

              You: Btw, I’ve noticed your improvement too. Basic personality is showing through more 😉

              Me: Thanks.

              And here that SOB Geir has been desperately wanting to throw me in the lion’s den, or have me locked up in the nut house, so badly, for all this time.

              I can see why he flunked scn.

              Dio

            46. Geir, he was just being funny. But I will admit that when Al made a “funny” about ME it didn’t as easily come across as humor.

              Wait…maybe you were being funny too! 🙂

            47. Yes, like I was saying, in so many words – he’s still rather rough around the edges. But “more” basic personality showing through is improvement! I give the devil his due. 😉

            48. I have a large number of his emails to lists and also to me that are so funny that I will reserve my enthusiasm for quite some time.

        1. If you insist to assert that PCs have greater abilities, are superior because of their knowingness than standard humans with unsophisticated belief systems, then, yeah, you have to demonstrate that. But if you want to begin the sentence with the qualification, “In my religion we believe . . .” Then that’s fine. You’re off the hook and we don’t have a problem. My Mormon friend does this and we discuss religion just fine.

          1. “If you insist to assert that PCs have greater abilities, are superior because of their knowingness than standard humans with unsophisticated belief systems, then, yeah, you have to demonstrate that.”

            Again, where did I say that?

            And why are you continuing to make these assertions when one by one I keep asking you to give me the quote for what you claim I said. Is all this just to needle?

            1. You should demonstrate Scientology’s superiority, or stop claiming that it is. I already falsified your claim that Scientology got faster and better results that being saved by Christ. You’re fine to believe what you want but if you want to promote the puffery of Scientology, then please don’t try to shush me as I don’t feel comfortable seeing this scam shamelessly promoted without countering or uttering upon it. And that’s a Scientology pro that I’m applying right there.

            2. Let’s settle this really easily; Marildi, do you agreed that the Scientology belief system is not in any way superior to other religions, not more effective nor more valid?

          2. Perhaps this joke has wisdom and applicability in this discussion:

            Two men were in a bar in Alaska drinking and talking about God.

            One of them men said:

            “Look, there is no God and I’ll prove it. Just a few weeks ago I got caught out in that blizzard without any supplies. I was surely going to freeze to death. So I decided I would try out the whole God thing. I got down on my knees and prayed. I told him if he saved me, I would promise to always believe in him.”

            The other man looked at him perplexed, “Well, you’re here, right? He obviously saved you!”

            The man replied, “No he didn’t. Some Eskimos came by a few minutes later and picked me up to take me back to town, God didn’t do anything.”

            1. Maria: The man replied, “No he didn’t. Some Eskimos came by a few minutes later and picked me up to take me back to town, God didn’t do anything.”

              Chris: Yes, this is also LRH-style logic. CMO children told a story about LRH photographing a lion for the ASHO logo. The lion wasn’t cooperating. LRH commented that the lion needed to pose differently. Immediately these children jumped to doing various antics to capture the lion’s attention and eventually LRH got his photograph. (David Miscavige may have been one of these children as the vintage of the story matches.) Upon which, LRH is rumored to have spoken, “See what a little intention can do?” Referring to his OT prowess at having gotten the lion’s cooperation.

              This logic has a name, it’s called Post hoc ergo propter hoc and it means, “after this, therefore because of this.”

      2. Yep, Marildi! The guy is in a class of his own! I suspect it has more to do with a need for a “game”, though, along with good ol’ AXIOM 28, just to ‘reinforce’ the ‘being right’! Right Chris? 🙂

        1. Now, there’s a man who can duplicate! At least I feel duplicated. Let’s see what Chris has to say, and whether or not he feels MIS-duplicated. 😉

          1. Whoops! (actually a MIS-duplication on my part!) Should read AXIOM 10! Probably will be mis-duplicated anyway, in any case! Then, (of course!) it just persists! Right? LOL! 🙂

            1. Ah, yes, that makes even more sense.

              Ya know, there are times when the intention to be duplicatable seems to be missing. And I’ve tried different tacks – including just ignoring. Nothing seems to work – it still persists!

              Btw, I like the way you calls ’em like you sees ’em. 🙂

            2. Shine on, sis! If you can’t get ’em to ‘get it’, well then, just for the heck of it, doooplicate ’em! All pans out according to the old workhorse, AXE’ 28, — the EP of which is,..’understanding’! Keerect? At least, (for the doooplicator), this:- “washes away everything.” You’re then just left in PT, without any unwanted persistences 🙂

            3. Thanks, big bro 😉 It’s really done wonders for my TR 0 bullbait. I can be there – but I would rather have a comm cycle! Ya ken?

            4. ps. AKA as; … ‘being there, comfortably, with anything’ 😉 🙂

            5. Of coourrrse ye wooood ratherrr hav’ a com’ ceycle, lassie, bute, ye shooood al’so be eaabllle ta beee therrre equallly com’ftbly wi’ eaaanyth’ng orrrr Noth’nnn a’talll! 🙂

            6. Aye, laddie. 🙂

              (I had a feeling my “ken” would get you to do some more Scottish brogue. My favorite accent – for real!)

    4. Miraldi,

      You have come a long way since you came on this list, you are beginning to catch on. I would say you made a 180 degree turn.

      Marianne and you get pass marks.

      As for the others, I still have a lot of work to do on many of them.

      Dio

        1. Geir: You still have a lot of work to do on yourself first.

          I am about as good as they come, now.

          Dio

      1. Dio –

        I am up on the blocks on all fours, ready for you to work on me.

        Move any equipment you have underneath me, and get to it.

        I’m ready.

        Alanzo

        1. Al,
          Quoting you: I am up on the blocks on all fours, ready for you to work on me.

          Move any equipment you have underneath me, and get to it.

          I’m ready.

          Me> LOL An answer like that, qualifies you to run with the big dogs. Not at the front, but at least you can be at the back, where you get good rear views.

          It is much better than nothing, like Geir.

          He has to sleep under the porch.

          Dio

            1. I don’t actually get the reference. Went over my head. What are they talking about? Are they gonna have like an out 2D or something?

            2. Think in metaphors! To start with Alanzo’s description of his readiness, like a car that is going to be given an overhaul, still makes me laugh as I write this! Then Dio’s reference to Al now running with the big dogs, although in the back.he would at least have “good rear views” – just sounds funny (I don’t know that it has further significance). And Geir advising against running with Dio – to the asylum…somehow it all just tickled my funny bone.

            3. Geir,

              Quoting you: Who would want to run with you to the asylum?

              Al, stay behind! Stay way behind!

              Me: With a suppressive reply like that, Geir, you are not even allowed to sleep under the porch, now.

              You must now go and hangout in the back woods, with the coons, skunks and porcupines for two weeks. Don’t dare comeback before two weeks.

              Dio.

            4. OK Dio –

              You’ve had a chance to examine my undercarriage, to poke up around my gaskets, and to listen to the sound of my horn.

              What is the most serious thing that is wrong with me and how are you going to fix it?

              We won’t get into the bill at this time. It’s way too early for that. I know there are parts to order and everything.

              Don’t hold back now. Don’t be shy. Tell me what is the most wrong thing about me that needs to be fixed?

              And what needs to be done to fix it?

              Alanzo

            5. Al,

              RE: What’s wrong with you?

              My diagnosis and assessment is that first off, you have inherited a lot of bad DNA, which are due to sins your ancestors committed (and for which they did not ask Jesus for forgiveness for) and have been passed down to you, therefore the recommendation is that you need a complete DNA change.

              Another problem you have is that for some reason you have a nerve that grew from the anus to the back of the eye ball, which gives you a shitty outlook on life. So you need a optirectomy to remove that problematic and wayward nerve.

              REF: The bible and ancient native North American Indian sources:

              Which say: The sins of the fathers are passed on to the third and fourth generations.

              After that DNA change, I will have to reassess to determine if more work is required or not, and if more work is required, what work, will be determined from the assessment.

              You can try this method:

              http://francismyles.com/product/breaking-generational-curses-under-the-order-of-melchizedek/

              Dio

            6. Well Dio –

              As we all know, duplication comes before understanding.

              So let me try to first duplicate what you say is wrong with me:

              …you have inherited a lot of bad DNA, which are due to sins your ancestors committed (and for which they did not ask Jesus for forgiveness for) and have been passed down to you, therefore the recommendation is that you need a complete DNA change.

              So because of the sins of my ancestors, for which they did not ask Jesus for forgiveness, I need a complete DNA change.

              …you have a nerve that grew from the anus to the back of the eye ball, which gives you a shitty outlook on life. So you need a optirectomy to remove that problematic and wayward nerve.

              The nerve that grows from my anus to the back of my eyeball gives me a shitty outlook on life. So I need an optirectomy to remove this problematic and wayward nerve.

              Man! I did not expect this!

              How much is this gonna cost me???

              Alanzo

            7. Chris wrote:

              Dio does have a point Alanzo.

              I know it.

              My unforgiven DNA – my “DBNA” – and that weird anal-to-eyeball back-channel nerve connection are going to cost me a LOT to get fixed.

              I’m awaiting the bill from Dio now.

              Hold on to your hat.

              Alanzo

            8. Al,

              Re: cost of recommended work:

              Disclaimer: I have not done the recommended work before but I am pretty sure it will work. I will all but guarantee the said work. And as far as I know I am the only specialist in the world who thinks he can do this kind of work.

              The actual going rate of this kind of leading edge, ground breaking and transformational work by nature has to be very expensive and I know that very few people can afford what I think it is ultimately worth. The actual research that has went into this discovery is monumental. You have to realize that there is nothing more important in life than your health and sanity. So I charge on a sliding scale. I am worth what you are worth. That means that if you are a billionaire, then I charge you everything you are worth. If you are a poor man and only have a few pennies than I only charge you your few pennies. And the same goes for everything in between. How can I be more fair than that?

              I am pretty sure you will be very satisfied with my work.

              So please send me bonafide, certified letters from all your banks of how much money you have in all your accounts, bonafide certified letters from your certified accountant stating all property owned by you, and investments, including off shore property and investments and bank accounts, as well as income tax records for the last three years. And I want the same of your wife or girlfriend if you have one, or both, if you have both.

              In good faith and with good will and with only the best of intentions,

              Dio

            9. LOL!!!

              I have now seen a new part of Dio, which I always knew was there, but one that I knew the Internet didn’t entirely allow to be seen.

              I will get a quote from my lawyers and accountants as soon as I can, because I think that nerve which runs from my asshole to my eyeball has sciatica!

              Alanzo

    5. Marildi: Besides auditing EP’s, there is also the knowingness gained from study of the principles and seeing their truth in life. (Btw, Marianne is the best example I know of someone who has looked [deeply] at the basics of Scientology and the tech and seen the truth of these things for herself, which she has given many examples of in her posts on this thread.)

      Chris: Pretending that there are provable EPs to auditing does not in fact show that there are. You are holding up Marianne, a person who from her posts has been barely introduced to Scientology, as a confirmation of your bias, nothing more. If Marianne were writing negatively about Scientology with the same level of familiarity with which she writes in favor of Scientology, you would already have taken her head (chopped off her head) in several and various ways.

    6. Marildi: The above is why I don’t consider that Scientology (that is, the subject in the original writings) fits any definition of religion that I’ve seen. Chris: It is easy to write dismissively that no one can present a good argument against one’s own argument but if that is not the case, then that dismissive writing looks weak and tattered. It would be better to simply state that one believes (wishes) differently and move on to a different subject. You believe that Hubbard did research. You believe that Hubbard invented Scientology. You believe that Scientology works to the degree that it is properly applied. Good enough. But are these subjective facts better than the subjective facts of other belief systems? No.

    7. Marildi: “…the principle in “How to Study Scientology,” which comes down to finding out for oneself what is true in the subject.”

      Me: I.e. what one believe is true for oneself. You may call it knowingness if you like, but I assume you agree with Hubbard thet “absolutes are unobtainable” also here and that abolishes any notion that “knowingness” equates to an absolute Truth. Thus the word “belief” is a far more precise term to use. But you are right that there are degrees of belief – from strong conviction or certainty to weaker convictions to faith and blind faith. But I think there are many more Christians that hold a stronger conviction in their paths than people who have read any LRH book. And since we have moved away from the notion that Scientology is objectively proven (or perhaps even provable), then the subjective conviction or belief is all that is left. And for every strongly convinced scientologist with loads of personal knowingness, I will give you a thousand Christians that are more convinced and have Their personal knowingness. And I will give you many Muslims that are willing to give their lives for their own knowingness that they have the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth.

      1. Geir
        ‘knowingness’ is an Ability of Theta which manifests in Living as Decision which is Observe and Act. There is no ‘concept of a me’ in it. There is no accumulated
        past data, which is knowledge, in it. Observe AND Act. The AND works very interestingly….as it looks, Life puts there the data of whatever from the pool of human knowledge which is appropriate in a situation.

        ‘knowingness’ is not personal….’I’ (as impersonal fluid Life) can create a viewpoint called ‘marianne’…which I am doing now for you and this marianne is observing from this point of here the keys, the screen, the words…listening to a car passing outside…all sorts of other sensations of the here-now. That is, using mind-body, a unique identity-expression of Life. As it looks, the substance of this ‘point’ of view
        is the substance of Life-View…..from this ‘point’ called marianne I can recall marianne’s past experiences….I can use the mind to postulate the next action (have some coffee) and do it. So, I can create marianne and her life….like you
        create Geir and his life….the funny part in it is that in both ‘cases=personal lives’
        the ‘ I ‘ is ‘Creator-Life’. Theta as Ability, Knowingness, Decision, Faith, Courage,
        Love…

        Absolutes are unOBTAINABLE…yes, as how could one ‘obtain’ WHAT one is? Only
        explore and enjoy the Creations of that What.

      2. Geir, here’s how it seems to me. The physical universe is what we call “reality.” And it is “objective” in that it is perceivable and agreed to by everyone. It basically consists of energy existing in space, as per the universal agreement to that effect.

        Now, “mental” energy, according to Ron, is actually no different from physical energy, other than existing in a higher range of wavelengths. I “believe” – using the concept of “belief” you suggested – that mental energy is just as REAL as physical reality, except that it isn’t universally perceived. Even so, we do “feel,” or perceive, the energy that exists in our own minds, such as pictures or emotions. AND we sometimes even feel the energy in another person’s mind, including “seeing” their pictures or “feeling” their emotions.

        Such things aren’t perceived through the sense organs of the body – that is to say, via the physical universe – and any particular picture or emotion isn’t perceived by everyone. Thus, it is not “objective.” Nevertheless, there are times where several people, or even a large group of people, have “perceived” the same “energy.” This happens at music concerts, for example. It used to happen at Scientology events too, and I remember my first event as a brand new Scientologist – I was amazed at the exhilarating “vibes,” which I had not anticipated at all. The perception I had was palpable – so intense as to be almost touched or felt. Likewise, the last events I attended also had a vibe – which I would describe as hectic, forced, and unpleasant.

        What I’m getting at is that “objective” and “real” are relative terms too. At the opposite end of the spectrum from physical universe reality would be delusion, where the person might be mocking up real energy – i.e. it would potentially be perceivable by others (those who have that “sensitivity”). However, the deluded person is attaching meaning to that energy which is not in agreement with anyone else’s reality – and thus that meaning has relatively no objectivity.

        And I would add one other thing, which is that I see the line between belief/subjective and real/objective becoming thinner and thinner, as science itself is gradually discovering, and that the day will come when physics meets metaphysics. IMO, Scientology was ahead of science in this respect, since it increases one’s REALITY – or knowingness – relative though it may be.

        1. I respect your belief in the above.

          Now, maybe you should look through the thread for questions and comments you have not yet responded to. I believe there are a few replies that Alanzo is waiting for…

          1. “I respect your belief in the above.”

            Somehow that comes across as an indirect way to belittle what I wrote without having to say why. Or else you simply didn’t have a way to discredit what I wrote and were reluctant to give me any credit by indicating any such thing. I could be wrong! If so, I’ll just say you have a right to your beliefs too. I can also say that at least the exchange seemed like the most true discussion we’ve had. And the good thing for me is that I got something out of thinking all that through!

            As for replying to other comments, I plan to get to some of them a little later (but not the ones that are just repetitious of topics that have already been thoroughly discussed). Got to carry on with something else for a little while, though.

            1. There is no belittling in my respect for your beliefs. My conclusion after our exchange is that something is either in the realm of the objective and thus it can be proven. If it is not yet proven, it can be – and if important one should push forward for evidence. Or, it is subjective and not objectively provable – and then it is in the realm of personal belief and should be respected. Since you hold that Scientology is in the realm of the subjective, then I shall respect your personal beliefs in it. Case closed. Peace.

            2. I hope “cased closed” doesn’t mean that when Geir has come to a conclusion, that’s the last word on the subject. (And I should shut up and say no more!) I’ll assume not. 😉

              You wrote, “Since you hold that Scientology is in the realm of the subjective, then I shall respect your personal beliefs in it.”

              To be more precise, I hold that Scientology auditing experiences are not only subjective but are also in the realm of potential objectivity since thoughts and feelings (“non-physical” realities) are potentially perceivable by everybody.

              Much, if not all, of what is now considered subjective (including not just Scientology) is likely to one day come into the realm of the objective – and science has already made progress in that direction. For example, it has been “discovered” (long after LRH did so) that different emotions have different wavelengths (i.e. they are actual energy, and thus potentially measurable).

              Also, biologist Bruce Lipton has proved with hard science that thought monitors structure (watch video below). Instead of saying “thought,” however, he uses the word “beliefs” – and others, including you, would use the word “considerations.” But it’s still all a matter of thought – the non-objective and non-physical ultimately ruling over the objective physical.

              Btw, what would you say is your own worldview? I have understood it to be the extreme in subjectivity! In fact, just as the materialists say that “all is material,” you have essentially said “all is consideration” (am I not right?), in which case, I would expect you to give at least as much credence to the “subjective” as to the “objective.”

  33. Geir wrote to Marildi:

    “…you are right that there are degrees of belief – from strong conviction or certainty to weaker convictions to faith and blind faith.”

    Let’s put it on a scale like Hubbard did so Scientologists can “have it” more easily:

    Degrees of Belief

    1. Strong conviction
    2. Certainty
    3. Weaker Convictions
    4. Faith
    5. Blind Faith

    But I think there are many more Christians that hold a stronger conviction in their paths than people who have read any LRH book.”

    “And since we have moved away from the notion that Scientology is objectively proven (or perhaps even provable), then the subjective conviction or belief is all that is left.”

    Okay.

    If I can decipher what The Norwegian is going on about here, I think, through his Swedish Yodel, I am hearing that Hubbard told us that Dianetics and Scientology was scientifically proven.

    He made his very first claim of this in 1950, in DMSMH, where he wrote:

    Dianetics is “an organized science of thought built on definite axioms (statements of natural laws on the order of those of the physical sciences)”.

    He kept making these claims until the day he died, on the run from the law and in hiding on his ranch, in his Bluebird motor-home, high on Vistaril, in Creston, California, in 1986.

    Yet we know that nothing in Dianetics or Scientology is based on evidence generated on the order of the physical sciences, because no evidence of any scientific process has ever been produced to anyone, in or out of Scientology, in over 63 years.

    We all now know now that what Hubbard wrote about Dianetics and Scientology being based on science since 1950 is not true, right?

    Right.

    So….

    …. for every strongly convinced scientologist with loads of personal knowingness, I will give you a thousand Christians that are more convinced and have Their personal knowingness. And I will give you many Muslims that are willing to give their lives for their own knowingness that they have the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth.

    So help me God.

    The foundation of science that Hubbard claimed for Dianetics & Scientology does not exist.

    We all know and acknowledge that, right?

    Some of us may FEEL a certainty that what we know from Scientology is REAL for us.

    But no individual here, on this blog, is willing to stand up and say that there is scientific evidence upon which Dianetics and Scientology are based, and the certainty they feel as an individual about the results that they have achieved from Dianetics and Scientology – those “wins” are absolutely NOT based on science.

    Right?

    If there is one Scientologist here who believes their “wins” are based on science, please raise your hand.

    Or forever hold your peace.

    Alanzo

    1. It goes like this:

      Scientology; OR:
          There is Scientific proof of workability
      	Show me the proof
          There is no scientific proof of workability
      	Resort to belief
      	    Belief is subjective
      	    It is dicey to compare beliefs
      
      1. OR …

        Scientology; OR:
        There is Scientific proof of workability
        Show me the proof
        There is no scientific proof of workability
        Resort to belief
        Belief is subjective
        It is dicey to compare beliefs

        1. Oops. Mis-posted that trying to TAB and fingers went awry.

          Sorry

          ADD:

          Resort to Functional Mythology Based on the reality of “No Fail Proof Mythos.”
          Creativity is directed toward a personal mythos for meaning creation
          It is easy to accept others creations.

            1. No. I didn’t have to. She won’t stop talking about it. Hell, you hear it in everyone of her manifestations.

              DHARMA: “Oh, I’m REAL in this outfit baby. Oh yeah. I’M the truth …. you know that John Moviestar is my lover right? Yeah …. well I made him what he is. It’s tragic he is such a poor actor. Oh, look, there I am dressed up over there in that DISGUSTING blouse of rationality. That was SO 2012 … LOOK! Over there is someone who has reached optimum well being. He’s one of my disciples …Oh and between you and me, can you help me get rid of a body?”

              Bitch needs a reality check.

            2. LOL! The inimitable katageek!

              (Note to Marianne, he may be using another “definition” of Dharma. 😉 )

            3. I say, if “you” can’t dooooplicate, ‘it’ just ‘pissists!’ 🙂

            4. marildi
              Thanks. I duplicated his meaning of it. BTW…I enjoy your comments! You are as amazing as ever! Going to bed….talk to you later.

            5. BTW, possibly useful dfns:

              1)pissists: grinds onanonanon.
              2)pissister: just/must piss you off.
              3)pissistar: offensive celebrity
              4)pissisticle: commbarrier/obstacle
              5)playpissty4me; pervert!
              6)pissistack: interminable supply.
              7)pissifit: ‘effects’ flung from cot.
              8)pissologist; expert in pissing off.
              9)pisscientist: noproofnocanbuy.
              10) pissedhiss; fuck you!

            6. Calvin, LOL!

              May I “extend the list”?

              11) pisston-ectomy – what Dio is going to do to Al
              12) pisstol whip – what Chris tries to do to marildi
              13) pissoir – what KG thinks of Scientology
              14) pisston ring – the posters on Geirs blog
              15) pisston ringmaster – the illustrious Geir himself
              16) pisser – Marianne (actual dictionary definition: “someone extraordinary”)
              17) pisser – Calvin (another actual dictionary definition: “someone that is very funny” 🙂 )

            7. marildi
              ….me speechless….yeah…you have been inspiring creativity all along….if the beginning was masculine, continuity is feminine….

            8. HaHa…thanks, marildi! Planning to put here my ‘blondie-style-face-photo’ I used to play, tomorrow if I succeed. You follow racing’s advice with your hair! Hair, shoes…just some…love them, guess you too!
              Me going to bed now, have a beautiful day! Love actually….you know the movie….

            9. <