OSA hypocricy

The Church of Scientology Central Intelligence Agency (OSA – Office of Special Affairs) is busy sending out adHom e-mails from an anonymous e-mail account over at Hushmail (auto421@hushmail.com, auto422@hushmail.com, etc.). The very same Central Intelligence Agency responsible for the infamous shutdown of anon.penet.fi.

OSA supposedly the PR strong arm of the church. Now busy creating a strong negative public impression of the Church of Scientology and consequently the subject of Scientology itself.

A few examples from the e-mails should suffice:

“Marty is such a putz that…”, “Marty and his squirrel squad…”, “Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder have now built a record of abusing their own followers.”, Amy Scobee and her husband Mat Pesch are liars.”, “It’s just a nightmare for Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder that never ends, and never will – until they come clean.”, etc.

It boggles the mind how a PR arm of any church could think that this would somehow work in their favor.

Triangles in Scientology

Many years ago a friend and I started mapping out all the triangles in Scientology and started adding many more.

You may know the ARCU triangle where “Affinity”, “Reality” and “Communication” equates to “Understanding”. There is also the other triangle making up the Scientology symbol (the “S” with two triangles) – the KRC-triangle: “Knowledge”, Responsibility” and “Control”. Even though we didn’t find any references from L. Ron Hubbard as to what those three interconnected elements would equate to, we figured out it should be “Ability”.

Then there is the “BE”-“DO”-“HAVE” witch should equate to perhaps “Existence”. Then there are the three properties of a thetan described by LRH in the book “Science of Survival”: “Power”, “Intelligence” and “Tone” (equating to Beingess?). Thetan-Mind-Body equals a person. Past-Present-Future is time. And there are many more.

Let’s see if we can map more of existence in this fashion. LRH was onto something with this concepts of triangles – there are obvious parallels in the physical sciences such as three spacial dimensions and three quark colors.

Want to pitch in with a new triangle?

Attention!

“But daddy, you’re doing it all wrong! The engine is in front of the car, not on the roof!”. The son was looking at his dad fiddling with two pieces of Lego, slightly worried about his daddy driving him to soccer practice in a couple of hours. “I thought you knew something about cars?”, looking troubled at two eyes staring out into nothing.

“Eh, what?” The two eyes focused on the son correcting an undrivable Lego car. “Oh, sorry son. Just thought of something important”

“But what could be more important than building this Lego car with me?” The son looked puzzled at his bewildered dad.

“Oh, well, hmm, I guess…”

Stray thoughts, job matters, earlier trauma, worries and indecisions all capture a person’s attention leaving less attention to operate in the here and now. Less operative attention makes for a more troubled life, leads to more worries, captures more attention. Less operative attention leads to the person experiencing less of what is happening here and now. It leads to less Actual Living.

what captures attention

When a person is doing something that requires maximum attention, like skydiving, the person suddenly feels more alive. What about seeking to maximize the operative attention in daily life as well? What about engaging in more Actual Living.

I believe this to be one of the most common problems in life, and I am working to resolve this myself. If you have valuable input on how to recapture more operative attention, you are welcome to leave a comment.

Yes, we have Scientology auditing, we have the KHTK, we have Time Management and we have skydiving. But are there other ideas that could contribute to resolving this? It would be nice to build an even bigger toolbox for recapturing operative attention.

On the value of life

I have come to the conclusion that my view of people and of life have been seriously flawed.

During my first 25 years as a scientologist, I adopted the idea that “A being is only as valuable as he can serve others.” That a persons “Output” or “Statistics” or “Production” was the sole determinants for a person’s value as a being. I believed that if a person did not contribute actively to others, he or she is of low value. I have experienced some extreme examples of this view in other scientologists. And with this view, a whole range of human rights abuses can be fully justified.

I became “hardened” in my views despite the increased love for others achieved through my spiritual progress all those years. My passion for people increased manifold on my journey up the levels in Scientology all while the dramatization of hard policies molded my analytical views. A contrast I can now finally settle.

It started with accepting this quote from L. Ron Hubbard as true: “By my own creed, a being is only as valuable as he can serve others.” It was reinforced by Hubbard’s policies on production, exchange and statistics. It was further cemented by the command intention and push in the Church of Scientology that a person’s value is directly proportional to his time and money donated to Church projects.

I adamantly defended the idea. When someone would counter this by raising the objection of “what about someone with Down’s Syndrome”, I would handle the objection by either a) explaining it away, b) claiming the quote was taken out of context, c) that Hubbard didn’t mean it quite like that, or d) that people with Down’s Syndrome is clearly an exception to the rule… and no rule without an exception etc.

But with everything else he wrote, and especially when I was a Course Supervisor in the Church, I would state emphatically that Hubbard means what he says. Hubbard was a very capable author, and he didn’t throw around approximate statements or statements that he meant to be interpreted in the view of everything else he wrote. No, I have come to understand that Hubbard was a very precise philosopher and author. He was accurate, to-the-point and clear in his views.

I recently read through a whole blog discussion on this very quote, and can only say that the sentence says what it says: “A being is only as valuable as he can serve others.” Only… only as valuable as… Nothing else enters the equation. It is an y = ax type of expression. It is not y = ax +b. There is no other value involved (like the “b” in the last equation).

Perhaps flagging the exception of a person with Down’s Syndrome is a bit extreme, and maybe that is an exception etc. But what about a baby? We have all been one. Screaming and in diapers, completely reliant on our mom and dad, not helping much compared to any grown-up except of course for the smile and shining baby face. But if a baby’s value as a being is to be measured only by it’s ability to serve others, it would be very low compared to the captain on a ship. Still, children and women are put in the life boat first. Chivalry plays a part here. So does love, compassion and one’s affinity for life itself.

I want to make it known that I now believe that life has an intrinsic value all on its own. This is an obvious conclusion from my article “On Will”, but I wanted to share it also as a separate blog post.

I can hear the justifications and objections popping, so I will add this: Of course there are situations in life where people will and should be valued differently. Like in the business world. Just like I would have a low value as a surgeon or as an ice skater, my 2-year old would have a low value as a programmer. But a broad statement that a being is as valuable as he can serve others?

I believe you are valuable. Whoever you are. I believe you deserve compassion love and care whether you are a King or a beggar, a Wall Street executive, baby in diapers, a kid with Down’s Syndrome or a being in an old cancer-ridden body at its last breath. I will commit myself to support the value of You and to fight for life, for freedom, for compassion and for love.

Missing in Study Tech II

This is the second part of Missing in Study Tech.

Straight to the point:

There are several prerequisites to study:

  • A distraction-free body (enough food and sleep, no distracting body conditions)
  • A distraction-free environment
  • A subject to study with adequate material
  • A willingness to study (subject aligning with own goals and motivations and a belief that one could and should study the subject)

Then there is the first class of barriers to study – the teacher or material:

  • The teacher or material is wrong (the concepts cannot be demonstrated as it is incorrect)
  • The teacher or material is badly conveyed (overly complex, unnecessary stuff interjected or there are holes in the explanation such as missing raw data or case studies – a skipped gradient)
  • The teacher or material has a misunderstood (using a wrong word or symbol or using it the wrong way)

Then there is the second class of barriers to study, covered by LRH in the bulletin “Barriers to Study” as detailed in the previous blog post:

  • Lack of mass
  • Skipped gradient
  • The misunderstood word

Beyond all this there is the ability to evaluate and use the data. That is a skill that can be fostered by the Data Series as well as other bodies of knowledge (like studying logical fallacies).

The second class of barriers to study is part of Scientology Standard Technology. The first class and the prerequisites are not. Some of those points are however covered in Hubbard’s lectures and articles and have found their place in various courses such as the Basic Study Manual. I have never seen Hubbard touching on the third point of the first class of study barriers (misunderstoods in the materials themselves).

You can see how the three barriers that LRH describes have one for one a counterpart in the first class of study barriers. What can be wrong in a student’s study can of course also be wrong with the material.

If a student disregards the first class of barriers as even more primary than the second class, he could find himself thinking he himself have lack of mass, a skipped gradient or a misunderstood, when all along the materials or teacher were at fault. A teacher could even go so far as insisting the student has a misunderstood because he was in disagreement with erroneous material.

A student should be taught Study Technology in the sequence outlined above: First we need the prerequisites taken care of, then we need the first class of barriers out of the way, then we tackle the second class of study barriers.

One should of course be very alert to a student claiming that prerequisites are out simply because he has run into any of the three barriers of the second class. He could claim he was hungry because he has lack of mass, just to get out of the classroom. Or he could claim that the author has a misunderstood when the student is the one using the wrong definition for a word.

But, one should always be aware the prerequisites and always be open for errors in the materials or in the teacher, even when that teacher is a guru one looks up to.

And finally, there are always shades of gray and nuances in the colors. Materials could be more or less wrong – maybe they are right but could be even more right. Very, very little material in human history has not been rightfully improved upon by later generations.

Missing in study tech

You may be familiar with L. Ron Hubbard’s study tech. It is a very workable piece of technology for studying any subject. LRH describes three barriers to study:

  1. Lack of mass – studying a subject without access to the real thing one is studying and not representing it with drawings, clay demonstrations or at least using small desk items to represent the real things one is studying.
  2. Skipped gradient – jumping over material or progressing to fast in one’s study, leaving gaps in knowledge.
  3. The misunderstood word – going past a word or symbol one does not fully understand, making the subject difficult to grasp or misunderstood altogether. After all, a book contains mostly words and symbols, these are the building blocks of any subject one is studying.

These barriers to study makes up the foundation of Hubbard’s study tech which in turn makes up the foundation for studying Scientology. But what if the foundation wasn’t solid? What if it was lacking some important ingredients? What if there were more barriers to study? And what if these barriers, if taught in Scientology would actually make the students able to think for themselves?

These missing barriers to study are so glaringly obvious and so obviously dangerous to point out in the Church of Scientology that it would get you an express ride to the Ethics Officers were you to insist they were missing.

Now what could those missing elements in the Study Tech be?

My current research

In between daily life I am currently engaged in extending the work published in my article “On Will“. I plan to expand the theory therein to a more comprehensive “Subjective Reality theory“.

To let you in on my current research:

  1. If our physical reality is a co-created consensus reality, and its persistence is dependent on it not being seen for what it is (a Matrix type illusion), then the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle may be the preservation mechanism as it disallows exact certainty. At the same time, there exists evidence that exact perception of one’s own created reality is possible (not what is accepted by others or entered into the broad consensus – the physical universe). The exact relation between the Uncertainty Principle and Consensus should be further researched.
  2. The Wave Function may be seen as an individual’s creative freedom within the consensus reality. Further research should reveal the accumulated freedom in the consensus reality given by the Wave Function.
  3. The Collapse of the Wave Function may be the mechanism of a created reality being accepted by another. The relationship between communication and Wave Function Collapse should be determined.
  4. The basic actions seem to be Consideration (creation of realities) and Communication (co-creation of consensus realities). The exact relation between Consideration and Communication and the mechanism from there to the co-creation of consensus reality needs to be mapped.

This and other related points will be published sometime in the future.

Is Julian Assange a Good Guy? Does it matter?

Beside the Hiroshima bomb and perhaps 9/11, nothing in modern history has had a more disruptive global effect in such a short time as Wikileaks.

It matters not whether Julian Assange is a good, bad, crazy, nice or in-the-middle-guy. Whatever, yawn. Transparency in this case is Good.

And the world have forever changed.

If Wikileaks is somehow stopped, the world is forever changed, as that means the end to free press and the start of a more controlled society, something China seems to have some limited success in.

If Wikileaks is not stopped, the world is forever changed, as now people have found a new avenue for anonymously disclosing the dirty secrets of people doing the bidding of others than those who elected them to power.

But the mayonnaise cannot be put back into the tube – if Wikileaks gets shut down, another 50 sites will take its place.

Welcome to the new world of transparency. A world where crimes will be disclosed because secrets cannot be kept. This is changing the planet whole-scale, something Scientology has not even been close in doing.

Funny that. Here we have a wonderful philosophy and technology (Scientology) to handle and heal the world, and like a high-speed train comes tech like Internet, Wikipedia and Wikileaks that changes the world to a more communicative, open, knowledge-sharing, transparent and ethical place like nothing before.

And Wikipedia and Wikileaks are ideas that got traction without much investment – it’s a snowball effect because one has lowered the threshold to people’s participation. It is the Ant Hill in practice.

One can resist this or enjoy this. The results in the world will be the same. The difference lies only with oneself – resisting it will make one annoyed, while enjoying it will make even this fun.

Enjoy 🙂

We are AT WAR!

The US is going ballistic after Wikileaks released classified governmental documents.

Some have cried “But we are AT WAR!” – to seemingly justify why the US government should be allowed to operate secretively and opaque and even against the interests of The People that elected them to power.

Such “AT WAR!” justifications have been used throughout history to oppress and suppress anything from free speech and political dissidents to whole groups or nations. Examples include the former Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Chile under Pinochet, Uganda under Idi Amin, present time North Korea and the Church of Scientology.

When one is “AT WAR!”, one can pretty much do as one wishes. Like go to war against a nation that did nothing to harm you in any way, censor free speech, demand extra taxes, send people to the Ethics department for daring to read the Internet, send staff to the Repair Project Force for not toeing the Party Line, etc.

It matters not whether a government or organization claims to be “AT WAR!” with another nation, terrorists, the psychiatric profession, the media or aliens. Because as long as one gets the group to believe it is “AT WAR!”, then the group will relinquish its basic human rights to those in power and entrust its future in those in command.

One should be very alert of such “AT WAR!” claims, as far too often it is misused in order to suppress opposing views and to keep the status quo for those in power.

I believe Thomas Jefferson was right when he said:

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Right now there are governments in fear of its people.

I will leave you with some excellent questions by the US politician Ron Paul:

Wikileaks: Transparency vs. Privacy

One needs to answer to those one is appointed to serve.

By this, a politician and government official serving The People need to answer and be transparent to The People.

A business needs to answer and be transparent to its shareholders, employees and clients.

A family member needs to answer to the other family members. A family transparent to itself is a Good Thing.

I need to answer to me. Me being self-transparent is a matter of personal integrity.

This gives the gradients of transparency and privacy.

And of course, a politician is only a politician when he does politics.
When he is in the bathroom, he is private (and answers to himself).