This blog has been replaced…

2010-06-26 Comments off

by my new blog.

Categories: My timeline

To be even more Clear…

2010-06-24 48 comments

The last blog post sparked discussions in many arenas. Instead of addressing the points on each channel, I think it’s better to address them right here. I’m not covering new territory, this is clarification.

  • What I have experienced from the Tech in Scientology has been very workable. I have seen very little that didn’t work on me. I am very thankful for all my gains in Scientology.
  • I have personally seen examples of Tech not working on others or having a negative effect on others – even when they got, as far as I can see, Standard Tech.
  • I see inconsistencies in the Tech and I believe it to be overly complex. I believe there must be a simpler method of addressing the problems of the simplest of sources; You.
  • I believe in the free will of man and that the free market will decide what works. Hence, I advocate Open Source Scientology (both connotations).
  • I think the validity of any Tech can be shown scientifically – and it should. But absence of scientific evidence does not counter the workability of a Tech. Beyond that, your personal gain is for you to validate. Anything can work. Scientology very often does.
  • I see much good in the Admin policies from LRH. But destructive policies should be rooted out. This obviously goes for anything destructive in Ethics or Tech as well. Keep the good, reject the bad.
  • I see much good in Scientology Ethics – as long as it is kept as a personal tool for improvement and not as a tool of force applied to others.
  • I see flaws in Hubbard. I see genius in Hubbard. I see that many have serious issues separating the man from his work. Newton’s work is not invalidated by the man being seriously flawed.
  • To those claiming “Isene is slowly waking up from Scientology”, I can only say this: I am quite awake and has been for some time – having objected to stupidity and abuses while in the church. I will however not enter the daze of negativity where anything bad about Scientology is treated as gospel. Differentiation is the key.
  • As for the discussions sparked by the last blog post, I didn’t think I would see the day when ESMB would out-rabid WWP.
  • The “all good” or “all bad” are equal signs of insanity.

And this pretty much concludes an era of blogging for me. I will let this blog simmer down. I will let my IT blog wither. And I will erect a new blog merging all my fields of interest – Scientology and exploration of free will, IT and consumer rights, patent and copyright abolishment, philosophy and logic, art and music, mathematics and quantum mechanics, programming and HP calculators, nature and beauty.

Stay tuned. You will be invited over to my new home for a housewarming party.

And the Why is … *drumroll*…

2010-06-22 63 comments

The fact is that the Church of Scientology is in trouble, real trouble.

There is an inquiry in Australia, a raid in Italy, a ban in Russia (a sad tale of suppression of free speech), court cases in the US and elsewhere and news stories damning the culture of authoritarian and violent leadership coming from the very top of the church. And several high profile Scientologists leaving flanked by scores of top OTs. I’d say the church is heading for implosion.

There is plenty of analysis and speculations on other blogs and forums. A ruling sentiment is that David Miscavige is not the root cause of the problems of the church. I agree, and while I’m not the one to serve you a wall-o-text, I will simply serve my own conclusions with a few examples as catalysts:

Some logic to back this up:

  • If David Miscavige is an excellent leader, then Policy must be flawed to run the Church into this much trouble.
  • If David Miscavige is an SP, then LRH or Policy must be flawed to allow him to rise to the position of a church leader.
  • If David Mayo was an SP, then either LRH or the SP/PTS tech must be flawed to allow him to rise to the position of Senior C/S International.
  • If David Mayo was an excellent Tech person, then Policy and/or the SP/PTS tech must be flawed to let him be declared a Suppressive Person.

And then a few conclusions:

  • David Miscavige and David Mayo cannot both have risen to power in a Church were the founder, his tech, his ethics and his policy were all adequate.
  • The trouble in the church predates David Miscavige.
  • I believe the church turned a corner in the late 60′s where it became an authoritarian organization bent on self preservation at the expense of human rights.
  • LRH was a man. He was not perfect. Some seems to believe he was.
    Others seems obsessed with his imperfections. He did create abusive policies – policies that has caused much harm, like forced disconnections. Such must be canceled. I believe the creation of abusive policies is the Why for the troubles of the church.
  • “A real Why opens the door to handling.” (LRH)

Furthermore:

  • I believe Admin (the church policy) should be rewritten – continually to accommodate for the learning process of the organization.
  • I believe Ethics should be taken back to a personal level and not be applied as a group tech.
  • I believe Tech should be delivered by anyone in competition with the church and let the free market take care of the rights of the consumer. Industry standards organizations can take care of accreditations if the consumer believes that to be of value.
  • I believe the tech should be made freely available to everyone so that anyone who wants can take what works for him or her.
  • I believe the tech can be of great value to many.

A graphic description of the current CoS:

The CoS as of today

Where are the amazing people?

2010-06-15 68 comments

There are plenty of amazing people in our history – like Gandhi, Joan of Arc, Albert Einstein, William Shakespeare, Marie Curie, Ludwig van Beethoven, Buddha, Pablo Picasso and so many, many more.

One may aspire to such greatness and doing such positive impact on societies. But how do you go about achieving such greatness?

One of the most glaring outpoints I can see with Scientology is that no such people have been produced in or by Scientology.

Let me rush to the rescue of some readers emotional reaction by stating that I have had excellent gains in Scientology. This blog post is not about that, it is about the bigger picture. I have seen no person by the virtue of Scientology technology rise to the height of the men and women mentioned above. And I wonder why.

I also wonder if there is any current method that can give rise to such greatness.

Not that this greatness I am talking about is the only aspiration there can be. There is of course also the inner peace, the enjoyment of life, the zest of one’s adventures. And I can personally vouch for Scientology’s efficiency in these.

But the question remains: Where are the amazing people?

Don’t trust Source

2010-06-14 13 comments

There were 80 hopefuls in the course room. Every chair was occupied by a tensely interested Scientologist looking at the OT VIII who was about to open his mouth. It was Moscow, 2008. And the subject of the four hour seminar was “Admin Scale”.

I started: “If I say something true today, why would it be true?”

Two quick answers were offered:

  • Because you are an OT VIII!
  • Because what you say comes from L. Ron Hubbard!

Knowing Russian track of blind obedience to authority, I was not that surprised. It was nevertheless sad.

I promptly invalidated the answers and took the quick and scenic route via the topic Personal Integrity. I tried my best to hammer it in that you should not accept something as true unless you yourself can see that it is true. It does not matter who says it. The [b]content of the communication[/b] is true or not regardless of the source of the communication. Accepting something as true or false based on who says it is mental laziness. It is suspension of own judgment. It hurts your personal integrity and makes you that much smaller.

I hope I reached at least some in the audience.

This mental laziness of trusting the source of the communication and then accepting whatever emanates from that source is rampant in society. I see this everywhere.

I see it in the blind obedience in the Church of Scientology. I see it when a scientologist blindly accept of anything Ron says. I see it in the Scientology critics community when a critic take anything coming from a “critic of stature” as gospel.

It seems hard for some to challenge the illogic in a statement from a friend or from a “trusted source”.

A variation of this is to trust a communication that is similar to your own views even if it also contains untruth. In the critics community this is manifested by accepting any negative statement about Scientology regardless of its illogic. In the Church of Scientology this is manifested by accepting that something is true, positive or helpful simply because a similar topic or technique has proven beneficial. Again, mental laziness.

I applaud the imperfection of Wikipedia. It teaches our children to never trust the source but to exercise their own judgment.

Don’t trust Source. Trust yourself.

Out of the 80 people present, I got 79 though doing their Admin Scale – defining a set of concepts for their life, like their Goals and Purposes, their plans, their envisioned Ideal Scene and more. Without any nudging in any direction, they chose the path that was right for themselves, in accordance to their own life and living. The staff of Moscow Org were somewhat less happy that I didn’t nudge them in the direction they wanted: selling the Basic Books.

Life, The Universe & Everything

2010-06-04 90 comments

There are several very basic questions I have not gotten answered in Scientology, even as I have reached the other side of the Bridge delivered by the CoS. Some of these are:

  • What is the nature of the Cause as described in the first of the Factors; “Before the beginning was a Cause and the entire purpose of the Cause was the creation of effect.” (this is before the decision to BE comes into play)?
  • How does a thetan with his own universe get to know about the MEST (physical) universe?
  • What is the power of “consideration” in contrast to “postulates” or “opinions” as mentioned in Axiom #2; “The static is capable of considerations, postulates and opinions.”?

It seems to me that one has to perceive this with utmost simplicity to reach the truth. And so I will play ball with the readers of this forum to see if my ideas hold water.

This post can be seen as a continuation of my article on free will. So, before you reply, please read the article. Here goes:

There is a basic Cause of all. This is what Buddhism calls Nirvana. It contains no individuality as the decision “to BE” comes from this Cause and does not reside within it. This Cause is pure potential.

From this Cause then comes decisions “to BE”, each with it’s own set of Factors from #2 and up, each with it’s own universe. The thetan basically is his own universe with all its considerations. Individual thetans has the power of Consideration, where Opinion is a lower harmonic of consideration and Postulate is a form of Consideration. Consideration is the basic ability of a thetan.

For every cycle of action, there is the sequence of BE-DO-HAVE and thus each cycle of action carries with it a full set of the basic factors, giving rise to the fractal structure of universes.

And because all thetans have a basic common Cause, each have a link to the others, hence a basic knowingness of the others and the ability to agree upon a common game field, called the physical universe (MEST).

A thetan in his own universe can consider (create) anything. Without limit. A taste of this is given when the body sleeps and the thetan dreams.

As the thetan agrees to participate in the common game called MEST, he takes on a massive amount of agreement. It is much like any other game, like soccer – to participate, one must abide by the rules. A thetan in the common game is bound by the agreements of this game. Hence he cannot simply lift an object by pure consideration unless he solicits agreement by everyone else in the game (or at least those he wants to show it to) – or unless it is somehow allowed by the rules. This may explain the lack of displayed OT abilities. It may also explain magic (someone found a buried allowance for certain magic to be displayed, or a loophole in the rules).

A thetan in the common game is very much at effect simply because of the agreement to the rules. The thatan can become even more effect by agreeing further to other’s considerations (taking them on as one’s own) within the game or by the elements in the game itself (agreement with MEST as covered in the article on free will). Layers upon layers of considerations results in lower levels being masked by higher levels and can then be referred to as “unconscious considerations”.

There is a gradient scale of free will that shows how much the thetan is in agreement. For a thetan to rise on this scale, he must get a solution on his level of agreement. A druggie, heavily into agreement with MEST and other’s considerations (same thing) needs a very physical solution in order to accept its workability. A thetan high on the scale need the simplest of solutions – like what is described here by Alan Watts (first half of the video):

A thetan is only bound by his own considerations and can only be hurt or become effect by his own considerations. So, resolving a thetan’s own considerations is the only solution there is. And this is why placebo works – an effect the medical societies should embrace wholeheartedly. Any solution works only to the degree that one can lure the thetan into considering that it will work. This is why any religion can work, or psychotherapy, or psychiatry, or healing, or mediation, or looking at a blue stone for 15 years, or simply anything as long as the thetan considers it will work. This is why I fully respect the workability of any religion. Some techniques reach the level of agreement of more people than other techniques. Scientology reaches many. The workability is enforced by the thetan’s perception of the value of the solution. If the solution includes much suffering, monetary cost, secrecy or scarcity it will often be seen as more valuable and hence has a better potential of getting some thetans to accept it as workable.

As any solution can work, and it will work the best if it strikes at the level of free will exercised by the thetan, there is a scale of solutions from the most physical to the very light. At the most physical levels, we have solutions such as band aid, surgery, medicine, vitamines and up through various therapies and rituals to tackling the results of the thetan’s most intimate considerations – referred to as “case” in Scientology. But above that is addressing the thetan’s considerations directly. It puzzles me why this level is not addressed on the Bridge.

Instead of addressing the thetan’s charge or case, one could address his considerations about it to release his free will. His considerations is after all the only thing that anchors him to this charge or case. Making him simply look at his own considerations layer after layer should bring him to whatever level he wants. This is what gives hope for the simplest of approaches like the KHTK by Vinaire.

I am writing this to test my ideas about Life, Universe and Everything. And any input would be very welcome.

I should add that 42 (the number of eyes on two dice… “God does play dice”) is not the answer. Cantor was closer… the answer is “0″. I leave it to you to figure out this last paragraph :)

Report from OSLO

2010-05-18 14 comments

A quick overview of the OSLO meeting:

7 nations were present among the 12 attendants. 25 people were confirmed but several peeled off en the last couple of weeks. Ages ranging from 22 – 80, both independents since the early 80′s and a couple only recently (last week or so) out. New friendships were made. Party and caek.

All but one

Topics covered:

  • How to help those on the inside wake up (got a good plan for this)
  • Leaving the takedown of DM to those who can actually pull it off.
  • Get the message out that there are better alternatives for getting tech on the outside (fear of not getting their Bridge is the main reason why people stay and tolerate human rights abuses)
  • Creating a rating system for independent delivery units/individuals (something the church will never have)
  • How to effectively release the tech on the Net (excellent plan on this)
  • Manning up a couple of cool adventures (more on this later)

Thanks to my new friends :)

See also Silvia’s blog post.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.