Oh, the arrogance!
I have covered fanaticism in earlier posts – the “Scientology is 100% right” or the “Scientology is totally a scam” propositions. I hate to be redundant, but I have seen another aspect of these fixed ideas come into play lately. It’s about how these fanatical viewpoints are related to a seemingly rock solid certainty and outright arrogance.
The church is pushing the perfect facade of all they do – of LRH, of Scientology, of the churches, of the management and of David Miscavige. They do their utmost to instill in their members this 100% certainty that Scientology is always totally right. They do this despite the fact that Hubbard himself claimed no such thing. The church is intolerant to any criticism and it continually invents new ways of acting arrogant. The church fanatics know what you need, they are quite judgmental. Even without a D of P interview they know what you should do next. So, we can see that this insistence on the 100% right leads to intolerance and arrogance.
The same is true for the haters – the people that are 100% certain that anything Scientology must totally be a scam. The more they are certain of this, the more intolerant they become of anyone practicing their Scientology beliefs. And they become arrogant. There have been quite a few in this group lately that have pretended to “know” what state I am in. They “know” that I just need more time to come to grips with the philosophy of Scientology being an outright scam. They are dead certain this is the case – many of them without having tried Scientology for themselves, having started to read about it with a negative viewpoint, looking only for proof of the bad. They know that my own experienced gains from Scientology could not possibly be true. They are in fact more certain of their own opinion on this than I could be of what I have seen with my own eyes.
The two groups of fanatics are more similar than any of them would like to admit. The totally-for and the totally-against. They are both dead certain they are right. They are both intolerant of opposing views. And they are both arrogant – they know where others are at and what they need.
Luckily the majority of the population is tolerant, humble, curious and willing to look and learn. If you are in this category, then you could feel at home on this blog. You are warmly welcome here.
Leave a reply to seth Cancel reply
Quick links:
Navigation/index page
General questions and comments
Your gains from Scientology
Purpose: To help differentiate between the Scientology philosophy and the Church of Scientology.
Feel free to contribute by adding your comments to the blog posts. When you do, please observe the rules of this blog.
Note: I will not post or link to confidential material on this blog. Scientologists should feel safe coming here to get truth.
Spread the word: Feel free to translate my Doubt write-up and spread it far and wide. Use OpenOffice to open the file. Please keep the formatting so that it remains a valid WOIM list. It is already translated into German
Geir Isene: Straight talk on Scientology 
Good post Geir 🙂
So true!
In both camps you have the self righteous do gooders and hypocrites who are trying to save us from ourselves and who “know” what’s “good” for us. The Church of Scientology never used to be that way and now it is under Miscavige. Ironically many of the critics of the Church are much the same. The only thing that makes them different is their opinion of Scientology.
I have seen that to be true myself. The more I progressed in Scientology auditing the more I was capable of having the luxury of inspecting things without the fixed idea. On one of your earlier posts you mention about the confusion and the stable datum. This is very obvious to me. People have something in their space that confuses them and they solve it with a fixed idea that stabilizes their confusion. If you shake that fixed idea they sometimes attack you, because they are afraid that you will destabilize them. This is s very good argument that people should get auditing. These arrogant types can be annoying though, nonetheless.
Have a nice week everybody!
Absolutely Beautiful Post!
In the process of denial [as related to a 100% position], this inevitably leads to polarized “thinking” and does not allow for any negotiations. It is the “stuff” of many WARS on this planet. It perpetuates the very divisiveness that I, for one, see diminishing.
As I’ve progressed this life, I “see” a three dimensional viewpoint to people, places, things, time, and events that perceives and does not judge. Being in “human” form most of the time also means I am not 100 %, either.
I believe this applies to the indoctrinated Scientologist as well. I have seen some Scientologists outside of the cult attack others that tried to shake their fixed ideas because they too were afraid of being destablized.
I stopped calling myself a Scientologist about 4 years ago I’ve been out for over 9 years. I believe that there is much “case gain” in honestly reviewing all parts of Scn and one by one stripping themselves of the fixed ideas, false data, and slyly implanted indoctrination. Once that process is completed and a person still wants to call themselves a Scientologist, then c’est la vie!
I can see your point Patty. I agree that Scientologist’s can be some of the most make-wrongy people around. After seeing all the abuses I can see why someone would not want to call themselves a Scientologist. Did you get any benefit out of the subject? If so I would be interested to see what you liked about it.
I think the harm outweighed the benefit.
For many years I made wrong choices due to my belief in Scn. I chose the route to OT rather than a good education. I choose Scn for my son, rather that a good education for him. I made many bad choices based on following “What would Ron do” rather than doing what I would do if I were not so deeply stuck in the Scn mindset.
I hear you. That must make you feel bad. I don’t mean to hound you, but I really am curious as to what you liked about it? Is there something that you still use? I know for myself that the ARC triangle is something that I could never dispense with. Have a good week. Oh by the way I hate that “what would Ron do?” routine when it is used on people.
Unhandled Service Facsimiles, can produce the most amazing threads by both camps.
(Definition of Service Facsimile:
A mental image picture the PC (Preclear or patient) uses to make himself or herself right and others wrong, help him dominate others and himself escape domination, or to enhance his own survival and injure that of others.)
I suppose that you believe so strongly that you perceive any criticism as hate or intolerance. As I said in a previous message, almost everything has been uncovered about the Hubbard scam for *decades*. You still refuse to see it, that’s normal, you’re still in the Scientology mindset. There’s probably nothing I can say that can snap you out of it. But continue to investigate, almost everything is available on the internet and in books from ex-scientologists. Call me arrogant if you wish but you should admit that you are the one who have been behind the iron curtain all this time.
I’m willing like most people involved in Anonymous to let you believe in Scientology but I’m fairly certain that that this “applied philosophy” has to be challenged whenever possible because it’s harmful. One of my favorite criticism is that one: (link removed due to reference to confidential material) it shows very well how and why you are lead to believe in Scientology. And it also shows why you should *NOT* try it. Just like you shouldn’t try an addictive drug to see if it’s good or bad. The good thing is that many of the fantastic claims are scientifically testable. But guess why the Church doesn’t want to hear about that and prefer to protect itself behind the religious cloak…
I rest my case 🙂
Dear OT IX,
Using your “logic” you would also condemn Christianity for eating the body of Christ and taking the sacrament and all sorts of other religious beliefs that comfort people. Whether even or not these spiritual wins can be scientifically validated does not mean that they don’t have value to people. I may not believe in what you believe in but I grant you the right to believe it as long as it is not destructive. (Primarily against the law.) I see the abuses of Scientology and they MUST be stopped , but not the good that is there and that I have experienced. I do not want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. By the way…what do you believe in as far as spirituality?
Alex; Thank you for this post. I second this.
Bob tastes strawberries for the first time and says: “Wow…these are delicious!”. Joe tells him “strawberries taste horrible actually, look at this report on strawberries”. Hmmm…pretty hard to argue with direct experience. Sorry if this is too simplistic.
The foolish reject what they see, not what they think.
The wise reject what they think, not what they see.
Huang-po
If Dianetics and Scientology were utterly false and a scam, they would’ve ceased to exist within a year or two of inception. Give others *some* credit. Do you really think Scientologists in general are blind and obtuse to the point they would be involved in something that doesn’t benefit them or others in some degree at least? Who would want to be involved if it was all lies and a scam? SOMETHING is drawing people to devote their whole lives to the church.
“I’m willing…to let you believe in Scientology” how nice of you, thanks. 🙂
Nice post Geir.
It’s completely true what you say about the condescending attitude of both sides.
This unfortunately has been going on for quite some time.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/COINTELPRO/fbi_cofs.html
Governments have even in their arrogance tried to “know” all about us.
Apparently we’re all a bunch of evil cultists involved in “drugs, brainwashing, Communism, atheism and materialism” from J Edgar Hoover’s own confidential reports to other government agencies no less!!!
Just remember guys,that no matter what DM or anonymous does or acts there honestly have been worse times to be scientologists.
We survived then.
We Will survive now.
One way for the haters to justify their anti-Scn stance would be to get a copy of Self Analysis (it is a tiny, very easy to read book) and do the exercises in it for half hour a day for about two weeks. That’s all they are, exercises. If your body is weak and flabby, you do pushups or some such. If your mind is weak and flabby you do multiplication tables or crossword puzzles. But what kind of exercises can you do if YOU are weak and flabby? The exercises in Self Analysis should be more than enough to give you an idea with a few hours’ investment of your time. If you won’t even stick a toe that far into the subject before you decide it’s not for you, what the hell are you hating? Yourself, perhaps?
I second the recipe of trying out Self Analysis.
Joe,
I read with interest your article “Inside Scientology Compilations” at scientology-cult.com. Your insights into the whole 1980s-1990s time period in the tech compilations group are extremely valuable. I am curious: what is your opinion of the recent changes to:
(a) the lectures/films,
(b) the basics books, and
(c) the definitions of
(i) “floating needle”
(ii) “second dynamic”
As someone who was there personally in the tech compilations unit for many years, and saw how Miscavige/Mithoff and their tech/compilations team operated, would you say that they were very careful to keep the tech as close as possible to LRH’s wishes after he passed away? Or were they just “making stuff up” when they felt an HCOB or HCOPL needed to be re-written or changed? The definition of “floating needle” in particular is one that currently interests me, since it is so central to the success/failure of auditing and exams.
Thanks.
Margaret,
Thanks for your questions. Here is what I know and/or think:
a) LRH gave specific instructions about what to take out of his lectures. These were disparaging comments about different ethnicities, for one thing. I also think he directed that his remarks about communists be expunged after he found out that the US Gov’t was behind the black PR on communists. As for the changes, to me they are all completely unnecessary and stupid. Who the hell cares what LRH said or what his opinions were? As far as I know, nothing that says how you audit or train someone has ever been edited and that’s all that really matters. As for the films, I think you are referring to the deletion of the clearing cog from the Clearing Congress lectures, right? Well, that just shows you how much stock LRH put in a significance like the “clear cog.” It’s not the significance that is transformative, it is the transformation that occurs at the moment of Clear that counts. I know people who went Clear who never had the “clear cog.” But they had the transformation.
b) the basic books are generally great and an improvement over earlier editions insofar as the design and glossaries are concerned. I don’t have the specifics of the edits, but again, I doubt anything major has been messed with.
c) The definition of FN is exactly as written by LRH in HCOB 5 July 78 where he gives it in one sentence. If someone has changed that, it’s someone’s interpretation, not the original Source definition. If it’s a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle, that’s an FN. People hang up on rhythmic, sweep, etc. If LRH wanted you to get that involved in it, he would have written about it. If the HCOB has been changed, that would be a definite curve thrown into the works. Did someone revise that?
d) I saw the despatch that he sent down to the KTL team that redefined the 2D. It is creativity and I personally think it is a broader definition than what existed earlier.
We didn’t make stuff up in RTRC. Everything was based on specific LRH orders. There was a period in 1980 when LRH was off the lines when David Mayo directed some issues to be written that were nutty in an effort to handle an out tech scene going on at the time. I wrote some of them. But when LRH got back on the lines after Mayo left, these issues were all cancelled. From 1987 onwards, everything was strictly based on LRH direct orders. Even the Golden Age of Tech is based on his lecture A Talk on a Basic Qual from 1971 and HCOB Dianetic Command Training Drills.
Joe, Thanks for the response. On F/Ns, I’m told there is a new reference which revises the Jul 1978 reference as follows:
=============================
HCO BULLETIN OF 21 JULY 1978R
Revised 8 October 2000
(Revised 8 Oct. 2000 to include the full LRH definition of floating
needle. LRH originally wrote this HCOB on July 1978. In February 1979, when updating the book E-Meter Essentials, he augmented the definition with additional text. The full text, as it appears in E-Meter Essentials, is hereby issued in this HCOB, Revision in script.)
WHAT IS A FLOATING NEEDLE?
A floating needle is a rhythmic sweep of the dial at a slow, even pace of the needle, back and forth, back and forth, without change in
the width of the swing except perhaps to widen as the pc gets off the last small bits of charge. Note that it can get so wide that you have
to shift the tone arm back and forth, back and forth, to keep the needle on the dial, in which case you have a floating tone arm.
That’s what an F/N is. No other definition is correct.
L. Ron Hubbard
FOUNDER
Revision assisted by
LRH Technical Research
and Compilations
==============END============
Do you think the pre-amble about LRH updating “E-Meter Essentials” with this new definition is possible/correct/likely? If so, why would it have taken till 2000 to create an HCOB based on it? Perhaps it wasn’t noticed til they were doing the Basic Books project?
It seems like a pretty big curve. But do you think LRH noticed that people were getting hung up on “rythmic” and/or “sweep” and so he added more to the definition?
Also, I’m hearing that the new tech film more closely matches this new definition, but I haven’t seen it yet.
When did you get off the line? Do you think it’s possible that Mithoff actually made this up or allowed someone to blatantly lie about this being from LRH?
Margaret,
Thanks for this additional info. I forgot about that addition to E-Meter Essentials. I was no longer on comps lines in 2000 so I can’t really comment on the revision to the FN bulletin (sorry about forgetting the correct date–I used to know these like the back of my hand). Of course, DM (who I am positive ordered the “revision” [which is really an interpretation to forward DM’s version of a standard tech agenda]) has conveniently omitted any mention of LRH’s statement that F/Ns can be fleeting. (Ray doesn’t originate anything. He executes what DM orders.) So what’s an auditor to do?
At any rate, your comment here brings me to an even more basic point: ultimately, it is the auditor’s responsibility to spot when the pc has had an EP to the action undertaken. The F/N helps him recognize that. Someone looking at the session on a look-in system or on a video and not in the session can get interiorized into the needle and not be paying attention to the session itself.
The most damning criticism that can be leveled at the C of S is that the quality of tech being delivered in the freezone is probably better from the standpoint of the pc than in Flag HGCs. Auditors in the FZ recognize that there is no one besides them to get the pc his wins whereas Flag auditors are constantly auditing knowing that execs, C/Ses, and RTC Inspectors are likely watching for the slightest needle mis-twitch to haul them into cramming for the next week, via Ethics.
That revision of what an F/N is is really disturbing. Maybe people should stop using meters for awhile until they realize WHO, not WHAT, the session is for. Then the meter might have it’s rightful place in the session. It’s secondary.
Thanks for helping me understand this Joe.
Just so I am clear, do you think the HCOB is lying when it says that LRH actually updated “EMeter Essentials” with this new additional text in 1979? I mean, do we know if he did or didn’t?
I know what you’re saying about the meter being secondary. But I’m just trying to clarify the actual truth of the source of this additional text (even if it came from Emeter Essentials). Thanks.
Came across this by chance, in regards to the “Basics” editions being “correct”.
1.When a preclear is at a level on the Tone Scale (above 8.0) where he is concerned with “bad” and “good” (both these are seen broadly enough to understand that they are viewpoints), he is very concerned if he thinks that he is or could be bad cause and is desirous of being what he considers good cause.
2.When a preclear is at a level on the Tone Scale where he is concerned with bad and good (above 8.0 both these are seen broadly enough to understand that they are viewpoints) he is very concerned if he he thinks that he is or could be bad cause and is desirous of being what he considers good cause.
These are taken from the Chart of Attitudes section (Cause-Full Effect) of Scientology 8-8008, 1989 Edition and the 2007 Basics Edition.
Number 1 is from the 2007 Ed. I think # 1 is actually false as written; a thetan above 8.0 on the tone scale would understand that bad and good are only viewpoints. This makes me wonder what else they screwed up? Or am I misunderstanding something? Anyone care to comment?
I agree on this one Isene, if there where a philosophy that did not have good parts nobody would follow it/ get hooked exept it´s founder (insert any: religous, political, amway, or any philosopy here)
Good post. I think there are three things which complicate thia issue:
One: Pretense. Some of those who are expressing extreme certainty, in reality have doubts, and are over-compensating by being extra fanatical. This doesn’t apply to everyone, but I think it does apply to some.
Two: Laziness and generalizing. If you are shown failure after failure, you might start believing that failure is inevitable. Or if you only surround yourself with shiny happy people who believe the same as you do, you lull yourself into false security
It is too much work to test every scientific theory in life before you start applying it, but it’s also irresponsible to make too many assumptions without testing them or looking up the result of other people’s tests.
Third: Confusion of definition. When people say “the tech doesn’t work”, what does that really mean? Do they mean that every single idea and technique is faulty? Or are they talking about how the idea that “the tech is never wrong, if it doesn’t work it’s something wrong with you” is itself a faulty idea?
On the other side, if you say “the tech is always right”, does that mean that one should uncritically do as one is told to do, or does it mean to observe what is true?
Great summary. Thanks.
There are two sides to this equation: one side, the die hard Scientologists who swear by every single word of LRH and the perfection of the Tech; the other, the die hard critical who go on the Net to view only those materials that substantiate their pre-decided beliefs. I believe much of what LRH did was wrong. I also believe much of what many critics say is exaggerated and ill-informed. The truth exists between these two extremes.
But I want Scientologists to delve more into the realm of criticism of LRH and the Tech than solely of DM and current Church management. There is much to be found (that is not super critical mumbo jumbo) regarding Source and the Tech. In the end, the tech is not a valid answer to psychiatric issues (this has proven itself over, and over, and over again), and psychiatrists are simply not the malevolent beings so many Scientologists are led to believe. Too many have died from being kept off psychiatric medication as per the Tech. For more (balanced) treatment of these issues please see ToryMagoo44 on YouTube: she was a Scientologist (OT7) for 30 years and was nearly killed because she believed the Tech would handle her epilepsy, but whenever she went off her medicine, her seizures returned. RIP Jett Travolta.
But Geir, don’t you think that writings like KSW tend to inspire such blind acceptance? Phrases like “Knowing it is correct” (regarding the technology) strike me as deviously suggesting: any and all doubts you have about this being right is a sign that you have a _misunderstanding_, that by inference _you_ are the one that’s wrong, not the tech.
I think KSW poses a problem.
It is not KSW in itself that pose a problem. It is a blind belief in the tech that is a problem.
Likewise, a blind belief that the tech doesn’t work at all is equally ridiculous.
In my experience, any person who says that the tech doesn’t work fall in either of these categories:
1. He/She hasn’t even tried to use the tech, and is only voicing an opinion found on the net (or someone he/she knows), or he/she believes, for some reason, that it could not possibly work.
2. The tech wasn’t applied correctly. (By this I mean that the steps were not done correctly.)
3. The action that was attempted was not the correct action to do (like trying to run OT levels on someone fresh from the street). This can make a person feel quite bad, cause headaches and other phisical conditions. (That’s why some parts are labelled confidential. Just reading the data is not necessarily harmful, but actually trying to use the data as indicated before one is ready for it, that is sure to have disastrous effects on the person).
Someone else, something else is always to blame when the tech doesn’t work.
Hubbard instilled that in all Scios. If the tech doesn’t work, it’s someone’s fault, not the tech’s fault.
This is part of the Scn indoctrination that stops people from looking and investigating further. It was designed to stop people from questioning LRH and set himself up as “CORRECT SOURCE”.
If Hubbard wanted to provide a tech to help people that would be fine, but instead he set himself up as an unquestionable source. He allowed no scholarship in scn. It’s his way or the highway and to question him means you have crimes.
I don’t see that KSW poses a problem. “Knowing it is correct” comes from correctly applying it and seeing that it works that way. In my experience if the hoped-for result isn’t happening it’s going to be the result of no-application or wrong application. Nowhere does LRH ask for blind obedience, rather the opposite. If it’s true for you, then it’s true.
Hi E-jains,
I like most of your viewpoint. I agree that there has to be a happy medium. I think that Scientology is an evolving Science/religion/philosophy whatever you want to call it. I think one of the best references by LRH is Peronal Integrity where he says something like; Nothing in Scientology or dianetics is true for you unless you yourself observe it to be true. If this concept was an overriding principle instead of just given lip service, I think Scientology would be a better place to learn about life and so forth. I agree with the point about if you don’t agree with something then “you have misunderstood words” is bullshit. It is ok to duplicate the concept but still not believe it if it is not true to you. Someone who tries to covertly or overtly get you to “agree” with something that you do not, is not applying the philosophy correctly in my opinion.
I don’t really agree with your assessment with psychiatry in general.
Many practices that institutional psychiatry practice like electro shock, lobotomies and many of the medications given are harmful.
This is not just me as a Scientologist writing but even many psychiatrists agree such as Thomas Szasz, David Cooper and Ronald D. Laing:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/szasz2.1.1.html
Regarding KSW I don’t see it as a problem. Others may but that is there own personal opinion.
To me it’s like saying to a Christian that certain parts of the bible are a “problem”. What right does some non-Christian have to meddle in their beliefs?
I suggest if you want to make such a judgement that you actually study the subject first as I have on the Saint Hill Special Briefing Course and then you’d know why such a policy exists.
Also how people like Miscavige continually violate it on a daily basis yet claim to be “Scientologists”.
Many such practices – electroshock therapy, lobotmies, etc. – are indeed harmful. Did I say they weren’t? What I said was that most psychiatrists are not malevolent people. In fact, the majority of them believe that what they are doing is helpful. They do not have an intention to enslave or disrupt anyone. As to whether or not what they do works: so many millions of people profess to being helped by psychiatry that to deny this is akin to denying that the Tech helps people – plain and simple.
P.S. I am familiar with Szasz and I love Lew Rockwell.
I know that there are many psychiatrist who are only interested in helping their patients this is why I gave the distinction between Psychiatry and Institutional Psychiatry. In fact I knew several who were Scientologists (way before Davy’s jihad) and still practiced Psychiatry. Nice guys and were the one’s we sent PC’s to when they were er… a few cards short of a deck.
Anyway they did a good job on them and gave them a nice safe space to be in while they found those missing cards. I personally find Psychiatry done properly as the only avenue for the insane.
They have the facilities and they are also medical doctors. Therefore they can handle the insane better than any Scientology Organization.
However, I still do not support those who use brutal and fascist methods and some still do.
Sorry, changed my name in case I confused you.
I spoke at an APA convention a few years back. I gave a lecture on Scn beliefs especially their beliefs on psychairtry.
These attendees were shocked and dismayed that Scn still held Hubbards 1950’s viewpoint on psychiarty and the President of the APA stood up and basically said, that Scn was not wrong about the evils of the past, but that basically, the needed to get into PT about what psychiatry was doing now.
Things change. Technology evolves.
Scios need to stop thinking like Ron and go and look and listen to both sides about what is currently going on in the field of the science of the mind.
Been there, done that. Since Del Gados’ “electronic triumph” 60+ years ago of mind-controlling a charging bull with a wire in its brain, moving through the now-obsolete era of the MKUltra/Monarch ops, there have been untold billions of black-budget money spent on secret projects of absolutely horrifying implications to the rest of us.
Avoid the rush! Line up now for your 2-way RFID chip? No thanks.
Patty said: “Things change. Technology evolves.”
There is a whole spiritual-based practice in the general field of psychiatry/psychology that has evolved over time. If you want to get an amazing insight as to how these two seemingly contradictory (per Scn) ideas dovetail nicely in this arena, watch the DVD “The Aviator” which is the life of Howard Hughes. Specifically, and I mean definitely watch, the interviews that are always part of the “bonuses” one gets on DVD versions of major motion pics when the DVDs come out.
It will absolutely change your indoctrinated paradigm about psychiatry and bring you more into the moment. After watching these interviews, I had the thought that if LRH were alive today, he would temper what his thoughts were about the subject. In his day, he might have been somewhat justified in the statements, but as Patty said, “technology evolves” and this is a perfect example.
Hej Geir!
There are many websites that covers the subject of scientology – I find this one to be one of the very best. Its a pleasure to read it. Keep up the good work.
There is a fantastic speak on youtube by David Mayo in the 80`s ( David Mayo – a talk on disillusionment) that covers much regarding the present situation.
Regarding the top managment in the CoS – We and most of the world know that power corrupts and power is a magnet to dishonest persons. One of the most important ways to handle this in the long run is to have an organisation that are transparent. There will always be a David Mischavich lurking around.
The David Mayo tape is a very good one.
It isn’t easy to point the finger at arrogance without sounding… arrogant.
I don’t think “hater” is the best description for the people who think Scientology is 100% a scam. “Hater” is better used, I think, for people who hate other people, as opposed to ideas (although there is overlap). But not everyone who believes Scientology is 100% a scam therefore believes that a) scientologists are to be hated; or b) something should be done to stop scientologists believing in scientology.
In other words, while I might suspect that much of the scientology philosophy is suspect (I would never use 100% as the measure), and some of its practices dangerous and reprehensible (eg. Introspection Rundown), I will never hate scientologists, nor believe that they should not be free to believe and practise scientology, (provided that general laws are abided by).
“(link removed due to reference to confidential material)” This is the internet pal, you may put a warning beside the link if you wish but removing it is censorship. Anyway I rest my case too.
Abide by the rules of this blog or go away.
Pwned.
Censorship!
LOL!!!!!!!
This happens to be Geir’s blog not a State controlled entity. In other words it’s his property. I know it’s a hard concept to learn in a Marxist oriented society that doesn’t acknowledge the existence of private property.
Thus he can give or receive whatever Communications he chooses. Don’t you know freedom of speech has two sides to it?
In other words you’re free to post whatever you want…..somewhere else.
OT IX OOO,
Hubbard scam? What the hell are you talking about? There are so many things that work in Scientology its very obvious you haven’t looked at all. Flunk.
You’re obviously not looking and need to be processed so you can be brought up to a level of LOOKINGNESS before any further conversation is possible. (Ask a friend to process you: Close your eyes and let him ask you about things in the room you can’t see. After a while you will realize there is such a condition as blindness. Only after that can you begin to look.)
Geir is not “perceiving any criticism as hate or intolerance” dude… he just left the CoS and wants to discuss this openly. He does NOT refuse to see, that’s why he left. There’s probably nothing I can say to snap you out of your condition before you start to process your very chained thoughts.
You need to start reading some honest success stories from some honest Scientologists and start making some correct observations.
And yes… Scientology is not perfect, but it works. Be happy.
Watch the ad hom and general politeness.
It takes real work on oneself to eliminate those pesky ser-facs. But it can be done in a relatively short time, with the help of something like processing or dilligent awareness of how one thinks and interacts with people, with a willingness to change and improve so as to be highly tolerant and able to grant others beingness.
I’m a ‘hater’, but not because I think Scientology is a scam. I am not blind and can see a lot of the Tech works, and as I said in an earlier post, I use some of it myself.
But I also think there is a lot of unnecesaary indoctrination embedded in the tech (if you are willing to investigate yourself, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control would be the perfect starting point).
The embedded mind control makes me extremely sceptical towards the entire subject of Scientology. Although I think it is perfectly possible for individual Scientologists to separate the good stuff from the mind control and the bad stuff, I don’t think Scientology in an organized form will ever be able to do so.
I think organized Scientology will always create people who are easily manipulated into behavior which is harmful to themselves and others. And for this reason, no matter how helpful the Tech may be, I deplore the use of it in any shape of format.
But maybe I´m wrong. I was glad to see your comment that you feel KSW is a problem, because I believe you are right for the reason I described above.
Who knows….although I have very little faith in it, perhaps organised Scientology will be able to work out a way of delivering results to its clients without turning them into subordinate sheep who will do the bidding of management without questioning their intentions.
Also, I just wanted to say I really hope you have a supportive family and many (real, not disconnecting) friends to support you in this. In online discussions it just too easy to forgo of such essential acknowledgements.
Dear Dave,
I never considered the wikipedia as a valid source of accurate data. As far as the subject of mind control is concerned. You are going to need more than a mere blurb in an “encyclopedia” that “anyone (read moron) can edit” excepting of course those who actually know anything about the subject.
However, in order to get an understanding of mind control techniques you’ll have to go straight to the experts the one’s who have been toiling in those vineyards for years. The CIA:
http://michael-robinett.com/declass/c000.htm
Yes I know reading declassified docs can be boring as hell. Even for those of us who do it for a living.
So let me recommend a book on the subject which is available on the internet entitled “The Search for the Manchurian Candidate” by John Marks which you can read in full here:
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/LSD/marks.htm
Yes but that’s just a beginning. You see there are others, one just recently recommended to me by a friend which covers more than just mind control but similar subjects like perception management, psyops and other related topics called “The Shock Doctrine” which you can purchase here:
http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine
For a lighter look at a very dark subject there is also this book on the CIA’s Electric Koolaid Acid test:
Then there is another one on the topic by Kenneth Goff back in the fifties that many claim Hubbard wrote. However whatever the provenance it’s still a good book and can be read here in its entirety:
http://www.geocities.com/heartland/7006/psychopolitics.html
A couple of good books if your into the subject of parapolitics at all on the subject:
I could probably think of quite a few more I’ve read on the subject but I think those will do for a start 🙂
No, sorry if you got the wrong impression, Chris. I’ve done research for various organizations and also independent research as well that required review of declassified docs or accessing docs using FOIA.
Not the same as working for CIA since much of the stuff they handle is still classified. Top Secret, Secret, Restricted which you need a clearance for.
Wow..you read all that? You forgot to add your conclusion though…
What elements in the Tech did you find to be thought control techniques?
I can name a few…
PS You berate me for linked to Wikipedia, and than list a number of random books, some of them fiction and conspiracy theory. :-).
Wow..you read all that? You forgot to add your conclusion though…
What elements in the Tech did you find to be thought control techniques?
Any education can be considered a thought control technique. Here in America much of it is based on Skinner’s work in Operant Behavior.
Regarding the tech itself. Any technique can be considered “thought control” because it directs the person’s attention to the past or the present time environment. However the person does this willingly and is not forced to participate.
I can name a few…
Wow I can name a few right out here in the open like advertising for example, TV or what jokingly passes for “news”.
PS You berate me for linked to Wikipedia, and than list a number of random books, some of them fiction and conspiracy theory.
I listed the last as parapolitical and of interest which means to some “conspiracy theory”.
Also they are not random books since they deal with the subject that you where attempting to indoctrinate us on using Jimbo Wales disinfopedia as a “source”.
Also if you actually read them you may learn something. At least more than you think you already know.
A nice attempt at ‘caving in’. 3/10 as they say in Anonymous.
You are partly right though. There is no real difference betweeen believing with all your might in the fallacy that earth is 6.000 years old and that you should disconnect from your mother because you believe she is holding back your spiritual growth. But at the same time, there’s a huge difference: one is fairly innocent, the other destructive for oneself and others.
My point is that the standard Scientology worldview contains a number of elements that are considered valuable by those who look through that veil, but are clearly harmful to the casual outside observer.
Can you separate the bad from the good?
Also, have you read the wikipedia article? It is balanced and footnoted better than most scholarly books. I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on the content of it.
I for once can easily separate the good from the bad. Can you separate the bad from the good?
Give me a break, Dave.
Do you think any Scientologist who disagrees with you is trying to “cave you in”?
Talk about “thought control”!
I also love you pejorative remark “look(ing) through a veil”.
Really!
I already told you what I thought about the subject of mind control or as you and wikipedia call it thought control.
Wikipedia is only informative or disinformative as the case may be to people who don’t know anything about a subject and are too damn lazy to read a book.
I’m really not interested in reading the wikipedia but I’ll make an exception in your case.
You read the books I’ve listed and I’ll read the wikipedia article 🙂
Isene, in what currently is post #51 you asked: Can I separate the bad from the good?
In all honesty: no. There’s certainly things I like about Scientology. What I like most is the concept of mixing a 20th century concept of personal effectiveness with religious zeal. This simple but ingenious concept can lift everyday advices into something much more powerfull. But still, no, because I don’t know enough of ‘white Scientology’ to fully answer it.
My problem is that I strongly believe that in organized Scientology, critics will always be suppresives, that disconnections are bound to be coerced (if not outright forced). And ‘the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics’-concept will irrevocably lead to people engaging in destructive behavior.
Maybe I am too pessimistic. Who knows. But if you read RJ’s posts for example, you will see an intellectual superiority complex, disdain for people who feel victimized, as well as something close to hatred for media and crowd sourcing. I believe this isn’t really RJ, but an alternate version of him/her who is under the spell of the darker side of the Tech. This is why I deeply distrust organized Scientology.
Regarding indy-Scientology, I feel I have no right to object to it. Without group think, a feeling of superiority doesn’t lead to evil. But I don’t have to like it.
Would you be willing to look into the “white”?
Hi Isene, I think by far the most interesting thing to do, would be to mail my local org, direct them to this thread and suggest to invite me for whatever course/auditing they see fit. If they choose to invite me, I will go.
Would you advice me to do this or do you think it is a stupid idea?
I would do it as an interesting experiment.
“Maybe I am too pessimistic. Who knows. But if you read RJ’s posts for example, you will see an intellectual superiority complex, disdain for people who feel victimized, as well as something close to hatred for media and crowd sourcing. I believe this isn’t really RJ, but an alternate version of him/her who is under the spell of the darker side of the Tech. This is why I deeply distrust organized Scientology.”
Oh pluleeez, Dave.
“An intellectual superiority complex.”
Must have taken quite a while to find that in the DSM!
First of all I am not part of organized Scientology.
Secondly I do not distain victims I distain people who claim others are victims to justify taking our liberties and freedoms away.
These people in my opinion are pretentiously patronizing and were the type of people I mentioned in my first post. Those who seek to save us from ourselves!
I also object to the didactic types who direct us to websites assuming that we are all ignorant heathens here!
Talk about a “superiority complex”!
Finally I object to people who attempt to psychoanalyze me without even knowing me!
And make presumptuous and arrogant statement that I must be under some kind of spell because I disagree with you has got to top the charts on premeditated arrogance!
I suggest that if you want to see a “superiority complex”. You look in the mirror!
Watch the politeness here. I am not hosting a quarrel board.
Sorry Geir.
I promise to put the blow torch away now 🙂
🙂
Hi RJ,
I have read hundreds of accounts from former Scientologists. From this emerges a awfully consistent picture that the darker side of the LRH (not just DM’s) Tech creates a ‘standard Scientologist’ who is pretty much like I described in my post.
Reading your posts, I felt you were behaving in this manner.
Nevertheless, I equated the two on the basis of just a few posts and this is unwarrented.
My apologies.
Apology accepted 🙂
Really I can’t stay mad for very long.
Sorry for any insults I hurled your way.
Geir I admire you for having such a crystal clear way to recognize the circumstances and to describe it in such an easy and understandable way, and also for your ability to grand others beingness even the others are sometimes crude and insulting. What you are doing is a proof for a very high level of ethic, integrity and honesty. You are the proof that scientology works and is my goal to reach that level by practicing scientology (not in the church but in the freezone).
And one more word to the people who claims that scientology does not work. I did not speak any single word English before I joined scientology. After I studied the scientology study tech I was able to learn English just by books on myself. And one member of my family did also the study tech course and has right now finished his university decree as the best of the year.
I could tell you so much many other positive changes in my life, those who know scientology know what I am talking about and those who just want to proof that scientology does not work, will certainly find any reason to depreciate my wins.
So you might say whatever you want, I know what I know.
That’s OK Isene, I’ll go away, it’s *your* place after all. And I apologize for not respecting the purpose of your blog.
I wish you well.
Appologies accepted.
I wish you well, too.
Congratulations on the wins Someone!!!
Study tech does tend to work super well for learning a language.
Geir
As you know, I agree with every word you’re saying, my friend. What impresses me is the extraordinarily positive dialogue you are stimulating here on this site. You are very highly commended for this exceptional contribution.
This is truly what it means to be an OT – you are a shining example to us all! LRH would be proud of you.
With the highest respect, Robin
Isene: I think KSW poses a problem.
Soderqvist1: Yes!
But some kind of standard is unavoidable as long as the customer can require his money back from the church if he is unsatisfied, thus no arbitrary auditing!
But on the other hand there is no logical reason why L. Ron Hubbard should be the only possible source, meanwhile a council of the best auditors in the world cannot improve it! What this auditor is doing as a person outside the church in example combining different sources into something workable which the church is not accountable for, should not be their concerns either.
Dave: perhaps organized Scientology will be able to work out a way of delivering results to its clients without turning them into subordinate sheep who will do the bidding of management without questioning their intentions.
Soderqvist1: Frankly they don’t need to question their “ulterior motives”!
All the prospect needs to do in order to render eventual “ulterior motives” impotent is for the individual to ask the registrar, what’s in it for me? And out the window goes the “group think”. L. Ron Hubbard is not the author of CoS various front groups, before David Miscavige the church addressed the individual!
Take a look here and you will see the difference!
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showpost.php?p=229477&postcount=37
As Scientologists we are indoctrinated to some extent. By this I mean that we become less than adequately critical of Scientology and of LRH. And this is a no-no. It violates study tech. More fundamentally, it contradicts a good deal of basic Scientology philosophy, and it’s from here that everything else is built.
As a Scientologist, one has no business accepting *any* data without having evaluated it thoroughly, critically, and entirely to one’s satisfaction. Yet we all end up doing exactly this. The only difference amongst us is that some of us do it more or less than others.
The vast, vast majority of Scientology data is perfectly legitimate, if not downright brilliant and extraordinary. The more Scientology one does, the more clearly one understands this and the greater one’s appreciation of LRH becomes. But there is also data included in the subject and authored by LRH which is simply false. I’m referring almost exclusively to what is actually a minuscule portion of Scientology policy, and not to Scientology philosophy or the tech. We’ll look at an example in a moment.
If, as Scientologists, we were not indoctrinated to be less than adequately critical, this false data would be known and clearly evident as such to all of us.
If we’re envisaging what the ideal scene might be here, we might ask the question, “Who, if not a Scientologist, should be well aware of anything in Scientology or about LRH which may be legitimately criticized?” Not exaggerated or incorrectly evaluated as critics almost invariably do, but correctly evaluated and criticized simply because it warrants criticism. The answer, of course, is no one.
continued here:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.clearing.technology/msg/1c7f4d24adb30c97
That was a well written and articulate post. I agree with what you say. As an auditor who has done many PTSRDs, I seen in most cases that the PTS individual has done something that created the antagonism in the first place that’s why on Type A handling (which has seemed to have dropped out in the Church of Miscavigology) we asked the person what they did to cause the antagonism. This I’ve always considered an important lesson to learn especially with the miniscule percentage of actual SPs that it might be something they did that caused the upset. A lesson that Davy and his claque obviously haven’t learned and also it seems don’t want to learn because I suspect any actual PTS A handling has dropped out for the specious reason that the policy was written by Mary Sue. Someone who Miscavige personally hates according to various reports and the fact that they never had a requiem for her when she passed away in ’02.
I suspect that finding out what the “Church” is doing that is actually causing the the antagonism is the last thing Davy wants because probably all indicators would point to him and his so called “leadership”.
Also I agree with certain precepts given in policy that should be changed. Actually back in ’69 because of abuses in sec checking that were occurring he wrote an HCOPL abolishing sec checking and I think that policy should be reinstated because of the current abuses that are happening now.
Plus there should be other aspects of policy that could be reviewed and reformed like was done in ’69 under what were called the “Reform Codes”.
So like I said Patty I’m totally with you on that 100% 🙂
It is my personal observation that the two most demonized persons on the internet are L. Ron Hubbard and Hitler.
It appears to me that extraordinary amounts of money and time are spent, “talking points” often seem scripted, and unfair censorship of opposing facts, data and viewpoints is heavily used via monopolistic control of the media and the internet.
To me, these campaigns appear neither “organic” nor “spontaneous”.
If nothing else, LRH made me foxy enough to wonder WHY someone doesn’t want me to “look over there”. And then to go take a look.
P.S.: I’ll take Ron over the NWO thought-police any day. 🙂
“It is my personal observation that the two most demonized persons on the internet are L. Ron Hubbard and Hitler.”
Google “George Bush”.
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22l.+ron+hubbard%22&word2=%22george+bush%22
Geir,
I’ve been trying to get the actual statistics of Scientology, and it seems to me that the most valuable stat is “completions” of different courses and auditing — particularly during the period that we’re all interested in, i.e. since DM took over in the early 80s. When I go to a site that uses the actual raw data of completions (based on actual names and not just numberless and dateless graphs), it appears that the Church’s stats, overall during the last 30 years, are in fact UP. The graphs I am looking at are from a website which appears to be the only decent, independent stat compilation out there, namely:
AOLA’s Services (from “Advance!” mag):
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/advance/2004/
Flag’s Services (from “Source” mag):
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/source/2004/
Freewind’s Services (from “Freewinds” mag):
http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/fw/2004/
The website’s owner appears to be a critic of the Church and is apparently no longer updating her numbers; but at least through 2004, it appears to me that the Church’s stats were up. Also, it seems to me that a list of completions based on names is more reliable than anyone’s opinions or memory of stats when they were working in the church. Your decision to leave the church appears largely influenced by statistics (as per the doubt formula) … and so I am wondering how you arrived at your stats and how you reconcile the above raw numbers with your decision?
Thanks.
I suggest you look at the graphs again. Especially the one for Flag.
I have seen these graphs before. I have verified other stats as well – including a 20-year international stat analysis done in 2000. I have also verified expansion with some 20 orgs.
Coming out with lots of new shorter courses and demanding people get through them may not show much real expansion (re the Basics). There are other stats that you should check. If the international stats are down on a trend, how would you respond to that?
I’m looking at the Flag (“Source” mag) raw stats. From the early 80s (when Miscavige took over), the graph — overall — is uptrending through 2004. While one could argue that it went into Power around 1986-87 (and then has been *trending* as Normal or Emergency since), if one takes into account the whole 30 year period, the overall Flag Completions stats are actually in a steep Normal or even Affluence.
I do agree that the stats have been declining from 1991-2004 (at least). The church took a big hit with the Time magazine article in 1991, and then hasn’t properly responded to the benefits/challenges of the Internet when that paradigm shift rolled around enmasse in 1995.
The Church is at a point now (and has been for some years) where some of the Church’s policies — written in a time of being under WW gov’t attack, and when news/opinion reporting was very monopolized and rigid — were not properly adjusted to respond to this paradigm shift in news, information and communications.
But it’s actually LRH policy that Church policies must adjust to the times, and I think we’ve run into such a situation.
I do think there is tremendous value and wisdom in KSW #1, and having LRH’s original data protected for all time. Perhaps a “change in the guard” in Church mgmt is needed — but blaming everything on DM seems like a scapegoat. Marty and Mike — and others — are/were also responsible for making those stats go up and down. Not just DM.
Regarding the Basics, a real outpoint in the Church over the last 30 years, in my opinion, was that many Scientologists (particularly staff/S.O.) didn’t *know* the basics of Scientology. Many had never even read the books (other than perhaps DMSMH). Getting these Basic Books read and understood enmasse is brilliant — long overdue. I do agree that “demanding” that people read them is the exact opposite of encouraging self-determinism. However, the goal of teaching Scientologists what Scientology ACTUALY IS is a valuable one. The “insistence” part is distasteful, but DM needs to be given credit for recognizing this outpoint, IMHO.
I have more, but I know this is getting long. So my observations can wait.
But finally, YES, I’m interested in seeing the international stats — particularly if they begin when DM took over and are based on the raw, real data. Thanks.
Who do you think is responsible for e.g. the TIME magazine attack in 1991?
I’d say LRH policies of “hardsell” and “staff/SO recruiting” are largely responsible for the attack. Behar also wasn’t very interested in giving a balanced article.
Personally, I think church policy needs to be updated/overhauled. I was very disappointed when I first read the “Keeping Admin Working” PL many years back. Policy in any organization needs to be adjustable.
Are you able to show/provide the 2000 stat analysis that was done?
I will see what I can be able to do on that.
Hi Margaret,
You sound pretty smart. You also sound like you could be part of OSA, are you?
The Church is at a point now (and has been for some years) where some of the Church’s policies — written in a time of being under WW gov’t attack, and when news/opinion reporting was very monopolized and rigid — were not properly adjusted to respond to this paradigm shift in news, information and communications.
But it’s actually LRH policy that Church policies must adjust to the times, and I think we’ve run into such a situation.
I agree with what you said about LRH policy to shift as the situation dictates. It makes no sense to follow “religously” policies that are proving to be unworkable and destructive. DM must take most of the blame as he IS THE LEADER and sets the tone for the whole organization. In the Freedom mag it talks about the Kingpin admitting errors of 42 million US dollars. How could a well run organization allow this to happen even if true??
Policy is there to create an organization that can deliver as much tech as possible. If policy does not serve its purpose, policy must change.
No, I’m not part of OSA, Alex. If it were up to me, I wouldn’t use OSA to attack … I’d use it to answer people’s questions. Admit mistakes. Defend with truth. Change the unworkable policies. And actually expand like never before.
I think Mike Rinder did his best to do the above.
But he (and anyone else in OSA) had/has to deal with the rest of the organization that was stat pushing, “disconnecting”, “hard sell” reg’ing/recruiting and otherwise making it impossible to defend Scientology.
I was on staff and I know that even *suggesting* that one change LRH policy is completely forbidden. And I love LRH to death … but I’m sorry, some of his policies have led to the above.
They must change.
They are crippling the organization.
Thanks Margaret.
I agree with you.
Have a great week.
ARC,
Alex
Hi again Margaret,
Since I do believe that you represent the COS, I wanted to make an additional comment. I have been trying to evaluate the good and bad of the COS. I am a long time member and OT. I find all this data on the Internet VERY disturbing and VERY believable. I agree that the COS is doing some very good things. But WHY don’t THEY POST the true stats? If they can be proud of them shouldn’t they post them where someone could easily see the truth? With no spin or False reports!! False report = doubt I believe. Also instead of being rote about the stats, they should post a stat of “BAD PR in the public domain”. That stat would be in screaming affluence!! Who is responsible for that stat? If you were doing an eval of deviations from the ideal scene I would have to say that would rank amongst the top one. The WHY is the furthest departure from the Ideal Scene. How come this WHY is not being handled? If it were, the scene would be reverting. Who is responsible for this stat in your opinion?
Peace,
Alex
Alex, I think “completions” are the most important (particularly major services), and they are made available via the various church mags. The “Bad PR” stat was likely owned by Mike Rinder (who I really like, though have never met) and now is owned perhaps by Tommy Davis … though not sure. I don’t represent the Church though am a long time member (30+ yrs).
Regarding why the Bad PR is not being properly handled, my belief is that the Church didn’t have (and develop) the appropriate policies to work with the Internet. “Media” wasn’t 2-way when LRH was alive, and now it is. It’s a completely new shift, and LRH didn’t foresee it, and the Church seems to be stultified by using these old, inappropriate policies.
/me thinks Margaret defends DM to much. But why?
Hi Margaret,
I have to agree with Geir that you seem to want to defend DM too much. If Mike Rinder is cause for the Bad PR, then a good exec would have taken him off post long ago and bypassed and handled. This bad PR has been going on for YEARS now. I don’t think much of a leader who doesn’t handle situations. This to me is THE major situation and is the “why” for Scientology’s inevitable collapse.
Peace,
Alex
If Mike Rinder was the cause of the bad PR, the PR should have taken a serious upturn after 2007 when he left. In 2008 we got Anonymous. In fact , it has gone down hill since 2007. I believe it is now perhaps worse than ever.
Margaret,
Here’s what I can tell you about the Int Stats long term. I was working in the Central Marketing Unit in 2000 on marketing the Golden Age of Tech. I had my researcher pull all the long term Int statistics as far back as they would go. They started around 1980. The trend of the Int stats, real stats like GI, WDAH, AudMade, NBS, STC, the Div 6 stats, uptrended for the entire decade. Affluence for the entire decade. In 1987, DM started to get rid of the DMSMH campaign. In June 1990, a month after the KTL release, the stats broke and when I had these same stats pulled, the trend went down for the entire decade, 1990 – 2000. The 20 year graphs made an almost perfectly symmetrical Mt. Fuji. What happened after that, I shudder to think.
Joe, Do you think the graphs at the links I provided give an accurate picture of the Int stats from 1980 – 2000, particularly the Flag ones? The Flag ones seem to show going into Power in late 80s, then reverting to a gradual long-term emergency … but still being about 3X what they were in early 80s.
Margaret,
I didn’t look at your links. If Flag’s stats seem to be uptrending (and for sure they were better through much of the period that I cited), I am sure that it is at the expense of the lower echelon orgs. The recent OT Ambassador Program now has OT Ambassadors pulling Grades pcs from the orgs to Flag.
Let’s face it, DM only needs Flag to maintain his comfortable lifestyle. Running the orgs is too much work. So, he’s unmocking them for real estate purposes and pulling everything under Flag where he can keep an eye on it.
The stat trends I mentioned included Flag’s stats. So, despite Flag doing better, the overall trend of Scientology was steadily up, up, up in the 80s and down, down, down ever since.
Why do I defend DM too much?
Because I’m not going to get into this groupthink that DM is the sole cause for all the negative PR. Even if DM didn’t slap people around (which is despicable) and generally act like an a**hole to his juniors, there are still fundamental church policies which are causing untold trouble for the church. Always did … even before DM’s time.
Yes, at this point, DM almost certainly needs to go.
But “hardsell” in both recruiting and reg’ing has done more damage to the church than anything else. Forced disconnection is probably next (when those hardsold S.O. recruits later blow and get declared). Orgs and staff think on a week-to-week basis … it’s ridiculous … there’s no longterm thinking. Recruiters don’t tell would-be staff and S.O. what it is REALLY like to be on staff and S.O. The environment is setup to worship the stat, instead of concentrate on the product.
All of the above, aside from being unworkable, is unethical and creates enemies. Yet, all of the above are being done because staff are “following LRH policies”. Yes, I know these policies also go against central Scientology ideas and even other policies … but I guess in the interest of making big booming orgs, LRH felt these stat-worshiping policies were necessary. Well, they don’t work today (if they ever did). In fact, they’re causing untold trouble.
So I say, let’s make a list of the outpoints in the church, let’s prioritize them from most damaging to lease damaging, and then let’s list the policies that are creating them.
Those are the policies that need changing.
There are a million wonderful policies. But there are probably about 5-10% that need changing / cancelling / or developing.
/me think that was a sane post.
I agree with Geir on this one too Margaret. That last post was very rational.
The leader of a group also sets the tome for the others. I know other people were and are making bad things happen, a true leader would gradually eliminate bad policy and unworkable theories that are obviously destructive to the group. LRH also wrote a lot of policies about using ARC too, right? I don’t think those ever got cancelled.
Margaret,
A lot of the administrative abuse in the C of S would disappear if people applied the very first policy that LRH ever established, quoted here in full: “Maintain friendly relations with the environment and the public.” Through that lens, any misapplication of policy resulting in abuse is virtually impossible.
Joe, I sometimes wish LRH had stopped there with the policies. 🙂
I know what you’re saying … but if someone joins S.O. or staff … then blows and gets declared SP (per policy) … it’s hard to maintain friendly relations with them. There are other examples.
I did an analysis of my own this was actual auditors made especially VIs and VIIIs.
The stats for both are at an all time low.
Do you know how many Class VIIIs were made since the Golden Age of Tech?
That’s over a decade! Five.
There are a total of maybe less than a few dozen VIs made in the same time period!
This is what we used to get per month back in the eighties!
The graphs you’ve posted are mainly for what would be considered “basic” courses which were never counted before on the overall completions stat with the exception of the Solos which if you look at the Grade Chart isn’t really considered a course but actually a grade.
So they not only now mix Div VI comps with IV but actual grade completions in as well. I wouldn’t be surprised if are now including New OT VI a Div IV course completion as well as a grade completion!
In other words these stats have ….to put it euphemistically….padded. You take away all Div VI comps, all retreads such as the “certainty” courses and remove all actual grade completions. You’ll find that the stats are actually down. Actually crashed!
RJ, Look closely at the links I gave. You can drill down to individual NAMES and SERVICES and see what has been completed. I don’t see evidence that there were dozens of Class VIs and VIIIs per month (not even per year) in the 80s, and in fact, per these stats, there were more Class VIs and VIIIs made between 1997-2004, than in the entire 80s decade.
Your theory that “padding” is going on can be verified by drilling down into these graphs and seeing what actual services are adding to the increases and decreases.
The big pop in the stats in the late 80s was due almost exclusively to more Clears and OT levels being completed at Flag — particularly Solo NOTS. But there were nearly three times as many people between 2000-2004, annually, completing the OT levels and training than there ever were in the late 70s and early-mid 80s.
These stats are the important ones — completions of major services from the time that DM took over till now. Even excluding the Basics courses today, the overall stats from 1980 till 2004 appear to show an upward trend.
I don’t like and condone this reported behavior of DMs when he blows his top, but I’m not finding that “down stats” — from the one fair and unbiased source that I’ve been able to find — support his removal.
If there are other sources of more accurate, raw stats, I’d like to see them.
Flag completions are down trending from 1987. That is a long trend emergency = danger. This coincides with the time that DM took the post of COB RTC.
Thanks for pointing this out. It’s very interesting.
And before you argue against it being a down trend. Please verify by doing you linear regression on the stats.
Well, it comes down to where we want to start the graph. From my reading of events, DM seized power of the Church in 1982.
He took the position of COB RTC in 1987, his current position. The stat goes down trend from that. Again, thanks for showing me this.
It may be there was more of a “Board” structure prior to 87. Has Marty given more details anywhere?
Hi Margaret,
How about answering my question about whether you are OSA or not and whether the Bad PR stats should be included in the stat evaluation on whether or not DM should be removed? You also state that it is time to change some of the policies, which ones do you think?
See above. I’m not OSA, yes Bad PR should be included in Stat Eval, and if DM is removed, we need to cancel / update / create policies. Let’s make a list of problems, prioritie them and determine which policies are creating them.
Look at the actual mags themselves. There is no way that five Class VIIIs is more than were made in the ’80’s.
Also in the ’80’s when I graduated there was an average of one BC grad a week at least (that is full Cl VI not just a level of the BC). I was there!!!
I was also there in the late’90’s when there were no BC Grads for months!
I have no idea where you are getting these stats because Kisti doesn’t break down the training stats of ASHO and AO’s Class VIII.
What I suggest you do is get some Auditor’s Major Mag from the early ’80’s and count the Grads (VI not each level) and exclude all retreads and retrains (such as the “Certainty Course”).
Also grab a copy of Advance for the same period and count the VIIIs listed for each major and tally the numbers (excluding all VIII retreads) and you’ll find over twenty made in that period (which is a far cry from the 300 made in the previous decade but still more on average than in the late ’90’s!)
Also you justify the fact that basic course are mixed in with Div IV completions. Basic course completions are not I repeat not considered part of an orgs overall completion stat. Look at the policy on “Paid Completions”. Also various policies relating to Div IV stats in vol IV.
Which brings up another point. If the stats are so great as you say why are they padding them illegally?
RJ, There does seem to have been a huge spike in overall stats from about 87-91, and then a slow decline, but still about 3 times more than the late 70s and early 80s. Regarding Class VIs and VIIIs at ASHO, unfortunately the site I gave doesn’t have very complete stats for the Auditor mags. Maybe I’ll dig into my archives … I think I still have most/many of those mags. But the Flag stats are pretty complete.
Oh, and wasn’t justifying mixing together the Div 4 vs 6 comps. Was just pointing out that you can remove the Div 6 comps from the stats, and the Major srvc comps still appear to be up overall from the late 70s and early 80s.
In the late ’70’s and early ’80’s Flag was still establishing itself as a land based facility.
It was a smaller operation back then so you are in reality comparing apples to oranges. Still the trend till late 86 is affluence. The trend after this point is a gradual decline emergency at best, probably since its long term danger.
So yes they are 3x but they now have 5x the staff and 5x the facilities then when they started yet are only producing 3x as many products!
Also for the most part Flag was a staff training facility. Remember the FEBC?
It didn’t cater too much to public back then as it was considered a last port of call for unsolvable cases and delivered the Ls. and other Flag only RDs.
In other words were more specialized back then.
It’s more recently that they promoted directly to the public and are now from what I’ve read in recent promo selling grades!
Check out this link:
Thanks for the above answer about changing the policies Margaret. Your spunky!
ARC,
Alex
I liked the data series. It helped me find my way out.
This weekend I’m hosting the annual east coast SP party, so my weekend should be full of suppressive fun. Hope you have a good week too Alex.
Hugs,
P
Hi Patty.
Thanks for the answer, I was getting answer hunger. I love the data series too. It is a great way of getting at the outpoints.
Have fun at your SP party, that sounds like a real nice spirit of play!
Peace,
Alex
Exactly, RJ.
Thought-control was useful (and used) even back in the days of “The Art of War” author, Sun Tzu, who taught that “Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful”.
What better way to win than to dismay the resistance ahead of time, thus never having to openly resort to force?
Even back then, he knew that “All warfare is based on deception”, (Hmmm…sounds like Mossad’s motto, but I digress) and conversely, “Never will those who wage war tire of deception.”
No, nothing new about thought-control. Only the newest horrors with which technology can grace its application. And the newest Judas goats willing to lead the unaware down yet another blind alley into another pen closer to the slaughterhouse.
IMHO, LRH natively understood very, very well what we are just beginning to suspect, here in the 11th hour.
BTW, hello, RJ. I like your posts. 🙂
Nom
Thanks Anonymous 🙂
You bring up from very good point from Art of War which makes me wonder whether I should read the book again!
Yes the Mossad “war by way of deception”. They definitely understand Sun Tzu.
The CIA on the other hand doesn’t have a clue! But they try! Only more often than not it’s keeping the American public in the dark. Judas goats such as a “Course in Miracles” and a lot of new age occultism that has either been co-opted or corrupted.
Yes I believe the Ol’man saw where all this was heading too back in the ’50’s but like a Cassandra few listened. Now anyone who mentions it is now labeled a “crack pot”, “conspiracy theorist”, the “tin foil hat brigade” etc, etc. while being lulled to sleep by the latest mishap of some Hollywood star.
Strange, maybe not that they’d go on about the death of Michael Jackson while congress is moving with trepidation to investigate the torturers among us.
All well at least some of us can read the fnords 🙂
Who’s George Bush?
😉
Nom
P.S.: This was from me – I goofed the floof getting my name onto it.
Nom
Thanks kinda figured it was you.
Dig the screen nom de plume 🙂
I’d say that “rock sold certainty” and “outright arrogance” is built into Scientology, the system Hubbard created. What else could one possibly conclude from a totalitarian system which brands “suppressive” all critical thinking which challenges Hubbard’s ideas?
What other system could take a brilliant, articulate young woman like Astra Woodcraft, who grew up in the cult, remove her from her high school education and draft her into the Sea Org for one purpose alone, to use her as a tool to further the spread of Scientology.
And then turn around and profess to have some kind of astounding study method, in STUDY TECH, they want to franchise for profit, yet they accept as a leader a person who dropped out of high school! What a glaring contradiction.
Many critics like myself hate the duplicity of Scientology and Hubbard, but see Scientologists as victims. By duplicity, I mean it appears to be about “helping” but the bottom line is about $.
Even DM is a victim. Now, because Scientology isn’t clearing the planet — even though it is impossible for the outsider to see what stellar qualities constitute a “clear,” — Scientologists want to blame it all on DM?
It is hard to fathom without getting sarcastic. And I think, Geir, you need to interpret some condescending, arrogant, or hateful words as FRUSTRATION.
Can you fathom the things people know who grew up “inside” Scientology for decades, and have been out for a decade or more. These were people who knew the real inner workings. They saw a lot more than any public Scientologist saw. So, that’s why I think people may seem a little condescending to you.
Most people are happy that it possible for a person who reached your level, to see anything that is wrong with the present leader, but I think they expect an intelligent person like yourself to keep on reading and digging, to see how much Scientology made David Miscavige.
I have dug much deeper than you seem to think.
I repeat; I am interested in results of the tech. I am also interest in stopping the abuses. I am not interested in Hubbard or the bad in the tech. I can disregard the bad.
As a side note; Keep it shorter.
Hi Astrid,
I can see your viewpoint. IMHO if you never got too deep into staff or the Sea Org it is a lot easier to have experienced some of the benefits from Scientology. I was never on staff and had some real good wins. The injustices and fanatic application of some of these policies create lots of bad results and bad PR. This is what most people outside the church see. Even in Christianity you have people that have justified (from the holy scriptures) killing and so forth also in Islam. I see this is true for Scientology now. They currently are acting like the older religions of yesteryear and need to be reformed. I do believe that if reformed there could be a filtering process that could cull the good from the bad.
Peace,
Alex
Well put Astrid. I think it would do well for Scientologists to read the story of Michael Pattinson, who went OT8 in 1990, to see that Miscavige is far from being solely responsible for everything that is so wrong with Scientology. It can be found by Googling his name.
The frustration you mention is very, very true.
I would urge most people to try to channel their frustrations into action.
I respect this, but for many people, talking with Scientologists is precisely such action. We (certainly I) see it as very productive.
ExKane, Michael Pattinson lived his entire Scientology life, violating his personal integrity. Scientology never works if that extremely fundamental factor is not in place. He basically was using Scientology as an “aversion therapy” or as the Exodus thing. He’s really not a good typical example of your former Church member. Most people who leave the Church, still love Scientology the subject.
This is not what a suppressive is. It is someone who commits suppressive acts. Not someone who disagrees with Hubbard.
Even DM is a victim. Now, because Scientology isn’t clearing the planet — even though it is impossible for the outsider to see what stellar qualities constitute a “clear,” — Scientologists want to blame it all on DM?
It is hard to fathom without getting sarcastic. And I think, Geir, you need to interpret some condescending, arrogant, or hateful words as FRUSTRATION.
Can you fathom the things people know who grew up “inside” Scientology for decades, and have been out for a decade or more. These were people who knew the real inner workings. They saw a lot more than any public Scientologist saw. So, that’s why I think people may seem a little condescending to you.
Most people are happy that it possible for a person who reached your level, to see anything that is wrong with the present leader, but I think they expect an intelligent person like yourself to keep on reading and digging, to see how much Scientology made David Miscavige.
David Miscavige a victim!!!!!!!
That’s the funniest thing I’ve ever read!
No Astrid Scientology was not what “made David Miscavige” his crimes and abuses are what made him what he is today.
Also this victimology crap is non starter with me. If you wanna push please go to alt.psychiatry or somewhere.
RJ: “This is not what a suppressive is. It is someone who commits suppressive acts. Not someone who disagrees with Hubbard.”
By that definition Marty, Geir, you and everyone else, who is trying to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology are suppressives.
“seeking to splinter off an area of Scientology and deny it properly constituted authority for personal profit, personal power or “to save the organization from the higher officers of Scientology””
is a suppressive act according to LRH.
😛
http://suppressiveperson.org/spdl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=341&Itemid=37
Astrid – Hello? Miscaviage is NOT Hubbard, the revised (taken-over) COS is NOT Hubbard’s creation, the IAS is NOT the HASI, the squirrel tech is NOT Scientology, and the corrupted application of Black Dn & Scn is alien to Hubbard’s wishes.
In other words, A does not equal A.
And truth is not based upon a consensus of opinion.
🙂 🙂 Thanks. I needed that grin.
That’s a generality. I, for one, do not “blame” DM. If there is “blame”, I “blame” myself for not being strong enough to protect Ron’s legacy from destruction.
But I also applaud myself for having taken the opportunity to gain a lot of certainty on Ron’s tech by watching closely the IRL demos of REAL suppressives at work over the last 9 years. The internet is great for that, you know. 😉
Nope. Any so-called “victimization” I ever received in the last few years before I finally left the taken-over COS was *directly* due to the squirrelled and corrupted ethics, tech and admin being passed off as “Scientology” (which it wasn’t), and to my own cowardice and/or ignorance.
Astrid, why do you say that? Are you claiming that DM has honestly done any real Scn?
No, he is NOT a Scientologist. By any stretch of the imagination. Nor are the IRS guys who sit at the top of the power structure now.
Nom
If DM has done no REAL Scientology, I would expect that some of the people in Scientology for decades, especially those full-of-integrity executives closest to him, would have realized this much earlier on, if only from the “tools” Scientology supposedly gives a person. And they would have done something about it.
No, instead it takes like 20 years, and being beaten dozens of times, and then thrown out of the cult, for this “data” to dawn on a Scientologist.
Come on, Scientology was created by a sci fi writer, in the 1950’s and is getting really dated. DM did an amazing job to KSW. Give the little tyrant some credit.
You can blame the internet for the demise of Scientology, not DM. These days, no one in their right mind is going to pay thousands of dollars into a cult, to learn about YOU KNOW WHO, and acquire non-existent super powers, like the power to shatter suppression.
One can blame DM for total incompetence in handling the Internet.
On the question of why people stay, why they do not object or handle the situation; It parallels why some (strong and independent) women stay with an abusive man for years.
Actually Astrid, you could also say that the Internet is speeding up a process that took other religions centuries to work through. With Scientology and the Internet, if we’re lucky, it might only take a few more years. Maye a couple decades, if we’re not so lucky.
You really have no idea what Scientology is *actually* all about.
Your view is so one sided, it’s forcing you to conclude that intelligent, clear-minded people are all just delusional. It’s blinding you from being able to just take a calm, rational look.
I was a Scientology critic too, many years ago, before putting the bias aside and just looking. You might try it someday. As Einstein said — he adopted “a beginner’s mind”. I believe they call it “not know” in Buddhism.
Astrid,
Carl Sagan was a sci-fi writer as well (Contact), shouldn’t we just discard all of his discoveries? I view the sci-fi part as an indication of more open mindedness, not as an indication of not being able to differentiate between what’s real and what’s not.
Do you have any proof that YOU KNOW WHO did not exist? My point is that everything that can’t be proved or disproved has to be left open until something can be proved. What are your comments about the people who report wins from the OT-levels? Are they all just imagining things?
A. There has yet to be proof of a single _measurable_ OT power in the literature, culture, or elsewhere. If these things exist, then people it’s time to get it out there. You’ve had decades. Show us some proof, or stop complaining about us being closed minded.
B. I have yet to hear of a single clear who actually had perfect memory. I have heard many admit that they don’t.
C. It is not the responsibility of the inquirer to prove the nonexistence of something that is stipulated without discernible evidence in place (re “You Know Who”). Such demands are 1. unscientific and 2. unreasonable.
Real life gains – happiness, love for others, extroversion, confidence, better communication, calmness, creativity etc. I would focus more on this. OTs not being able to do perceivable magic or Clears not having the once claimed “perfect memory” is far less interesting than being able to show the life gains most people would like to have IMHO.
What I object to is the fraud in telling people they will gain such powers and supernormal states when they, so far as any evidence has been produced, will not. It appeals to the ego and profits off such appeal.
Personal life gains is fine.
I didn’t see Hubbard promote any superpowers for any of the OT levels I did. Yes, he did claim total recall for Clears early on and that was a mistake. So, the promoting is done by church staff.
ExKane, science is not based on “proof”, it’s based on “evidence”. “Proofs” are found in mathematics, not science.
There is convincing scientific evidence that exteriorization is real. There is also convincing scientific evidence that Scientology and the OT levels can bring it about.
In 1972, under experimental conditions, a Scientology OT exteriorized and drew and described the rings of Jupiter. He and the experimenters were laughed at for seven years, until NASA’s Voyager I space probe confirmed it.
Google SRI, Ingo Swann, Pat Price and Hal Puthoff.
I read about Ingo Swann years ago. What he did was nothing but a typical “cold reading,” (a common psychic practice) wherein so many claims are made, and the claims are sufficiently ambiguous, that some of the claims are highly likely to turn out true. Said James Randi regarding Ingo Swann’s Jupiter statements: “7 were correct yet obvious, 11 were correct and available widely in reference books, 5 were probably true (scientific speculation), one was correct but not available from reference books, 9 were too vague to verify, 2 were probably incorrect and 30 were certainly incorrect.”
Further, Swann said the rings were in the atmosphere. This is false. Any knowledge of gravitational tidal forces would tell you that a planet’s rings cannot penetrate even close to the planet’s atmosphere. He also failed to mention the moons. Swann has failed subsequent analysis.
This “convincing evidence” from Swann represents one highly doubtful (I would say scientifically unacceptable) bit of evidence. There is no scientific evidence for exteriorization.
X-Kane,
You know what? Hubbard actually wrote that Scientologists shouldn’t go out and prove their OT-powers since some kind of war between the MEST and theta-people could break out. I realize that sounds like a REALLY lame excuse for not proving something though.
Me for myself have no idea to what extent OT’s have any supernatural powers, but a lot of them talk about improved conditions and a better life, and that’s probably more interesting than the OT-abilities. Some also talk about some exteriorisation-experiences, as do some non-scientologists.
I’m not saying YKW existed, I’m just saying he could have existed. After doing the OT levels I can make a more balanced judgment. I’m just trying to find out the truth, and that should include an open mind.
To be honest, yes, that does sound like a pretty poor excuse to me. Actually it sounds like a way to keep OT’s from testing themselves and realizing that they can’t do these things. That’s my opinion.
Fair enough: You Know Who may have existed. But try to appreciate the fact that for most of us there is no more reason to believe You Know Who was real than the Egyptian sun god “Ra” or the Norse pagan lord Odin.
But I still think Hubbard got a point about not “proving” OT-abilities. There are people who are evil, it’s a fact.
Re: YKW. I have to treat it “scientific” and just leave it open. I have no idea whether he existed or not, but I have been with people auditing on OT VII and I got to tell you, the theta space was CLEAN, like REALLY clean. I have no OT-abilities whatsoever but I could feel it. Incredible. This together with many positive reports from OTs on these levels makes me lean toward the possibility that the YKW-story is actually true. I’m also thinking that the stuff in OT III-VII might not be applicable to 100 % of the population, which might expolain why not everybody has had case gain.
ExKane wrote … “Further, Swann said the rings were in the atmosphere.”
Swann did say this, and he also drew a picture of a ring that is clearly outside the atmosphere.
So how could this be?
What I would suggest you do is study up on the actual rings around Jupiter — particularly the raw photographs. You will find in fact that the inner torus ring (the Halo) does appear, to a layman observer, to be part of the upper atmosphere extending out to IO’s orbit. And the brightest ring (the Main Ring) is at the outer edge of this torus.
This is uniquely different than Saturn’s rings, and highly unlikely to be described as such prior to 1979.
It should also be noted that Randi was at the front of the line to ridicule Swann for even *suggesting* that Jupiter had rings — after all Randi claimed, “the 1974 probe didn’t show any rings”. When NASA, in 1979, confirmed Swann’s observations … then all of a sudden, Randi changed his tune. Those “preposterous rings” were now a “lucky guess”.
It should also be noted that the Wikipedia article of Swann (at least today) doesn’t mention the drawing that Swann did of the actual ring around Jupiter.
p.s. The raw data of the cold reading can be found at Swann’s website here:
http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/1973JupiterRVProbe.html
A raw photo from NASA of the halo and main rings can be found here:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA01622
p.s. A raw photo of Jupiter’s inner halo and main rings can be found here:
http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA01622
The raw data of Ingo Swann’s jupiter description and drawings while exteriorized can be found here:
http://www.biomindsuperpowers.com/Pages/1973JupiterRVProbe.html
Nice posting, Margaret. 🙂
ExKane, “…something that is stipulated without discernible evidence in place (re ‘You Know Who’) [75 million years ago].”
Instead of jumping into and worrying about the specifics of someone’s past life recollection of events from 75 million years ago … why don’t you first ask yourself “Is there any evidence that past lives are real in the first place, and if so, can they be accurately remembered?”
A starting point might be the work that was done (and is being done) at the University of Virginia in their Perceptual Studies division on “children who spontaneously remember past lives”.
Communication satellites were created by a science fiction writer – the patent holder is Arthur C. Clarke.
“The creator of was a science fiction writer.” is nothing but an ad hominem; and, even when it is true, that is not even a rational disparagement.
Michael A. Hobson
I’m going to state this only once in the expectation you have the intelligence to understand. There is no 2 1/2 % SP’s on the planet, It’s more like .01 %, and the biggest one is David Miscavige. Be OT for once instead of think-think.
In order to evaluate the stats I feel that they are all needed. I don’t see why the COS won’t put up a site and give all their stats. Unless they have something to hide. My suggestion is that someone hold a comm ev on DM on the Internet and give him a standard justice cycle. He declared many people SP apparently with out any proper justice. If we do it right I think it will be convincing and fair.
Also I have some friends who looked in their local Library (a major one) and only found a couple of LRH books. Where did our money go??
The library campaigns seems to be a spectacular stat push to then boast about the number of LRH books sold under the leadership of DM. Never mind that the books are not actually in the library – that is not the product. The product is the stats.
That whole library campaign was something. I was told by the local org’s Bookstore Officer: “This is a great program. Studies show that libraries are used by people now more than ever!” And I responded, “Oh, that’s probably because people can get onto the internet for free in most of their libraries — not because they are checking out books.” He kind of just stared at me — I felt bad for pointing out the obvious and probably put the guy in doubt. But I had to say it.
I donated a set or two anyway, in the offchance that I was wrong. But now I’m hearing that many libraries sent them back (the Church never called ahead and asked if they wanted them). It’s so sad. Those books changed my life.
They really should be PDF’ed and made available online.
They should be HTML’ed and made available online with a proper search back-end.
Did you also know that all the 9 Basic Books recently translated in all the languages were paid for by public Scientologists (including all the translators hired, office spaces etc…) plus all the public scientologists’ volunteer time who worked nights & days for FREE to get them done? CoS printed the books and then forced public even the volunteers to buy those books and even donate more for the “library campaigns” in each country. But there are NO books in any of those libraries.
The money collected by CoS on all these books are in DM’s account. He is laughing at us and spending it on his PIs and lawyers to shut those people who are speaking out as well as spending it on himself.
Margaret: As Einstein said — he adopted “a beginner’s mind”. I believe they call it “not know” in Buddhism.
Soderqvist1: Alfred Korzybski was one of Hubbard’s sources, and his modus operandi was; “I don’t know, but let’s see!”
Ex kane: A. There has yet to be proof of a single _measurable_ OT power in the literature, culture, or elsewhere. If these things exist, then people its time to get it out there.
Soderqvist1: your ABC seems to require a quantifiable feat which satisfying James Randy’s “1 Million Dollar Challenge”, I think that misses the point!
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge.html
B. I have yet to hear of a single clear who actually had perfect memory. I have heard many admit that they don’t.
Soderqvist1: A Clear as far as I have understood it, is a potentially happy and enthusiastic human, because he has a perfect memory from conception to present time, perfect in the sense that all his life experience is available, because no neuroses, or psychosis is there which can muddle his general outlook, in example; he can have some argument with his wife, without unconsciously identify her with his “sadistic mother”, and he knows that the gain is stable. Erased neurosis, and psychosis doesn’t necessarily give you photographic memory.
C. It is not the responsibility of the inquirer to prove the nonexistence of something that is stipulated without discernible evidence
Soderqvist1: Truth!
But OT to me means; cause over life, which means to me; I make my own life, my intension is senior to mechanics, my plans for the future, will bend mechanics to my will. The best way to understand what I have in mind is to study what it is not. In example; Daniel Wegner’s Illusion of Conscious will!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Wegner
Soderqvist1: “Alfred Korzybski was one of Hubbard’s sources, and his modus operandi was; ‘I don’t know, but let’s see!'”
Yes, and the very essence of as-isness is to see everything newly, in a new unit of time. And as-isness is at the very core of Scientology.
While I suggested that ExKane take this approach to study Scientology, it really is the only sane way to approach all of life.
ExKane wrote: “This ‘convincing evidence’ from Swann represents one highly doubtful (I would say scientifically unacceptable) bit of evidence.”
Well, I guess that’s an improvement over … ExKane: “There has yet to be proof of a single _measurable_ OT power in the literature, culture, or elsewhere.”
If you truly are interested in seeing the evidence, then I would suggest you look. Not with preconceptions. But with a “not know” and “beginner’s mind” attitude. Look at the skeptics’ side as well. But let the actual raw data steer you … not the conclusions of either the believers or the skeptics.
The Jupiter probe is perhaps the easiest to describe, but in my view, not even the most convincing. Swann and Price … both Scientology OTs … were able to show some remarkable “_measurable_ OT power” under controlled scientific conditions. I would suggest you look into it. There are plenty of online and offline resources describing the experiments.
Perhaps in the grand scheme of things, “proving OT abilities” is the wrong thing for OTs to concentrate on … I don’t know. But at the very least, a lay person might end up concluding “it seems like it might just be possible”. I know it happened in my case.
The taken-over “Church of Mis-cave-you-in-ology” is NOT “Scientology”.
So why blame Scientology for what the “C of M” is doing/saying?
A fine line, perhaps, for someone with no experience with *real* Scientology? 😉
Margaret, you were right, and did nothing wrong. Sounds like you just assisted him to a cognition. And don’t we all know that cognitions can be occasionally of the “Oh, sh*t! 😦 ” type? 😀
Margaret, are you still around? Have more stat data?